posted 07-22-99 06:55 AM ET            

Did Mr Sun ever fight a battle, let alone a war? Or did he sit at home playing armchair general? And if he were so capable, how is it he never conquered any of China's tiny but troublesome neighbors, like the Mongols and Manchus?

Why do you imagine that Alexander III was a lesser strategist because he exploited the skills of his predecessors?

Do you seriously imagine that Sun invented all the techniques he wrote about? If he copied some, then by your argument, he's inferior.

You say when Alexander couldn't defeat an army he'd besiege their cities. The fact is, he always defeated their armies. He fought countless battles, and won every one. Noone else in history, not even the Mongols at their height, have that record.

Perhaps you're thinking of Tyre, which was an island at sea, defended by a superb navy. Alexander didn't bring a navy that day, so what was he going to do? He set his army to filling in the sea! When the landfill reached Tyre, the contest was over.

Also, an army besieging a city is not mobile, and therefore vulnerable to counter-attack. If you cannot defeat an army, then the last thing you want to do is to hang around in one spot for weeks. The fact that Alexander could afford to do that, means that his army was vastly superior in numbers, skill, and/or equipment.

It's not as though Alex was leading only hardened veterans. His army contained large numbers of scholars (mathematicians, philosophers, biologists, astronomers, geologists, chemists, you name it). So he had to feed them too, carry them with him for all those thousands of miles, for ten years, and keep them safe while he conducted his all-terrain battles! That Aristotle and the rest made it back safely is an astonishing feat of logistics.

Remember too that until recently, only Chinese had heard of Mr Sun. Alexander's name echoes through every culture, language and region. Chandragupta, first Maurya Emperor of India, in the third century BC, was named after him. So were Turkish Sultans, Jewish High Priests, and even Alex Keaton in Family Ties.

The empires of Africa, Asia and Europe have produced very great Generals of their own, but they all acknowledge Alexander as pre-eminent. This is because they remember his feats, and because in that hectic decade he found time to build hundreds of cities, and sponsor culture and learning from Libya to the Tien Shan, and from Greece to India.

Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, all have a shared cultural inheritance from Alexander's civilisation, because they assimiliated its distinctive features, as a supplement to the teaching of their founders. Study and see.

If anyone in ancient times were more impressive as a general and an organiser than Alexander, it would be Cyrus, founder of the Persian Empire, the first truly large empire in history, the first to be large by modern standards, and the first empire on three continents.

Cyrus built it two hundred years before Alexander, so providing the governmental infrastructure and almost all the territory that Alexander inherited by his Persian conquest.

Cyrus's empire was carved from vast and often rugged and therefore difficult to administer regions, and formed of many diverse peoples, over three centuries before the First Emperor of China united the Warring States.

And Cyrus is also remembered to this day, and his name is given to children in many farflung nations.

Sun is just a surname. Do you even know what his given name was? That's how poorly he's remembered.

There is even a suggestion, by some Chinese, that Martial Arts are derived from Alexander's military training techniques.

posted 07-22-99 08:33 AM ET            

I couldnt have found time to reply to this thread, but then I find it so appalling to see this "Strategist means General...Did Mr Sun ever fight a battle, let alone a war?"

Maybe they are following a trend, but it seems that as one gets more important and hated, he/she won't get to the battlefield all so often. Sun Tzu went to the war in the early part of his career turning critical losing battles into victories for the Kingdom of Chu, and that was followed by his promotion to be the Minister of War within a year or so. One of his tactics, was to remain as an unknown force to his enemies until they are to underestimate him, dearly. Perhaps this might proved to be Sun Tzu's bane - though he never care for fame - was that future generations would not remember his famous battles.

Few people are like Napoleon Bonaparte or Sun Tzu who besides being strategists (and they are not supposed to be fighters) dare to take to the battlefield personally, though their safety would most often kept them at home later on. Perhaps all too impressive would be Joan of Arc, who led all battles at the front.

