Your Top Five Military Leaders

[jusplay4fun]

------- Although to be fair,I think the down play of Japan came more from the European Powers...Then America...As for America and Japan sizing each other up....As America was over confident of their ability ,if war broke out with Japan..... Admiral Yamamoto...went to college in America,so he knew how America was,he warned the Japanese High Command...in America ,there is a gun behind every blade of grass....The High Command viewed America,most likely do to the Roaring 20's in The USA....As a fat ,lazy full country,filled with people with no honor,all Americans wanted to do was play and party....With no stomach for war.....The Japanese High Command must have been fortune tellers...To bad ,America was heading in that direction...but not in WW2 time....The Japanese High Command must have seen 20/30 years into the future... Because ,what Japan hoped about America,would take place during the Vietnam War....... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

The Vietnam "War" and WW2 are not the same, for SOOO Many reasons. About the only thing in common is that Americans died and we had military doing combat. (And yes, there were MANY casualties among the Vietnamese.) Also, there was no formal declaration of war against the communists of Vietnam; there was no US consensus to "win" that "war".

[jonesthecurl]

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."

[jusplay4fun]

I will list my (current) Top Five military leaders of all times, as inspired by ConfSS. You can list them in order and you can give your rationale, if you wish. You can even name your Top Ten, but let's not go crazy and name 100 or even 50. THAT is TOO MUCH to read and my pea brain cannot count past 10.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies. (Note the addition of necessarily to the criteria on 5/7/21.)

But JUS to get this ball rolling, here is my Top FIve, in no specific order:

Genghis Khan,
Alexander the Great,
Napoleon,
Attila the Hun, and
Julius Caesar.

Honorable Mention to Robert E. Lee and to Sun-Tzu

BTW: I did read and post about Great Naval battles in this Forum, but did not see this as topic here. Does anyone see an earlier thread on this topic?

JP

The case for Genghis Khan, and why I listed him FIRST:

Mongol leader Genghis Khan (1162-1227) rose from humble beginnings to establish the largest land empire in history. After uniting the nomadic tribes of the Mongolian plateau, he conquered huge chunks of central Asia and China. His descendants expanded the empire even further, advancing to such far-off places as Poland, Vietnam, Syria and Korea. At their peak, the Mongols controlled between 11 and 12 million contiguous square miles, an area about the size of Africa. Many people were slaughtered in the course of Genghis Khan’s invasions, but he also granted religious freedom to his subjects, abolished torture, encouraged trade and created the first international postal system. Genghis Khan died in 1227 during a military campaign against the Chinese kingdom of Xi Xia. His final resting place remains unknown.

Genghis Khan conquered more than twice as much land as any other person in history, bringing Eastern and Western civilizations into contact in the process. His descendants, including Ogodei and Khubilai, were also prolific conquerors, taking control of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the rest of China, among other places. The Mongols even invaded Japan and Java before their empire broke apart in the 14th century. Genghis Khan’s last ruling descendant was finally deposed in 1920.

https://www.history.com/topics/china/genghis-khan

Also, from same source:

Genghis Khan Establishes an Empire
Having united the steppe tribes, Genghis Khan ruled over some 1 million people. In order to suppress the traditional causes of tribal warfare, he abolished inherited aristocratic titles. He also forbade the selling and kidnapping of women, banned the enslavement of any Mongol and made livestock theft punishable by death. Moreover, Genghis Khan ordered the adoption of a writing system, conducted a regular census, granted diplomatic immunity to foreign ambassadors and allowed freedom of religion well before that idea caught on elsewhere.

