Greatest Generals of Human History

[Dardani]

Ranking Name

1 Alexander the Great Macedonia
2 Napoleon Bonaparte
3 Temujin (Genghis Khan)
4 Hannibal Barca
5 Frederick II of Prussia
6 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough)
7 Belisarios Byzantine
8 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne
9 Gustav II Adolf
10 Caius Julius Caesar
11 Subotai
12 Timur Turks
13 Aleksandr Suvorov
14 Philip II of Macedon Macedonia
15 Jan Žižka
16 Eugene of Savoy
17 Heraclius Byzantine
18 Raimondo Montecuccoli
19 Scipio Africanus the Older
20 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke
21 Gaius Marius
22 Cyrus the Great
23 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington)
24 Maurice, comte de Saxe
25 Louis Nicholas Davout
26 Erich von Manstein
27 Thutmose III
28 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian
29 Khalid ibn al-Walid
30 Selim I Ottomans
31 Epaminondas Greece
32 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé
33 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) Albania
34 Leo III the Isaurian Byzantines
35 Hán Xìn
36 Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán)
37 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck
38 Lucius Cornelius Sulla
39 Winfield Scott
40 Suleiman I Ottomans
41 Albrecht Wallenstein
42 Takeda Shingen
43 Nadir Shah
44 Konstantin Rokossovsky
45 Alexius I Komnenos Byzantine
46 Oliver Cromwell
47 Maurice of Nassau
48 Tiglath-Pileser III
49 Janos Hunyadi Hungarian
50 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese)
51 Robert E. Lee
52 Yue Fei
53 Toyotomi Hideyoshi
54 Narses Byzantine
55 Oda Nobunaga
56 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus)
57 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars
58 William Joseph Slim
59 Charles XII
60 Babur
61 Jan III Sobieski
62 Georgy Zhukov
63 Qi Jiguang
64 André Masséna
65 Robert Guiscard
66 Erwin Rommel
67 Stanisław Koniecpolski
68 George S. Patton
69 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShìMín)
70 Flavius Stilicho
71 Jean Lannes
72 Charlemagne
73 Ulysses Simpson Grant
74 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson
75 Kangxi
76 Shapur I
77 Marcus Claudius Marcellus
78 Johan t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly
79 Sebastien Le prestre de Vauban
80 François Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg)
81 David
82 Constantine I the Great Roman/Byzantine
83 Wolter von Plettenberg
84 Sun Tzu
85 Archduke Charles of Austria
86 Alp Arslan Turks
87 Jebe
88 Pyotr Bagration
89 Shaka Zulu
90 Mahmud of Ghazni
91 William T. Sherman
92 Sonni Ali
93 Henry V
94 Chandragupta Maurya
95 Saladin
96 Sher Shah Suri
97 Rajaraja Chola I
98 Pyrrhus of Epirus Greece
99 Nathanael Greene
100 William the Conqueror


http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13436&PN=1

[Dardani]

albania got two in, skanderbeg and constantine if his birthplace is counted :D

[Alalzia]

Not bad for such a small nation (in numbers i mean don't get mad) i just hope there will be no new entries during my lifetime.

[Balozi]

Pyrrhus of Epirus Greece
:rofl: O.o

[Balozi]

imo cengiz khan should be #1

[tsunami]

Where is Leonidas the Spartan?

As about Pyrhous, we discussed it before, dddear Balozi, did you forget already?

IMO, the greatest was Alexander, because he made a cultural conquest, not just a conquest.

He taught the Persians and Jews how to speak Greek, he taught them Greek philosophy, values and stuff.

He wasnt just a conqueror.

If we consider the greatest general then it should be Leonidas, the Spartan, Heraclid just like Alexander.

He stopped 1 million Persians coming through to Greece with just 300 men.

Ofc, a million comes only from one source and legend...the accurate number is in between 250.000-400.000.

But still, this is War tactics, eventually the Persians lost the War, by the Athenians.

[Dardani]

the list was made by taking into account tactics and if they brought anything new to the history of war. also included was influence.

[HairyandHorny]

Where is Leonidas the Spartan?


