Zaradi Toruney: Best Military Leaders Debate

Wowwwwwwww I was going to choose Genghis Khan, lol.I'll choose Alexander the Great. Firstly, he had the largest empire ratio to the known world of the time. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Genghis Khan only had a larger empire because they explored more of the world at this time.A website also has good information for why Alex is a far superior tactician than Genghis Khan:"The Greeks call him “Μ^1;γας O44;λ^1;ξανδρος,” that is, “Alexander the Great,” and he truly remains so, because he fought a total of 17 major battles, and won every single one of them. He was severely outnumbered in most of them, but by his generalship his men never lost more than 16% of their army in any one battle. That 16% death rate occurred only once, at Issus, in 333 BC, at which battle Alexander lost 6500 to 7000 men out of 40,000. His enemy, Darius III of Persia, lost 20,000 to 30,000 dead. At Gaugamela, two years after Issus, he lost only 2.5% of his army, or about 1,100 men dead out of 47,000. He defeated the Persians spectacularly and his men killed at least 40,000, and as many as 90,000. The Persian army was comprised of at least 100,000 men, and may have had as many as 1,000,000. Darius was finally able to use his entire army at once without terrain restrictions, since at Issus Alexander fought him in a fairly narrow mountain pass. Alexander surveyed the Persian army the night before, and decided to shift his army to the Persian left. Darius could not force his entire army to displace because the logistics were impossible. He did not want to present Alexander with his left flank, so he lengthened his lines, covering more ground with the same men, thus thinning their lines considerably. This had the effect Alexander wanted: his breakthrough on the Persian left was easier to achieve, and with his extraordinarily well trained cavalry (the Companions), he flanked the Persians, nearly speared Darius himself, and caused the Persians to panic and flee. This was his typical strategy on the field, and it required his own left flank to be unbelievably tough, since the enemy army charged full force into it and attempted to flank it. Unfortunately for his enemies, you simply cannot break a Greek phalanx in the front. It is designed to withstand such assaults, and Alexander’s primary captain, Parmenion, deserves a lot of the glory for maintaining the army’s formation throughout all Alexander’s battles. Horses are very intelligent animals and will not charge into a line of spear points, however vehemently they are made to run. Darius solved this problem by blindfolding his horses and harnessing them to chariots with sword blades attached to the wheel hubs. These would cut men’s legs off at the shins. Alexander solved this problem by training his men to separate their phalanges to half their depth, allow the horses and chariots into a three-sided pocket, kneel with their shields to the ground, and then swarm onto the charioteers. The scythed wheels rattled harmlessly across the shields. Today this tactic is called 'Alexander’s Mousetrap.'"[http://listverse.com...]So basically, to sum it up:-Alex did not lose a single battle-Alex's army had much fewer soldiers than his enemies, unlike Genghis Khan, who was mostly not hugely outnumbered and had the soldiers enough to match the numbers of his enemies-Alex had to rely on strategy to defeat his enemies, and even has a tactic named after him to this day. Genghis Khan has zero tactics named after him. -Alex would have conquered the whole known world of the time, if it were not for his tired soldiersAlexander did not ONLY have these battle achievements (my opponent seems to stress heavily on Genghis' campaigns and empire, but battling is not everything). You see, Alex spread culture as well. As Wikipedia's page put it, "Alexander's legacy includes the cultural diffusion his conquests engendered, such as Greco-Buddhism. He founded some twenty cities that bore his name, most notably Alexandria in Egypt. Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and the resulting spread of Greek culture in the east resulted in a new Hellenistic civilization, aspects of which were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire in the mid-15th century and the presence of Greek speakers in central and far eastern Anatolia until the 1920s. Alexander became legendary as a classical hero in the mold of Achilles, and he features prominently in the history and myth of Greek and non-Greek cultures. He became the measure against which military leaders compared themselves, and military academies throughout the world still teach his tactics." Did Genghis spread his Mongol culture? Of course not!! All he cared about was taking over land to earn money, or teach the opposition to follow him by crushing them in his wake. People were scared, and Genghis was basically a different culture from them. People did not want Genghis' culture, and we all know Mongols don't really know how to take care of the government of the areas they ruled over. On the other hand, Alexander ably ruled over his areas and spread his culture, even having an ever-lasting impact with many future generals admiring him. Again, Alexander is smarter than Genghis, and he should be. I already mentioned this, but I'll repeat this again: He needed real strategy and careful planning to defeat the numerous enemies (which I stress again, they OUTNUMBERED him in most of his battles). He thought out every battle carefully, explaining his never-losing streak. He learned from the famous philosopher Aristotle himself! Genghis did not, could not learn from another philosopher to increase his military skills or spread his culture.To further strengthen this argument, here's an article about the main reason why the Mongols seemed invincible and undefeatable:"The Mongols also had scientists and engineers from the most developed countries in world with them. Chinese administrators {book keepers} also were drafted into the armies. So that the huge armies could operate like a smooth running machine. Mongol armies could travel up to 100 miles a day. Besides being great nomads and {almost} invincible on the battlefield, the Mongols had Chinese and Arab siege engines and the engineers to operate them, this helped a lot with the sacking of heavily fortified cities and forts. ...in 1223, the Bulgars defeated the Mongols and took many prisoners of war. After the battle, negotiating with Genghis Khan, Bulgars agree to exchange the captured Mongols - a sheep for a soldier. To be more precise it was the Volga Bulgars who succeeded in stopping Genghis Khan. {He died shortly after that in China.} The Bulgar king Gabdula Chelbir defeated Ghengis Khan in 1223 nearby Samarskaya Luka, the first defeat of the Mongols ever. The success of the Bulgars may appear surprising at first but if you think about it, it's not. Conquering Austria, Hungary, Poland, Russia, China, The Caucasus, The Middle East, Arabia, India, Korea, etc, the Mongols fought non nomadic people. As the Huns showed before, that's not exactly a fair fight. Nomad war technology is far superior to that of sedentary people. And while Volga Bulgaria may have appeared to the Mongols, at first as just another small country to be conquered, it should have dawned on them at some point during the battle when they were getting their arse kicked that appearances can be deceiving. " From this passage we can draw three things:-Mongols are defeated; while Alex is not-Genghis Khan relied on his technology to defeat non-nomads, it was a fair fight against sedentary people, and he lost against these BulgarsAnd finally,-Genghis Khan was not smart enough to figure out that one, the Bulgars had superior technology and were actually capable of beating the Mongols, or two, figure out a strategy plan to defeat the Bulgars or even maybe a different method of retreating and attack later.