Best Military Commanders

[Rosacrux]

Another poll in the good-ole fashion: Ancient Military commanders. Pick one and - please - justify your selection with a line or two.

I know the selection might not be the greatest possible, but I picked the most obvious ones. The Chinese guys are all from the warring state (3 kingdoms) period.

I won't start this, since I created this topic. Feel free to kick this off.

If you don't like any of the mentioned and prefer some other general, please write his name.

Hmm... could a mod please move the "other" option in the bottom, where it belongs? Thank you.

[Rosacrux]

Seems nobody feels like writing up anything so I'll start (hopefully) a trend.

I picked Alexander the Great. Because:

- He started off from a tiny kingdom (Macedonia) in northern Greece, almost a teenager when his father died, and managed not only to achieve something considered quite unfeasible (unite Greece under one banner - his own) but also something that was perceived impossible: seize a huge empire with a handfull of men.

- His strategical genious is without an equal in the ancient world, and his tactical genious is matched only by Hannibal Barca.

- He was the first commander who mastered to use to a great effect completely different units, utilizing the combined arms concept to its greatest extend.

- He would command in the fine tradition of the Greek generals, from the first line, endangering himself during the whole course of the battle.

- He died young, so he didn't had time to become an old, conservative grumpy monarch.

[Lazul]

ohh... i wonder hwo will win this one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
alexander maybe?...

I havent even heard of half theese dudes so compared the ones I have read about. So, Alexander it is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Tepes]

I picked Alexander.
And a question: who was Cao Cao?

[The Wizard]

King of one of the three kingdoms. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I am missing Subedei... or Chingisz Khan, whatever you like.

Since I spazzed myself out writing an argument about Sassanian military in the "cataphracts and clibanarii" thread, I'll explain tommorrow. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif



~Wiz

[makkyo]

Cao Cao is a general (and founder of) the Wei dynasty after the colasp of the Han dynasty. He briliantly subdued all of northern china against much larger enemies and had a mind of no equal.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

where the hell is Sun Tzu? I like Cao Cao, but I'd hafta say outta the 3 Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang was peerless. But then again so was Sima Yi...

[Rosacrux]

Wizard: This is a poll for the ancient period. One for later periods (Medieval, for instance) might follow and that's where the Mongols should be.

[Seven.the.Hun]

hmm, yes, many of these put some huge dents in history, hard to tell really... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Beirut]

Go Scipio Ma man. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

"Hannibal? What Hannibal? Kicked his ass at Zama and never looked back."

[71-hour Ahmed]

hannibal did very well in enemy territory without support for several years. Good at uniting and motivating.

Scipio beat him by copying and cheating (betrayal). Without out that, Hannibal would have won.

edit: plus you dont want eogs in your army - hannibal was never ruler of carthage, but a servant - true soldier mentaility there.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ Mar. 05 2004,21:59)]where the hell is Sun Tzu?

Good question.

Though we don't know virtually nothing of Sun Tsu, aside of that little story how he taught the emperors concubines to obey orders like real soldiers and, of course, his masterpiece, "The Art Of War", I miss him as an option very much and am certain that he was one of the most formidable field commanders of all times. Since he is not in the poll, I would have a hard time choosing between Caesar and Alexander; they were both extremely brave soldiers and cunning generals, to the point of leading their armies to the battle themselves. Hmmm…

[Rosacrux]

Sun Tzu, as to our knowldedge, never commanded an army. How can someone who has nil military experience and never fought a war, qualify for "best military commander"?

When we put up a poll for best theoretical approach to war, we can let him duke it out with Klauzewich, Moltke, Leo of Byzantium and others who did the same job. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] ]Sun Tzu, as to our knowldedge, never commanded an army. How can someone who has nil military experience and never fought a war, qualify for "best military commander"?

Also what we know today as the "Art of War" was not written by one man. It is credited to Sun Tzu but several writers are believed to have had a hand in it.

[redrooster]

Sun Tzu was known historicaly as Sun Wu or sun tzu wu and he had led armies for the state of wu during the period of the warring states with considerable success.

Cao Cao and Zhuge liang had written their own treatise on war but cao cao work was heavily influenced by art of war since he was an avid student
Also the art of war we have today is believed to be only part of the work that had survived. sima jian had mentioned that the art of war had only 13chapters but other authors mentioned up to 80+ chapters. This is where the suggestion of addition by other authors came in. But the 13chapters we have today most likely came from sun wu himself.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 06 2004,10:59)]Sun Tzu, as to our knowldedge, never commanded an army. How can someone who has nil military experience and never fought a war, qualify for "best military commander"?
Don't know about that "our" knowledge, but last I've read about him, he was very well a general on the battlefield; redrooster is 100 % right with his post, as well on Sun Tsu and the comments that the book wasn't written by him alone.


