We simply disagree then. The Mongols used many things that were available to other groups of people, but more effectively. They were a very mobile force. They used communications better. They used their mobility better. They used their mounts better. They used better tactics.

The Conquistadors used technology that simply wasn't available in the aztec/inca (not sure of the terminology here) world.

We just disagree. I view it as one group using the same things available but to a much better degree vs a group that had things that weren't available to the other side. This will keep cropping up over and over in our discussions. I'm a bit baffled as to why I'm the only one so vocal about this.

Except Cortes didn't conquer the Inca. Pizarro did. The Mexico campaign was much different, as I detailed earlier. The biggest factors influencing the Spanish victory there was their ability to ally with anti-Aztec forces and the vicious bout of smallpox that broke out in Tenochtitlan during the siege.

Furthermore, the conquest of the Inca Empire did not end with the capture of Atahualpa. It took years to fully pacify the resistance, a process

Is that a military skill or a political one?

Perhaps that should be a clue?

Not really. I disagree quite a lot with both of your views. But hey. Continue on.

The Mongols had no contact (that we know of) with many of the groups until the conflicts. Your premise is faulty. Very much more like the Conquistadors in the "New World then you are admitting. The Aztec's Or Inca could have developed military technology better then the Conquistadors they just didn't.

The Mongols had superior military equipment and weapons to their opponents as well. More like the US advantage against Iraq then the Conquistadors to the Aztec's Or Inca's. Which is why I keep pounding the examples.

The Bows the Mongols used alone were superior to anything in Europe. The English long bow is legendary. It was an inferior weapon to the Mongols cross bow.

It was written inscription on a stone stele that was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia. (Translated of course)...... "While Genghis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (Khwarezm), Yesüngge (the son of Genghis Khan's brother) shot and hit a human shield sized target at 335 alds (536 meters)." Was this Bravado and exaggeration? Maybe???????? But it is still most impressive at half the distance.

Your examples are bad. The Mongols may have had slightly better weapons, but to compare that to

1) people who've never seen horses, cannons, etc.

2) the US having laser guided missiles and the Iraqi's having AK-47s

simply isn't a comparison. It's no where in the same ballpark. It's not like the US military had better assault rifles than the Iraqis, a comparison that could be made vs Mongol bows vs other people's bows.

Once again, I do not know why this is so difficult. The Mongols fought against people who could have actually given them a fight, they were just very good at using their tactics. You keep bringing up the US invasion of Iraq. It was never, ever, a fight. There was no way to respond to the US invasion by the Iraqis. The Mongols could have actually run into resistance. The US couldn't. Not because their enemy didn't use the right tactics, but because they didn't have the ability to respond because it was impossible.

Wil, you right. Mongols initial victories were against Kara-Khitans and Kipchaks, who used very similar equipment and practically the same weapons as mongols.
Obviously those victories were achieved by using superior military tactics, but outcome of those battles was never a sure thing.
Conquistadors were as superior to aztecs as US army to US army circa 1812. One regiment of today's marines with enough supplies probably can take out entire 1812 army. No strategic or tactical skills are needed, just don't get yourself killed by standing in front of something that can kill you.

I think you guys are missing the point. As someone who actually has seen combat and studied conflict for a long time. Warfare is ugly, dirty, unfair. I’m not looking for a fair fight. I’m looking to win. We often get caught up in the how of each other’s battle plans were carried out against opposition with similar technology. But if you want to truly be great if you have an advantage you should use it, and use it decisively. The Mongols did that, but so did the Conquistadors. The Mongols opposition was not all that impressive. So to elevate the Mongols and downplay the Conquistadors is very suspect.

Regarding your post above..... What the Conquistadors accomplished in defeating the Aztecs was like one US army squad knocking out the entire US army circa 1812. In the United States Army Rifle Platoons are normally composed of 42 soldiers. If you could bet your net worth on the modern squadron being able to knock out the entire 1812 Army, I wouldn't be so quick to make that bet. Even more impressive Cortez was self sponsored.

