dude, why is everyone voting again? one man one vote. GO RON PAUL!

+1 Alexander
-1 Khan

Eloquent with words? He may have been slightly laconic, but it did not lessen his diplomatic skill.

Oops, posted this on the wrong one at first:

I saw above "Alexander was a drunkard!" That just ADDS to his mystique. Mickey Mantle went out, got watsed, and hit a grand slam in the same 24 hours! It just is part of the legend! And think about it: what better way to calm a frazzled allies nerves than by shaing a nice martini, shaken not stirred? :p

The reason, also, that everyone take asway the Mongolian artillery is because we want a chess game- everything equal for each opponent, to see who the true master is. Sure, if Hitler had his Panzers, he could beat any of these guys, but come on- do you REALLY think Hitler, the evily great blitzer but horrid tactical man (look at his hand in Stalingrad, and I rest my case) could out-wit Alexander in battle? The undefeated Alexander THE GREAT!? Or MIGHTY Caesar? THE WRATH of Khan?! (I know wrong Khan and it's like the third time I've used the pun, but Trek's Khan and the real one just click so well.) Even NAPOLEON, my hero, wh made the SAME RUSSIAN MISTAKE, had more of a vision than Hitler. So, point being, a monkey could win with superior forces (see Benito Mussolini early on), but at even levels, the true masters shine.

That said, Khan's empire was still MUCH more successful than Bismark- he should have left 2nd, after Machiavelli. But Alexander's empire not only preserved the Greek half of Western roots (th other half being Hebrew/Judaic- yay Jews!), it served, HE served as the ultimate model for another man, another empire. I dare you to try and tell me that if Alexander does not rise, does not inspire Rome, and later Caesar, that the Roman Empire would have been the same. It still may have formed, may have even still have taken Italy. But NO WAY could Rome have won the Punic Wars had not the tactical lessons from the Campaign not been learned. Alexander was VASTLY outnumbered; the Romans were VASTLY over-matched by the elephants. But Alexander showed that a disciplined army CAN win, no matter the size, and he is one of the first military leaders to defy size and strength and win on discipline. Early on, Rome did.

So, if I can vote again (I have no idea if there's a limit, everyone has gone multiple times I think):

+1 Alexander
-1 Bismark

Is this about who would play the best game of Diplomacy or who was the best diplomat?

The former, that's where we started with the History Question thread...

and I'm in for:

+1 Ghengis
-1 Bismark

I think Bismark would have got all sulky if he didn't get Germany to start with, Ghengis would have done well with any on the seven starts...

Genghis took over a nation in civil disorder, left with only 1 army and no sc. He conquered the whole map with that.

Bismarck started with 3 sc's, got some for free (when South-Germany joined him), and conquered 1, maybe 2.

Summary (giving lots of credit to Bismarck)

Bismarck: unified Germany, and built up a (small) empire, but didn't conquer anything.

Alexander: didn't have to build up anything, but conquered alot.

Genghis: did both

=> Genghis = Bismarck + Alexander

obiwan,


well without artillery, genghis probably wouldn't have sought frontal battle against legions.

What i would guess he would have done is harass the soldiers all the way as they marched on and on. He would have drawn out their equine aux and slaughtered them to a man. Without cavalry cover, the legions are doomed.
Could I draw you to the article hosted on wiki about mongolian tactics and organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization

But anyway, we're talking about diplomacy and not just tactical warfare. My entire gist of argument is not that Genghis was a great military general and genius (even though he was), but that he got into a post where he could command armies through sheer force of will and persuasion.

oh yeah, another point at the battle of carrhae, which was one of the worst military defeats suffered by a roman army, they were defeated by a feigned retreated hosted by Hannibal.

This is due to the primary weakness of the legions is its larger tactical picture of pushing forward like a locomotive, smashing the line of an enemy and not giving it time to recover. It is both its strength, when facing a undisciplined army and a disciplined army without the equivalent power to resist the assault. But against a extremely disciplined army that can give in its forward line to do a pincer movement (which is extremely difficult as it requires coordination between the left, right and middle flank in an era without telecommunication), it is defeated unless the general has a change of plans.

As history tells us, the feigned retreat is the mongols specialty.

I think how the Mongols would have handled the situation would be similar to how they handled Legnica.

i did a mistake, it was hosted by Parthia not hannibal in carrhae. basically parthia had around 1:9 composition, heavy cav and horse archers. and were outnumbered 3:1

Mongols traditional organization was 4:6 lancers:horse archers.

+1 Khan

I think Noodle mistakenly stripped him of a point earlier. And if he didn't, I like hordes.

+1 The Great Khan
-1 Little Bismick

I've already voted, I'll just debate a little...

Re: Alexander
Oh, he was a tactical genius, a military mastermind, but honestly... diplomatic? Being laconic is a huge liability in negotiation... it's quite hard to use body language to dictate that you want them to support your move and that the following season you will reciprocate. Even if we aren't talking about the game of Diplomacy, does Alexander ever display any sort of diplomatic skill? Even average diplomatic skill?

His accomplishments were not due to his overwhelming loquaciousness, if I may indulge in massive hyperbole and sarcasm, but due to his tactical mastery. But Diplomacy is not chess... Diplomacy is not Risk (god forbid)... it is Diplomacy, and for these reasons, Alexander should be pushed out of this list.

yes i agree chrispminus, seems a lot of these guys on the list are generals but not great diplomats. bismark aside of course.
should start a new thread but ill float this one here- favourite fantsay/scifi diplomacy player of all time? any book/manga/movie.
ideas?