Quote[/b] ]When we put up a poll for best theoretical approach to war, we can let him duke it out with Klauzewich, Moltke, Leo of Byzantium and others who did the same job. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hehe, FYI, Clausewitz has joined the Prussian army at the age of 12

[Leet Eriksson]

Deng Ai is in the poll?he was'nt great,even though he brought the fall of Shu he was lucky against Jiang Wei's already wavering army.Jiang Wei could have defeated Deng Ai,but the Shu emperor refused to send reinforcment and also did not listen to Jiang Wei's advice on re-activating a camp built by zhuge liang before his death,although the camp was empty it did delay Deng Ai becuase he retreated at the site of the camps banner thinking there was a Shu army there.

[Basileus]

I chose Alexander aswell, so much done so little time by such a young man..he was almost as good as me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[theKyl]

alex

[Beirut]

71-hour Ahmed,

Cheating?

Scipio lured/forced Hannibal to retreat from Italy back to Africa, and then Scipio whomped Hannibal's buddies, had a face to face meeting with Hannibal, then kicked Hannibal's Carthaginian ass at Zama while far from his own country, behind enemy lines, with no hope of re-enforcements from home.

I await with baited breath, on pins and needles, and with great impatience to learn how in the great void of the cosmic universe this was cheating?

As for copying, read your Machiavelli. All great military men followed the lessons learned from those before them. I had to copy my first grade teacher to learn how to spell the word "cat". Does that take the accomplishment of spelling away from me?

waiting...waiting...waiting... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif

[biguth dickuth]

About cheating, he probably means the "betrayal" of some of the carthaginian allies and conscripts, thus leaving the army of hannibal with less cavalry in the battle of Zama.
It was this (having less cavalry) that led to the carthaginians' defeat (quite ironically, since it was the cavalry that had really helped hannibal win so many times before).
Until the roman cavalry returned, after having pursued hannibal's cavalry, the carthaginian infantry was holding quite well against the romans.

About copying, you may copy the word "cat" from your teacher and when you learn writing, you can write a whole essay on your own. But Scipio actually copied the whole essay Of course i don't blame him for that, it was a reasonable and clever decision and showes that he was broadminded enough to identify the best method and start using it, even if he hadn't thought of it himself.

[Beirut]

Biguth Dickuth,

(Snicker. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Monty Python forever)

Thanks for the reply. Not sure what essay you refer to when alluding to copying though. I read Scipio's strategies to be somewhat unique and very open minded, not at all a copy of Hannibal. In many cases, Scipio's strategies were much more imaginative than Hannibal's, though this is not to say Hannibal was not a supreme commander.

As for betrayal or cheating or whatever one may wish to refer to events as, Scipio displayed a mastering of grand strategy that far exceeded that of Hannibal. And if Scipio, a foreigner, was able to go to Africa and turn the locals against one of their own, then I see this as an excellent example of grand strategy and diplomacy, the hallmarks of a great captain. Not cheating at all, but creating the conditons before a battle to ensure that once the battle does takes place, he is guaranteed to win. What a masterpiece in the art of war and the art of the general.

Also, as I read it, the return of the Roman cavalry, hitting the rear of the Carthaginians, was exactly what it was supposed to do. Isn't that what we all try to do in Medieval:Total War? Do we not follow the advice of Patton, "hold him by the nose and kick him in the pants"?

Scipio held Hannibal by the nose with his infantry and his cavalry kicked him in the pants. Sounds right to me.

(In reference to 71-hour Ahmed's comment about egos, he should read the text of Scipio's speaches to the Roman Senate. He was a man full of grace, compassion and humility. And his generosity towards those he conquered was without equal. Read about how he refused woman as prizes of war and personally returned them to the men they were betrothed to, even though those men were conquered enemies. No wonder he could make allies out of enemies. he understood what Machiavelli wrote a thousand years later; always fight your battles in constant regard to the peace you wish to live in afterwards. Scipio was nothing less than a genius in the art of grand strategy and war.)

[biguth dickuth]

Thanks for your reply too

Scipio's advantage over Hannibal was that he was probably a better strategist in the long term. Even though Hannibal defeated the romans in many battles, he was going here and there in Italy, failing to start a rebellion among the non-Roman tribes of Italy and failing to capture Rome itself.
In fact, i think it was Hannibal's brother who said to him something like:"you know how to win a battle but you don't know how to take advantage of it afterwards".

I'm not saying that Hannibal was a bad strategist. He was a good one but not a "genius". I think that this was the part where Scipio overwhelmed him. He surely did what Hannibal had failed to do in Italy: buy out his enemy's allies I don't blame him for that, i just mentioned it in my previous post to explain to you what 71-hour Ahmed meant with "cheating".
On the other hand, I still think (a personal opinion) that Hannibal was a better tactician than Scipio. Yes, Scipio was a good one too but in Spain, where he won some battles, he faced commanders of lesser quality and in Zama he had a superior army, both in quality and numbers, which makes winning a battle easier. Of course, he did well anyway and that makes him a good commander.

