alternatehistory.com

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.
Top