@@nearly_epic Well that's only true if you consider Caesar's legacy to end with Nero, but most people would consider the entirety of the Roman Empire to be his legacy.
@@MrTerry I say he’s up there with the best. He was no slouch militarily (two losses after decades of battles is a pretty good record, all things considered) and what weaknesses he has is more than overshadowed by his capabilities in organization, innovation, ruling and nation-building.
I wouldn't say he was mid, but he was definitely less glamorous than Conquers, simple, brutally practical, and excellent at assimilation. You should check out his video on the end of the golden age of Islam and what led to the collapse of Abbasid empire
How is he less glamorous though? Didn't get the claim that he was a C tier general at all. Because he lost some battles before he got rolling? He didn't start with the intense education and massive armies of your Alexander the Greats. Because walls stopped him? Heck, I can only see this as a win. Guy took to siege warfare like a duck to water with surprising speed. The premise of this video was weird.
Tbf to Genghis, his military career spanned DECADES. Having only two losses in that time is not that bad, all things considered. Alexander was undefeated but he croaked after a decade. Who knows what would’ve happened to that record had he lived longer. Also, Genghis was FAR more effective as a RULER than most conquerors. And he was still more than capable as a military leader.
I think Genghis Khan had to be a pretty capable commander, especially in the early years where there isn't many first hand sources. I can't imagine that he would have garnered the following he did without being seen as one of the best among the Mongols. But I also think that guys like Caesar, Alexander and even Napoleon were more "hands on" with their military command when they went on big conquests. Alexander was known for doing a couple of crazy charges right at the enemy. That being said, Genghis Khan was really good at spotting talent and potential and as a result he cultivated a lot of very capable generals he could use under his command. That is also a demonstration of good military leadership. So Khan is definitely not a C-tier general.
I know I’m being that guy lol. The thing is that the Abbasid’s had reasserted their independence from the Seljuk and Zengid empires the century prior and basically were slowly rebuilding their power. Sure they were a decent regional power at the time but they were nowhere near their previous height and territory when they took over from the Ummayyads and they were arguably much weaker than the Kharmarzians at the time. Maybe if they had a few more decades to rebuild and expand they would be able to be a challenge but they had no shot against the mongols in their state.
As a Mongolian I can confirm he was not the best in terms of pure combat commanding skills. His generals were a big part of his successful conquest. He himself often gave high praises to his generals. It's all written in the "Secret History of Mongol"
To be fair to Genghis in terms of the longevity of his empire when compared to Alexander, Alexander's splintered basically as soon as he died, whereas the Mongols didn't splinter until the death of Möngke Khan three khans after Genghis. That is both a significantly longer period of unity, though admittedly not nearly as long as other empires, but more importantly is much more difficult to blame on Genghis personally with more of the blame falling on his successors and successors successors to the extent that any individual can be blamed. Also if we look at the longevity of successor kingdoms as well, the Hellenistic period lasted for roughly 300 years between the death of Alexander and the fall of the last of his successor kingdoms, while Genghis had descendants ruling over parts of his empire until the 20th century, a period of roughly 700 years or over twice as long of the Hellenistic period. Overall while there's certainly some nuance to the topic, I don't think it's remotely unfair to consider Alexander the better general, but Genghis Khan the superior empire builder and administrator between the two.
The starting point was the hard part for genghis, but let's be honest, Most part of the world he conquered had nothing valuable or maybe other tribal to be assimilated (easy win), and when you win a lot against tribe and assimilate them, you have like a huge domino's effect that you can work with, but when come the real challenge, he lose a lot. that my point of view of course
I disliked the framing of this video. The only way the title seemed to make sense was if one was claiming the fact Genghis Khan didn't unite the steppes without losses made him less of a general. It would be like saying Alexander the Great didn't keep his 4.0 under Aristotle's tutelage so he was less of a man. To me, the early difficulties Temujin faced only added to his legacy. As a biography and for humor, it's fine though. Just seems weird as hell to take a guy's brilliance in one category and say that must mean he was mid in another. Understandable that, from a viewer's perspective, the limited amount of attention people have would make focus on one detract from the other. But it's nuts to encourage that misconception.
The DNA rumour pertaining to Genghis Khan having lots of children is false. That DNA belonged to the region of the world, and the people that he came from. And so the Mongols had a lot of children, not specifically Genghis Khan.