The thing is, we're talking here about the best commander, meaning both strategist and tactician (if i know the word's meaning correctly) so i voted for Alex who excelled in both strategy and tactics, although he had a drawback: he was getting himself almost killed in every battle

NOTE1: I think that Patton's phrase was: "grab them by the nose and kick them in the NUTS"
...not in the pants... LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

NOTE2: I don't disagree that Scipio might have been a man of compassion, but his soldiers probably weren't From what i know, they slaughtered a hell of a lot of carthaginians. I'm not sure though if that happened in the 2nd or in the 3rd Punic War.
It must have been in the 3rd from what i gather...so Scipio was probably not involved...

[71-hour Ahmed]

hmmm.... nice posts....sorry i didn't reply myself. Looking up Scipio Africanus...

I'm still not that aware of Scipios actions outside a limited scope, so I won't try to debate it with you - you probably are right. I do think that he had a surprise advantage at Zama (the betrayal) that without he might well have been defeated. And he did learn from Hannibals strategies. So he wasn't as original or as imaginative to see how to win battles, but perhaps better in the longer run for his ability to take knowledge from his enemies.

I just see hannibal as the first person to truly understand how to fight well in the wars of that era, with the others then learning at his knee. Who is greater, the master who has no teacher, or the student who follows but becomes greater?

So as for the "cheating", you're right its the wrong word really, but I bet Hannibal would disagree

[Beirut]

Biguth Dickuth,

When you mention the betrayal, are you refering to Massinisa and his cavalry? If I remeber right, Scipio did not so much "buy him off" as he did treat him with the utmost respect in public. Refering to him as King when they spoke in front of others and offering him autonomy in his land. I think creating an ally out of a past enemy and making that ally fight beside you in the same cause is not betrayal, but again, a masterpiece of foresight and grand strategy.

As for the slaughter of the Carthaginians, again, if memory serves, that happened after a city capitulatued, but then, hearing that help might come, re-invested their defence. Scipio thought this a violation of the rules of war and ordered his troops to kill the inhabitants without mercy. But it is recorded that the slaughter stopped on order by him also.

And there was an issue about some of Scipio's supplies being shipped in to Africa that went off course and were seized by Carthaginians who had previously surrendered. That pissed Scipio off very much and I think was part of the reason he ordered his troops to slaughter the inhabitants. (This is close, but I may be missing something important here.)

Your quote about Hannibal's inability to take advantage of a victory is what I read also.

And just so we understand each other, I agree that Hannibal was a master tactician and won victories that are nothing less than brilliant. I am not disrespecting him in the least.

I guess I'm just a fan of Scipio's. I see his abilities, military, politcal, and philosophical, when added together, formed an instrument of war that had no equal at the time. And very, very few since.

**Read about Scipio's night attacks in Africa on the camps of Syphax and Hasdrubal, allies of Hannibal. Scipio used fire as a weapon and a distraction, and killed, they say, over 30,000 enemy troops in one night. A brilliant and brutally efective raid.

[The Wizard]

A bit of an alternative choice. I am not sure he would have fared well against the armies of Anibal Barka, Publius Cornelius Scipio or Alexander the Great. But this man was a great reformer and had an amazing foresight. His sieging skills were also a lot better than most of the boys on this list. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

I am talking, of course, of Tiglath-Pileser III. The man who created the first truly cohesive professional military in the known history. Much better than the Egyptian system of old.

He reformed the Assyrian militia/levy system into a proffessional army, and turned the Assyrian state into a military society, that leaned heavily on war, as so many after them, such as famous notables as the Roman empire and the Mongol empire.

Using a combination of new organisation, new technology, and typical Assyrian bad-assery, he turned the Assyrian empire into a force to be reckoned with.

It made the Assyrians pretty much invincible on the field, and gained them a huge empire (for the time). What had been gained by way of the militia, could be greatly increased, because this newly formed, cohesive standing army was quick to react (for the time), and worked together well, the culmination of this being the cavalry, the only part of the army that could be said to be able to truly execute manoeuvres.

The sieging skills of the Assyrians was good, and needed to be. What we call the "Middle East" today, was then a very developed place, with great cities that were protected by amazing systems of fortifications. When assaulting, the Assyrians had advanced sieging equipment like assault towers, heavy battering rams, both protected from flaming arrows by dampened leather hides. Archers could wreak devastation on the opposing city, protected by spearman's shields and these assault towers.