Leo was a lousy general....a brave, patriot and zealot man yes but not effective commander (preparation before the battle and providing adequate reinforcements and alliances included)
...one can doubt here but the Greek side could have actually won the battle in thermopylai if it could hold the pass long enough and at the same time the Greek fleet won the sea battle....but the Persians one way or another broke through kneeling down the heroic resistance

some of my favorite military commanders Guderian panzer commander, from ancient Greeks Brasidas and Epameinondas from modern Greek Plasteras with his "satan asker" :) ...and a very good commander from neighbouring countries Kemal

[tsunami]

Hello, man, glad to meet you!

Now, Leonidas did not have the time to secure reinforcements and the rest.

He took his best men, and stood in front of the pass for days against archers, cavalry, etcetera. He bought the time needed for the rest of Greece to prepare and eventually the Persians lost that war by the Athenian fleet. To add the persian broke the resistance through a traitor not because of their forces and strategy. Just a traitor showed the pass which led them on the other side.

Epaminondas was great, even though he was a tyrrant.

Anyway, i am a Maniot, therefore a Spartan, so i am kinda biased with Leonidas.

Note that the Maniots never ever lost any battle against the Ottomans, and they were never subjugated to them.

Hail Mani!

[tsunami]

As for Kemal, yap he was great but imo the greatest Turk was Mehmed, not Suleiman.

Suleiman took easy areas, while Mehmed with the help of the Hungarian canon builder, he took the city of cities.

The city with continuous unbreakable history of more than 1000 years, and the best fortifications.

[Dardani]

Note that the Maniots never ever lost any battle against the Ottomans, and they were never subjugated to them.

Hail Mani!

i'm half tropojan and half mirdatore, neither subjugated to ottoman rule also.

[tsunami]

To add, if Epaminondas belongs to Greece, the Alexander belongs to Greece as well.

Epaminondas was Athenian and fought for Athens in the 5th century B.C. And that is the reason the Athenians and Spartans went to war.

Alexander was Macedonian and fought for Greece in the 3rd century B.C. as a Hellenic Hegemon.

Epaminondas fought as an Athenian, not as a Hellena, while Alexander fought as a Hellenic Hegemon, not as a Macedonain.


Therefore we should write Epaminondas Athens, and Alexander Hellas.

That is the correct form.

[tsunami]

i'm half tropojan and half mirdatore, neither subjugated to ottoman rule also.
I didnt know about that Dardani, do you have any more info..i am interested.

During Ottoman times i know only the Maniots and the Sfakians, even though the Sfakians fell for a very short period to Ottoman administration.

[HairyandHorny]

Hello, man, glad to meet you!

Now, Leonidas did not have the time to secure reinforcements and the rest.

He took his best men, and stood in front of the pass for days against archers, cavalry, etcetera. He bought the time needed for the rest of Greece to prepare and eventually the Persians lost that war by the Athenian fleet. To add the persian broke the resistance through a traitor not because of their forces and strategy. Just a traitor showed the pass which led them on the other side.

Epaminondas was great, even though he was a tyrrant.

Anyway, i am a Maniot, therefore a Spartan, so i am kinda biased with Leonidas.

Note that the Maniots never ever lost any battle against the Ottomans, and they were never subjugated to them.

Hail Mani!

u may have met me from here
http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/
where the sneaky barbarian tyrant (or shall i say a non greek word which suits him best like satrap or pasha) "akritas" aka "airwings" in this forum since i can see he reposts some of his threads amongst his voluminous presence here, making abuse of his moderating priviledges started victimizing me to kick me out of the forum or make me silent because i objected his agenta (put forward also by the extranationalist pal of his "pankration" and the supermacist moderator OH) to make the ethnic Thracians vanish because on his own saying he was jealous that the bulgarians have some oriental thoughts about relating themselves to ancient thracians
...i m so curious to find out if in this forum he discovers more "greekness" than necessary in places which doesnt really exist

as for Leo the poetic stuff post sounds touching but still he wasnt good commander at all for many reasons (its long enough to explain)....from the strategical point of view he made several mistakes which costed him the battle...also trying to find eager allies in the last moment isnt exactly a good idea...same for not making a tactical withdraw and regroup...just think what would had happened if the Greek fleet was victorius in Artemesion (which it was draw if not a Persian victory which is more likely actually)

Leo was a hero but a poor general


As for Kemal, yap he was great but imo the greatest Turk was Mehmed, not Suleiman.

Suleiman took easy areas, while Mehmed with the help of the Hungarian canon builder, he took the city of cities.

i name Kemal because he fought a liberation war and saved what was left of the former othoman state by establishing the turkish state...i usually sympathize the defenders more than the attackers


Epaminondas fought as an Athenian

Epaminondas was Athenian and fought for Athens in the 5th century B.C

Therefore we should write Epaminondas Athens

erm it seems u are confused...

