Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Who's the greater General? Ghengis Khan or Alexander the Great?

for my History research paper..Who do you think was a better General and leader?

Update:

wow I didn't know people on here were so intelligent..

thanks guys.

17 Answers

Relevance
  • DeSaxe
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I would have to say Genghis Khan over Alexander. Just for the reason that Genghis Khan had a harder road to follow to become the leader, whereas Alexander was in line for the throne of Macedonia after Phillip.

    Both used weapons and troops that were best suited for the terrain that they fought in the Greeks favored their cavalry and the phalanx will the Mongols primarily used the mounted warriors and archers to great effect.

    Genghis Khan perfected a war machine that would not be seen again until the times of Napoleon. The Mongol military organization, communications, tactic and strategies were unbeatable for the time. He was able to concentrate his armies at critical points bring to battle often superior numbers. He defeated nations that had better troops, great fortifications, and better armor. He used the right tactics to defeat each of his various opponents. The heavy infantry of the Romans the heavy cavalry of the Byzantines, or the stone fortification of the Chinese or Eastern Europe.

    Alexander had a government to support him the city state governments of the Greeks had power when they were united. The mongol never had any power until united by the great khan, and the power of the mongols lasted only until the death of Kublai Khan son of Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan achieved far more than Alexander, from far humbler beginnings, and without a equal system of government such as what the Greeks had. Could Alexander had gone as far had he not been born the son of a King?

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Both generals were definitely great but reading the comments above, i don't think you guys give Alexander the credits he deserves.

    He came from a royal lineage but he also had to fight to win his spurs. Let's not forget that he was in charge of his father's army before he was even 18 and he won his own battles. It's said that he's responsible for beating the Theban Sacred Band, which had earlier destroyed the Spartan phalanx.

    He defeated almost without difficulty, the greatest empire the world had seen so far. Actually personally i'd say that defeating the Persian Empire was a much bigger deal than defeating the Chinese or the weakened Roman Empire at Genghis Khan's time.

    In at least all the major battles he fought, he was outnumbered by anywhere between 3:1 and 5:1. Still, he destroyed the Persian Empire single handedly, remaining undefeated by the age of 33 having also fought the also large armies of India.

    He too had to develop new tactics and strategies to counter and defeat the different types or armies he was facing.. He changed his line formations to defeat scythe chariots and war elephants (which the Greeks had not fought against before) or horse archers, always using the same type of army.. phalanx, auxiliaries and heavy cavalry. He also made the first use of shock cavalry.

    He spread not only a language but an entire culture through the East. An entire period of history, the Hellenistic, is basically named because of how deeply Alexander and his spread of Greek (hellenic) culture influenced the world at the time.

    As for the fact that Alexander had a government to support him... that government was 3.000 kilometers away and was nothing in comparisson with the colossus of the Persian Empire Alexander was facing. They had more money, way more troops, and the home field advantage, yet Alexander won relatively easily.

    Alexander was the measure by which all generals were counted. They say Julius wept when he compared himself with Alexander and Hannibal gave him the first spot when asked by Scipio who he thought the greatest general was. Of course that was before Genghis's time but still, i do believe that Alexander's accomplishments are greater and by that i do not intend to steal anything from Genghis Khan's glory was was himself a beast of a general and leader.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/VdKTg

    I'll give you my top five: 5. Khan - by virtue of how much land he conquered with so little men. However he never went up against truly organized opponents, even the chinese were in chaos at the time of conquest and his armies were defeated once strong governments rose up. 5th all time ain't bad though. 4. Alexander - Overated as the greatest of all time but great nonetheless. He hit Persia when it was at its weakest. Had he had to face Cyrus or Xerxes, he may very well have been stopped right at the hellespont. 3. Napoleon - studied the greats, conquered his country, and then Europe. He is the most accomplished of any general and quite frankly should be #1 but isn't. 2. Hannibal - took the fight to the mighty Roman Army. Killed Roman soldiers on a scale that wouldn't be seen until WWI. And he did it all in Italy. The logistics of marching elephants across the alps, manipulating Roman ego, and selecting battle grounds make him the greatest tactician of all time but not our greatest general 1. Gaius Julius Casear - the only one of these men to never be defeated. The only one of these leaders to win a battle while surrounded (Alesia), the only one whose presence on teh battle field not only struck fear of tyrannical proportions in the enemy but instilled so high a morale boost that victory could be snatched out of the jaws of defeat. And that was only during his campaign for the top seat in Rome during the Conquest of Gaul. being outnumbered 3 to one he defeated Pompey in Greece and withstood the seige of Alexandria and defeated the revolutionaries. There has never quite been a man like Caesar nor will their ever be again. Oh and none of these men have a month of the year named after them except Caesar (July). That right there should settle the arguement.

  • 8 years ago

    I would say Genghis khan, although he was from noble blood, he suffered severe hardship during his youth and spent majority of his life unifying the tribes of Mongolia. Where as Alexander inherited the throne of Macedon and leader of the Corinth at the age of 20. Alexander may be superior general, but Genghis Khan was a good statesman and from his general division of his empire and etc, we can see he was a good strategist. Also because his empire lasted for 200 more years, and subsequent kingdoms his future generation built, such as Mughals and Timurid Empire.

    But we know so little about Alexander because he died aged 32, where as Genghis Khan made it to his late 60s. Some Greek sources are like myth, exaggerated and some are obviously not true, such as the events claimed on Alexanders day of birth.

  • 6 years ago

    Genhiskhan had the numbers, while Alexander relied on tactics on the battle. To this Alexander for me is the better general, as a general is measured to his efficiency in battles even in times of great disadvantage.

  • 8 years ago

    The two are my favorite historical figures as my moniker states. This is like comparing Bach to Beethoven but, looking at the big scheme of things, I'd have to say Genghis Khan.

  • NC
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Depends on whom you ask. Sun-Tsu would say neither, since the best general is one that wins without fighting.

    Also, consider this. A good leader is someone who creates an organization that survives his death. Neither Alexander nor Ghengis Khan managed to do that. Both their empires fell apart after their deaths...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Khan - purely for his enormous diplomatic prowess. Both were great generals but I'd give Khan the edge for related actions that didn't necessarily require a complete general's touch.

  • 1 decade ago

    The statistics would say Genghis Khan as, at its peak, the Mongol Empire was the second largest ever in the world in terms of land area and population (second only to the much later British Empire).

    Alexander, I would say was a better military tactician, as he defated many vastly superior forces, whereas Genghis often relied on strength in numbers.

  • 1 decade ago

    Alexander.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.