I hope you know a bit about Sun Tzu's history before coming here and displaying any possible disrespectful comments about a great hero. The King of Chu, a guy known for philandering and fond of nothing but watching his concubines dancing around his fortress, has no great ambitions, or should I say, ambition. When Sun Tzu came into the scene, the Chu's army had more than 60% defectors, and it took almost 5 yrs to bring the entire military infrastructure into uncorrupted state. Preserving this pathethic kingdom was all that mattered. Chu lost no major battles, lost 2 minor skirmishes and won more than 160 battles for the record during Sun's era. And they were fought when nobody knew him, or think that he's just a lame armchair strategist. For almost 40yrs (20 yrs before and 20 yrs after his death) the Kingdom of Chu was untouched.

Sun is just a surname? Yeah, you are right. We remember greats by their surnames only. Einstein? Feynman? As I had mentioned before, it's just too bad that Sun Tzu is such a humble man that most of his deeds (or maybe, he insisted his enemy know nothing about them) went unnoticed. For your info, his real name is Sun Wu. Sun Tzu is a name given to him by both his enemies/counterparts alike in respect and awe of him, and how the future generations are going to remember him.

Alexander III? You are comparing a warrior with a strategist. First, countless victories. Well, perhaps I will wait till a time when some of you great players are on holiday and I start roaming the red carpets of the PBEMs with any newbies I chanced upon. That will make me the ultimate conqueror, I believe. It just don't mean a single thing.

Alexander never had lost a single battle under his name? Check the history editors. In the past, when your leader is dying/has died all the armies would beat a hasty retreat for some kinda 're-organization'. The Mongols were at their height when Genghis Khan was leading them. And when he's healthy. They are never beaten, not in any minor or major battles. The Khan's first defeat was his last battle too, when he had taken ill and his army had to regroup - and stopped the chase of the elephant-drivers. And so the historians recorded that as a defeat but not that of Alexander's?? I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not biased but some old records are lost along the way..

On the issue of Tyre, the idea of filling up the sea with your men looked impressive but only more so emphasized that Alexander is not even a single bit strategist but a courageous and fierce warrior. China would have easily filled the strait of water separating it from Taiwan with 0.01-0.1% of her population and ask another 40% or so to fill up the entire Taiwan streets and buildings. So that's the 37th Strategy of Sun Tzu's?

"If you cannot defeat an army, then the last thing you want to do is to hang around in one spot for weeks. The fact that Alexander could afford to do that, means that his army was vastly superior in numbers, skill, and/or equipment."
I see no strategy in that. Sun Tzu's move would be diplomacy. Or in another of his famous battles, he retreated from an enemy's castle and pretended to camp over (by making loud noises as if an encampment had been set up there) at the east side and when the enemy thought that the siege is over and tried to flee through the west gate, the Chu's forces routed them there.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms featured the ever despotic Cao Cao, who would faked diplomacy, and once the enemy thought that the treaty has been made and let Cao's army in, the latter destroyed the city overnight. That's ruthless in his military moves, cunning in diplomacy. And that's strategy.

"Remember too that until recently, only Chinese had heard of Mr Sun."
Where do you get that from? Let alone the Chinese, even Napoleon Bonaparte had studied Sun Tzu's war tactics way back in the 1798-1813. His remark of 'China being a sleeping dragon and shouldn't be awakened' was brought about by one of the factors that this place produced so many outstanding individuals and if more Sun Tzus are to be around, he won't stand a chance.

Fine, Cyrus built up the Persians. But is his name any close here when we are talking about the best? Gustavus Adolphus, the King of Sweden was almighty as a conqueror and builder, and to the record his army is recognised to be the strongest ever built in medieval Europe. Talking about administration, Genghis Khan was brutal but he had to control an even greater amount of territory (Cyrus has an empire on 3 continents? Why not we start to count the land squares that he and Genghis Khan owned) as well as a greater diversity of people. Terrain, neither do I think that the stretch from Mongolia to Syria is that nice too.