An update on the score:

17 Alexander
12 Bismarck
22 Genghis Khan

Something of a revival here for Alexander...

But the Mighty Khan is on a roll too.

Oh, and the Mongols used lots of artillery pieces as well as gunpowder - they took it from their Chinese conquests and enslaved the requisite engineers to work it for them. They were nothing if not adaptive and creative in their approach to warfare.

+1 Bismarck
-1 Khan


17 Alexander
13 Bismarck
21 Genghis Khan

Bismarck. He unified many small nations into one solid empire, while all around him were nations who were already powerful. Khan unified the Mongol tribes, but they were not strong. He didnt even build a solid empire. It fell apart after he died. That implies that he did not do enough negotiating even to name his successor or any strong leader to follow him.

+1 Bismarck
-1 Khan


17 Alexander
14 Bismarck
20 Genghis Khan

Your history, sir, is somewhat lacking in accuracy:

The Mongol empire did not fall apart after Ghengis died. It was placed into the hands of his sons and, collectively, grew. It lasted for 200 years...

Bismark created a state, a country, not a true empire - how many of the people in Bismark's 'empire' did not speak German already?

Ghengis most certainly did have to face and defeat some very powerful enemies - enemies with forces so large as to eclipse anything in the European theatre at that time and for centuries after as well.

As for succession: Bismark lost his own job, hardly a kingmaker was he? Ghengis passed his empire into the hands of his son's according to Mongol tradition - he got what he wanted.

OH, and I might have got the count wrong above - I included a single +ve vote without a balancing -ve

Thus we have a total of 51 right now. Sorry.

And, while we are still taking arguments, wasn't our dippy little Greek Genius Alex the recipient of an expensive private education? Another advantage he had over Ghengis.

Indeed, with Aristotle beside him for so many years, I am tempted to suggest that Alexander was metagaming by following instructions from the master himself... ;)

i noticed something very funny about the bismarck's supporter argument.

They claim that his base (prussia) was very weak compared to the sorrounding areas. But pointing out that Genghis started off even smaller with him and 2 brothers and his surrounding areas were much larger compared to him especially when comparing Prussia 1860 to Austria 1860 or France 1860.

So they turn it on his head and claim that the reason why Genghis had it so easy, was because he was so small, no one bothered to take notice, unlike Prussia's Bismarck which was powerful and could potentially be a great nation.

So which was it?

I vote for Bismarck because he did NOT prefer war. His philosophy was balance of power. He used the weight of Germany in negotiations, rather than on the battlefield. This, for me, represents the essence of Diplomacy more than the marvellous conquering achievements of the other two geniuses.

+1 Bismarck
-1 Alex

16 Alexander
15 Bismarck
20 Genghis Khan

hmmm... There is an extra point in the system...

This looks like going on forever. Why not change it so we all rank the three finalists (3 points to the first placed chap, 2 to the second, 1 to the third) and on Sunday tot up all the points and see who really is the greatest. Just a suggestion.

sorry...retract my last vote. I'm voting +1 for Alexander instead of Bismarck.
But not the -1 for Khan though...

Ha! A confession of sorts Gobble...

(And I was the one who added wrongly earlier: someone gave a positive vote without the required negative and I counted that positive, thus giving an odd total overall... I mentioned this above.)

Alexander is by far and away the runaway success. Using a small army, he fought his way across Europe and into the Hindu Kush, defeating vastly superior armies with cunning strategy, facing weapons (such as elephants and vast hordes of cavalry) that no previous Greek General had ever had to deal with.

His Hellenisation of his Empire lasted long after his death - he founded numerous Alexandria's throughout Mesopotamia and beyond (modern Kabul for example), and his influence was evident for hundreds of years after him.

Genghis was a good warrior, but not this good. For those who say that Alexander was 'laconic' -they are wrong! Alexander was a Macedonian - the word laconic comes from 'Laconia' a region of Sparta, which Alexander's generals defeated when they tried to rebel in the early 320s. Laconic was only used to describe Spartans, not the other Greeks.

Alexander was surprisingly good at negotiation. He talked to many local tribes, and if they accepted his overrule he would bring them trade benefits and incorporate many of them into his army.

So, to conclude
+1 Alexander
-1 Genghis - he's getting too far ahead:

So to include Gobbledydook's vote change:

18 Alexander
14 Bismark
19 Genghis Kahn

+1 Genghis
-1 Alex

Yeah alex was a great General, and went to the (seemingly) ends of the earth, but all in all he had a real problem with discipline and overall, he did party and drink himself to death; or near death if you believe he was poisoned. Diplomats aren't supposed to be drunk whilst negotiating- and his empire all collapsed the moment he died into petty factions controled by the generals in Alex's army.

Genghis however started with nothing in his hands except a suppressed guilt after murdering his brother over a quarrel about food, and built the largest empire land empire the world has known- in the process taking out the most sophisticated empires on the map at that time.

AND GOD IF ANYONE SAYS HE CONQUERED SAND THEN CHECK UP THE HISTORY BOOKS- GENGHIS TURNED THE CITIES AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS THAT THOSE CITIES WERE BUILT ON INTO SAND- WHEN HE FOUGHT AGAINST THOSE EMPIRES THEY WERE FILTHY RICH AND WELL SUPPLIED AND WAY MORE POPULOUS.

So...

17 Alexander
14 Bismark
20 Genghis Kahn