Ten Best Generals (5BC until Julian)

[Agiselaos]

Who do you think are the 10 best generals of a ancient times??please put them from best to worst:help:

[Boyar Son]

Sun Tzu should be in there

brb with the rest

[Intranetusa]

My top 10 are:

Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Caesar, Qin Shi Huang, Marius, Alexander,
Pericles of Athens, Themistocles of Athens, Surena of Parthia, Cincinnatus or Pyhrus...

[alatar]

Hanibal, Phyros and Alexander are up there (you know your great when 2300 years after you died people on the other side of the world know who you are by just using your first name).

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

1. Megas Alexandros
2. Hannibal Barca
3. G. Julius Caesar
4. Arminius the Cheruskian
5. C. Pompeius Magnus
6. Phyrros Aiakides

[DMu]

Qin Shi Huang is not a general.

Try Bai Qi, Wang Jian and Li Mu and Lian Po...

Qing Shi Huang is the Emperor, he had to count on Bai Qi and Wang Jian to fight his battles...

Li Mu is the general for Zhao Kingdom as is Lian Po.

It might be me, but I dont' think 36 strats are by Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu is a strategist, not really a general per se.

Another great Strategist is Zhang Liang, aka Zhang Zifang

Perhaps you heard of the saying: He has his Zhang Liang strat, I have my wall climbing ladder

[DMu]

1. Xiang Yu
2. Scipio Africanus
3. Julius Caesar
4. Pompey
5. Lian Po
7. Huang Feihu
8. Li Jing
9. Gn. Pompey Magnus
10. Mithridates

[Intranetusa]

Hannibal & Alexander should definately be 2 of the top 10

[Sarcasm]

Julius Caesar? Please. He'd be at the top 10 politicians though.

[Eduorius]

The title doesnt says 5BC until Julian (around 350 A.D.)

That makes the option smaller to guys like Agrippa, Germanicus, Titus, Arminius, Shapor, etc.

[DMu]

In ancient times, politicians are generals are politicians...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

4. Pompey
...
9. Gn. Pompey Magnus
Theese two are the very same person.

[-Praetor-]

1º) Megas Alexandros. (Undisputably first... and period.)

2º) Hannibal Barca (Undisputable second)

3º) Phyrros Aiakides (many writers said that he was the most brilliant military mind since Alexandros... and they were probably right)

4º) Scipio Africanus (the man that broke down carthaginean power at it`s height)

5º) Hasdrubal Barca (He defeated the romans in every fight they made, and conquered a huge bite of Iberia)

6º) Lysandros of Sparta (A spartan defeats the athenians on the sea???)

7º) Julius Caesar. (he was a product of his own propaganda, but let`s face it... he standed up to pretty dire situations in gaul and he wasn´t killed there. More, he triumphed in every circumstance)

8º) Atilla the Hun. (defeated both Roman empires, but with that correlation of forces, anyone of the prior generals would have changed the name from "Roman Empire" to "Hunnic Empire")

9º) Favius Aetius. (stopped an enormous juggernauth heading straight to conquering gaul... that deserves a reckoning)

10º) ME. After playing so much time on EB, I would kick the ass of all those MTF... :grin:

Cheers. :rtwyes:

[Enguerrand de Sarnéac]

1º) Megas Alexandros. (Undisputably first... and period.)

2º) Hannibal Barca (Undisputable second)

3º) Phyrros Aiakides (many writers said that he was the most brilliant military mind since Alexandros... and they were probably right)

4º) Scipio Africanus (the man that broke down carthaginean power at it`s height)



Hannibal himself admitted that he thought Pyrrhos was the greatest general in Antiquity, before Scipio and himself:



2 Of his knowledge and ability in the field of military tactics and leadership one may get proofs from the writings on these subjects which he left. It is said also that Antigonus, when asked who was the best general, "Pyrrhus, if he lives to be old." This verdict of Antigonus applied only to his contemporaries. Hannibal, however, declared that the foremost of all generals in experience and ability was Pyrrhus, that Scipio was second, and he himself third, as I have written in my life of Scipio.


