This is an interesting question. I'm confident most people would say the Stalingrad counter offensive in November of 42. You simply don't lose army groups.
Invading Russia is a bad idea, as I noted, but they also always lose casualties in droves. Germany simply made the same mistake Napoleon did in invading an enormous land mass with an unforgiving climate. When the Russians leave their traditional spheres of influence, though, they haven't been very successful, like fighting in Afghanistan or Japan. The nukes are an issue, but I'll be very surprised if anyone uses them in the modern day.
Lots of reports out there. It sure looks like the government was planning reorganization is the urals
been a lot of great ones. Gustavus Adolfus. Napoleon. Napoleon. Napoleon. Napoleon. and Napoleon. Alexander was nasty too.
The Mongol Empire expansion was short lived, but incredibly impressive. They actually reached Vienna with the intention of going to the Atlantic Ocean, but tradition held that all the khans had to return to their capital when the Great Khan died. So, the invading army had to turn back when they word of the Khan's death outside of Vienna. Shortly thereafter, they devolved into infighting and lost their empire. Still, amazing to think that the fate of Europe at the time rested with a Mongol tradition and death of one guy.
The Mongols killed so many people, the amount of farm land growing wild actually had a measurable cooling impact on global climate.
napoleon revolutionized warfare and did it by himself with a lot of hungry wannabe rulers around him.
meh. they never really caught up. He just decimated his forces in Russia and never got back his drive. He damn near conquered everything he wanted.
That's what I have always thought, it was Ghengis and Alexander on top of the mountain and everyone else playing second fiddle.
Not globally. By and large, the Axis and Allies weren't wiping out cities, with a few obvious exceptions.
