TheGrayMouser wrote:Hmm, not sure about your definition of inspired.
To be fair to myself, TGM, I am really groping towards an acceptable definition of "inspired". I think in FOG terms we are really talking about military prowess above anything else - and that does mean set-piece battles rather than siege warfare.
On the one hand you cite they must have had a decisive "field battles" but at the same time wouldnt have been "inspired" until after such an event. For example Henry V. I have no doudt he was inspiring prior to Agincourt as he was an experianced warrior by 16, campaigned in Wales and even took an arrow thru the face. Certainly he commanded the respect of his vassals and common soldiers.
Yes, Henry was wounded at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 (the Percy rebellion) where he was in command of the left-wing of the Royal army. I am sure he commanded in that battle very effectively and he fought on even though he had a serious facial wound. But I am not sure that his performance there would have warranted an "inspired" rating if he had fought another major battle, say, in 1405. He did pretty much what any competent commander would have been expected to do at that time.
Actually, you can say Agincourt was less than inspiring as he allowed his army to be dogged and run down and forced to fight where only the power of the defence AND the French less than imaginitive tactics allowed him victory . (OH and MUD helped too)
Yes, I think they are reasonable points - the French seemed to be in complete disarray in terms of their leadership at this time. But to have won that battle despite the dysentry among his troops and the far more numerous opponents ranged against him must have been a great source of inspiration for troops subsequently under his command.
I think depending too much on "field battles" isnt the best aproach, especially in the medieval times where the confidence/charisma and actual prowess of a leader was as least as important vs chesslike manervering of units around.(if it ever was) Also there really arnt a whole lot of pitched battles in the ist place and it neglects the small scale operations / maneveurs /assaults of strong point /castles etc that really charactorized medieval warefare. Richard 1 is know for "field battles" in the Holy land but his defences and offenses in the Vexin are what confirmed he was a great leader.
Hmm . . . I suppose what it means is that there is going to be a relatively small number of "inspired" leaders if "battlefield prowess" is going to be the main consideration. Take Robert the Bruce as another example. He was certainly inspirational to the Scots during their struggle for independence, but he won only one really major battle at Bannockburn in 1314 - and that was against the hapless Edward II. He did win other smaller battles against the English but his achievements seem quite modest in comparison to those of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.
Well, if you rate Henry V just because of Azincourt you can find him not that inspired, since the opposition was rather weak, not only because the French were clumsy and badly commanded, but because they were much less numerous than English and Burgundian sources tell.
IMO inspired should mean to get the most out of your soldiers, and that in medieval times was more personal charm and bravery than manouver abilities.
Henry II
1133-1189, King of England from 1154, victor at Alnwick 1174.
Richard the Lionheart
1157-1199, King of England from 1189, Crusader, defeated rebellions in Aquitaine and Angouleme, victor at Messina 1190, in Cyprus 1191, at Arsuf 1191 and Gisors 1198.
Saladin
1138-1194, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, founder of Ayyubid dynasty, victor at Hattin and siege of Jerusalem both 1187.
Simon de Montfort
1160-1218, leader of Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, victor at Muret 1213.
Genghis Khan
1162-1227, founder of Mongol Empire, conqueror of Western Xia (by 1209) and Jin dynasties (by 1215), Kara-Khitan Khanate (by 1218) and Khwarezmid Empire (by 1221).
Charles of Anjou
1226-1285, King of Sicily from 1266 to 1282, Crusader, victor at Benevento 1266, Tagliacozzo 1268, re-conquest of Albania by 1272.
Robert the Bruce
1274-1329, King of Scotland from 1306, victor at Bannockburn 1314.
Edward, the Black Prince
1330-1376, Prince of Wales, victor at Crecy 1346, Poitiers 1356 and Najera (Spain) 1367.
Bertrand du Guesclin
1320-1380, Breton, Constable of France, defender of Rennes, victor at Monteil (Spain) 1369, Pontvallain 1370, Chize 1373.
Jan Ziska
1360-1424, Hussite (Taborite), military innovator using war wagons as "tanks", unbeaten in battle, at Grunwald-Tannenberg 1410, leader in Bohemian and Hussite civil wars.
Timur (Tamerlane)
1336-1405, founder of Timurid Dynasty, conqueror of Volga Bulgarians, Persians, the Golden Horde, northern India, the Mamluks in Syria, Ottoman Turks in Anatolia, victor at Kondurcha River 1391, Terek River 1395 and Ankara 1402.
Henry V
1386-1422, King of England from 1413, victor at Agincourt 1415.
Owain Glyndwr
(?) 1359-1416 (?), the last Welsh Prince of Wales, superb guerilla leader, leader of the Welsh Revolt 1400-1412, never captured.
