I rarely read this forum, but damn what a nice thread. Hope you all do a draft.

Hi Everyone:

Any opinion on Hernán Cortés? He did take a tiny army and conquered a large empire. Also, he's probably the luckiest person who ever lived.

Best wishes,
mason

The issue with the Conquistadors were their ridiculous technological and psychological advantages they had over the Aztecs and other groups in the Americas. They also had diseases spread out and cause epidemics within native populations.

While I have no doubt the Conquistadors had very able military commanders, their advantages were so large that they diminished their accomplishments. It'd be like comparing the Dallas Cowboys beating a high school team. In fact, even worse, maybe a pickup team from a country that doesn't know how to play football. The natives they fought had no chance. I remember watching a show where there was a story of some 50 Conquistadors killing 500-1000 natives. There really was no comparison, unfortunately.

A team of 8 armed Navy Seals fighting 100 people with sticks in a rural town in China would be no battle in any sense of the word.

I think everyone can agree with the lucky part. Holy crap did he run good. He didn't win by being a great general, he won by being one of histories great luckboxes.

Yea thats exactly why he isn't on my list. The advantage is soo massive that its hardly any feat. add to that the diseases, its pretty easy.

On the other hand, i think i have on my list between 60-70 a native latin american commander: Lautaro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautaro

Any consideration to any (USA) Native American commanders?

While most of the famous one have a major victory, it is often followed by a string of defeat. Except for lautaro, america doesn't have a lot of ''the natives'' that had major success in battle. Even sitting bull and geronimo got crushed in the end despite tactical victories.

Three problems I see account for the unfortunate lack of Native Americans on the list:

(1) Lack of documentary evidence because most pre-Columbian cultures were non-literate, or documentary record has been erased. The Mayans might have had a real badass commander, but Aztec and Spanish priests smashed up their codices. Jerks.
(2) For those campaigns we do have documentary evidence for, the accounts are often written by the party that defeated them, and said party usually possessed technological and/or epidemiological advantages that make it hard to draw a good conclusion.
(3) Relative lack of dense states in pre-Columbian period that produce a military class and thus great commanders. It's a near certainty that the Maya, Aztecs, and Inca produced some excellent commanders, but then we have to refer back to (1) and (2).

As usual Turn Profit hits it out of the park again.

The lack of an Historical record what sometimes is called "Pre-history" is one problem. I am sure their were very good commanders that we have know way of knowing ever existed before the Europeans arrived in North America .

After we have a written record lies a different problem of Native American Cultures, they did not have the technology to be truly great military powers, hence produce a top 100 GOAT.

That's my issue with Shaka Zulu who happens to be on Adaptation's list. Some commentators have called him Shaka, the Black Napoleon, the comparison is apt. Shaka is without doubt the greatest commander to come out of Africa. Shaka's military innovations such as the "iklwa," the age-grade regimental system and encirclement tactics (many historians credit Shaka with initial development of the famous "buffalo horns" formation) all which helped make the Zulu one of the most powerful nations in southern and southeastern Africa.

I know we are in a politically correct era of history, but the Zulu's and Native American's did not have the military capability to keep the Europeans from pushing them out of there lands and/or conquering them. That does not mean it was moral by our standards, but that does not change the reality of the struggle.

Even if you have great tactic's if you bring a spear or bow to a gun fight you will lose to a technologically advanced power. Sure you may have a few brilliant victories but you will lose the war. I am not talking slightly inferior technology, but hunter gathers regardless of who is leading them will lose to industrial societies with a Military–industrial complex.

Technology has long been a part of warfare. Neolithic tools were used as weapons prior to recorded history. The bronze age and iron age saw the rise of complex industries in the manufacturing of weaponry. However, these industries also had practical peacetime applications. For example, industries making swords in times of war could make plowshares in times of peace.

It was not until the late 19th to early 20th century that military weaponry became so complex as to require a large subset of industry dedicated solely to its procurement. Firearms, artillery, steamships, and later aircraft and nuclear weapons were markedly different from their ancient predecessors.