~Wiz

[biguth dickuth]

Beirut, i have found that debating with you is really pleasant and moreover, it has forced me to enhance my readings on the subject. So thanks

In the same spirit, i have one or two more remarks to make.
The reasons why the romans finally won over the carthaginians, lie not only into the ability of certain generals but also to political and social factors.
What i mean is that both Rome and Carthage had commanders who were very good at what they did and some others who were totally useless. But their decisions were not enough to judge the war's outcome. Many important decisions were made in each city.

Carthage was in a period of internal strife. There was a fight for power between political parties and from what i know, it was not the party which Hannibal supported which had taken over.
While Hannibal was wandering in Italy, trying to make allies out of Rome's old enemies, he was recieving no support from home at all. This is something that the non-roman inhabitants of Italy knew and were not willing to join the carthaginians unless it was quite clear that they would win. Hannibal's problem was that he could not endaevour in a prolonged siege of Rome with a numerically inferior army and without siege-machines and (more importantly) without support from the other italian peoples. As the latins would be surely against him, he needed other allies who would keep his supply routes open and provide him with fighting men too. These, he couldn't have because they wouldn't risk retaliation by the romans for joining a force which seemed to them, without support from carthage, doomed to be defeated.
So Hannibal's army was going here and there, plundering to get fed, beating roman armies one after the other, hoping that they would impress or scare the locals enough so as to join them, or hoping that a relief force with siege-engines and fresh men would be finally shipped to them from Carthage.

The roman allies, it seems, were not so deeply displeased with roman occupation so as to revolt in the first chance given. That was probably due to a, relatively, mild policy that the romans had towards them.
On the other hand, the carthaginian allies were suffering from the heavy taxes imposed on them by the corrupt politicians of Carthage. It seems that they were more eager to support Carthage's enemies in order to gain their indepedence, especially since the carthaginians had their backs on the wall.
So, Scipio had aparrently an easier job than his carthaginian counterpart.

To conclude this, Hannibal's failure is greatly due to the internal political strife in his city and the lack of determination by the carthaginians to rebuild their once strong navy and resume superiority in sea. Without a strong navy they weren't able to reinforce their general.

I guess Scipio was lucky to be roman....

[Beirut]

Biguth Dickuth,

Yes, I enjoy our debate as well. Where else can one have these discussions?

I would like to point out that Scipio faced great obstacles in his war with Hannibal, those obstacles being the Roman Senators. One Senator, Quintus Fabius, publicly chastised Scipo at every opportunity. Accusing him of greed, corruption, and glory seeking.

A quote of Fabius in the Roman Senate, with Scipo in attendance; "While you are going to leave Italy when Hannibal is there, not because you consider such a course beneficial to the state, but because you think it will rebound to your honour and glory... the armies were enlisted for the protection of the city and of Italy, not for the consuls, like kings, to carry into whatever part of the world they please from motives of vanity."

Scipio responds; "He who brings danger upon another has more spirit than he who repels it. Add to this that the terror excited by the unexpected in increased thereby. When you have entered the territory of an enemy you obtain a near view of his strong and weak points. Provided no impediment is cuased here, you will hear at once that africa is blazing with war; that Hannibal is preparing to depart from this country." "...many things that are not now apparent at this distance will develop; and it is the part of a general not to be wanting when opportunity arises, and to bend its events to his design. I shall, Quintus Fabius, have the opponent you assign me, Hannibal, but I shall rather draw him after me than be kept here by him."

The Senate then gave Scipo permission to go to Africa, but only if he took Sicily first, and they denied him the power to levy troops. He even had to build his own warships Therefore he left Italy with only 7000 volunteers, landed in Sicily, then had to gain more volunteers, train them also, secure food and supplies, and then move into hostile Africa. With little to no assitance from Rome. Then went on to forge alliances in Africa and to defeat superior forces on their own ground. I believe the words "cheating" and "betrayal" (not that you used them) are completely out of order.

There is too much to mention, but I think what I've brought up shows that Scipio faced enormous difficulties. When you read the history of his battles, but more important, his philosphy about strategy, grand-strategy and his overall abilities, you will, I hope, be as impressed with the man's complete genius as one of the pre-emminent artist of war as I am.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 08 2004,18:31)]71-hour Ahmed,

Cheating?

Scipio lured/forced Hannibal to retreat from Italy back to Africa, and then Scipio whomped Hannibal's buddies, had a face to face meeting with Hannibal, then kicked Hannibal's Carthaginian ass at Zama while far from his own country, behind enemy lines, with no hope of re-enforcements from home.

I await with baited breath, on pins and needles, and with great impatience to learn how in the great void of the cosmic universe this was cheating?

As for copying, read your Machiavelli. All great military men followed the lessons learned from those before them. I had to copy my first grade teacher to learn how to spell the word "cat". Does that take the accomplishment of spelling away from me?

waiting...waiting...waiting... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif
No.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 10 2004,23:46)]Biguth Dickuth,

Yes, I enjoy our debate as well. Where else can one have these discussions?

