Who were the best medieval generals and why do they never seem to get as much of the spotlight as the ancients?
Wasn't warfare in the medieval period somewhat smaller scale than the ancient period for most of it? Also less well-recorded.
Because those would probably be why if I'm not mistaken.
>>1173191
Cause they were mostly fighting petty local grude matches with other nobles.
For the exception of Poles, Ruskies, Byzantines, Bulgars and Spaniards keeping back the hordes, and the major sucession wars, most the medieval wars weren't deciding the fates of Europe.
>>1173191
Because the medieval period is not as popular for telling stories of generals. You typically get more fantasy shit.
Besides that the early middle ages were a clusterfuck.
The high middle ages were mostly centered on sieges and strategy rather than battle seeking (John II was a great general but fought no battles, Richard Lionheart fought two or three at most during his entire military career and Phillip August didn't fight many more either).
Late medieval battles are mostly reduced to meme weapons being the cause of victory rather than generalship (i.e. muh longbow, muh gunpowder weapon, muh halberd, muh pike)
>>1173197
Mongol invasions and 100 years war seem to disagree about the scale part.
>>1173230
Saying ''meme'' and ''muh'' does not invalidate the importance of the weapons.
>>1173245
It does not but then again discussing whether a longbow averaged 140 or 150 pounds drawweight or whether a pike was eleven or twelve foot is something I see a lot on some forums and it bothers me.
That said I still believe weapons rarely played the all decisive role some people attribute them. It's just not sexy to attribute a battlefield victory to superior positioning and a good meal or thunderstorm.
>>1173191
So other than Richard, who were some other amazing medieval generals?
>>1173191
Saladin is pretty well known.
>>1173325
Roger, count of Sicily
El Cid
Bertrand de Guesclin
Roger de Lauria
Simon de Montfort
The Black Prince
>>1173347
Saladin is well known but he was a shit military leader. Lost to a terminal 16 year old with a much smaller army, and never fought the Crusaders again unless he had every possible advantage. Still got BTFO by Richard every time.
>>1173363
We don't really know much about el Cid, apart from the legend of course.
On the other hand, Alfonso el Batallador and Jaime I el Conquistador, both kings of Aragon, are good examples of capable, succesful and well documented medieval iberian military leaders. Important mention too to Peter III son of Jaime who defeated a crusade against his lands after being excommunicated.
And all this are kings of Aragon, Castille had also good warrior kings and Portugal is even more amazing. It's founder AlfonsoI of Portugal was a total beast.
>>1173412
I actually thought about Alfonso of Aragon, also his somewhat overshadowed brother Pedro. And there is also Ramon Berenguer III from Barcelona.. Iberian rulers had indeed lots of opportunities to seek conquest and military glory.
>>1173215
Yeah, the decentralized political structure and all that didn't leave a whole lot of room for Alexander-style conquests. Just compare what Henry II (a fucking legend) managed to accomplish against Caesar or Napoleon.
Do early medieval generals count ?
Clovis
Theoderic
Charles Martel
Belisarius
Khalid ibn Al-Walid
What about those guys ?
>>1173511
The Ramon Berengers were in general solid rulers considering they weren't even kings. Maybe except the second who didn't get to rule much since his brother killed him, of course. Sadly this subject is mostly ignored by historians except for some catalan nationalists.
>>1173542
Most are very early, except Charles Martel and maybe Khalid al-Walid they only get into the middle ages thanks to the arbitrary 476 date and would be better placed in a "intermedium" era.
They all deserve recognition so in the end they're welcome.
>>1173363
Simon was a bloody brute, desu
>>1173592
How
>>1173592
To be honest this was mostly Peter being a complete drunk retard, to be honest. He literally said "Hey I'm the king, I'm here, kill me!".
>>1173191
Incoming my 25 list
#25 Alfred the Great. The most Successful War King of England.
#24 Baibars the Mamluk.
#23 Edward the Black Prince. I love reading about this man. He's too much fun
#22 Henry V of England the Plantagenet
#21 Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar AKA El Cid Campeador. Castilian National Hero and well deserved.
#20 Edward of Windsor AKA Edward III Plantagenet
#19 Otto the Great.
>
>
>
fuck you guys he's still a good read to follow
#18 Robert Guiscard. Kicks Byzantium out of Southern Italy and then secures a marriage with Byzantium to secure his rule and potentially heir to the Byzantine throne for his kids.
#17 Charles Martel. Dropping the hammer on Muslims.
#16 Janos Hunyadi. One of the OG Turk Removers
#15 Narses. One of the last Byzantines best Generals under Justinian. Shame he was a eunuch.
