Who was a more competent leader: Adolf Hitler or Julius Caesar?

More competent leader: Hitler or Caesar?

  • Hitler

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Caesar

    Votes: 24 96.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Apr 2018
589
India
#12
Harboring racial prejudices to the point of wasting scarce resources in wiping out an entire nation for nothing doesn't generally count as criterion which makes a leader great, I believe. But other leaders guilty of crimes such as Gengis got away with it because of their pragmatic approach towards warfare and expansionism. Hitler sucked there too.

Ukrainian and Hungarian Jews could have been used as a friendly asset against the Soviets in the Eastern War. However Nazis wouldn't be Nazis if one could expect such flexibility from them.
 
Aug 2016
977
US&A
#13
Harboring racial prejudices to the point of wasting scarce resources in wiping out an entire nation for nothing doesn't generally count as criterion which makes a leader great, I believe. But other leaders guilty of crimes such as Genghis got away with it because of their pragmatic approach towards warfare and expansionism. Hitler sucked there too.

Ukrainian and Hungarian Jews could have been used as a friendly asset against the Soviets in the Eastern War. However Nazis wouldn't be Nazis if one could expect such flexibility from them.
I think Genghis ordered massacres because otherwise the Mongols would've been an incredibly small minority trying to rule over not just vast swathes of land, but massive populations of discontent subjects as well. Essentially, it was a pre-emptive attack on rebellions that hadn't yet occurred. I think they had some racism towards agriculturalists too.

Of course, it also helped encourage many cities to surrender without putting up a fight.

There were lots of Slavic ethnicities and other such people that didn't love Stalin either. Hitler didn't care for them much more than the Jews.
 
Feb 2019
621
Serbia
#15
The OP seems to have a habit for making strange comparisons.... Anyway, Caesar by far. Hitler might've been more skilled in political maneuvering in some cases but that's about it. Caesar was indescribably better as a military commander and strategist and he doesn't have a record of colossal crimes behind him. Save for some events in Gaul which were...unpleasant. I have to ask though: How do you compare them? They lived over a millennia apart in very different environments.
 
Jul 2016
9,347
USA
#18
His goal was subjugation, not extermination.
I know.

But its the new fad for pop history popcasters and writers trying to sell their crap history of Caesar, describing him as murderous as Hitler. They appeal to modern westerners with modern urban sensibilities and crap knowledge of history to contextualize two thousand year old ethics and morality.
 
Apr 2018
589
India
#19
I think Genghis ordered massacres because otherwise the Mongols would've been an incredibly small minority trying to rule over not just vast swathes of land, but massive populations of discontent subjects as well. Essentially, it was a pre-emptive attack on rebellions that hadn't yet occurred. I think they had some racism towards agriculturalists too.

Of course, it also helped encourage many cities to surrender without putting up a fight.

There were lots of Slavic ethnicities and other such people that didn't love Stalin either. Hitler didn't care for them much more than the Jews.
The psychology behind Mongol massacres was quite complex and subject of much debate and much propaganda (some so stupid that even a dead cat of Merv could probably see through it) throughout the ages. However the prime movtivation lied in battlefield pragmatism rather than administrative. First of all sieges eat up perishable resources like anything and Mongols always dreaded that. Hence they made an example of any city that showed slightest sign of resistance. Apart from using fear as a psychological weapon they also used any means necessary to avert sieges namely catapulting cadavers into walled cities, using human shields etc. Also the massacres were not quite outright. Artisans and craftsmen, yound women and children were mostly enslaved and able bodied men were often forcefully drafted into the Mongol Army. Secondly in some cases this motivation was compounded by vengeance. Such as in Merv. Thirdly there was a great deal of sibling rivalry among the sons of Gengis, especially between Jochi and Chaghtai. This often led to a competition as to who was the greater conquerer. I don't really think Mongols had the kind of mindset to plan future administration, not at least back in those days. Cities were simply promised as prizes to Mongol Generals and that's it.

Indeed many cities surrendered and got away with it. But the problem was often compounded by the habit of Mongols to whimsically reneg their promises post surrender. This often led to some cities putting up dogged resistance.

Hitler actually had little or no idea of ground level politics beyond Germany. His greatest blunder was not that he professed racial superiority but that he actually believed in that crap. Nazi racial prejudices ran so deep that in spite of Bandera's kind sending tens of thousands of dirt moppers (sarcasm) and Vlasov's ilk actually fighting for the Germans made no difference.