Alexander the Great vs Napoleon vs Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan vs Hannibal

[Ricdog]

Ok guys I after taking into account everything I know i've finally come the conclusion. The greatest commander in history is......., actually its a tie.

Julius Caesar and Napoleon both win. Napoleon and Caesar are equals, but they are both better than the rest.

I think that people usually get too caught up in the simple "history" of the other commanders but really might "overrate" their actual military skills. For example I can't name the number of times I've heard people discount Napoleon in a debate simply because "he lost". Yet they completely ignore his Italian Campaign which could easily outclass almost anything Khan or Alexander ever did in pure tactical skills. Or they mention how Khan rose up from nothing or Hannibal had such low support, yet they fail to see the absolute brilliance in how Caesar handled Roman politics (arguably he cruelest one in history).

Infact I honestly dont think that the rest even deserve to be in the top five, but I just put them because they are more known. But regardless even if I put some of the superior commanders than Alexander, Khan, or Hannibal that would not change the outcome.

What do you think?

[Sarmatian]

I think you haven't really thought this through.

A monastery is a place of discussion about history and this topic might be interesting but you need to explain your position for the discussion to actually start. Otherwise, others may as well just list their favourites and that would be the end of it.

So, if you plan to start an interesting discussion, edit the OP with reasons or the moderator will probably close it. If you're just looking for a childish peeing contest, moderator will again close it...

Oh, and welcome to the .Org.

[Ricdog]

I gave a little more info on my reasoning for picking the two winners, but not too much detail. Hope this is what you wanted.

[Harkilaz]

Hannibal had such low support.

This is actually a common misconception - he had lots of support - only his other commanders completely failed - the Battle of Dertosa in 215 BC won by the Scipio brothers against Hasdrubal Barca's army he was bringing to Italy really dealt Hannibal's efforts a terrible blow. Not only did he lose a large contingent of men coming to support him from Spain, but massive reinforcements from Africa were sent to replace those men lost to the Scipios to defend Spain. At such a critical time, with Rome on the back foot, this could well have been what Hannibal needed to win the war... but of course, some things were not in Hannibal's control.

They did manage to send him some reinforcements in 215 BC, but - possibly under Hannibal's orders - other reinforcements were sent to other war zones - an army was sent to try and take Sardinia, but failed, and the army sent to Sicily was ultimately destroyed by an epidemic, though Hannibal had tried to support this push by sending one of his best officers, Muttines, there with some Numidians. The Carthaginian navy was poor, and even when they outnumbered Roman fleets they either sailed away or got defeated. In Italy on two occasions large numbers of men coming to reinforce him from his allies were completely destroyed.

Towards the end, Mago was still sent to purchase mercenaries among the Ligurians and Balearic Islands which he used to hassle the Romans in northern Italy in the last years of the war, before being recalled.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Aah, few things in life please me more than my reputation for moderating brutality.


My own favourite - shock! - is Napoléon.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Welcome to our forum, Ricdoq!


To bid you welcome, here is a picture of our mutual favourite. I took the picture myself, ages ago, when I spent an afternoon in the Invalides.

[Harkilaz]

Sadly my knowledge on Napolean isn't all that great - but I shall get around to learning about him one day! An audio book could be handy as I work though!

[Ricdog]

Yea this is actually really a response thread to one started years ago.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...n-or-Alexander

I was rather shocked to see comments that degraded Napoleon (and sometimes Caesar) so much.

[gaelic cowboy]

We should resurect some of those old MTV celebrity deathmatch episodes and settle these once and for all

[Ricdog]

This is actually a common misconception - he had lots of support - only his other commanders completely failed - the Battle of Dertosa in 215 BC won by the Scipio brothers against Hasdrubal Barca's army he was bringing to Italy really dealt Hannibal's efforts a terrible blow. Not only did he lose a large contingent of men coming to support him from Spain, but massive reinforcements from Africa were sent to replace those men lost to the Scipios to defend Spain. At such a critical time, with Rome on the back foot, this could well have been what Hannibal needed to win the war... but of course, some things were not in Hannibal's control.

They did manage to send him some reinforcements in 215 BC, but - possibly under Hannibal's orders - other reinforcements were sent to other war zones - an army was sent to try and take Sardinia, but failed, and the army sent to Sicily was ultimately destroyed by an epidemic, though Hannibal had tried to support this push by sending one of his best officers, Muttines, there with some Numidians. The Carthaginian navy was poor, and even when they outnumbered Roman fleets they either sailed away or got defeated. In Italy on two occasions large numbers of men coming to reinforce him from his allies were completely destroyed.

Towards the end, Mago was still sent to purchase mercenaries among the Ligurians and Balearic Islands which he used to hassle the Romans in northern Italy in the last years of the war, before being recalled.

Yea that was pretty good. I only mentioned that statement because a lot of people use that misconciption of him.