----

btw i d place higher in the list Philippos a Greek of Macedonian stock...without his deeds one can wonder how famous Alexander would had become

[tsunami]

Maybe am a liitle confused with Epaminondas...anyway the rest from pm.

[HairyandHorny]

:rofl: O.o

regarding Pyrros and this "comment" of smileys i think the best is to ask an Epirote whether he accepts being called a Greek or not...

[Dardani]

I didnt know about that Dardani, do you have any more info..i am interested.

During Ottoman times i know only the Maniots and the Sfakians, even though the Sfakians fell for a very short period to Ottoman administration.

mirdita and troppoja are both mountainous and isloated regions. they're both also very hardcore catholic. during byzantine times they aligned with the catholic church and when the ottomans came to force islam on them they fought back, the ottomans couldn't control them, couldn't tax them and since they were such a small population with 100,000 max (optimistic estimation) combined the ottomans let them be. they were of no threat they just wanted their families to practice their faith and live in peace. they were never recognized as autonomous or independent but they were never under the control of the ottomans.

[Balozi]

IMO, the greatest was Alexander, because he made a cultural conquest, not just a conquest.
that's just crap and u know it :roll:


regarding Pyrros and this "comment" of smileys i think the best is to ask an Epirote whether he accepts being called a Greek or not...
epirote from albanian side or from greek? also, if from greek side, do you have a list of non pontians so that we can choose from?

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Epirus ...
in the bottom of the page:

For modern history see Albania.
:roll:

anyway i forgot to point out that this list is not made by any authority, it seems to be a guy's personal favourites

[Dardani]

the list was made by a respected forum of history. it's one of the most visited forums in history on the web. maybe they're not historians but a lot of people had a say in that list.

[tsunami]

that's just crap and u know it :roll:

Whatevererer.



epirote from albanian side or from greek? also, if from greek side, do you have a list of non pontians so that we can choose from?

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Epirus ...
in the bottom of the page:

From the encyclopeadia you porvided the link we read in the History section:

History

The kings, or rather chieftains, of the Molossians, who ultimately extended their power over all Epirus, claimed to be descended from Pyrrhus, son of Achilles, who, according to legend, settled in the country after the sack of Troy, and transmitted his kingdom to Molossus, his son by Andromache.



Hey man maybe Achilles was Albanian as well.;)

[Dardani]

you didn't know that? thats why he didnt want to fight for the greeks during the trojan war.

[HairyandHorny]

that's just crap and u know it :roll:


epirote from albanian side or from greek? also, if from greek side, do you have a list of non pontians so that we can choose from?

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Epirus ...
in the bottom of the page:

:roll:

sorry i fail to see where its written (maybe its my bad though)
...but i can see the entry is full of greek related stuff as one would expect ;)

...are there any albs really who identify themselves as epirotes?...i happen to know (and have met) several alb pals and none of them does (save a couple of christian guys half greek half albanian)

...the only people i know who identify themselves as Epirotes are Greek ones who would gladly declare Greeks if u ask them :D


anyway i forgot to point out that this list is not made by any authority, it seems to be a guy's personal favourites

well thats self explanatory, i doubt if two people in the world can agree with the 100 best military commanders in the timeline of their lives! :P


you didn't know that? thats why he didnt want to fight for the greeks during the trojan war.

hehe that was a smart one Dardani, i liked it ;)

[Balozi]

the molossians were not greeks... :D that's all to it :roll:

[Dardani]

Pyrrhus may have been raised by illyrians balozi but where was he born?

[WisdomSeeker]

aww..come on Balozi,we have created a thread on this topic which took us like 4 or 5 pages ,and you have seen for yourself Pyrros was Greek.

Not over again,pls:bash::D


Dardani is right, that forum (allempires) has some very interesting threads regarding history,and many guys who study it post there.

BTW.Welcome to our forum Hairy and Horny. (NICE nick LOL).

A small OT notice:

If you have any personal differences with any member who posts here as well,keep it in pm OR in that particular forum. I follow the other forum as well,so i know what the fuss is all about.

A continuation of your argue in this one will not be tolerated .

[Alalzia]

Did i go blind because of gaming or Themistoklis is not in the list?