Murad II
1404-1451, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1421, military reformer, conqueror of Anatolian Turks and Serbs, victor at Varna 1444 and 2nd Kosovo 1448.
Edward IV
1442-1483, King of England from 1461, victor at Mortimer's Cross 1461, Towton 1461, Barnet 1471 and Tewkesbury 1471.
Aryaman wrote:Well, if you rate Henry V just because of Azincourt you can find him not that inspired, since the opposition was rather weak, not only because the French were clumsy and badly commanded, but because they were much less numerous than English and Burgundian sources tell.
IMO inspired should mean to get the most out of your soldiers, and that in medieval times was more personal charm and bravery than manouver abilities.
Yes, that's the thing - were the soldiers with Henry V at Agincourt inspired by their leader, or did they all think that they were going to die? This is where it is sometimes hard to sort out national myth-making from historical reality. Looking at Henry's military record and comparing it with others on the list then it is not particularly impressive. He pulled off one exceptional victory whereas commanders such as Genghis Khan and Tamerlane built huge empires.
A question for everyone - if you were writing an Agincourt scenario for FOG today how would you rate Henry V? "Inspired" or "Field"?
Btw Henry II is for the chop from that list, I think. Anyone care to defend him?
I would still defend Henry V was an inspired leader in the medieval sense, capable to inspire loyalty and confidence among his men and with authority so no one dicussed his decissions, and those decissions were sensible and worked well, enough for a medieval chieftain.
I would add 2 names to the list from the kingdom of Aragon, Alphonse the Battler and James the Conqueror, I think the names say it all
Aryaman wrote:I would still defend Henry V was an inspired leader in the medieval sense, capable to inspire loyalty and confidence among his men and with authority so no one dicussed his decissions, and those decissions were sensible and worked well, enough for a medieval chieftain.
I would add 2 names to the list from the kingdom of Aragon, Alphonse the Battler and James the Conqueror, I think the names say it all
Yes, Henry V will stay on the list (Henry II will come off). I will add Alfonso I ("the Battler") but not James I of Aragon because he wasn't particularly successful (he did expand the territories of Aragon by conquering Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza and Valencia).
Updated list. I am going to try to get twenty names. Those underlined are suggested for the top ten, those who are not are suggested for positions eleven to twenty. We have sixteen names so far.
Alfonso I of Aragon ("the Battler")
1073-1134, Crusader/"Reconquista", victor at Valtierra 1106, Zaragoza 1118 and Cutanda 1120
Richard I of England ("the Lionheart")
1157-1199, King of England from 1189, Crusader, defeated rebellions in Aquitaine and Angouleme, victor at Messina 1190, in Cyprus 1191, at Arsuf 1191 and Gisors 1198.
Saladin
1138-1194, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, founder of Ayyubid dynasty, victor at Hattin and siege of Jerusalem both 1187.
Simon de Montfort
1160-1218, leader of Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, victor at Muret 1213.
Genghis Khan
1162-1227, founder of Mongol Empire, conqueror of Western Xia (by 1209) and Jin dynasties (by 1215), Kara-Khitan Khanate (by 1218) and Khwarezmid Empire (by 1221).
Baibars
1223-1277, Mamluk, sultan of Egypt from 1260, victor at Ain Jalut 1260, Arsuf 1265, Haifa 1265, Taffa 1268, Antioch 1268, Ashkelon 1270, Elbistan 1277, defeater of Seventh Crusade led by Louis IX.
Charles of Anjou
1226-1285, King of Sicily from 1266 to 1282, Crusader, victor at Benevento 1266, Tagliacozzo 1268, re-conquest of Albania by 1272.
Robert the Bruce
1274-1329, King of Scotland from 1306, victor at Bannockburn 1314.
Edward, the Black Prince
1330-1376, Prince of Wales, victor at Crecy 1346, Poitiers 1356 and Najera (Spain) 1367.
Bertrand du Guesclin
1320-1380, Breton, Constable of France, defender of Rennes, victor at Monteil (Spain) 1369, Pontvallain 1370, Chize 1373.
Jan Ziska
1360-1424, Hussite (Taborite), military innovator using war wagons as "tanks", unbeaten in battle, at Grunwald-Tannenberg 1410, leader in Bohemian and Hussite civil wars.
Timur (Tamerlane)
1336-1405, founder of Timurid Dynasty, conqueror of Volga Bulgarians, Persians, the Golden Horde, northern India, the Mamluks in Syria, Ottoman Turks in Anatolia, victor at Kondurcha River 1391, Terek River 1395 and Ankara 1402.
Henry V
1386-1422, King of England from 1413, victor at Agincourt 1415.
