European Genghis Khan

Well, the American one had been tried and Asiatic one really existed ....

1. The simplest option: Nappy with Genghis' abilities. While Genghis was arguably not as great field commander as Nappy, he was definitely well ahead in the terms of:
(a) Understanding the need of the subordinates capable of winning on their own.
(b) Understanding that "soldiers and horses need food and rest" while Nappy has to be reminded that "the horses don't have a sense of patriotism and should not be left starving".
(c) Importance of the communications - while for the Napoleonic armies communications even within few miles had been a big problem, Subotai at Mohi presumably got news about victory at Legnica (4/9), 450 km away, within couple days (4/10) and this was not something unusual.
(d) Understanding importance of the trade routes and ability to communicate it (it seems that Nappy never bothered to communicate the potential advantages of the Continental System to the subordinated rulers or at least did not do so successfully).

So how about Nappy being more like Genghis?

2. How about one of the earlier European big names capable of unifying the big resources along Genghis' lines? Charlemagne, Louis XIV, some Polish of Russian ruler (prior to the XVIII century)? Each of them had to posses a meaningful power base and capacities/talent to develop it into something much greater along the G's organizational lines.
 
So I missed the Americas, but I think you may want to be more specific on what you mean by "a Genghis Khan".

The Dynamics, good and bad, of the Mongol Empire were super unique. Dominating the crossroads of civilizations, having a mobile court (initially) and steppes politics in general created a very unique organisation. If you are just looking for a big conqueror, you might want to point towards Alexander the Great
 
So I missed the Americas, but I think you may want to be more specific on what you mean by "a Genghis Khan".

The Dynamics, good and bad, of the Mongol Empire were super unique. Dominating the crossroads of civilizations, having a mobile court (initially) and steppes politics in general created a very unique organisation. If you are just looking for a big conqueror, you might want to point towards Alexander the Great

Well, I was quite specific (at least I thought so :teary:). I was talking about the personal qualities and realistic framework in which these qualities could be exploited to a full potential. Preferably, we should consider some real life candidate. Of course, scope of the conquests, type of the army, form and shape of the resulting state are subjects to the discussion for each plausible candidate
 
I posited a scenario about Sviatoslav of Kiev some months ago. The guy managed to double, perhaps even triple, the size of his realm IOTL after conquering the Khazar Khanate, and he even planned to conquer Constantinople after vassalizing the Bulgarians. I think having him do better (or at least not having his empire fall to civil war after his premature death) would be a good starting point.
 
Last edited:
Well, the American one had been tried and Asiatic one really existed ....

1. The simplest option: Nappy with Genghis' abilities. While Genghis was arguably not as great field commander as Nappy, he was definitely well ahead in the terms of:
(a) Understanding the need of the subordinates capable of winning on their own.
(b) Understanding that "soldiers and horses need food and rest" while Nappy has to be reminded that "the horses don't have a sense of patriotism and should not be left starving".
(c) Importance of the communications - while for the Napoleonic armies communications even within few miles had been a big problem, Subotai at Mohi presumably got news about victory at Legnica (4/9), 450 km away, within couple days (4/10) and this was not something unusual.
(d) Understanding importance of the trade routes and ability to communicate it (it seems that Nappy never bothered to communicate the potential advantages of the Continental System to the subordinated rulers or at least did not do so successfully).

So how about Nappy being more like Genghis?

2. How about one of the earlier European big names capable of unifying the big resources along Genghis' lines? Charlemagne, Louis XIV, some Polish of Russian ruler (prior to the XVIII century)? Each of them had to posses a meaningful power base and capacities/talent to develop it into something much greater along the G's organizational lines.
With 18th and early 19th century technology, Napoleon Bonaparte probably did the best he could in this respect. The supply situation was more complicated in the Napoleonic era. If Napoleon had gone for a more mobile force like the Mongols, then supplying powder and shot for muskets and artillery, repairing muskets, etc. would have been more costly.

However, Attila the Hun is an obvious candidate for European Genghis Khan.
 
With 18th and early 19th century technology, Napoleon Bonaparte probably did the best he could in this respect. The supply situation was more complicated in the Napoleonic era. If Napoleon had gone for a more mobile force like the Mongols, then supplying powder and shot for muskets and artillery, repairing muskets, etc. would have been more costly.

I'm afraid that you are missing the point. It was not about converting Napoleonic armies into the Mongolian armies of the XII - XIII century. It is about Napoleonic military (and not only) system not having some well-known fundamental problems, which heavily contributed to its eventual defeat.

Armies of Genghis Khan had been successfully fighting in the CA and China simultaneously against the big numeric odds. OTOH, Napoleon could not leave the theater without a following disaster: look at the Peninsula War. Genghis "created" quite a few great commanders capable of acting independently on strategic level. Napoleon had just two marshals capable of independent action on operational level. Napoleonic system required his personal attention to the issues of logistics, supplies and elementary organization: in 1812 only Davout bothered with a proper organization of baggage train of his corps on the way out of Moscow, everybody else expected Napoleon's order to perform what was their duty. Napoleon never reprimanded general for the losses as long as he was victorious. In the Mongolian army a lot of care had been taken to minimize the losses. And the list is going on.
 
I posited a scenario about Sviatoslav of Kiev some months ago. The guy managed to double, perhaps even triple, the size of his realm IOTL after conquering the Khazar Khanate, and he even planned to conquer Constantinople after vassalizing the Bulgarians. I think having him do better (or at least not having his empire fall to civil war after his premature death) would be a good starting point.

Well, he destroyed the Kaganate (as in looted) which is not exactly the same as "conquered" and it seems that while he was fighting in Bulgaria he was more or less squeezed out of Kiev (circumstances of his death are very suspicious).
 
At least he understood that an army marches on its stomach.

The omitted part of the quotation was about one of Genghis' generals who was famous for being tireless and energetic. Genghis said that he could not be further promoted because he treats his subordinates based upon his own abilities and not those of an average person. Under Nappy this general would keep advancing in rank. Nappy's troops had been routinely starving and treatment of the horses had been abysmal: the troops simply were not interested in learning how to take a proper care of them and they were dying in thousands.
 
Maybe an early Magyar Genghis? Instead of being pushed out by other steppe peoples, they counquer/unite them all and go west? The feudal system in Western Europe didn't really allow for extended campaigns of conquest, but the steppe people had no such issue. You can have a nice OTL analogue of the Mongols conquest of China by having them take Constantinople or Rome.
 
Top