I would like to point out that Scipio faced great obstacles in his war with Hannibal, those obstacles being the Roman Senators. One Senator, Quintus Fabius, publicly chastised Scipo at every opportunity. Accusing him of greed, corruption, and glory seeking.

A quote of Fabius in the Roman Senate, with Scipo in attendance; "While you are going to leave Italy when Hannibal is there, not because you consider such a course beneficial to the state, but because you think it will rebound to your honour and glory... the armies were enlisted for the protection of the city and of Italy, not for the consuls, like kings, to carry into whatever part of the world they please from motives of vanity."

Scipio responds; "He who brings danger upon another has more spirit than he who repels it. Add to this that the terror excited by the unexpected in increased thereby. When you have entered the territory of an enemy you obtain a near view of his strong and weak points. Provided no impediment is cuased here, you will hear at once that africa is blazing with war; that Hannibal is preparing to depart from this country." "...many things that are not now apparent at this distance will develop; and it is the part of a general not to be wanting when opportunity arises, and to bend its events to his design. I shall, Quintus Fabius, have the opponent you assign me, Hannibal, but I shall rather draw him after me than be kept here by him."

The Senate then gave Scipo permission to go to Africa, but only if he took Sicily first, and they denied him the power to levy troops. He even had to build his own warships Therefore he left Italy with only 7000 volunteers, landed in Sicily, then had to gain more volunteers, train them also, secure food and supplies, and then move into hostile Africa. With little to no assitance from Rome. Then went on to forge alliances in Africa and to defeat superior forces on their own ground. I believe the words "cheating" and "betrayal" (not that you used them) are completely out of order.

There is too much to mention, but I think what I've brought up shows that Scipio faced enormous difficulties. When you read the history of his battles, but more important, his philosphy about strategy, grand-strategy and his overall abilities, you will, I hope, be as impressed with the man's complete genius as one of the pre-emminent artist of war as I am.
Ahh, good to read the comments of a fellow believer You could also add that the troops Scipio picked up in Sicily were the demoralised and shamed remnants of the defeated legions of Cannae. As a combination in one package of tactician and strategist and man, Scipio was peerless (IMO, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

[Beirut]

Red Peasent,

Excellent sir. I wasn't sure if I remembered that part right about the troops being survivors of Cannae, so I didn't mention it.

Thank you for setting it straight.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif Hats off to Liverpool.

[nokhor]

my vote goes to epaminondas of thebes. as far as i know he created 1) the refused flank, 2) massing your units on one side of your battle line for a local superiority, and 3) the single envelopment, all in the same battle. epaminondas was the first general to defeat the spartans in a convetional battle on a level field. something the spartans were considered invincible at.

he showed grand strategic ability after his great victory by not attacking the city of sparta itself, but by building a rival polis in sparta's backyard of messenia. which the sparta ns were never able to takem and consequently were never able to dominate the pelopeneese again and consequently were never able to dominate greece again.

but i especially like epaminondas because of what i've read about him, he seemed like someone you might like to meet. unlike many of the 'great' generals the man was not accredited with any vices. no cruelty, torture of prisonoers, megalomania, greed or any of that stuff most of those characters seem to have.

[VikingHorde]

I'l say Alexander the Great, huge empire and great battle victorys.

[Rosacrux]

hhmm... too bad only the well-known got votes - apparently very few (say, nokhor) have realized how tremendously good commander the underdogs of history were - like Epaminondas for instance.

Friedrich of Prussland and Karl Gustav of Sweden, along with Napoleon, have been his greatest admirers. He was the first to form into a practical doctrine the "strongest against weakest" concept and preceded each and every commander on concentrating a critical mass of his strength in a narrow point - the weakest in the enemy formation - in an effort to throw the enemy off balance and then destroy him.

Also, I have noted that the famed Pyrrhus, the one Hannibal thought of as the greatest military commander ever, has not even received one vote...

[SwordsMaster]

Hmmmm...couldnt decide...
I voted for Hannibal cause he was the best in tactics IMO, but as a general...Julius Caesar.He NEVER lost a battle, and conquered every single city he besieged...thats 100% effective isnt it?

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 09 2004,00:31)]71-hour Ahmed,

Cheating?

Scipio lured/forced Hannibal to retreat from Italy back to Africa, and then Scipio whomped Hannibal's buddies, had a face to face meeting with Hannibal, then kicked Hannibal's Carthaginian ass at Zama while far from his own country, behind enemy lines, with no hope of re-enforcements from home.