More on the non-military impacts and legacy of Genghis Kahn:

Beyond his military accomplishments, Genghis Khan also advanced the Mongol Empire in other ways. He decreed the adoption of the Uyghur script as the Mongol Empire's writing system. He also practised meritocracy and encouraged religious tolerance in the Mongol Empire, unifying the nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia. Present-day Mongolians regard him as the founding father of Mongolia.[16] He is also credited with bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment. This brought relatively easy communication and trade between Northeast Asia, Muslim Southwest Asia, and Christian Europe, expanding the cultural horizons of all three areas.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

These are the things I had in mind when I first thought of this thread: 1) the impact of their military actions AND BEYOND JUST the immediate conquests of lands and peoples and nations and 2) significant historical impacts of their conquests, most often lasting well after the death of the Conqueror himself. How did the arc of History change due to the impact of these Conquerors?

[HitRed]

I still think a general protecting his people is superior than one of conquest or subjugation.

[jusplay4fun]

I still think a general protecting his people is superior than one of conquest or subjugation.

Morally superior, yes. But that is not what I am discussing.

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” – Sun Tzu

“Opportunities multiply as they are seized.” – Sun Tzu

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.” – Sun Tzu

“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” – Sun Tzu

“Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack.” – Sun Tzu

“The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim.” – Sun Tzu

[HitRed]

Where does Muhammad fit in your top five?

Genghis Khan,
Alexander the Great,
Napoleon,
Attila the Hun, and
Julius Caesar.

Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca.

As of 2015, 1.8 billion or about 24.1% of the world population are Muslims.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies.

1. 1.8 billion
2.little or none
3. little or none

Muhammad sounds like a better fit.

[Dukasaur]

Where does Muhammad fit in your top five?

Genghis Khan,
Alexander the Great,
Napoleon,
Attila the Hun, and
Julius Caesar.

Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca.

As of 2015, 1.8 billion or about 24.1% of the world population are Muslims.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies.

1. 1.8 billion
2.little or none
3. little or none

Muhammad sounds like a better fit.

I did think about Mohammed, but he personally only conquered that little part of Hejaz. Most of the Muslim conquests came after his death. There was a whole pack of really good leaders there, but none of them stands out as being head-and-shoulders above the others. I think there's at least 15 that would deserve part of the credit.

[jusplay4fun]

Where does Muhammad fit in your top five?

Genghis Khan,
Alexander the Great,
Napoleon,
Attila the Hun, and
Julius Caesar.

Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca.

As of 2015, 1.8 billion or about 24.1% of the world population are Muslims.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies.

1. 1.8 billion
2.little or none
3. little or none

Muhammad sounds like a better fit.

I did think about Mohammed, but he personally only conquered that little part of Hejaz. Most of the Muslim conquests came after his death. There was a whole pack of really good leaders there, but none of them stands out as being head-and-shoulders above the others. I think there's at least 15 that would deserve part of the credit.

Mohammed does not fit in my Top 5.

Yes, what he started was an amazing military set of conquests, but he died too young to get the MILITARY credit as the guy on the actual BATTLEFIELD. It also amazes me how soon after his death that his movement splintered into 2 major factions.

[HitRed]

Yes, what he started was an amazing military set of conquests, but he died too young to get the MILITARY credit as the guy on the actual BATTLEFIELD. It also amazes me how soon after his death that his movement splintered into 2 major factions.

Alexander the Great was 32. Muhammad was 66.
Alexander the Greats empire split into 4 factions.

[Dukasaur]

Alexander the Great was 32. Muhammad was 66.
Alexander the Greats empire split into 4 factions.

Genghis Khan was 69. His empire split into 4 also.

It's fairly common when someone rises out of nowhere to rule a great empire, that the rule will be all about them personally. Thus, the political structure required for a smooth transition of power doesn't ever have a chance to form.

The long-lived empires are those that formed gradually and whose political structure had time to evolve.

[jusplay4fun]

Yes, what he started was an amazing military set of conquests, but he died too young to get the MILITARY credit as the guy on the actual BATTLEFIELD. It also amazes me how soon after his death that his movement splintered into 2 major factions.

Alexander the Great was 32. Muhammad was 66.
Alexander the Greats empire split into 4 factions.

and, your point is...?

and it is NOT age, but how long they led men in battles and war, imo.

[HitRed]

It seems you are adding a rule that is not in the op. First mentioning age and now length of service.