Genghis Khan is not a strategist. With all respect to him he's the warmonger in the purest form, and people who hated him call him a barbarian. His army is not all-too impressive, but he owned the element of speed and surprise (fast cavalry attacks) to annihilate his opposition. But that doesn't mean that he is the best general/fighter/strategist or owned the best armies. That was the most effective weapon during that time and Genghis Khan utilized it well with his all-conqueror style.

It's hard to bring the two elements - strategist and warmonger - together in one single individual. Even in the past Romance of the Three kingdoms Zhuge Liang, hou Yu nd Sima Yi - just to name a few - are not ranked <GENERAL> but <ADVISOR>. There are exceptions though, like Zhao Yun from the same era as above, or Major-General Nathaniel Greene during the American Revolution. And that's what made people honour Zhao by saying that his godly, or remarking that god knows Nathaniel might have scaled to what heights if he had lived a long life?

posted 07-22-99 03:33 PM ET         

The term Sun Tzu is a term of extreme respect. The "Tzu" designates mastery at one's craft. Only a handful of scholars have been so respected that they need be identified by only their last name and a title, including Lao Tzu [founder of Taoism] and Confu Tzu [aka Confucious].

Asian generals acknowledge Alexcander as superior? In what? I've never heard of such eurocentric junk. The reason that Alexander has gotten such a good rep is partly the PR. Aristotle was his tutor and a fan. Aristotle also happened to be THE must-read author of the first millenium. No coincidence.

As for empire size, all of the european empire pale in size when compared to Asian empires. You can put Alexander's empire into China and it'll just about make up a province. In terms of sheer size, the Mongol empire is by far the biggest ever on Earth, in both land area, % total human population included, time period, etc.... Even after the death of Ghenghis Khan, Batu Khan and Subutai Bahadur was well on their way to conquer Europe. Fortunately for the Europeans, the Khakhan Ogala died in 1234, forcing the recall of Batu. Since they already rolled over Hungary and Romania, there is little doubt that Germany, France, Italy, and Spain would have been conquered.

Sun Tzu was also not very much in favor of sieges. He suggested instead the strategy of threatening another objective vital to the enemy, force them to race to relief the new target, and ambush the relief force.

Besides, the ultimate kings of the siege are definitely the Romans. They loved sieges, since it allowed the legions to minimize losses while taking the most advantage out of their superior engineering expertise.

posted 07-22-99 04:26 PM ET            

Best Strategist: Hmmmmm. Probably Fabius. Realizing that fighting Hannibal was a loss he correctly chose to delay him. Never fighting a major battle, thus never risking Rome. Hannibal had already proven he could trounce Roman legions. This was high strategy.

Okay, I know I hear some of you going 'But what about Scipio Aemilius Africanus'. Umm. Listen up folks, he was brilliant tactically, not strategically. His strength was on the battlefield, not off of it. Remember that strategy on the battlefield is called 'TACTICS', not strategy. Scipio was tactically brilliant, not strategically so.

I will allow that argument can be made for strategic brilliance on the part of Gaius Iulius Caesar. A better arguement can be made for Octavius Caesar, called Augustus once he was made emperor. Gaius Iulius was once again more of a battlefield brillian light and Augustus was more strategic.

All in all I still think Fabius best demonstrates Roman strategy. Which is not to say he was the greatest strategist in history. A topic I firmly refuse to touch.

posted 07-22-99 05:44 PM ET            

I must take the other way and say that Hannibal was a great strategist and it was the incompetence of carthagian rulers that Hannibal was called back to defend carthage from the very gates of rome, allowing Fabuis to retake all of what Hannibal took and finnaly burn carthage to the ground in the third punic war.

posted 07-22-99 09:24 PM ET            

With that in mind, I would argue that Napoleon is perhaps the best strategist that the world has seen.