These newer, more complex weapons required highly specialized labor, knowledge and machinery to produce. The time and supporting industry necessary to construct weapon systems of increasing complexity and massive integration, made it no longer feasible to create assets only in times of war. Instead, nations dedicated portions of their economies for the full time production of war assets. The increasing reliance of military on industry gave rise to a stable partnership—the military–industrial complex and the type of military muscle to impose your will on societies that lack that infrastructure even if they had a tradition and history of conflict like the Zulu's or Apache's.

Personally form what little I know about History I would have to go with Napoleon.

Other notables would include Patton, McArthur, Wellington.

I have to fix my post. I just thought of something thinking about this thread today Hannibal was from Africa so Shaka is without doubt the 2nd greatest commander to come out of Africa not number one.

Some qualifications and additional information is required here. Specific to Cortes is that his conquest was so swift (of the Aztecs) that diseases played no part in the initial battles and conquest. The technological advantage is there of course but was of less consequence than most think (he lost a major battle and most of his men after all). Of more importance was Cortes' alliance and strategy with the Tlaxcalan natives, sworn enemies of the Aztecs (the Aztecs were an “empire” after all and subjugated many other native tribes, or made them pay tribute). The Spanish advantage in this specific case is not so lopsided as some have presented.

All that said, Cortes (or Pizarro) should not be considerate great military commanders. Lost to history are probably many great military men that had built the empires that the Spanish conquered.

Not true. Smallpox decimated the city of Tenochtitlan during the Spanish siege of the city and decimated the fighting capacity of the Aztecs, with as much as 1/3 or more of the population of the Valley of Mexico (including Moctezuma's successor) dying during the 16 months between the arrival of Cortes and the fall of Tenochtitlan. The campaign was actually longer than a lot of people realize.

Thanks for the clarification; I did not know that. I assume the small pox also caused deaths among the Spanish and the other indigenous Indian tribes in the area? Even through all this the Aztecs still put up a spirited defense and fought with extreme bravery.

Indeed, some of the Spanish became sick, but their mortality rate was a tiny fraction of the Natives' because many of them had already been exposed and possessed some genetic resistance that had been earned over the centuries. This was one factor that made the disease particularly demoralizing: an invisible foe was killing the Aztecs and leaving their enemies virtually unscathed. It must have seemed to some of them that the gods truly had turned against them.

Indeed the disease did cull large numbers of Spanish allies among the Natives as well. This is partly what made the other tribes such easy pickings after the Aztec super-confederation had been eliminated.

Much the same pattern was repeated in Peru, but again the timescale is underestimated by those who associate the Inca conquest exclusively with Pizarro's capture of Atahualpa at Cajamarca. The conquest of the Inca as a whole took years, as one would expect of an empire of that size. Why this is not emphasized more frequently, I do not know. "Traditional" narratives make the Natives seem like hopeless pushovers.

And actually I'll have to correct/clarify myself a bit. It was actually about 21 months from the time Cortes landed (November 1519) to the fall of Tenochtitlan (August 1521). The 16-month figure I used earlier is based on the arrival of de Narvaez to arrest Cortes in April 1520, who is usually seen as the vector for smallpox introduction via a slave in his party. This date also correlates fairly closely with the breakdown of relations between the Spaniards and the Aztecs, since it was during Cortes' absence that Alvarado's men initiated the massacre in the main temple at Tenochtitlan.

Hernán Cortés Is definitely an interesting case study. The bottom line was this was a most impressive victory. Disease definitely played a role, but it has played a role in many other significant conflicts of the past. Belisarius obviously 1st comes to mind. But even the Athenian & Spartan war disease played a huge role. Even the Mongols were known to use germ warfare flinging dead bodies with siege engines into cities.