[HairyandHorny]

yeap Themistokles was a good one...but he was mostly a political animal (and a damn ambitious one) than a military commander

btw WS for the nick have a look in the avatar (dont get any dirty thoughts instead!) O:-)

as for Pyrros well one can have his own perspective i guess but if he thinks the Molossians were not Greeks he should also give a convincing answer in some questions like

-why was Alcon the Molossian invited to a contest where only Greeks were invited...and as early as mids 6th cent when any alleged "hellenizations" was impossible to take place

-what where the Molossians in the first place since they were not included in Illyrian tribes (if somebody has a different view he should bring quotes naming the Molossians as Illyrians)

-how is it possible that people who claim the bloodline of a great Greek hero, Achilleus, to be alien to Greeks themselves

-how does he xplain that Epeirus was considered the area of the hellenic ethnogenesis by several ancient Greek sources

and some other paradoxs as well...

[Slavs]

when we speake about the best general
we can separete them on diferent factors:

1.most battles wins
2.theritory that he captured
3.life of his Empire

Which one are prefering here ??

[tsunami]

I dont know Slavs, i believe in your list should be included the influence that a conqueror imposed on his subjects like Alexander.

[HairyandHorny]

i d say the influence to the conquered is irrelevant or secondary....the general ranking has to do with military actions not political or the level of the generals influental personality

another factors to those Slavs metnioned is beating the odds and of course luck....every single great military commander had tons of luck....oh yeah and one more factor...innovation and creativity (new methods and tactics etc)

[Slavs]

that is the reason i`m asking

sun tsu connect both things
but modern army from Klausevitch times is excluding both
Klausevitch even thing that general shoud be as much as possilbe non-politician

My thinking is that general shoud be appraised from the battle field
aka general is war leader and some of the greatest generals are not country leaders so their actions political inpact shoud not be calculated

[Balozi]

scanderbeg was undefeated in all his life, and he fought against the greatest military power in the world of that time, with 1/10 the size of army that they had. 33th is very much underrated

and what about hitler? he should be top 10

i think this list is made more out of personal favourites than objective comparison. hannibal considered pirro to be a greater general than him but we see hannibal at #4 and pirro at #98

cengiz khan had lesser numbers than the mighty persian and chinese empires though he subdued them both. i think alexander didn't really have a strong opponent (the persian empire was in decline). i think cengiz deserves #1

also why the hell is napoleon #2? cause he's french? :D

[Balozi]

as for Pyrros well one can have his own perspective i guess but if he thinks the Molossians were not Greeks he should also give a convincing answer in some questions like
there is a related thread in history check it out :P

[Slavs]

Napoleon was great war leader

yet there were better generals then him
actually i always thing Scandenberg for double crosser and opertunist

[Balozi]

why is that?

[Knez_Nenad_Of_Serbia]

Hannibal is way to far up. Scipio and definately Ceasar should be higher up. Hannibal shouldn't be considered the 4th greatest general considering the fact that if he had not taken that moronic route through the Alps and taken a more direct route, he would have had most of his elephants intact and 10,000 more troops available. The Romans legions were already tied down in Gaul and Rome was virtually unprotected. His route through the alps allowed teh Romans to re collect their forces. Also, since only 1 elephant survived and 10,000 men were lost, the Romans could defeat Carthage; not to mention the fact that Hannibal left Carthage virtually unprotected which allowed teh Romans to attack at Zama forcing Hannibal and his dimished armies to retreat from Rome altogther.

He made too many huge mistakes to be considered histories 4th greatest general.

[Slavs]

he switched sides couple of times
he never arrived for Kosovo battle
and he lost battle

what great about him ??

[Balozi]

he never switched sides and he never lost a battle what are u talking about

unless if u mean dumping the ottomans is switching sides... i don't see how it is switching sides since he was never a turk anyway, he was albanian

[Dardani]

he switched sides couple of times
he never arrived for Kosovo battle
and he lost battle

what great about him ??

you're definetly a weird kid.

he switched sides once he found out his albanian roots. he was taken form his parents at an early age and taught that he was a turk and such.
he didnt arrive at the battle of kosovo because the ottomans had stopped him twice.
he only lost one battle out of 25. the war was lost 10 years after he died.