Alright I am already seeing a problem with the standard the original creator is using. He is comparing generals from established powers to a guy who created everything pretty much from scratch. That ups the difficulty level. It’s like going from hardcore to nightmare mode or even starting out on normal mode. Genghis’s empire was based on meritocracy and loyalty. Time and time again they picked up new technologies and tactics to deal with new situations. Whether you called yourself a Mongol, a Hun or something else, you were using the same tactics as Genghis which were so effective you didn’t need to change them for hundreds of years. That’s damn impressive. Let’s not forget Genghis was so effective he not only defeated empires, he also died an old man not by the sword but by natural causes. Genghis created a legacy that outlasted him and his descendants built off of. Rome’s tactics were not fundamentally changed by Julius Caesar. Alexander the Great also took something he already had and used it with expertise. They both had teachers and others to carefully guide them. Alexander left no surviving descendants after him and his empire immediately crumbled. Genghis lost his father, grew up as a nomad, built himself up from practically nothing. He didn’t have short cuts. He had to figure how to build a national army and become a leader of an empire when his people at best never thought they could achieve such things before he came along. They only had loose alliances that could end with a single action or the death of a leader.
Still waiting for the reaction the Honjo Masamune doco I requested, but I guess since it is Japanese and not main stream history taught in school, you don’t care about it. That is a shame, cuz it is an important part of Japanese and likely American history. And you could help in the finding of it and be a huge part of history because of what you do. You could help get the word out. Too bad I guess. My favourite piece of history doesn’t mean much to others. Except for all of Japan.
Where does Genghis Khan rank with the greatest military leaders of all time?
One of the best of all time. Unlike Alexander or Caesar, he legacy was intact for at least a few generations
@@nearly_epic Well that's only true if you consider Caesar's legacy to end with Nero, but most people would consider the entirety of the Roman Empire to be his legacy.
@David-sl6xf Augustus was the one who founded the Empire, not Ceasar.
mongol only dominated flat forestless/jungleless lands
@@MrTerry I say he’s up there with the best. He was no slouch militarily (two losses after decades of battles is a pretty good record, all things considered) and what weaknesses he has is more than overshadowed by his capabilities in organization, innovation, ruling and nation-building.
Genghis Khan looked like he was on a speedrun when he was on his conquests 😂
but is he better than Napoléon? mabye
I wouldn't say he was mid, but he was definitely less glamorous than Conquers, simple, brutally practical, and excellent at assimilation. You should check out his video on the end of the golden age of Islam and what led to the collapse of Abbasid empire
How is he less glamorous though? Didn't get the claim that he was a C tier general at all. Because he lost some battles before he got rolling? He didn't start with the intense education and massive armies of your Alexander the Greats. Because walls stopped him? Heck, I can only see this as a win. Guy took to siege warfare like a duck to water with surprising speed. The premise of this video was weird.
Tbf to Genghis, his military career spanned DECADES. Having only two losses in that time is not that bad, all things considered.
Alexander was undefeated but he croaked after a decade. Who knows what would’ve happened to that record had he lived longer.
Also, Genghis was FAR more effective as a RULER than most conquerors. And he was still more than capable as a military leader.
I think Genghis Khan had to be a pretty capable commander, especially in the early years where there isn't many first hand sources. I can't imagine that he would have garnered the following he did without being seen as one of the best among the Mongols. But I also think that guys like Caesar, Alexander and even Napoleon were more "hands on" with their military command when they went on big conquests. Alexander was known for doing a couple of crazy charges right at the enemy. That being said, Genghis Khan was really good at spotting talent and potential and as a result he cultivated a lot of very capable generals he could use under his command. That is also a demonstration of good military leadership. So Khan is definitely not a C-tier general.
They had to have a likemindedness synchronicity of interdependencies. 18:39
I know I’m being that guy lol. The thing is that the Abbasid’s had reasserted their independence from the Seljuk and Zengid empires the century prior and basically were slowly rebuilding their power. Sure they were a decent regional power at the time but they were nowhere near their previous height and territory when they took over from the Ummayyads and they were arguably much weaker than the Kharmarzians at the time. Maybe if they had a few more decades to rebuild and expand they would be able to be a challenge but they had no shot against the mongols in their state.
As a Mongolian I can confirm he was not the best in terms of pure combat commanding skills. His generals were a big part of his successful conquest. He himself often gave high praises to his generals. It's all written in the "Secret History of Mongol"
Also, a little thing he missed, is that Temujin lost to Jamukha initially but won the rematch. He didn't send Jamukha blasting off right away.
why is it secret? what are you guy's hiding from us?