I await with baited breath, on pins and needles, and with great impatience to learn how in the great void of the cosmic universe this was cheating?

waiting...waiting...waiting... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif

A few notes though:

Indeed Scipio's strategy forced Hannibal eventually to leave Italy. Though there are two major flaws in this reasoning, IMHO.
First of all, it is not certain at all that this strategy is to be ascribed to Scipio. The disposition of the Roman troops, and their initial orders were such as that they intended to fight in Spain and Africa, and not in Italy. So the Roman plan was in place, and being executed before Scipio rose to eminence. The whole of Hannibals plan was actually designed to take the fight to the Romans and into Italy, to prevent the Romans from implementing this plan.
Second, if this plan so great, how the hell did it allow Hannibal to roam through Italy for 17 years ? Even more, if Hasdrubal had not been defeated at the Metaurus river ( in 207 B.C, by two Roman armies under the consul Livius and Nero) Scipio might well have been forced to withdraw from Spain. As a matter of fact, the great Scipio had let Hasdrubal and his reinforcement army slip past him.

As far as whomping Hannibals buddies, again a few remarks. First of all it took him 10 years to force a decisive battle. He was unable to do so before, despite the fact that the Carthaginian commanders were not cooperating very well, and were plagued by revolts in Africa. He only succeeded after he got a good number of Spanish chiefs to switch sides.

Scipio did never ever operate in his enemies rear and, and was never ever cut of his base of supply. That would actually have been the exact opposite of what he stood for as a commander and strategist. Yes he fought in Spain and Africa, but the fact is that the Roman navy was dominant enough to consider the western Mediterrenean its private bath tub. (this fact was one of the reasons why Hannibal did what he did).

As far as Zama goes, again a few remarks. First of all, Scipio had succeeded in taking away Hannibal's greatest asset, the Numidian cavalry under Massinissa, and had them on his side now. The battle was forced upon Hannibal because the Romans were rampaging through the countryside, and he was told by the Carthaginian Senate to attack. Actually the Romans had to because Hannibal had succeeded in placing his army in between that of the Romans and the Numidian reinforcements. Scipio's achievement lays in the fact that he was able to link up with the Numidians, and lure Hannibal into battle at that point.

If any had an advantage in infantry, the advantage was with the Romans. Though slightly outnumbered, the quality of his infantry was far superior to that of the Carthaginians. And he held the advantage both in quality and quantity of cavalry. And despite all these advantages Scipio was possibly even losing the battle, until part of his cavalry returned in the nick of time, after it had pursued their enemy counterparts.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

As far as Julius Caesar goes:

He actually most likely lost at Gergovia during the Gallic wars (at least he was forced to leave the field). He nearly lost the Battle of the Sabis in 57 BC, and he only won because Roman discipline won the day (a major advantage over most Celtic tribes), up to the point that some of these battles (like Mons Graupius, are considered all but invincible for the enemy, unless the Romans really f*** up).
Caesar lost the Battle of Dyrrhachium (58 BC) but Pompeius was unable to pursue, and Caesar was able to limit his losses.

As far as Octavian Augustus being on this list is a horrible (but understandable) mistake.

By all accounts, Augustus was a "not so successful" commander in the field. And that is putting it mildly. He did, however, claim all the victories achieved by his commanders as his. Also, a good numbers of victories he claimed were most likely total fiction, or a gross distortion of the facts, most notably when the actions against the Parthians were concerned.
The most important generals under Agusutus were:
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63-12 BC). Victor at the battle of Actium in 31 BC. Was married to a daughter of Augustus in his first marriage. Grandfather of the emperor Gaius Caesar Caligula (37-41 AD), and great-grandfather of emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero (51-68 AD). Father in law of the future emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero (14-37 AD).
Nero Claudius Drusus (39-9 BC). Better known as simply Drusus, he was Augustus stepson, being a son of Livia's previous marriage. Very successful, and campaigned a lot in Germania (the Rhine area). Father of the emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero (41-51 AD), grandfather of Caligula. Died of wounds received in battle.
Tiberius Claudius Nero (42 BC - 37 AD): Son of Lvia, stepson of Octavian. Future emperor.
Germanicus Julius Caesar. Son of Drusus, son-in-law of Agrippa. By many deemed successor of Augustus. Campaigned mostly in Germania, and was the one to recover the standards of Varus' legions destroyed at the Teutoburger Forest in 9 AD, and bury the remains of the soldiers. Father of the emperor Caligula, grandfather of the emperor Nero. Rumored (suspected) to be murdered on instigation of the emperor Tiberius, as he was a potential rival.
Publius Quinctilius Varus (43 BC - 9 AD). Son in law of Agrippa, friend of Agrippa and Augustus. Delivered the eulogy at Agrippa's funeral. Governor of Africa, and later Syria (where he had 4 legions under his command). Appointed governor of Germania, and as such was lured into the battle of the Teutoburger Forest, where he perished with most of his three legions. Even though Augustus was livid when he heard of this disaster, Varus' head was buried in the mausoleum of the Octavian family (his 2nd wife was a grand-niece of Augustus).[/list]

Source: Wikepedia on-line encyclopedia (http://en.wikepedia.org) and some books I am reading for a paper on the Augustan army.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Zhuge Liang. That guy was a genius. The only one who even came close to him was Scipio Africanus.
And he could have handed Alexander the Greats head to Liu Bea any day of the Week (except Sunday, bad Idea to fight on Sunday).
-Capo

[The Wizard]

Now, for the sake of discussion, please tell us why. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz

[Beirut]

Michiel de Ruyter,

(Didn't see your post until today.)