To make sure his men cooperated with marching across the jungle, Cortes burned his ships. He defeated the local tribe of Indians, and then set out for the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan. For 83 days, Cortes and his men marched across tropical jungles and snowy mountains into the Valley of Mexico. Cortes arrived in Tenochtitlan with more than 500 solders, 14 cannons, 16 horses, and a large number of the Aztec's Indian enemies gathered along the way. He then put together one of the most impressive military victories in history. You would have to put this up there Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, or the US victory in Desert Storm.

Lopsided, sure, but as far as brilliant, I'd disagree whole-heartedly.

Hernán Cortés would not be a candidate for the "Mother Teresa" award but this thread is not for Humanitarians. Khan who has many fans in this thread was very much of the same mold. But to take a small force only accompanied by about 11 ships, 500 men, 13 horses and a small number of cannons and defeat an entire large civilization with 120,000 to 240,000 Aztecs killed is a very impressive victory.

It's like we're speaking a different language here. Any sort of mercy or benevolence isn't even in the discussion. Khan's accomplishments were stunning compared to Cortes. Khan's opponents were also much tougher. Cortes's technological advantage dwarfed Khan's, evidenced by his laughably lopsided victories.

The battle of Cannes was impressive. Gulf war 1 was not.

Was El Cid anywhere near the top 100? The dead guy on a horse winning a battle legend is what I remember as getting me interested in history as a kid. Just curious if he's in the ballpark.

eta- ty guys for the thread. It's an interesting read.

Let's not forget the bolded. Cannon fodder is pretty key.

Ah I hate to sound snarky but I think you need to re-examine.

The Gulf war was one of the most impressive victories in history.

It is right up their with the successful German invasion of France in WWII or Alexander decisively crushed the Persians at Gaugamela. As with most battles from this period, casualties for Gaugamela are not known with any certainty though sources indicate that Macedonian losses may have been around 4,000 while Persian losses may have been as high as 47,000.

Look at the stats from the gulf war:

Iraqi had a total of around 650,000 soldiers 20,000–35,000 killed 75,000+ wounded.

Iraqi other civilian losses about 3,664 killed.


As for the Coalition: 190 killed by enemy action, 44 killed by friendly fire, 248 killed by in-theater accidents. Total: 482 Killed 458 wounded.

To inflict the damage the Coalition with with so few Iraqi other civilian losses and sustain such few losses is impressive by any standard.

You don't sound snarky at all. That's what the thread is for, to discuss.

I understand your point totally, but to put it in modern context, it wasn't a battle by any means. The numbers are lopsided, but they were so lopsided because of our advantage in technology, communications, weaponry, tactics.

We are talking about different generations of warfare, really. This period of history is different than others because there are technological advances which skew the numbers in battles. For example : you can't compare the advantage of Khan's communication abilities with his troops to, say, encryption of communication from allied forces in Gulf War 1. I don't know if there ever was a time in history where the technological advantage was so great in favor of one power (The current-day US).

In Khan's example he used something that is available to both sides in a better manner. In the 2nd example the Iraqis don't have the ability and technological know-how of how to counter our advantage. Same things go for our Aircraft and Tanks. The difference between US weaponry and Iraqi weaponry is so vast that the kill-to-death ratio is almost guaranteed. I've read that the F-22 Raptor (which wasn't used in Gulf War 1, but just an example) has software systems that make it impossible for certain fighters to even lock on. Now, I'm no expert on the F22, I'm simply saying that when you have technology that your enemy has no answer for, I view a battle as something almost to point of being unfair, even though there is no "fair" in battle.

Imagine a scenario where 5 Aliens landed on earth and had technology where our bullets, rockets, missiles, etc couldn't even hurt them - almost as if they had a protective shield around them. If 5 of them wiped out 100,000 US troops, would you consider that "impressive", or "unfair"?

I'd go with unfair, even though I can somewhat see people going with impressive.

Unfair, but they we'd call Dr Who, and it would be okay.

Sorry, please ignore, I'm just having a little fun and really don't want to derail the thread that is clearly one of the best in 2p2 at the moment.