Owain Glyndwr
(?) 1359-1416 (?), the last Welsh Prince of Wales, superb guerilla leader, leader of the Welsh Revolt 1400-1412, never captured.
Murad II
1404-1451, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1421, military reformer, conqueror of Anatolian Turks and Serbs, victor at Varna 1444 and 2nd Kosovo 1448.
Stephen III
1433-1504, Prince of Moldavia, maintained the independence of Moldavia against Poland, Hungary and the Ottomans. Victor at Baia 1467, Lipnic, 1470, Vaslui 1475 and Codrii Cosminului 1497.
Edward IV
1442-1483, King of England from 1461, victor at Mortimer's Cross 1461, Towton 1461, Barnet 1471 and Tewkesbury 1471.
Last edited by stockwellpete on Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Subutai
?1176-1248, Mongol general, conqueror of Kipchaks, Volga Bulgars, Chernigov, Kiev and Vladimir, victor at Kalka River 1223, Leignitz and Mohi, both 1241.
Aryaman wrote:From the Islamic world I would add Muhammad of Ghor and Mamluk Sultan Baibars
I have just looked these two up.
Firstly, Muhammed of Ghor - I don't think he will make the top twenty as his military record seems to be a bit mixed. His potted biographical details are 1150-1206, Sultan of Ghor (in Afghanistan) from 1202, victor at Ghazna 1173, Multan 1175, Uch 1175, 2nd battle of Tarain 1192, conqueror of Lahore 1186 and the Ghaznavid Empire. I think he might make a top thirty if I was doing one though.
Secondly, Baibars, Mamluk Sultan of Egypt in the 13thC - yes, most definitely, I will add him to the list, thanks.
Another one for the top 20 is Nur ad-Din Zangi, 118-1174, ruler of Syria from 1146, victor at Bosra 1147, Inab 1149, Banias 1157, Harim 1164, Banias (again) 1164, defeater of 2nd Crusade led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, conqueror of Egypt (by 1169).
I have found someone better than pantherboy!! According to Wikipedia he won 46 out of his 48 battles (an incedible number to have participated in, if true).
It is Stephen III, Prince of Moldavia, 1433-1504, maintained the independence of Moldavia against the predatory instincts of much larger states such as Poland, Hungary and the Ottomans. Victor at Baia 1467, Lipnic, 1470, Vaslui 1475 and Codrii Cosminului 1497.
I would like to second the nominations of:
Jan Žižka z Trocnova
Saladin
Tamerlan (aka Timur)
Genghis Khan
Robert Bruce
I nominate these new candidates: Bolesław III Piast, aka Bolesław the Wrymouth Prince of Poland 1102-1138, conquered Pomerania, won a war against the German Empire and the Princedom of Bohemia by decisevly defeating the much larger army of Emperor Heinrich V in the battles of Hunsfeld and Głogów.
Minamoto no Yoshinaka - Architect of the decisive battle at Kurikara Pass which brought about the Minamoto victory in their war against the Taira clan.
Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy aka Dimytry I - Grand Prince of Moscow 1359-1389, victor of the battle of Kulikovo - the historic first victory of Russian arms against the Mongol occupants.
Manente degli Uberti, aka Farinata degli Uberti - Ghibeline General, architect of the battle of Montaperti, which led to the demise of the Florentine force that was roughly two times larger than his own.
It is Stephen III, Prince of Moldavia, 1433-1504, maintained the independence of Moldavia against the predatory instincts of much larger states such as Poland
With all due respect to Stephen III, its not like Poland made any serious attempts to control Moldavia or any of the multan states back in the 15th century (16th century was a different story). Not to say that Stephen does not belong in this list mind you, just that the danger from Poland was illusory.
Ardaeshir wrote:With all due respect to Stephen III, its not like Poland made any serious attempts to control Moldavia or any of the multan states back in the 15th century (16th century was a different story). Not to say that Stephen does not belong in this list mind you, just that the danger from Poland was illusory.
Hmm . . . I would have said this was quite a serious attempt myself.
One leader I would erase from the list for sure was Simon de Montfort
His achievements are greatly exagerated by the available eyewitness sources, all but one crusaders themselves.
If we discount partisan laudes, what we have is not much. He was elected leader of the crusade because other more important noblemen rejected the nomination before. He did manage to keep together the succesive armies of crusaders that arrived in the following years, using them for his personal advancement, and that shows he enjoyed authority and prestige for a while, but his military achievements are limited.
1) He too a number of castles anf fortified cities, however all those succesful sieges were conducted at leisure, without interference of any relief force.
2) He won a victory at Muret against an army the was probably outnumbered and certainly outclassed.