My own line:

1./Pyrrhos Aeakides

2./Hannibal Barca

3./Megas Alexandros

4./Scipio Africanus

5./k_raso (totally convinced by your arguments) :grin:

[Basileus Seleukeia]

1) Hannibal Barcas. No comment needed, I think
2) Pyrrhos Aikaides. I like people who nearly crushed Rome, and he was brilliant indeed.
3) Seleucos Nikator. Wondering why nobody listed him before...
4) Megas Alexandros. I have put him here because the end of his life was not very "Megas", killing his friends as an insane paranoid shadow of what he once was
5) Hamilcar Barcas.

[alatar]

1) Hannibal Barcas. No comment needed, I think
2) Pyrrhos Aikaides. I like people who nearly crushed Rome, and he was brilliant indeed.
3) Seleucos Nikator. Wondering why nobody listed him before...
4) Megas Alexandros. I have put him here because the end of his life was not very "Megas", killing his friends as an insane paranoid shadow of what he once was
5) Hamilcar Barcas.

So, even at theend of it he wqas a great general?
It's not the nicest person we are looking for, but the best general, just because he went crazt before he died doesn't make his previos feets any less.

[Thaatu]

k_raso is definitely up there in the top 10.

[Sarcasm]

In ancient times, politicians are generals are politicians...
Indeed they were. Some of them were even farmers too, but that doesn't make them the best farmers in world now does it? ~;)

[Enguerrand de Sarnéac]

Indeed they were. Some of them were even farmers too, but that doesn't make them the best farmers in world now does it? ~;)

Country Bumpkin: This man pays too much attention in the streets to the teeth of mules: -1 influence; +1 farming income :smile:

[king hannibal]

1. hannibal barce

2. alexander the great although he had a perfect army V persians

3. Scipio Africanus

4. cyrus the great

5. Julius Caesar

I need to read up on everyone else but that so far

[Tellos Athenaios]

Just to second:


The title doesnt says 5BC until Julian (around 350 A.D.)

That makes the option smaller to guys like Agrippa, Germanicus, Titus, Arminius, Shapor, etc.

Which means that some of my all time favourites were ruled out. Ah, and for more information on the emperor that gave China it's name, you [not being a historian, although interested] could consider reading Le grand empereur et ses automates written by Jean Levi. It is not actual history, rather a novel which aims to portray a person in history, using both primary and secondary sources.

[Boyar Son]

Phyross defeats Rome in some engagements when Rome was not as powerful.
Rome wasnt as powerful as we all thought. Besides there wasnt generals after Hannibal he could've chosen so he went with someone who wipped the Romans (Hannibal hated Romans).


Hannibal launched suprises on the enemy and uses elephants and wins over not too strategical generals, and everyone hails him as a heathen God. seriuosly him #1???

[Orb]

@Cossack, Hannibal's enemies weren't particularly incompetent and elephants were not used in Cannae, nor in many other battles he fought; Hannibal used complete innovation, which resulted in victories against odds considered impossible. I sincerely doubt that any one of us would have either anticipated Hannibal's tactics, or have thought of them in his situation.

[Eduorius]

Lake Trasieme - Considered the greatest ambush of all times.
Cannae - Hannibal smashed the legions of Rome

Is not only winning battles what we admire of Hannibal, but being 10 years or more in enemy territory without supply lines or receiving substantial reinforcements from Africa or Spain.

[Boyar Son]

With ambush tactics! AMBUSH!

Of course that was like the only option for victory but he lost 1 on 1 WITH elephants against Scipio.

Greatest commander of all time? maybe not THE greatest. probably greatest ambusher.

