spendabuck
Banned
If we're going with 500-1500, then I would say Belisarius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius
Best Medieval European Commander?
- Thread starter hasdrubal barca
- Start date
Out of curiosity who do you rate higher Saladin or Baibars?
longsword14
Banned
Subutai though never was a political animal with his work in conquering. Timur Chingis is a better comparision. Do detailed records of battles exist for each? If I had them at hand ( and they were reliable) then comparision between Subutai and Timur could be definitely made. Rating Subutai low because the thrust of Mongol operations was not towards places Timur attacked is not a good basis for criticism.
Comparison could be done only if detailed information were at hand. When you say China, how difficult was it for the Song to be conquered. What was Subutai's contribution.
Another vote for Heraclius, Emperor of the Romans. It is a shame though that he does not get the same attention as others because of what happened after the Sassanid defeat.
Last edited:
In terms of a commander and skill at battle alone, I would say Saladdin, mainly because the main battle for Baibars was Ain Jalut which was also attended by his comrade and exceptionally skilled patrón Qutuz. Saladdin's victories against the crusaders make him the pillar of anti crusader-Muslim generals and rulers.
However in terms of who was the more dangerous and fearsome ruler and political opponent, that goes to Baibars, one of the cruelest and frankly honor less rulers I have read on in Islamic history. This can be seen by his removal of the phenomenal Qutuz.
I'm seconding this. He gets a lot of bonus points for being so innovative. If I remember correctly he invented the Hussite wagon fortresses and also was one of the first to use field artillery in combat.
From 800-1300, you can include some of the Viking jarls that swept through Europe - maybe the leaders of the great heathen army which conquered most of England and ravaged the British Isles - supposedly Ivarr, Halfdan and Ubba Ragnarsson. Richard I was a fine commander as well.
Subutai the Valiant by Richard Gabriel is the best book on the subject. Subutai during the China campaign led a feint attack in Northern China that helped the Mongols breakthrough the Great Wall and later oversaw the capture of Nanking.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XXWFca82UvYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Subotai+the+Valiant&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk9dCXxJPOAhWF1B4KHa-uCM4Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Subotai the Valiant&f=false
I guess we should throw in Frederick II as well. He managed to retake Jerusalem but doesn't get much recognition for it.
By diplomacy,not by the feat of arms,so he's an excellent diplomat.
Agreed. Though I think it still counts on some level, he organized and field a significant army despite Papal and Templar opposition. In effect he scared the Ayyubids into peace, had they not accepted I think he would have been able to conquer Jerusalem anyway. I suppose this shows command ability rather then battlefield skill since they didn't actually fight.
Victorious, valorous, tactically adept in both siege and open warfare and with a masterful grasp of logistics. Strategically aware enough to not try and take Jerusalem when he couldn't hold it. I think he's up there for consideration.
He's a competent commander,but by no means one of the best.The Lombard League gave him a severe beating.
Actually,I think we are all forgetting someone,El Cid,he should be considered as a contender as well.
Philip II I think falls into this category as well, battlefield victory at Bouvines and siege of Chateau Gaillard. Anyone have a preference between Richard and Philip?
Not in my opinion.His army was much better than the Saxons,and I suspect that a major reason he won was due to luck as opposed to his skill as a commander.He's just above average in my opinion.