#14 Bertrand du Guesclin AKA "The Black Eagle of France." This man was a terror on the battlefield during the 100 years war between France and England
#13 Saladin (Obvious Reasons)
#12 Richard the Lionheart (Again Obvious Reasons)
#11 John 1 Tziminskes. Helped restore much of the Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian Dynasty
#10 Edward "Longshanks" Just read about this fucker it's high octane from start to finish.
#9 Nikephoros II Phokas Partied hard with his nephew John Tzimiskes on restoring the Byzantine Empire.
#8 Charlemagne (Obvious reasons)
#7 Khalid Ibn Al-Walid he is considered one of the main reasons for Muhammad having an extremely successful military force, beating back both Byzantium in its hay day and Sassanid Empire.
#6 Tamerlane for raping Persia and creating a massive empire from nowhere
#5 Jan Zizka one of the most badass Czechs/Bohemians to walk this earth
#4 Heraclius One of the last respectable generals of Byzantium up until the fuck up at Manzikert and left Byzantium in a very solid position when he died.
#3 Flavius Belisarius (Obvious reasons)
#2 Subutai Baghatur. The man who paved the way for Genghis Khan <#1
>>1173733
>#4 Heraclius One of the last respectable generals of Byzantium up until the fuck up at Manzikert and left Byzantium in a very solid position when he died.
Literally lost 2/3 of the empire, what the fuck.
>>1173751
Duel monarchy system and his partner for 8 years was a shit Phocas
>>1173774
Phocas was never his partner, Heraclius was a rebel against Phocas. And Phocas was dead and buried when Heraclius lost 2/3 of his empire for second and final time against the muslims (I didn't even mention the first in my previous post).
>>1173605
>>1173751
624 regians Armenia after which in two great battles he defeated The Great King Khosrau which recovered Anatolia. He did not withdraw his troops back to Constantinople from Khosrau's faint in 626 and pushed further into Persia and in 627 near Nineveh and Arbela. He destroys Khosrau's final effort to kill the Byzantine Empire. The amount of pillage and treasure from the expedition paid off the damages done. If he died shortly after I bet he would have been remembered as one of the best soldier/Emperor since Aurelian.
>>1173806
thats my two cents though
>>1173804
"El rei, heus-el aquí!" is not a beg of mercy like the english translation might imply. On the contrary, it's closer to be a challenge.
He was retarded, not a coward.
>>1173791
You do realize that Theodore Trithyrius was in charge of the armies facing Muhammad while Heraclius was back at Constantinople right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuno_%C3%81lvares_Pereira
>>1173806
>>1173810
<If he died shortly after I bet he would have been remembered as one of the best soldier/Emperor since Aurelian.
I agree and in fact I think he would be compared with Caesar or Belisarius today. It's not what happened, though, he lived and was defeated humiliatingly. Makes you think about other great ruler who died young and might have been defeated if they didn't die, and other not-so-great rulers who would be seen as greater had they died earlier. Khosrau II himself, for starters.
>>1173371
>unless he had every possible advantage.
Sounds like good generalship to me. You hear about plucky generals who go against the odds and get lucky, but for every one of them there are ten who go against the odds and lose, and everyone goes 'the fuck were they even thinking?'.
>>1173733
No Phillip Augustus?
Bertrand du Guesclin and his liege-lord, Charles V, are the only logical answers.
They were among the rare people of the middle ages to understand that pitched battles weren't everything. Du Guesclin managed to conquer back all of the lands taken by Edward III by instead concentrating on besieging castle, using guerilla tactics, keeping a small force instead of a large army, and resorting to dirty tricks. Charles V managed to halt the murderous chevauchées by making the peasants retreat inside great fortifications and destroy anything they couldn't carry, letting the british lay waste on empty fields.
>>1173840
As the ruler of the nation the responsability is still his own.
>>1173239
no. It took napoleon to make an army the size of augustus again.
>>1173825
He was crazy. Literally an...absolute madman
>>1173851
while part of me wants to pass aside that his gains were French on French he is definitely a good contender. These are mostly the 25 that I thought were the most fun to read about
>>1173860
>They were among the rare people of the middle ages to understand that pitched battles weren't everything.
come again? Which other generals form your frame of reference?
>>1173895
He disliked his ugly french wife so much he totally wouldn't fuck her. He was tricked by his court to fuck the wife believing it was some other women while he was drunk.
This way was born his son Jaime who would conquer pretty much everything the aragonese had in Iberia.
>>1173868
It didn't help that both the Sassanid Empire and Byzantium were badly beaten up prior too as well.
Khalid Ibn Al-Walid was a very competent general.