Muhammad lead troops for 10 years per Wikipedia.

and it is NOT age, but how long they led men in battles and war, imo

Back to your criteria.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies.

AND age, AND length of service.

1. 1.8 billion
2.little or none
3. little or none
4. Lived 66 years
5. Lead troops for 10 years.

Muhammad sounds like a better fit.

[jusplay4fun]

It seems you are adding a rule that is not in the op. First mentioning age and now length of service.

Muhammad lead troops for 10 years per Wikipedia.

and it is NOT age, but how long they led men in battles and war, imo

Back to your criteria.

My main criteria is their impact on history and not necessarily on brilliant strategies or use of new technologies.

AND age, AND length of service.

1. 1.8 billion
2.little or none
3. little or none
4. Lived 66 years
5. Lead troops for 10 years.

Muhammad sounds like a better fit.

There are no right and wrong answers in this thread. This is a matter of opinion. I stated mine.

I see Mohammed as a religious leader and the few battles he lead were fought in a small region. There is no doubt in my mind that many more wars for many more years were fought after he died and in his name and for his God. As far as I know, generals do not lead soldiers on the battlefield 100 years after that general died. (PERHAPS they speak to the troops and officers in their heads from the Dead? I have no way of knowing. Most humans cannot ascertain such things, either.) Yes, such dead leaders can INSPIRE soldiers, but do not make battlefield decisions on tactics or strategies. The dead generals themselves do not fight (any longer) and do not impact the battle as a general or military leader. Yes, troops can fight for a martyr or to continue the campaigns of the dead leader. But that is a RELIGIOUS Leader to me, not a military one.

And to go one step further, I find it interesting that one person you advocate for (whose wars fought after his death) killed many Christians.

And he leads the fight in ONE (possibly two) Battle and is therefore military leader? I DISAGREE. I think you may want to consider your definition of a military leader. Mohammed does not meet my definition or understanding of this term.

I do not see the battles fought after the leader has died as a military campaign by the same (now dead) military leader. Perhaps you have a different view of the finality of death, HR. It seems to me that you want to twist the definition and general concept of a military leader (and of death) to fit your nominee. Again, I disagree.

Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎, pronounced [muˈħammad];[n 2] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of the world religion of Islam.[2] According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[2][3][4][5]

..................skip to.......................

Muhammad's followers were initially few in number, and experienced hostility from Meccan polytheists. To escape ongoing persecution, he sent some of his followers to Abyssinia in 615, before he and his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina (then known as Yathrib) later in 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. In December 629, after eight years of intermittent fighting with Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The conquest went largely uncontested and Muhammad seized the city with little bloodshed. In 632, a few months after returning from the Farewell Pilgrimage, he fell ill and died. By the time of his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam.[17][18]

[HitRed]

As you stated this is not a thread about moral decisions. So killing Christians, though repugnant, isn’t something you should now be bringing up in this thread.

Wikipedia shows 14 victories and many many more expeditions. You definition of 3 or more battles to be considered a military leader is strange.

Your thread is about impact on history. Impact on history continues after death. That is why we send our kids to college and set up living trusts. Muhammad clearly wanted to expand by the sword.

By his death in 632, Muhammad had managed to unite most of the Arabian Peninsula, laying the foundation for the subsequent Islamic expansion under the caliphates.

1 in 4 people alive today are his followers. Thats 1.8 billion. If he never took up the sword we wouldn’t be discussing him.

[jusplay4fun]

As you stated this is not a thread about moral decisions. So killing Christians, though repugnant, isn’t something you should now be bringing up in this thread.

Wikipedia shows 14 victories and many many more expeditions. You definition of 3 or more battles to be considered a military leader is strange.

Your thread is about impact on history. Impact on history continues after death. That is why we send our kids to college and set up living trusts. Muhammad clearly wanted to expand by the sword.

By his death in 632, Muhammad had managed to unite most of the Arabian Peninsula, laying the foundation for the subsequent Islamic expansion under the caliphates.