To be fair to Genghis in terms of the longevity of his empire when compared to Alexander, Alexander's splintered basically as soon as he died, whereas the Mongols didn't splinter until the death of Möngke Khan three khans after Genghis. That is both a significantly longer period of unity, though admittedly not nearly as long as other empires, but more importantly is much more difficult to blame on Genghis personally with more of the blame falling on his successors and successors successors to the extent that any individual can be blamed. Also if we look at the longevity of successor kingdoms as well, the Hellenistic period lasted for roughly 300 years between the death of Alexander and the fall of the last of his successor kingdoms, while Genghis had descendants ruling over parts of his empire until the 20th century, a period of roughly 700 years or over twice as long of the Hellenistic period. Overall while there's certainly some nuance to the topic, I don't think it's remotely unfair to consider Alexander the better general, but Genghis Khan the superior empire builder and administrator between the two.
Tooril Khaan of Khereid and Temujin both pledged militarily for Altan uls ( Lurched), after he lost for Jamukh. That is the missing 10 years, I think.
KHAAAAAAAAN
Wrath of Khan😂
Any military leader's career will have its ups and downs. Its Genghis pros and Genghis cons, if you will.
The starting point was the hard part for genghis, but let's be honest, Most part of the world he conquered had nothing valuable or maybe other tribal to be assimilated (easy win), and when you win a lot against tribe and assimilate them, you have like a huge domino's effect that you can work with, but when come the real challenge, he lose a lot. that my point of view of course
As a World History teacher, I taught this a couple of chapters ago. I wish this video was made before I taught about this topic.
Isnt jin the final kingdom at the tail end of the 3 kingdoms era?
You're lookin a little blazey there buddy, like maybe you wanna discuss the history of the hindu kush mountains lol
I disliked the framing of this video. The only way the title seemed to make sense was if one was claiming the fact Genghis Khan didn't unite the steppes without losses made him less of a general. It would be like saying Alexander the Great didn't keep his 4.0 under Aristotle's tutelage so he was less of a man. To me, the early difficulties Temujin faced only added to his legacy.
As a biography and for humor, it's fine though. Just seems weird as hell to take a guy's brilliance in one category and say that must mean he was mid in another. Understandable that, from a viewer's perspective, the limited amount of attention people have would make focus on one detract from the other. But it's nuts to encourage that misconception.
21 min ago is crazy
@historyeditsofficial so is 10 hours ago if you're a member
😊
Ghengis Khan? Heck, it was just John Wayne in bad makeup and bad acting in an equally bad film!😂😂😂
The DNA rumour pertaining to Genghis Khan having lots of children is false. That DNA belonged to the region of the world, and the people that he came from. And so the Mongols had a lot of children, not specifically Genghis Khan.
Alright I am already seeing a problem with the standard the original creator is using. He is comparing generals from established powers to a guy who created everything pretty much from scratch. That ups the difficulty level. It’s like going from hardcore to nightmare mode or even starting out on normal mode. Genghis’s empire was based on meritocracy and loyalty. Time and time again they picked up new technologies and tactics to deal with new situations. Whether you called yourself a Mongol, a Hun or something else, you were using the same tactics as Genghis which were so effective you didn’t need to change them for hundreds of years. That’s damn impressive. Let’s not forget Genghis was so effective he not only defeated empires, he also died an old man not by the sword but by natural causes. Genghis created a legacy that outlasted him and his descendants built off of. Rome’s tactics were not fundamentally changed by Julius Caesar. Alexander the Great also took something he already had and used it with expertise. They both had teachers and others to carefully guide them. Alexander left no surviving descendants after him and his empire immediately crumbled. Genghis lost his father, grew up as a nomad, built himself up from practically nothing. He didn’t have short cuts. He had to figure how to build a national army and become a leader of an empire when his people at best never thought they could achieve such things before he came along. They only had loose alliances that could end with a single action or the death of a leader.
Genghis Khan mid
How dare you
Still waiting for the reaction the Honjo Masamune doco I requested, but I guess since it is Japanese and not main stream history taught in school, you don’t care about it. That is a shame, cuz it is an important part of Japanese and likely American history. And you could help in the finding of it and be a huge part of history because of what you do. You could help get the word out. Too bad I guess. My favourite piece of history doesn’t mean much to others. Except for all of Japan.
lol really weird comment
the entitlement...