[Balozi]

dardani the one battle that he "lost" it was a siege and while he was present the albanians were winning but then he had to leave and he assigned command to someone else. after scanderbeg left the siege went wrong and we were forced to retreat. but scanderbeg wasn't present

also it was 12 years after his death from natural causes that the turks finally managed to subdue us

[Slavs]

really as far as i remmembered he fought for the Ottomans atleast twise

he fought defencive war
and we all know siege war is really deadly for the attackers
example the Malta knights where ottomans lost the battle

Scandenbeg fought mostly on his therain recieving massive backup from the locals
terain was very dificult for any invading force

he is local fenomen that is not know but most of the ppl

[Dardani]

he fought defencive war
and we all know siege war is really deadly for the attackers
example the Malta knights where ottomans lost the battle.

the sultan that took Constantinople could not defeat skanderbeg :doh:

[Slavs]

the sultan that took Constantinople could not defeat skanderbeg :doh:

really this sultan was fighting the serbs and hungarians
it was not only scandenbeg

and Konstantinopol was taken cuz of betrayal


but arguing with albanians about this is pointless O.o

[Dardani]

so then why are you here?

[Serbian Royalist]

I think Skanderbeg fought more of a gorilla war then an all out clash of the planets battle (like in LOTR return of the king :D) such as hit in run and such....I think it's only reasonable to do so being incredibly out numbered right?

point is Skanderbeg can be credited for putting up a great resistance force as he never attacked any one for territorial gain such as the other generals mentioned.



....By the way the Turkish general that took Constantinople was defeated trying to take Belgrade :P

[HairyandHorny]

there is a related thread in history check it out :P

i would if i was provided a link first
..just kidding i can guess the full performance of both sides already :D


and what about hitler? he should be top 10

nope, hitler had a kind of "star" in the begginings of the war but soon his star abandoned him....he could enter top 10 if the war had ended in 1941...no good general goes to war against both US and SU...but hitler was neither sane nor he had attended military school (no real commander would decide break the non attack symphon with SU)


hannibal considered pirro to be a greater general than him but we see hannibal at #4 and pirro at #98

i see what your point and i also think hannibal doesnt deserve to be placed so high...but generally i ve noticed people are sympathetic to him plus he did some bold moves which one cannot ignore

but pirro wasnt so brighter for sure....one cannot start such uncertain campaigns....he was too much of an adventurer

what is "pirro" anyway?
it isnt the Epeirote king Pyrrhus (ΠΥΡΡΟΣ in ancient and modern greek), is it?
lets not missspell the words because that way they lose their meaning

Pyrrhus means that
http://www.behindthename.com/php/search.php?nmd=n&terms=Pyrrhus&submit=Go

"pirro" means nothing though ASAIK

[Attila]

and Konstantinopol was taken cuz of betrayal



yeah sure not cuz of the greatest cannons worl ever seen until then as well as the epidemic deployment of the ships to the sea

and the Anatolian castle was build for nothingon the otherside of the sea, and never cuz of the unification of the Turkish tribes to take Constantinople
sure it wasn't cuz of Turkish army was 10 times bigger than byzantines
and of course genois didin't try to help them by the sea


anyway my personal opinion is this list is full of mistakes
his name is Mehmet the Conqueror
this title given him for his conquests
for me the greatest generals should be evaluated in terms of their extraordinary tactics

[tsunami]

What is ASAIK, pan?

As Slavs Attests In Kavlantiasi? :hysterica

[Attila]

about scenderbeg

I don't really think that he switched sides he was in the ottoman military before war errupts between

Turks and his own people
and he went back to help them thats all
you can not expect him to fight against his own people

[tsunami]

yeah sure not cuz of the greatest cannons worl ever seen until then as well as the epidemic deployment of the ships to the sea

and the Anatolian castle was build for nothingon the otherside of the sea, and never cuz of the unification of the Turkish tribes to take Constantinople
sure it wasn't cuz of Turkish army was 10 times bigger than byzantines
and of course genois didin't try to help them by the sea


anyway my personal opinion is this list is full of mistakes
his name is Mehmet the Conqueror
this title given him for his conquests
for me the greatest generals should be evaluated in terms of their extraordinary tactics
Attila i am reading the book of Nicolo Barbaro, a Venetian who got stuck in IstanPoli, during the siege of Mehmed.

He wwrites in his memoirs which are kept in the Markian Library of Venice.

The Hungarian cannon builder was working for Byzantium, but the economic deprivation of the Emperor led to him beign underpaid.

so one day he escaped the city and went to Mehmed's court to offer his services.