Those achievements show he was a competent leader that made goos use of favourable odds, however in the last years he showed a remarkable incompetence. At the countersiege of Beaucaire and later at Toulouse, where he was finally killed, he launched about a dozen clumsy frontal assaults that failed one after the other, despite counsel on the contrary and mounting opposition from his captains. In the end his military reputation was sinking as fast as the dominion he built in Occitania.
In fairness, his opponent the count of Foix should be ranked higher, with much smaller resources he defeated crusader armies twice and held his own against all the succesive crusades and french invasions.
Ardaeshir wrote:With all due respect to Stephen III, its not like Poland made any serious attempts to control Moldavia or any of the multan states back in the 15th century (16th century was a different story). Not to say that Stephen does not belong in this list mind you, just that the danger from Poland was illusory.
Hmm . . . I would have said this was quite a serious attempt myself.
Hardly an attempt to annex Moldavia.
The polish forces were raised as a result of the 1494 Levoča conference, during which Stephen III himself asked the poles and hungarians to come and help them fight the Turks togeather. When the polish forces in 1497 arrived in Moldavia, Stephen initially welcomed them. However in some pretty murky circumstances that remain unclear to this day, Stephen swiched sides and attaked the Polish army with the help of Turkish and Tatar reinforcements.
So while this campaign is a part of wider Turkish-European conflict of the period, it does not seem to be an attempt to annex Moldavia. Moldavia was a vassal of the Polish Kingdom since 1387 (which Stephen III confirmed and reaffirmed in 1485) and it seems that the poles were happy with this situation and had no intentions of annexing neither parts nor whole Moldavia (as long as it stayed outside Turkish control).
The whole conflict (and some later 16th century conflicts in this area as well) was about the expanding Turkish sphere of influence as well as regional Hungarian and Polish interests. Moldavia, as well as its neighbours - Wallachia and Sibenburgen, had the unfortunate role of "small buffer states" between the great powers. Stephen III understood that - during his reign he pledged his allegiance at leats once to Hungary, Poland and two times to Turkey (which didn't help him much as the Turks poisoned him anyway). These were pretty turbulent times for the Balkans, but there is no evidence of Poland trying to annex Moldavia or seeking anything other than having it remain a vassal outside of Turkish influence.
Aryaman wrote:One leader I would erase from the list for sure was Simon de Montfort (...) he was a competent leader that made goos use of favourable odds, however in the last years he showed a remarkable incompetence. At the countersiege of Beaucaire and later at Toulouse, where he was finally killed, he launched about a dozen clumsy frontal assaults that failed one after the other, despite counsel on the contrary and mounting opposition from his captains. In the end his military reputation was sinking as fast as the dominion he built in Occitania.
In fairness, his opponent the count of Foix should be ranked higher, with much smaller resources he defeated crusader armies twice and held his own against all the succesive crusades and french invasions.
I agree with the statement. In all, I don't think the French crusade featured any really remarkable leader.
This is the bit of the Wikipedia article I was going by. Obviously you need to have two or three corroborative sources before you can fully be sure of something, so this text may not be correct . . .
"After the Moldavian loss of Chilia and Cetatea Albă, the Ottoman threat seemed more evident. John Albert was suzerain of Moldavia, and, when Ştefan asked him for military assistance, they met, in 1494 at the conference of Levoča, where together with King Ladislaus II of Hungary and Elector Johann Cicero of Brandenburg, they forged plans for an expedition against the Porte. The objective was to recapture Chilia and Cetatea Albă. However, in unexplained circumstances, Ştefan received reports from Hungary that John Albert prepared to place his own brother, the Polish prince Sigismund (later king, as Sigismund I the Old), on the Moldavian throne."
So according to this, the Hungarians "tipped off" Stefan about Polish intentions. True or false? Who can say?
Ardaeshir wrote: I nominate these new candidates: Bolesław III Piast, aka Bolesław the Wrymouth Prince of Poland 1102-1138, conquered Pomerania, won a war against the German Empire and the Princedom of Bohemia by decisevly defeating the much larger army of Emperor Heinrich V in the battles of Hunsfeld and Głogów.
Minamoto no Yoshinaka - Architect of the decisive battle at Kurikara Pass which brought about the Minamoto victory in their war against the Taira clan.
Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy aka Dimytry I - Grand Prince of Moscow 1359-1389, victor of the battle of Kulikovo - the historic first victory of Russian arms against the Mongol occupants.
Manente degli Uberti, aka Farinata degli Uberti - Ghibeline General, architect of the battle of Montaperti, which led to the demise of the Florentine force that was roughly two times larger than his own.
Right, I have had a look at these four candidates - Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy and Bolesław the Wrymouth are definitely in the top twenty or so and I will add them to the list the next time that I update it. The other two have not made it into my list.