1 in 4 people alive today are his followers. Thats 1.8 billion. If he never took up the sword we wouldn’t be discussing him.

You brought him up. I tell you that he is not a Top Five Military Leader, imo. It is a fun discussion. We can agree to disagree.

Further, ONLY two people responded to your choice as we both disagree.

As far as the "Rules" that I kept making, you are wrong again. I merely was expounding on my rationale as to why he is not in my Top Five. You kept saying that i kept adding rules. That was not my motive or intent. You kept wanting to CLAIM "NO FAIR, he is CHANGING the RULES.."

[jusplay4fun]

”There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” – Sun Tzu

[jusplay4fun]

The start of my case for Alexander the Great:

Although king of ancient Macedonia for less than 13 years, Alexander the Great changed the course of history. One of the world’s greatest military generals, he created a vast empire that stretched from Macedonia to Egypt and from Greece to part of India. This allowed for Hellenistic culture to become widespread.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great

Alexander the Great was an ancient Macedonian ruler and one of history’s greatest military minds who, as King of Macedonia and Persia, established the largest empire the ancient world had ever seen. By turns charismatic and ruthless, brilliant and power hungry, diplomatic and bloodthirsty, Alexander inspired such loyalty in his men they’d follow him anywhere and, if necessary, die in the process.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great

The history of mankind is one sculpted by the results of epic wars. From the earliest forms of society through to the modern day, the fates of entire civilisations have been decided by the swords of soldiers and the commands of their leaders.
What better list to create, therefore, than one celebrating the greatest military leaders to have ever graced the annals of history. Here We have done just that – join us as we countdown the top 10 conquerors of all time.

Timur aka Tamerlane. ...
Hannibal Barka. ...
Napoleon Bonaparte. ...
Francisco Pizarro. ...
Cyrus the Great. ...
Julius Caesar. ...
Attila the Hun. ...
Alexander the Great.

https://www.reckontalk.com/top-10-greatest-conquerors-of-all-time-history/

Alexander III of Macedon (20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), commonly known as Alexander the Great was a king (basileus) of the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon[a] and a member of the Argead dynasty. Born in Pella in 356 BC, Alexander succeeded his father, Philip II, to the throne at the age of twenty. He spent most of his ruling years on an unprecedented military campaign through Asia and northeast Africa, and by the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world, stretching from Greece to northwestern India. He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered one of history’s most successful military commanders.

https://www.reckontalk.com/alexander-the-great-warrior-facts-photo-history/

3. Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great once remarked: “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” Well, the man who sits at number three in our countdown of great conquerors was certainly a lion-like leader.

By the age of 30 Alexander had conquered much of the known world through military force. He took down the mighty Persian kingdom and his empire spread from Gibraltar to the Punjab, while he also made Greek the lingua franca of his time. Using the phalanx formation in his armies, the ruler revolutionised the art of war during the period of ancient history and deserves his position near the summit of this exclusive list.

https://www.reckontalk.com/top-10-greatest-conquerors-of-all-time-history/

[jusplay4fun]

Another LIST:

We've ranked the commanders based on Napoleon's comments and their own achievements:

Julius Caesar (100 BC-44 BC).
Hannibal Barca (247 bc-183 bc). ...
Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne (1611-1675). ...
Frederick the Great (1712-1786). ...
Gustavus Adolphus (1594-1632). ...
Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736). ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=top+ten+military+leaders+of+all+time&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS777US777&oq=Top+Ten+Military+Leader&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0i22i30l8.9814j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[jusplay4fun]

Another nominee; I will admit I knew very little about him until I read this:

1. Hari Singh Nalwa
And so we find ourselves at the exclusive number one spot on the list of the greatest conquerors in the history of the world. And the man who resides atop of this list is Hari Singh Nalwa.

The Greek writer Euripides is famously quoted as saying: “Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.” Hari Singh Nalwa is a testament to this; the man defied the odds time and time again, affirming his reputation as a truly legendary military leader.