>>1173849
More like competent generalship. And certainly doesn't make him one of the best if he lost regardless of the advantages
>>1173371
that's just testament to how incredible baldwin was
>>1173215
what a retarded and uninformed slavic subhuman post
>>1173733
byzaboos should off themselves. also mongols are highly overrated
>>1173976
I'm basing it against opponents they went up against. When Khalid Ibn Al-Walid took on both Byzantium and Sassanid Empire where nursing huge wounds from the hard fought war between each other. When Heraclius took on the Sassanid Empire, Byzantium not only had to civil war but needed total reorganization and even had to fight the up hill fight against the Sassanids to restore status quo for the two Empires. A devastating 28 year war with a 4 year break is not enough time to recover losses and production efficiency as well as establishment for effective government. When Muhammad with Khalid took on the expansion and Rise of Islam against both Empires they were taking on two people who are just finished with emergency care and are now on their beds in full casts recovering from their wounds. Both Empires were in no condition to fight a new zealous rising threat.
>>1173230
>were mostly centered on sieges and strategy rather than battle seeking
this is a common perception but not actually true. sieges, raids, and pillaging could effectively drain the enemy of revenues and resources to prosecute a war, but inevitably these tactics were used to draw the enemy into battle, which was almost always the decisive factor in solving the outcome of a war. If you take the hundred years war as an example, the english made heavy use of chevauchees or mounted raids to quickly ravage the french countryside, while avoiding protracted sieges. This would wear down the french morale and revenues, but it wouldnt defeat them. To defeat them, the english needed to actually fight them in pitched battles such as crecy, poitiers, and agincourt to destroy their armies and ensure that they had no means of waging war. If there were still armies out in the field, the war couldn't be brought to an acceptable finish for either side
>>1173915
proof ?
>>1173412
Don't forget Nun' Álvares
>>1173733
>#14 Bertrand du Guesclin AKA "The Black Eagle of France." This man was a terror on the battlefield during the 100 years war between France and England
Cringe
>>1174716
yeah seriously. guy barely did shit besides harass the english with some raids
>>1174767
Nah, he was a great strategist and leader and deserving of the hype. However, he wasn't a hella fuckin epic "terror on the battlefield". In fact, he lost every battle he fought in, iirc. He was more like a medieval Fabian.
>>1174770
>a great strategist and leader and deserving of the hype
but none of that was due to him. You're giving credit to du guesclin where it belongs to charles v
>>1174303
The 100 years war is a single war in which only one side actively pursued a battle seeking strategy.
That said Agincourt didn't achieve shit on itself, it was the subsequent siege campaign a year later that saw actual gains.
>>1174770
>In fact, he lost every battle he fought in
Close, he actually won every battle he fought in.
>>1173919
>the badly beaten meme again
They outnumbered Khalid in every battle
Fuck off greekboo
>>1173733
>Janos Hunyadi
my negro. BTFO Turks against the odds and kept them out for 60+ years.
>>1173733
>Heraclius
>Manzikert
????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
Robert I "The Bruce" of Scotland is severely underrated, primarily because of Meme Gibson.
Effective practitioner of guerilla warfare, also won important pitch battles against the odds. Not to mention he was a highly regarded warrior in his own right. Read about his duel (if you can call it that) with the English knight Henry de Bohun.
>>1175728
>Crusade of Varna
>Venice
>Poland
>Hungary
>Croatia
>Bohemia
>Lithuania
>Serbia
>Wallachia
>Moldavia
>Bulgaria
>Holy >Roman >Empire
>Papal States and whoever served under them
>Teutonic Order
vs
>Ottoman Empire
>Result: Decisive Ottoman victory
he's shit tier
>>1174767
>eliminate every anglo commander, capture dozens of grand captains
>won all the pitched battle he commanded
>>1173733
>no mention of Basil II the Bulgarslayer
Edward was 16 when he won Crecy and 26 when he won Poitiers.
At Crecy his men were the hardest pressed by the French, when he sent for reinforcements the request was denied as his father (Edward III) said: "Let the boy win his spurs."
>>1173230
>filename
>>1175659
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Auray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%A1jera
>>1176219
that anon was retarded, he won the battle where he commanded but lost when he was commanded, those two
>>1173191
In the 18th century French proto-nationalists often lamented how educated people were familiar with the great figures of ancient history but could not even mention by name very important French national figures from medieval history. This is a good observation and its not often adressed.
I think its because Roman history is easier to understand than medieval history- in most respects the Roman empire seems closer to modernity in terms of society/people's motivations than the medieval period, with its often confusing historiography.
>>1173230
Phillip August fought the Bouvine battle.
>>1173923
If you consider the political difficulties Saladin had to overcome, he's superior to Richard "Walking Crossbow Target" Lionheart in every sense. Also, he accomplished his objectives while Richard went on to do literally nothing valuable.
>>1175735
>being this dense that I believe Heraclius was at manzikert
I am saying he is one of the last respectable generals. After Manzikert Byzantium didn't have many good generals afterwords.
>>1177119
>who are the Komnenoi
Hell even after the fourth crusade there were some decent ones like John III Vatatzes.