Mehmed took him in and eventually he built the greatest cannon the world had ever seen.

In his book i have it in front of me, it says , the cannon was able to through rocks equal to the size of more than 1000 litres.

The Hungarian is beign also called as an Urvanian(whatever that may be).

Mehmed was a monster, he was very cruel to Greeks but also to his own people, he took joy from killing himself.

Many Turks defended the City Of Byzantium after they escaped the tyrrant.

I am reading now this book is by Michael Duka, a Greek who was in Asia Minor and gives full details and personal testimonies and in the same book is barbaros story who was a venetian merchant and has a list of the names of every single foreigned trapped inside Byzantium, after the Emperor proclaimed that any ship within the port is confiscated to protect the city.

This guy was afraid of death and sent a pigeon to Venice with his story and the list of the names in order for Venice to save them.

In the end, Venice did nothing, and after the fall of the city, he found a way out and returned home safely.

His account is breath-taking.

[Balozi]

really as far as i remmembered he fought for the Ottomans atleast twise
he fought 24 battles and was undefeated in all of them. also, what does "help from the locals" suppsoed to mean? the locals were the ones fighting. he recieved some help from italy and france i think, but most of the time he was outnumbered 1 to 10 and let's not forget that 2 ottoman sultans died from their despair that they couldn't capture albania

just imagine that for a minute

[Alalzia]

Those are my favorite generals , for different reasons each one.

Baibars ( Mameluk) is by far my favorite , he kicked crusaider's butt (and Asian archers defeating European knights is like Polish Cavalry beating Nazi Panzers) AND
defeated the Mongols , now how about that?

Uzun Hasan was great too, expanding a tribal kingdom deep into Timurid soil , if Venetians wasn't the betraying scum we all know they are the history of anatolia & the balkans would be very different.

Babur is the guy i love the most, he established the great Mughal empire by expanding into India , although he remained undefeated he is mostly known for his spirit of liberty and religious tolerance.Maby not the greatest general of all times but "no win on panipat = no empire ".



About the "fall of Istanbul" , give me a break , everybody was sick of it and its "emperors" , there was 500.000 greek monks whith no intention to fight ( to dangerous they may even broke a nail ) and the city was defended by few thousand mercenaries , Mehmed did well to eraze this medieval ruin from the face of modern era.

[HairyandHorny]

well most monks and priests were happy to wait for the othomans to take over...at least their faith would be in tact and the union with the papacy would never be practised

..in fact the priests had betrayed Constantinople a century ago when the othoman reached the monastery community of Athos and the monks filled osman with gifts and made prophesy that they will soon rule the roman empire (what was left of it)...othoman armed forces never violated Athos (or maybe just once in 19th cent)

....now what can one expect by priests and monks who were convinced that the end of the world was to come in a couple of decades and the priority was to keep their faith clean from the heretical westerns?

---


and Asian archers defeating European knights is like Polish Cavalry beating Nazi Panzers

not good example...the muzl forces (generally speaking in the crusades) were suited for warfare in the specific battlefield under specific climate...the western knights were heavily armoured but armour alone doesnt win a battle in the deserts...and one can imagine the knight "boiling" inside a metal armour under the hot son...ouch..not exactly ideal conditions to face an enemy who defends his homeland

[Alalzia]

The idea is that european armor nulified the supremacy of the asian archer , thats how odds changed and europe conquered asia in the process.

[HairyandHorny]

..but then odds changed again and the muzls kicked the xians out of palestine
...until the british showed up some centuries later

honestly i wouldnt like at all to be in a knights suit out there in such a climate and landscape

[Attila]

we have talked about the conqest of Constantinople many times before

I have to correct misinformation here

-The hugnarian cannon maker was kidnapped by the Turks

-Venetians did send huge kalyons(galleys) where Turks only had the knowledge of building small ships

-Turks had been preparing for the siege for many years it didin2t happen only in 10 years
even to support the siege Turks build a huge castle on the other side of the sea (Anadolu Hisari)

-The cruel one was janissaries not definately not Mehmet the conqueror he even killed with his own sword few janissaries who wanted to sack the city

-He promissed the public that their lives and belongings are all in safe

-When he entered the gates public throw him roses this is also documentated and it even has a painting

-Yes the monks prefered the Turkish side cuz catholics were cruel and we had the justice in any case they had no power to change the result

so even if they had the entire help of the europe the city would be conquered cuz Sultan Mehmet and the rest of the tribes was seriously obsessed about invading Constantinople

PS: after the conqest one of the hiers of the constaniople's crown was assigned as the Rumeli Beylerbeyi (grandmaster of roman soil) or governor the other became kaptan-i derya (the admiral of the sea) of the empire and one of the dynasty member was sent to a greek island (I don't remember the name) with 10 janissaries to train the local people against catholic invasion

is this what you call slavery and cruelty?