Winfield Scott The American GOAT. Succeeded where Napoleon failed in creating a single republic that would have regional and global hegemony. Was a successfully officer during the war of 1812, was a general during the Indian war, conquer half of Mexico and devised the grand strategy for the defeat of the confederacy.
If he had been elected president he would have been the American Caesar.

Genghis Khan

His understanding of warfare far surpassed anything / anyone during his time. His preparation for each battle left the enemy no chance but to lose.

He trained the majority of his army to be horsemen / archers as well as knights. His armies would completely frustrate the other opposing army by having having horsemen / archers repeatedly raining down arrows while retreating.

They constantly did this until the opposing army was forced advance and be attacked / flanked from horrible positions.


Not only did his entire army consist of horsemen. But before the battles they would set up a large "fueling depot" with another fresh batch of horses for each horse rider.


Nobody stood a chance. If it wasn't for the black plague, Genghis's army would have invaded Europe and change the course of humanity forever. He was already close, destroying the Germanic alliance armies twice by that point.

Not sure what this means

what? Ghengis died in 1227; the black plague was over 100 years after that. And at the time of his death the Mongol lands were still east of the Caspian Sea (i.e. very far from Europe, although they did lead a raid to the Black Sea). Not sure what you're referring to with these "Germanic alliance armies"

I like Scott. He was good in 1812 as an executive officer. The rest of these are not that impressive to me; beating Indians, beating an already destroyed Mexico (Comanches), and this "grand strategy" to beat the confederacy is pretty obvious imo.

Lee is the GOAT American imho

I have Scott as my no.1 but it largely depends if you believe he's the reason for the anaconda plan and the surrounding of the south. If you don't give credit to it(or take it as granted), i would probably take stonewall jackson, albeit i would have no problem seeingg Lee up there as well.

I'm not seeing anything "brilliant" about the Anaconda plan. A blockade of a navy-less nation is obvious, as is capturing the Mississippi. The big problem with the plan is it guarantees a long conflict and doesn't even win the war itself.

I've studied Jackson very extensively (and love Jackson) but there's no way he should be above Lee.

He may be, but IMO Lee is still massively overrated all things considered. If he hadn't been up against the incompetent jackass McClellan, the war should have been over in 1862, not 1865.

McClellan was in no way incompetent. In fact, if i had to describe him with a word I'd choose "competent". He was cautious, certainly sometimes overly cautious. But he was excellent and raising and training troops, and this was a hugely important skill in the aftermath of Bull Run. Had he not done this so well, the war indeed may have been over in 1862.

McClellan's plan in the Penninsula campaign was really solid. Yes, he let himself be fooled by theatrics but that's hardly an indictment. When your scouts and lieutenants tell you the size of the enemy force, why should you not believe them? Keep in mind he doesnt' have perfect information the way we do with hindsight. Because he thought he was up against a very strong force, he slowly grinded his way to the outskirts of Richmond. It's only when Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia that things went badly. Lee unleashed the fury and drove those people back to their boats.

As soon as McClellan got his opportunity to strike (after receiving a copy of Lee's marching orders that showed Lee's strength/positions) he did so with great alacrity at South Mountain and Antietem. I guess what i'm saying is there weren't any blunders made by McClellan that made Lee look like a genius; Lee did that all himself.

I have to disagree on this campaign. The Peninsular Campaign reminds me of nothing so much as a Starcraft player who mines minerals, maxes out his unit cap, and then never does anything with his force.

Antietam involved a lot of poor deployment on the Union's part, and McClellan's failure to crush Lee when the battle turned his way was inexcusable IMO, and never would have happened with a better general at the helm. Lee was a great general, likely the finest of the Civil War to be sure (or close to it, depending on one's opinion of Jackson), but I still believe his reputation exceeds his actual genius. He faced some poor opponents and made a couple of serious errors in the Gettysburg campaign.

"Overrated" in this context doesn't mean bad. I just think that many people's tendency to call Lee the hands-down GOAT American general is an oversimplification.

