Quote:
Originally Posted by Turn Prophet
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.