Alone, Napoleon defied the Thermidorean Reaction and dragged a Revolution-tired people--who had experienced the orgy of the terror, Robespierre, the Directory, and a host of other short-lived government rulers--into the unexpected glory of empire. Who else but he could conquer Europe, get imprisoned, and then conquer it all over again?

And conquering Europe truly meant a lot more than conquering the smallest continent in the world. Europe at the time almost WAS the world. It would have been a lot harder to conquer Europe than the same amount of area on any other continent. All that Alexander had to do, really, was to walk through a place and he could claim that he "conquered" it. True, he did meet Persian resistence--such as at Issus--but how well documented is any of that? Herein lies the sovereign difficulty with comparing Alexander with a more modern conquerer. We really do not know in the greatest detail the tactics that he employed. Or, better yet, a documentation of his own personal thoughts.

When Si�yes put the young, flamboyant Napoleon on the throne, he had hoped for a strong dictatorial figure from which France could redress its grievences. He was not disappointed. Napoleon's charisma and appeal to the people made him an ideal dictator. He stirred a confused people to unite themselves together, and they went on to conquer a huge empire.

Indeed, Trafalgar, Leipzig, and Waterloo were terrible defeats for Napoleon. But Napoleon was never that great in the water anyway and Horatio Nelson was quite an audacious and experienced tactician; thus his defeat at Trafalgar. In Waterloo, fate seemed to be against him, and a collection of coincidences (ultimately startling) helped to spell his defeat (he had hemmerrhoids (sp?) on that day and thus was unable to run around on his horse stirring confidence in the soldiers).

And what about when he returned to France? Louis XVIII had sent an army to stop the escaped Napoleon. And what did he do? He stepped forth, by himself before that army, and declared "Who dare shoot their Emperor." A voice shouted "Long live Napoleon" and the whole army fell to their knees.

Napoleon is a great combination of warmonger and strategist (perhaps Hitler is a better example, though he is decidedly more "warmonger" and less "strategist").

And Zoetrope (I'm sorry we're picking on you, but I can't help it), I don't think that the lasting impression effect has much to do with strategy. Indeed, Alexander did leave a very lasting mark on this world, but this does not make him a great strategist. I think that we just know to little about Alexander to make a proper judgement on him.

posted 07-23-99 05:20 AM ET         

I did not see any mention of this, but another reason why Alexander is more popular is because, while conquering, he also built a lot of cities (too many as a matter of fact) named after him. Alexander layed the foundation of the Hellenistic world, but it's a fairly minute and small world. Notice. . in many text it said he conquered much of the *known* world (they said the same of Caesar too--*know* world), etc etc. That's a lot of PR. And! Alexander is definitely not a great general as many would think, his army shrivelled at the sight of elephants (thus halting his conquest to India), whereas the Mongols did a much better job

posted 07-23-99 07:22 AM ET         

----------------
"Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. With his forces intact he will be complete in his mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem." -SunTzu, "The Art of War"
---------------

posted 07-23-99 01:42 PM ET            

From all the replies, I must conclude that the votes for BEST STRATEGIST are based largely on "winning" or "losing" wars!
But surely other things influenced the concoction of a strategy as well as the execution and outcome of a war or battle.(e.g. objective, weather, land, morale, long term consequences, etc.)
A strategist has to prepare and make compensations on all of these possibilities. There are endless possibilities that could
turn a "good" strategy into a horrible one!

So, a good strategy must be concocted to compensate for anything that could happen and in the same time make full use of any advantages "and" disadvantages!

OBJECTIVE also plays a large part in a strategy. Since I don't know much about history, my example will be the Vietnam War. Some people say that US lost the war even with superior technology and the best minds in warfare. The objective is not to make war with NV but rather halt or contained the NV, and this plays a big part in US unable to do so! Other things also affect the war.(e.g. the lay of the land plays a great advantage to the NV!)