[tsunami]

Attila, the book am reading from the Venetian Nicolo Barbaro an eye-witness says exactly this:

The cannon builder was under-paid, and with the help of trapped Turks inside the city he escaped and gave his services to Mehmet.

Venetians did send galleys as you say 2 of them to be accurate and 5 smaller ones.

In Adrianople that castle was built within a year, construction started in 1452.

The monks that belonged to Gennadios school were Pro-Turkish, Gennadios is the one who coined the term...bettera Turkish fakiol than a catholic tiara. It is highly likely that Gennadios followers opened the Kerkoporta for the Turks to come in the city.


Mehmet offered the King Paleologus land in the Pelloponesse, and the assured him that his people will not suffer if he hands over the city without a fight.

Palelolgus said: It is not my city to deliver, this city belongs to god, if God wants to deliver it to you, then let it be, if God wants his children to die today, let it be.

Mehmet hearing this said to his troops:

The city and its belongings belong to you my troops, i just want an empty city and its buildings.


When Mehmet saw one of his troops destroying the marble floor of the Aghia Sophia, he killed him immediately and said, i told you the buildings belong to me.


As for the public it was divided, those with Gennadios wanted the Turks, because they believed that their faith is in danger in the hands of the Catholics, who believe in the Filiokve(that Christ is God).

While the followers of the King were Pro-Catholic because they believed its better to have fellow Christians rule the city than Muslims.


In the end, Mehmet allowed the Church to exist independently and become very powerful, it seems that gennadios was right in the end.


As for Mehmet, he was a very cruel person, and noone can deny that.

His father and his grand-father were much more leniant and wise than him.

Many sources call him a bloodthirsty savage.


Turkish tribes had been obsessed with the Poli, many many centuries before Mehmet. every single Sultan made his effort to conguer the city, but only Mehmet did it.


As for the People throwing roses when Mehmet entered the city, that is hilarious. The painting doesnt make it true.


Anyway, this guy Nicolo Barbaro was a Venetian doctor not merchant as i said before, who got stuck in the city because the Emperor confiscated his ship and his belongings as himself in order to protect the city.


His account is a very objective account, and gives us names, actions, and many anti-Byzantine element.

He doesnt forget to mention in every single page though, that Mehmet was a savage.

[Attila]

Attila i am reading the book of Nicolo Barbaro.

I forgot the name last year our History of civ. teacher was talking about it prof. Murat Çizakça he is one of the best historians of the world you can google him

he was talking about a book written by a Greek historian
He writes about what happened during the last crusade which was actually directed at Byzantium.
Catholics brought donkeys and prostetutes in Hagia Spohia and sacked the city
insulted the monks of Orthodox

of course people would support the Ottomans cuz Islam wasn't a religion spread by cruelty but encouring and simply giving the message "your church is giving you fake information dor their own good but our god cares about you and all the rules is written in the book nothing can challenged the book bla bla bla"if they said the truth or not can be debated but it was the way they did

+ Ottomans always encouraged the conflict between catholics and orthodox and helped the orthodox becase dynasty was closer to orthodox by marriages with greeks
most of the Ottoman Sultan's mothers was Greek and Serbian

[tsunami]

The last crusade, which was directed at Byzantium, was the worst thing that ever happened in the History of Christianity.

That is why the Pope apologized to the Greeks 4 years ago, if i remember well.

The Catholics sacked the city, with no regard.

Many people believe that if it hadnt happened noone would ever be capable of conguering the city.

Because there was a lot of wealth in there able to support huge armies.

A German knight participant of the ctholic Crusade when henetered the city, he was astonished.

And said:

3/4 of the world wealth in inside this city while the rest 1/4 is scattered around the world.

And this sack is the main reason along with the Catholic heretical filokve that most monks prefered the Turks rather than the Catholics.