I refer to my previous post which contains a discussion between Scipio and the Roman Senate in which there were Senators who accused Scipio of incompetance and lust of power for wanting to go to Africa. And when they finaly did allow him to go, they denied him the authority to levy troops. he had to create his own army from defeated troops who were inactive. And then they only gave him permission to go to Africa is he took Sicily first. I think this shows that there was no Roman predisposition to go to Africa at all. They allowed it only with great reluctance and even then imposed severe hindrances on Scipio.

I believe Scipio did operate in the enemy's rear, as well as their front and side. He was in Africa and had no hope of troop reinforcement. His supplies came from Sicily which he had already taken and used as his base.

As for Scipio forcing Hannibal to fight because the Romans were rampaging through Hannibal's backyard, which you insinuate was unfair (apologies if you did not insinuate this), then why was not Hannibal able to force a decisive battle with the Romans in their backyard since he was there so long. Seems to me that Scipio was able to set the trap more cunningly than Hannibal.

Zama continues to foster great debate. Often in these forums, Hannibalites often say "...yes, but Scipio only won because..." He won because he was smarter. He won because he understood the enemy better than the enemy understood him. He won because his army was better than the enemy's army. They stood face to face in battle, Hannibal and Scipio, having met earlier and having discussed the wars, and then when battle was met, Scipio won and Hannibal lost. All the excuses and what-ifs and cans of Coke and slices of pizza in the world cannot undo the fact that two men faced off in battle after having made their preperations and one lost and the other won. That... is war.

(Besides, Scipio's secret weapon and troop placements to nulify the Carthaginian elephants at Zama was pure genius. That alone scores him very high marks indeed and shows him to be a general of exceptional intelligence and imagination.)

[Suppiluliumas]

It is a shame that he never had to fight Hannibal on equal terms, or we would know for sure who was better. It is a similar question to whether Grant was better than Lee in the US Civil War. We will never know for certain.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Beirut,

what is your source for this discussion between the Senate and Scipio ?

As, first of all, AFAIK during the 2nd Punic War Sicily was always under roman control. So there was no need for reconquest. Second, the name Fabius suggests this could well be Fabius "Cunctator" who, was not popular. Third, AFAIK the Roman Senate at that point in history would never deny it's most succesfull general the troops and reinforcements he needed. Scipio could not have gone earlier because the conquest/elemination of Spanish Carthago was not accomplished.

I never insinuated rampaging through someones backyard in order to have him fight is unfair.. it is sound military strategy. As far as Hannibal not being succesfull, IMHO that is partly because the Roman alliance held. It is because the Romans and there allies had so many men that they could overcome the losses of Trebbia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae, and after that made sure haniabl would never ever be able to trap the Roman armies again. Also, the Roman Senate, and Roman society was willing to make the sacrifices necessary. Rome waged total war, unlike Carthage.

Politically, Hannibal was in a very similar situation as Ceasar was 150 years later.

I agree with you that Scipio was an exceptional general... you will never hear me say otherwise. But the simple fact that Scipio beat Hannibal in battle does by no means equate to Scipio being the better general. Nobody will say that Montgomery was a better general then Rommel. Or Zhukov was better then von Manstein.

[SwordsMaster]

agree with Michiel. Hannibal and Scipio never had the resources they needed, and so the comparison isnt fair for any of them.Have to agree that Scipio used the circumstances better than Hannibal at Zama, but he was on the losing side when they met before, and Hannibal showed his ability more than several times in overhelmingly inferior conditions.Enough to be one of the greatest.

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 04 2004,20:30)]Now, for the sake of discussion, please tell us why. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz
It has been a long time since i have read RTK or ShiJi, but from what i remember, Zhuge liang would perhaps use what he used against Zhou Yu. He would deny Alexander battle. He would let alexander's man defeat themselves by denying them battle day after day, leading Alexander's man on a wild goose chase through the Chinese mountainous west. In the end, Alexander would either give up or be forced to give up or Zhuge liang would attack when the macedonians were morally drained and exhausted.

[Accounting Troll]

I'm surprised that noone has nominated the Roman Emperor Caligula.

