Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2017, 12:36 PM   #11

Foundry's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: India
Posts: 118

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Raidius View Post
Subutai, a Mongol general under Genghis Khan, won sixty-five pitched battles, divided among twenty separate campaigns that conquered thirty-two entire nations.
I doubt this, raids are also being taken as battles i think.
Foundry is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 2nd, 2017, 12:53 PM   #12

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 16,339
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
Von Manstein, Guderian and Von Rundstedt each fought on for years during the Second world war.
Von Hindenburg, Ludendorff and Von Falkenhayn all fought from 1914 to 1918 as well.
I guess all them (plus many I do not remember) may qualify for the thread.

P.S. The pharaon whom Alpiniluke mentions is probably Thutmosis III.
I've used the spelling "Thutmose III". He run 17 military campaigns in 20 years conquering about 350 cities.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 01:01 PM   #13

Domnall Ballach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 2

Conn of the Hundred Battles (admittedly lowering the historicity bar a little...).
Domnall Ballach is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 02:12 PM   #14

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,801
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foundry View Post
For Khalid i count 35 pitched battles and sieges taken together.
Me too! If we count all operations and raids it would probably be like 50 or 60 total.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Raidius View Post
Subutai, a Mongol general under Genghis Khan, won sixty-five pitched battles, divided among twenty separate campaigns that conquered thirty-two entire nations.
I have an extremely hard time believing this. Unless we consider tribes to be nations.

Maybe Subutai took part in 60 operations if we include those as a subordinate to Genghis and other generals. But commanding battles and campaigns on his own... meh.
I think many of the misconceptions about Subutai come from Richard Gabriel, not that I have anything against the guy but as one of the only books about Subutai his provides the source of understanding about this general in the west.

Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; January 2nd, 2017 at 02:18 PM.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 03:09 PM   #15

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 1,321

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
We should first decide why it matters how many battles Napoleon fought. Most of Napoleon's battles lasted only one day. Sixty days of combat over the course of 25 years is nothing compared to the accumulated combat totals of 20th century soliders. The Battle of the Somme by itself lasted six months. There are many other single battles that lasted more than 60 days.

One reason (among many) offered for Napoleon's poor performance at Waterloo is that after 25 years of war, his health was broken. If we're only counting the number of battles, that wouldn't seem to account for his broken health.
It's 25 years of campaigning. Battles usually only lasted a day (some 2 or 3) but campaigns could last years. 25 years of mental and physical strain took its toll.

And while the Somme lasted 6 months most units were rotated out and not in combat for the whole period. For the British it was 4 days frontline, 4 days reserve and 4 days rest.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 03:52 PM   #16
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: USA
Posts: 735

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
It's 25 years of campaigning. Battles usually only lasted a day (some 2 or 3) but campaigns could last years. 25 years of mental and physical strain took its toll.
Exactly my point. Why count battles if it's the whole campaign that causes wear and tear?

How do we compare Napoleon's 60 battles to those of a more modern soldier?
Chlodio is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 04:10 PM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 1,599

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
It's 25 years of campaigning. Battles usually only lasted a day (some 2 or 3) but campaigns could last years. 25 years of mental and physical strain took its toll.

And while the Somme lasted 6 months most units were rotated out and not in combat for the whole period. For the British it was 4 days frontline, 4 days reserve and 4 days rest.
Napoleon was not campaigning for 25 years, he was having years in between campaigns.
macon is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 04:26 PM   #18

markdienekes's Avatar
Priest of Baʿal Hammon
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Oxford
Posts: 4,611
Blog Entries: 15

Hannibal fought about thirty, so he isnt close, but Caesar I read around fifty odd.

Last edited by markdienekes; January 2nd, 2017 at 04:31 PM.
markdienekes is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 08:39 PM   #19

Darth Raidius's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Kingdom of Sweden
Posts: 518

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foundry View Post
I doubt this, raids are also being taken as battles i think.
If a raid is resisted, resulting in an armed clash between both parties, it is per definition a "battle". I never said all of Subutai's battles were big or even relevant from a greater perspective. The same can be said for all commanders with a high battle count, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
Me too! If we count all operations and raids it would probably be like 50 or 60 total.

I have an extremely hard time believing this. Unless we consider tribes to be nations.

Maybe Subutai took part in 60 operations if we include those as a subordinate to Genghis and other generals. But commanding battles and campaigns on his own... meh.
I think many of the misconceptions about Subutai come from Richard Gabriel, not that I have anything against the guy but as one of the only books about Subutai his provides the source of understanding about this general in the west.
I prefer not to treat "tribes" and "nations" differently throughout history, just as I do not separate "barbarians" from "civilizations". Such definitions are simply too vague - not to mention discriminatory - in my opinion. Is there any universally accepted means of defining the difference?

I agree that he likely fought under Genghis Khan in many of those battles. However, we must never presume that holding a subordinate command is in any way a discredit to a person's competence or military achievements. Many of the commanders under Alexander the Great, Karl XII or Napoleon I were exceptionally brilliant and often crucial for their monarch's success on the battlefield - some were said to rival or even surpass their "superiors". The same can be said for Subutai. While he is certainly overrated by many, I do consider him to be one of the most capable commanders of the medieval era - not that I wish to overlook the achievements of other Mongol generals, and of course not Genghis Khan himself.
Darth Raidius is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 08:53 PM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
We should first decide why it matters how many battles Napoleon fought. Most of Napoleon's battles lasted only one day. Sixty days of combat over the course of 25 years is nothing compared to the accumulated combat totals of 20th century soliders. The Battle of the Somme by itself lasted six months. There are many other single battles that lasted more than 60 days.

One reason (among many) offered for Napoleon's poor performance at Waterloo is that after 25 years of war, his health was broken. If we're only counting the number of battles, that wouldn't seem to account for his broken health.
Napoleon's health problems were self inflicted. He liked keeping a good table. (hardly on his own in these regard in tis period)

Why is that when Napoleon loses there always an excuse. Blucher had a stroke (unfortunately when he had Napoleon on toast in 1814), was occasionally quite insane, was a very old man, Still leads a cavalry charge Ligny.
pugsville is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, close, fought, napoelon, pitched, terms



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Battles fought between 3 or more parties Darth Raidius War and Military History 32 January 12th, 2017 02:34 AM
before guns how many battles would be fought hand to hand mangatd War and Military History 23 September 5th, 2014 08:13 AM
General who won the most pitched battles? christos200 War and Military History 7 September 5th, 2013 09:01 AM
The importance of pitched battles Darth Roach War and Military History 11 December 27th, 2012 09:11 PM
How were night battles fought HistoryFreak1912 General History 10 February 14th, 2011 05:47 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.