Therefore there is no way to decide who is the BEST STRATEGIST because of these "possibilities"!!(another e.g. LUCK)

posted 07-23-99 02:47 PM ET         

The only measure we have to go on is their actions with regards to their resources and their response to them. A good part of it also depends on the PR of the person you are judging.

For example, you can look at the American Civil War.

Was Gen. Lee a better strategist than Grant? While Grant was the general who won the war, it has often been said that Lee was a better general and strategist. This is partially due to the fact that Lee was far more likeable as a person, but it's nevertheless the stereotype.

But the facts are that Grant won and Lee lost. The Federal army did have a huge advantage in size, but the same army under the command of previous generals almost lost the war. At the same time, Lee did not actually coordinate strategy for the CSA, but only commanded one of its theatres. Grant, however, did put in place the strategy of sending Sheridan down the Shenendoah Valley, Sherman to hit the deep South from Tennessee, while he personally accompanied the Army of the Potomac [Gen. Mead was the commander of the Army of the Potomac].

The ultimate success of that strategy is obvious. Grant's best strategic character was his understanding that war means losses and he was not deterred by his casualties. Where previous generals retreated after a disasterous battle, Grante pushed on. He understood that as long as he kept the pressure on the Army of Virginia, he would accomplish his goal of winning the war.

On a tactical level, Grant exhibited some very innovative moves in the capture of Vicksburg. Faced with an interminable siege, Grant decided to cross the river and send a column of troops into what Sun Tzu would call "death ground". By coming at the defenders where they did not suspect an enemy could be, Grant won the Battle of Vicksburg far more quickly than anyone expected.

So was Grant a good strategist? Yes. But his later behavior as President with an extremely corrupt administration ruined his reputation.

posted 07-25-99 10:28 AM ET            

To correct: Sun Tzu's origination is from Chu, but his later on attachment is with the Kingdom of Wu, not Chu.

posted 07-27-99 07:57 PM ET         

NBF fought throughout the deep south with a cavalry force against superior numbers. When it came to speed and destructiveness as a raider, Forrest outstrips Stuart, who usually operated as part of a larger army. The Federal army did try to hunt down Forrest with almost 3 times his number in infantry/cavalry and failed to significantly slow his progress. He was the only other person in the CSA to be granted the title of Lieutenant General.

As for Gettysburg, I don't think Stuart's presence would have mattered that much. After all, Lee decided to make Gettysburg the main battle once he found out the Federal army was present in force. While Stuart's participation would have given better reconnaisance info to Lee for the tactical situation, Lee already had all the strategic info when he rejected Longstreet's suggestion to round the Federal flank. Since Lee is one of the most popular historical figures, efforts have been made by historians to excuse him for his mistakes - things like "If only Stuart was there....."

posted 07-27-99 07:59 PM ET         

NBF fought throughout the deep south with a cavalry force against superior numbers. When it came to speed and destructiveness as a raider, Forrest outstrips Stuart, who usually operated as part of a larger army. The Federal army did try to hunt down Forrest with almost 3 times his number in infantry/cavalry and failed to significantly slow his progress. He was the only other person in the CSA to be granted the title of Lieutenant General.

As for Gettysburg, I don't think Stuart's presence would have mattered that much. After all, Lee decided to make Gettysburg the main battle once he found out the Federal army was present in force. While Stuart's participation would have given better reconnaisance info to Lee for the tactical situation, Lee already had all the strategic info when he rejected Longstreet's suggestion to round the Federal flank. Since Lee is one of the most popular historical figures, efforts have been made by historians to excuse him for his mistakes - things like "If only Stuart was there....."

posted 07-28-99 01:54 PM ET         

There's a lot you can learn about how to win at strategy games like Civ2, SMAC, etc... from reading history. And a lot of those lessons carry over to the real world as well. There's been many times when I thought a budget proposal was like a planning a campaign. And corporate politics is no different from international diplomacy, just on a smaller scale.