Granted he was an insane brutal tyrant who was so sensitive about his bald patch that he executed anyone who referred to goats in any context, and he worked out that he could save money on butchers meat for circus animals by having people convicted of even petty offences chopped up into little bits and fed to the animals. But wouldn't you be the same if your name could be translated into English as 'Bootykins'?

Consider his two greatest military victories:

He decided to launch an invasion of Germany, but rather than face any danger (this was only a generation or so after Varius was defeated), he rounded up a bunch of people with Germanic features and told them to learn the language and customs of the German tribes. He then held a great parade in Rome where they were paraded as the prisoners of war captured in his great victory.

He also decided to launch an invasion of Britain, then he marched his men to the coast, where instead of embarking his soldiers on ships, he had them picking up shells from the beach to symbolise his victory over Neptune.

My point is that none of his soldiers were killed in these campaigns, unless you count the ones he had executed.

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (Accounting Troll @ April 09 2004,03:07)]I'm surprised that noone has nominated the Roman Emperor Caligula.

Granted he was an insane brutal tyrant who was so sensitive about his bald patch that he executed anyone who referred to goats in any context, and he worked out that he could save money on butchers meat for circus animals by having people convicted of even petty offences chopped up into little bits and fed to the animals. But wouldn't you be the same if your name could be translated into English as 'Bootykins'?

Consider his two greatest military victories:

He decided to launch an invasion of Germany, but rather than face any danger (this was only a generation or so after Varius was defeated), he rounded up a bunch of people with Germanic features and told them to learn the language and customs of the German tribes. He then held a great parade in Rome where they were paraded as the prisoners of war captured in his great victory.

He also decided to launch an invasion of Britain, then he marched his men to the coast, where instead of embarking his soldiers on ships, he had them picking up shells from the beach to symbolise his victory over Neptune.

My point is that none of his soldiers were killed in these campaigns, unless you count the ones he had executed.
I'm glad you brought him up, cause i was trying to decide between him and Don Quixote but could not make up my mind.
Oh and let me submit my candidate, Dr Pangloss as the greatest philosopher of all time.

[Beirut]

Michiel de Ruyter,

First, I apologize for my tone. I had intention of sounding snarky. I very much enjoy this thread and don't want to sound like I'm launching flame bombs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

My source is Liddell Hart's biography of Scipio. His sources are Livy and Polybius.

In his book, Hart speaks at length about the speed bumps put along Scipio's path by the Roman Senate: the public accusations, the charges of corruption, the refusal to allow him the authority to levy troops. It seems many in the Senate were jelous, and though Scipio eventually got his way on most matters, it does appear that he had to fight for it every step of the way.

Your comment about who one general not being the better because of on victory is a very good one.

However, (there had to be a however), given the style of Scipio's campaign, the forethought, the diplomacy, the psychology, the strategy and tactics, I am inclined to say that his victory was not an isolated event, but one more step along a premeditated route that he intended to travel. I believe he won against Hannibal because he fought his war against Hannibal better than Hannibal was able to fight against him.

Are you familiar with Scipio's "secret weapon" that he used against the Carthaginian elephants? Trumpets. And pathways lengthwise down the Roman troops for the elephants to run through. His logic, very sound it appears, was that a scared elephant will gladly run down a clear path instead of plowing through troops who are pelting it with spears. So simple. So brilliant. So effective. You just have to love the mind of this guy.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Beirut,

not ot belittle Liddel Hart,

but in some respects both Livy and Polybius can be a bit unreliable, as at least Livy was firmly entrenched in the patronus-clientela system of the Roman period...

For instance, it is commonly accepted that the Roman commander at Cannae was Varro. But, at least one historian is of the opinian that it was actually Aemilius Paulinus in command of the Roman army. His arguments:

Time schedule: Roman armies were alternately commanded by one of the consuls, if the consular armies were united (which was the case at Cannae). Going by the schedule Livy and Polybius give us, it is only possible for Varro to have been in command if the Romans wasted a day at the location of the battle, which is mentioned nowhere.

Varro's previous millitary records and the characters of Paulinus and Varro. He argues that the conduct of the battle simply does not fit what is known of Varro's previous exploits, but fits much more the character of Paulinus.

Why then did Livy write of Varro being in command ? Simply, first and foremost, the patronus-clientela system bound him firmly to the powerfull Pauline clan; to blame one of their descendants for the worst Roman military disater ever (by far) would not have been a smart idea for him. Combine that with the fact that Varro was an easy scapegoat. He had fled, while Paulinus died on the field of battle, and the Varro-clan was not nearly as powerfull as the Pauline clan.

IIRC for Polybius he describes a similar though not as obvious reason for blaming Varro.

So whenever reading a Roman historian, one of the very first things one should do is look to which clans and families he is tied in. Plus the fact that a number of them are suspected of having some of the habits of their own time projected onto history.