There is a magnitude of reasons why he warrants the top place on this list and one of them is that he achieved so much with so little; whereas many of the aforementioned conquerors had the benefits of vast resources, Hari Singh Nalwa, part of the illustrious Uppal family, relied on ingenious tactics and unparalleled courage to defeat much larger armies.

He is #1, THE TOP Conqueror on this list. Here are #2 and #3:

2. Genghis Khan
The man occupying the second positions on the list of great conquerors is Ghengis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire – the largest contiguous empire in history. He created such a huge empire by uniting many of the nomadic tribes and confederations in northeast Asia while also asserting his dominance with a sword in his hand.
He lived from 1162-1227AD. Like Attila the Hun, the name Genghis Khan has become synonymous with gruesome and brutal warfare. The Mongul warlord sacked villages and towns across modern day Asia, showing a ruthless hunger for power and expansion while leading by example in the heat of battle. In his lifetime he conquered 4,860,000 square miles, more than any other ruler in history.

3. Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great once remarked: “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” Well, the man who sits at number three in our countdown of great conquerors was certainly a lion-like leader.
By the age of 30 Alexander had conquered much of the known world through military force. He took down the mighty Persian kingdom and his empire spread from Gibraltar to the Punjab, while he also made Greek the lingua franca of his time. Using the phalanx formation in his armies, the ruler revolutionised the art of war during the period of ancient history and deserves his position near the summit of this exclusive list.

[ConfederateSS]

”There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” – Sun Tzu

-------------There is always ,one exception to any rule or saying... [size=200] ISRAEL][/size] ...Who had a top Commander ... Joshua...He would smash the Canaanites(But never Totally Conquering them,he would die of old age)... ,in the name of Manifest Destiny... Inspired by GOD...His military tactics...Led to the State of Israel,...Which has been fighting a pro longed war ever since...over 3,200 years...A retreat ,a little for 2,000 years,When ROME took the land, changed hands,till the British ended up with the land,and The ongoing war ,between The Chosen People,and the people who were there 1st,The Canaanites/Palestine....As they continue to fight each other since the days of Joshua....One of History's Great Warriors......
------------Another Great Warrior...The Egyptian Pharaoh...Ramses II...Who fought The Hittite Empire...Which Led to the World's 1st Peace Treaty...The new way to battle...Diplomacy...A copy of the Tablet is on display at The U.N.... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ...The Bible...It is a Military History Book...If one looks close enough...

[jusplay4fun]

I disagree with ConfSS here:

The Bible...It is a Military History Book...If one looks close enough...

Yes, the Bible records battles of the Jewish people in their historical struggles for a place to call home. The Jews were a nomadic people, following the grasslands ("Green Pastures") for their sheep. And that led to conflicts as they travelled. And the attempt of the Jews to have a homeland has resulted in armed conflict and war. But to call the Bible a Military History Book is an overstatement and oversimplification. The Bible offers much more than history and that is not the main intend of its contents.

I will add that there has been some archeological validation of some of the history recorded in the Bible. However, not everything in the Bible has been or WILL BE validated by such archeological or historical evidence.

[Dukasaur]

I disagree with ConfSS here:

The Bible...It is a Military History Book...If one looks close enough...

Yes, the Bible records battles of the Jewish people in their historical struggles for a place to call home. The Jews were a nomadic people, following the grasslands ("Green Pastures") for their sheep. And that led to conflicts as they travelled. And the attempt of the Jews to have a homeland has resulted in armed conflict and war. But to call the Bible a Military History Book is an overstatement and oversimplification. The Bible offers much more than history and that is not the main intend of its contents.

I will add that there has been some archeological validation of some of the history recorded in the Bible. However, not everything in the Bible has been or WILL BE validated by such archeological or historical evidence.

The bible is mostly bullshit. A few of the events in it did happen, like the Babylonian Captivity, but the vast majority are made up stories.

The city of Jericho is one of the most intensely studied ancient cities. Almost all of it has been dug up by archeologists. There is no evidence whatsoever that its walls have ever fallen down or suffered any major calamity. The story of the walls of Jericho falling down is quite simply a fairy tale presented as if it was history.