posted 07-28-99 04:29 PM ET            

As for Patton, I certainly wouldn't call him flashy. Aggressive, determined and a brilliant leader yes, flashy... no.

posted 07-28-99 09:33 PM ET         

But if you are interested in strategy, I strongly suggest "The Grand Stategy of the Roman Empire : From the First Century A.D. to the Third" by Edward N. Luttwak. The book starts in the Augustean era, so it doesn't cover the Republic, only the Empire. But it is very interesting analysis of the evolution of Roman strategy.

posted 07-29-99 01:24 PM ET            

I really recommend you try out some Livy, or Caesar's conquest of Gaul. It's really interesting stuff.

posted 08-02-99 06:03 AM ET            

However, the Sun Tzu apologists have ignored several points, and misrepresented several events and situations.

1. Sun was not exploring uncharted territory.

2. He didn't have supply lines thousands of miles long.

3. He didn't have to clothe and feed and keep orderly large numbers of philosophers, astronomers, biologists, and other lay people with his army.

4. He had plenty of time after he was retired from the battle front to record his thoughts. Perhaps if we wish to consider strategists on this basis, we should compare Sun's writings with those of Thucydides and Julius Caesar.

5. Alexander's armies didn't melt away when he was wounded. He was frequently wounded in battle, but his armies fought on.

6. Alexander's armies didn't shrink at the sight of elephants. They defeated the elephant army of Porus in India; Porus then decided to become an ally.

7. The army of Macedon had simply had enough of travelling, and told their King to his face: other people may consider you a god, but we prefer the hearth to the temple, and we're going home. This is to the credit of the Greek tradition of equality.

8. When you compare Alexander's territory to China's, which China do you mean? The contemporary 330 BC China that consisted, in total, of a few hundred thousand square miles between the Huang He and Chang Jiang (that's just one province of Alexander's empire)? Or Manchu-occupied China, 2000 years later?

9. Macedon was a minute country, an outlying corner of tiny Greece. Yet they conquered so much, before ever there was a Huangdi of China.

10. Sun defended the borders of one, albeit moderately large, kingdom. He did not extend it, he did not deal successfully with strange cultures in remote regions, he did not contribute a great culture to the wider world, he did not develop an education system for the millions, as Alexander and his successors did.

11. The first native emperor of India ruled a population comparable to that of China at that time (around 300 BC) and he, Chandragupta, is named after Alexander. Muslims regard Alexander highly. So to dismiss the admiration of Alexander's exploits as a Eurocentric phenomenon is just reverse snobbery.

11. The scope of Alexander's strategy was breath-taking: he proposed, and largely achieved, a universal culture, an educated population of all nations. And he had to achieve this despite trenchant opposition from his Greek compatriots, including Aristotle. The cosmopolitan worldview of today is Alexander's legacy.

12. The Mongols failed in two crucial points: the battle for Africa when they were defeated by the Mamelukes in Egypt; and they failed to conquer a severely weakened Constantinople. Both those bulwarks regarded themselves as heirs of Alexander.

13. Contrary to popular depictions, it wasn't the Mongols who conquered eastern Europe, it was the Turks, who comprised the vast majority of the western "Mongol" armies. Half the Turkish population migrated west from about AD 1000, in a search for the homeland of Alexander. Without the massive assistance of their ancient allies, the Mongols would not have stood a chance of nearly conquering the west as they achieved alone in China.

14. Even the Turks at their greatest strength could not defeat Austria, the fortress nation established by Charlemagne against eastern invaders. So the Mongols would also have failed.

posted 08-02-99 09:33 AM ET         

To respond to a few items...

>>2. He didn't have supply lines thousands of miles long.

No, but he did describe the ways in which armies should deploy depending on the terrain. And Alexander did NOT have a "supply line" the way you seem to infer. Once he left the Hellenistic area, he was living off the land, not deploying a supply line.