[Attila]

well my friend ottomans was the superior force that time
and I belive nobody could stand against that army cuz

even the neigbours of ottomans signed a treaty for not attacking us during the siege
and incase of any attack they would back us up

so everything was successfully planned and I can still say the son2s of the gerneral's brother whom are the heir of the crown assigned in the best positions of the new empire

+Sultan mehmet claimed that he is not the emperor of only ottomans he is now the emperor romans as well

[tsunami]

Yes, the Ottomans of the time were the largest and most succesfull military machine of the Era.

They are the ones who managed to conguer the city with 1100 years continuous history. The longest History of a city in the History of the World.

[Attila]

"In 1391 Bayezid laid siege to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine empire. On the urgings of the Byzantine emperor John V Palaeologus a new crusade was organized to defeat him. This proved unsuccessful: in 1396 the Christian allies, under the leadership of the Hungarian King and future Holy Roman Emperor (in 1410) Sigismund, were defeated in the Battle of Nicopolis. Bayezid built the beautiful Ulu Camii in Bursa, to celebrate this victory.

Thus, the siege of Constantinople continued, lasting until 1401. At one point, the Emperor even fled from the city. Salvation for the Byzantine empire, assaulted by Bayezid's Ottomans, came unexpectedly from the declaration of war on Bayezid by the Mongols.

In 1400, the Central Asian warlord Timur Lenk (or Tamerlane)had succeeded in rousing the local kingdoms that had been conquered by the Turks to join him in his attack on Bayezid"

wikipedia.org

it was besieged before but the mongolian assult was delayed the conquest

[Attila]

and these are the titles sultan mehmet and the ones after him had

When Mehmed II conquered Constantinople on May 29, 1453, he claimed the title Emperor of the Roman Empire and protector of Orthodox Christianity. He appointed the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius, whom he protected and whose stature he elevated into leader of all the Eastern Orthodox Christians. As emperor of the Romans he laid claim to all Roman territories, which at the time before the Fall of Constantinople, however, extended to little more than the city itself, plus some areas in Morea (Peloponnes) and the Empire of Trebizond.

The conqueror of Constantinople was Sultan Mehmed II Fatih Ghazi 'Abu'l Fath (1451 - 1481, 7th Sovereign of the House of Osman), was still 'simply' styled Kaysar-i-Rum (=Emperor of [Byzantium = the second] Rome), Khan of Khans, Grand Sultan of Anatolia and Rumelia, Emperor of the three Cities of Constantinople, Edirne and Bursa, Lord of the two lands and the two seas and the first to adopt the 'imperial' style Padishah.

Around 1500 the full style of naming of the ruling Sultan had become practically stabilised, e.g. in 1601 Sultan Mehmed III was called:

Sultan Hân N.N.,
Padishah,
Hünkar,
Hakan ül-Berreyn vel-Bahreyn;
Sovereign of the House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans,
Khan of Khans,
Commander (caliph) of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe
Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem
Emperor of The Three Cities of Constantinople, Adrianople and Bursa, and of the Cities of Damascus and Cairo, of all Azerbaijan, of the Magris, of Barka, of Kairouan, of Aleppo, of Arabic Iraq and of Acem, of Basra, of Al-Hasa, of Dilen, of Ar Raqqah, of Mosul, of Parthia, of Diyarbakir, of Cilicia, of the Vilayets of Erzurum, of Sivas, of Adana, of Karaman, Van, of Barbary, of Abyssinia, of Tunisia, of Tripoli, of Damascus, of Cyprus, of Rhodes, of Candia, of the Vilayet of the Morea, of the Marmara Sea, the Black Sea and also its coasts, of Anatolia, of Rumelia, Baghdad, Kurdistan, Greece, Turkistan, Tartary, Circassia, of the two regions of Kabarda, of Georgia, of the plain of Kypchak, of the whole country of the Tartars, of Kefe and of all the neighboring countries, of Bosnia and its dependencies, of the City and Fort of Belgrade, of the Vilayet of Serbia, with all the castles, forts and cities, of all Albania, of all Eflak and Bogdania, as well as all the dependencies and borders, and many others countries and cities.

[HairyandHorny]

When Mehmed II conquered Constantinople on May 29, 1453, he claimed the title Emperor of the Roman Empire and protector of Orthodox Christianity. He appointed the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius, whom he protected and whose stature he elevated into leader of all the Eastern Orthodox Christians.

of course he did...since the orthodox church (or at least the biggest faction within the church) was on his side...even in some cases before the fall of the city