The worst lie in the bible, however, is not a made-up story but a deliberate case of character assassination. The greatest Israeli military leader was Ahab, who formed a grand alliance between Israel, Moab, the Syrian tribes, the Pheonician cities, and even far-away Cilicia, to resist the Assyrian conquest of the Levant. Three great battles were fought between Shalmaneser III of Assyria and Ahab's alliance -- in 853, 849, and 846 A.D. Shalmaneser's propaganda lists them as victories, of course, but although we can't say what happened tactically, strategically the alliance succeeded. The Assyrians withdrew and the little kingdoms of the Levant remained free for at least a generation.

Ahab's grand alliance was a glorious achievement. Beating the Assyrian army at the peak of its power is something that very few managed. Certainly no other Israeli king did. If the bible was a chronicle of jewish history as it pretends to be, it would be singing the praises of Ahab. Instead, because he didn't grovel before the priests and their mumbo-jumbo, they made him out to be a villain. He married Jezebel of Tyre, cementing the alliance with that city and bringing great prosperity to the region, and the priests centered her out for a special dose of character assassination, calling her a harlot and many other things besides.

Up is down and black is white. Israel's greatest king is painted as a bad guy, his bride as a whore, one of the most prosperous periods in Israel's history is completely ignored and a glorious diplomatic and military triumph is completely censored out of the record. The bible is exposed as not just a collection of harmless fairy tales but a deliberate and malicious piece of political propaganda.

[ConfederateSS]

----------Not a Joshua fan...He was a Great Warrior....But he was the Jewish Monster of Death...He committed mass Genocide of the Canaanites and other surrounding people...Who's land the Chosen People...said,GOD wants us to have this land...Manifest Destiny Israel style...But I will give him credit for his strategies...Yes,there are falsehoods...For The Bible or Jewish writer of that part of The Bible,said Josh conquered Canaan in 2 years...But,we know..He died without fulfilling his Dream of Conquering all of Canaan...
-----------Through real Historical Facts....But the Battles are real....I think as far as really Walls falling is a metaphor...He had spies in the city...Just created a distraction by marching around the city...Giving his commandos so to speak,who the spies let in ...A chance to open holes,or gates...So his main force could enter the city.....Where he killed every living thing,people, animals etc...Much like his next battle...My favorite one of his...The Battle of Ai...Which has been proven...By real Historical Facts outside of The Bible....
-----------But you can find many battles,which Human history,is a history of battles...So,you can look at the Bible as a history of warfare B.C.....As ,I wrote in other threads...Including The Great War...in The Ottoman Empire part....A British LT. Was close to a Turkish force...He realized where he was,because the place looked like something he read in the Bible...Where King Saul and Prince Johnathon his son...Were outnumbered by the Philistines...Much like his own force,by The Turks...He remembered a secret path that King Saul used to sneak up on the Philistines, while they were sleeping...He found and used the path and caught the Turks in the same manner... Winning the battle for that area........So Becareful not to dismiss...The things the Bible has to offer...Outside of it's Spiritual Value... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[HitRed]

I think as far as really Walls falling is a metaphor.

Israel is know for earthquakes. The Al-Aqsa Mosque was destroyed twice by earthquakes.

Wikipedia

The mosque was completely destroyed by an earthquake in 746 and rebuilt by the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur in 754. It was rebuilt again in 780. Another earthquake destroyed most of al-Aqsa in 1033, but two years later the Fatimid caliph Ali az-Zahir built another mosque whose outline is preserved in the current structure.

[Dukasaur]

Yes, Israel has had earthquakes, as has pretty much every other place on earth.

Yes, buildings have fallen down.

There remains no evidence whatsoever that the walls of Jericho fell down.

The bible doesn't say Joshua went around huffing and puffing and blowing random houses down. It makes a very specific and verifiable claim about the defensive walls of the ancient city of Jericho.