>>3. He didn't have to clothe and feed and keep orderly large numbers of philosophers, astronomers, biologists, and other lay people with his army.

This is not ability - it is stupidity and arrogance. If you are serious about fighting a war, you don't carry non-combatants around. You might as well give a general credit for being a strategist because he was able to keep prostitutes around for the morale of his men.

>>4. He had plenty of time after he was retired from the battle front to record his thoughts. Perhaps if we wish to consider strategists on this
basis, we should compare Sun's writings with those of Thucydides and Julius Caesar.

Sun Tzu clearly believed that the best general thinks his way through a situation both before and after a battle - in order to prepare for the future. He also believed the best generals need not fight battles, for he anticipates incipient battles and wins them before they turn into combat.

>>8. When you compare Alexander's territory to China's, which China do you mean? The contemporary 330 BC China that consisted, in total, of a few hundred thousand square miles between the Huang He and Chang Jiang (that's just one province of Alexander's empire)? Or Manchu-occupied China, 2000 years later?

Obviously the Manchu empire was far larger than historical China has been. But simply because Alexander trampled over a piece of ground does not make it part of his empire. Histories of the Macedonian empire inevitably draw a map based on the entire route of march of Alexander as his "empire". But much of the territory beyond Persia doesn't count, since he never conquered it. He merely attacked and sacked a number of cities in the area.

In fact, Alexander's behavior was much like that of Goths and Huns when they attacked the Roman Empire. He did not have the ability to conquer and hold territory, merely to attack and loot. On his way back from India, Alexander's army continued to attack and pillage cities for supplies and treasure, hardly the behavior of a King in his own territory.

>>10. Sun defended the borders of one, albeit moderately large, kingdom. He did not extend it, he did not deal successfully with strange cultures
in remote regions, he did not contribute a great culture to the wider world, he did not develop an education system for the millions, as
Alexander and his successors did.

As I recall, the Macedonian empire was wiped out within a century. And considering there are most likely less than 100,000 people in all the territories he ever conquered, I assume you mean "millions" as in his influence on the Hellenistic world? If that's the argument you'd make, I'd say Confucious has educated billions of people. Obviously not the truth, as Confucious had less than 200 students during his lifetime.

>>The cosmopolitan worldview of today is Alexander's legacy.

Based on WHAT!! That all Greek influence is automatically Alexander's? History seem to recall he wasn't much of a scholar, was a man of quick temper and somewhat drunken. The guy died at 33 and spent most of his time fighting armies.

The greatest contribution Alexander made to the world was a legacy of heroic youth. The Romans revered him for that. But there is no doubt the biggest influence on European history is the Roman Empire, not the Macedonian Empire.

>>13. Contrary to popular depictions, it wasn't the Mongols who conquered eastern Europe, it was the Turks, who comprised the vast majority of
the western "Mongol" armies. Half the Turkish population migrated west from about AD 1000, in a search for the homeland of Alexander.
Without the massive assistance of their ancient allies, the Mongols would not have stood a chance of nearly conquering the west as they
achieved alone in China.

What do you think the Mongol strategy was? After they roll over their first enemies, they demanded tribute in both gold and men. Every land conquered yielded more local troopos, which was thrown into battle as both cannon fodder as well as a way to weaken the people under their rule.

Historians have no doubt it was the Golden Horde under the command of Batu Khan and Subutai Bahadur that ruled over Russia, Novgorod, Bulgaria, and Leningrad. The actual composition of the army is of no consequence, because they were all there as tributaries of the Mongol empire.

And yes, the Mongol empire did not extend to Africa, Near East, or Japan. But the Mongol Empire covered all of Russia, China, India, and much of the area in between. The Macedonia Empire can only be said to consist of Persia, Greece, and Egypt.

posted 08-10-99 09:06 AM ET            

Im not saying that he is _the_ strategist, but i think you would like him...

Tonni