Agreed. Someone from another era needs to be compared to the Civil War Generals being held in such high regard.......Gen. George S. Patton, U.S. Army

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

I'm afraid i'm not exactly sure how to respond to Starcraft analogies but I'll try.

You need to look at the start of the campaign from McClellan's point of view. The enemy army of 100k men is encamped near Washington. Right before you sail on your flanking plan the enemy suddenly and unexpectedly pulls back. Now you sail to the penninsula. Somehow there are entrenched enemies waiting for you. One of your field generals estimates the Confederate works are held by 100k rebels. Another calls the enemy position "impregnable". Should you wildly fling your army against this postion? This is what McClellan is criticised for not doing. Easy for us to do since we knew there weren't really 100k rebels. But what if there were? Surely digging in and bringing your advantage in artillery to bear would be the right move. Which is just McClellan did. Correctly played imo.

Johnston had no interest in being bombarded and pulled back. McClellan quickly pressed on all the way to the outskirts of Richmond. Johnston attacked with his strong wing against McClellan's weak wing and was repulsed. McClellan started bringing in the big guns for the siege. The union soldiers were close enough to hear Richmond's church bells.

This was the situation when Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia. 90 days later, two seperate union armies had been driven out of Virginia and Lee was in Maryland.

I haven't really studied Patton at all. Patton didn't at all need to be a genius. From the time he touched the ground the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion.

Lee was outnumbered in every battle he fought and against an opponent that had superior weaponry and the economic conditions were such that the enemy would get stronger over time while he got weaker.

This is a flaw in your thinking. The question is not who overcame the most resistance, issues and adversity...... The question is..... who would be the more capiable person to have as in charge of your army if you were going to go back in time to try invoke your will on a era.

Patton > Lee

In the Mexican-American War Lee was very associated with Winfield Scott. Hard to give him full credit while another great military thinker was actually in command and closely working with Lee.

Early in the Civil war, his men called him "Granny Lee" because of his allegedly timid style of command. Patton's men would have never seriously made such a reference. Maybe to Bernard Montgomery but never Patton.

Yes, Lee had his moments of aggression..... with some success, but Lee's decision on the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg, against the sound judgment of his best corps commander General Longstreet, to launch a massive frontal assault on the center of the Union line was disastrous. The assault known as Pickett's Charge was repulsed and resulted in heavy Confederate losses. The general rode out to meet his retreating army and proclaimed, "All this has been my fault."

Lee would have a hard time making my top 50 GOAT list. I would put him about somewhere around 90 well behind Patton.

There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton Jr

Well that's certainly true. The ANV came so, so close to folding the union army in on itself on days 1 and 2. The situation was such that Lee needed to land a knockout punch. Pickett's charge was something that certainly looked a lot better on the map than in reality.

Gettysurg was a crippling loss for the confederates not because they took excessive casualties (about even for both sides) but because they failed to land the knockout punch. And they would never again have a chance to land one.

Interesting that you mentioned the Mexican-American war. I don't give Lee any laurels for that conflict. The Americans were certain to win, completely outnumbering and outclassing the enemy. A situation not unlike that faced by the allies after 1943.

I'd never want Patton in charge of my army. I might consider having him in charge of the mobile wing of my army, as long as he didn't have independent command.

You post has two reasons why Patton is not such a good leader.

If you study the documented history, you should know that Montgomery was more popular with his men than Patton was with his. I take it you are not familar with the cartoons of Sgt. Bill Mauldin.

Patton doesn't belong in the top 100. He never did anything important with independent command.

And that statement alone should give you an indication of how poor a leader he was and how one-dmensional was his approach. Consider in contrast Sun Tzu

Montgomery being more popular with his men has no relevance on capability. Georgy Zhukov was not popular with his men but that did not neuter his effectiveness on the eastern front.

Montgomery like Lee was cautious trying to line up all his ducks..... Patton has a famous quote that describes my feeling about that quality in a military commander.

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

That said these guys are all minor leagues compared to some of the other people I posted about. That said Patton would be a far more dangerous opponent then Lee or Montgomery thus belongs in my Top 50.