[Wolfman]

1. Megas Alexandros- Brought one of the greatest empires in the ancient world to its Knees and united Greece.
2. Hannibal Barca- Nearly Destroyed the city of Roma if it hadn't of been for the razing of carthage.
3. Scipio Africanus- Defeated the Carthaginians in one of romes most desperate hours.
4. Pyrros Aikaides- Even though he lost he was still a great general.
5. Vercingetorix- Imagine what gaul would have been if he had defeeated Julius Caesar.
6. Julius Caesar-Defeated Pompey and the Gauls
7. Sun Tzu- What more can be said
8. Hasdrubal Barca- Like he
9. Cyrus the Great
10. Flavius Aetius
The order in which I have put these men has nothing to do with their command abilities or my views about them. They were all great men for their time. I think they all deserve respect

[Orb]

Cannae wasn't an ambush, that was an envelopment, and used a strategy that is still taught today to win despite odds considered impossible, an achievement I doubt any other generals can match.
Having elephants doesn't make you a worse general. At Zama, the Numidians had (IIRC) joined the Romans, and Hannibal had a mostly green and unprepared force through no fault of his own. The Romans thus had superiority in at least some respects for the battle.
Scipio also used ambush tactics to defeat the Carthaginian cavalry in Spain. Using ambush tactics isn't a problem with your generalship.

(Just a note: I place Robert Guiscard at #1 all-time, but Hannibal and Scipio jointly in the time frame being discussed[not the one originally intended].)

[Boyar Son]

1. Megas Alexandros- Brought one of the greatest empires in the ancient world to its Knees and united Greece.
2. Hannibal Barca- Nearly Destroyed the city of Roma if it hadn't of been for the razing of carthage.
3. Scipio Africanus- Defeated the Carthaginians in one of romes most desperate hours.
4. Pyrros Aikaides- Even though he lost he was still a great general.
5. Vercingetorix- Imagine what gaul would have been if he had defeeated Julius Caesar.
6. Julius Caesar-Defeated Pompey and the Gauls
7. Sun Tzu- What more can be said
8. Hasdrubal Barca- Like he
9. Cyrus the Great
10. Flavius Aetius
The order in which I have put these men has nothing to do with their command abilities or my views about them. They were all great men for their time. I think they all deserve respect

Flavius lived well after 5 BC but definitly a good pick!

As for vercingetorix the Roman would've kept coming, and he defeated julius once.

No offence im not opposed to your list:sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:

[Boyar Son]

Cannae wasn't an ambush, that was an envelopment, and used a strategy that is still taught today to win despite odds considered impossible, an achievement I doubt any other generals can match.
Having elephants doesn't make you a worse general. At Zama, the Numidians had (IIRC) joined the Romans, and Hannibal had a mostly green and unprepared force through no fault of his own. The Romans thus had superiority in at least some respects for the battle.
Scipio also used ambush tactics to defeat the Carthaginian cavalry in Spain. Using ambush tactics isn't a problem with your generalship.

(Just a note: I place Robert Guiscard at #1 all-time, but Hannibal and Scipio jointly in the time frame being discussed[not the one originally intended].)

The battle of zama was considered impossible, still couldn't pull it of...

(ok I know hes good what I said above was a last ditch response:2thumbsup:) I just cant say there (or he) is THE best general.

Whos Robert Guiscard?

[Intranetusa]

1. Megas Alexandros- Brought one of the greatest empires in the ancient world to its Knees and united Greece.
2. Hannibal Barca- Nearly Destroyed the city of Roma if it hadn't of been for the razing of carthage.


Well, Hannibal never had the necessary seige weapons to take Rome. That was one of the reasons he wandered around ravaging the country side instead of attacking Rome itself.

[Artificer]

Whos Robert Guiscard?

The man who single-handedly overthrew Lombard government in southern Italy and defeated the Pope through clever use of politics, military know-how and sheer force of personality. The man deserves all the credit he can get.

Here's the short version of the story. :2thumbsup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard

[Sheep]

I sincerely doubt that any one of us would have either anticipated Hannibal's tactics, or have thought of them in his situation.

I'm not sure that having better tactical sense than the members of this board (k_raso excluded, of course) really qualifies one as the best general in history though.

[Dumbass]

I'm not sure that having better tactical sense than the members of this board (k_raso excluded, of course) really qualifies one as the best general in history though.

He has a point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmmm.

I can't oder them really, but:

1. Meghas Alexandros

2. Scipio Africanus

3. Hannibal Barca

4. Philip of Pella

5. Julius Caesar

6. Parmenion

I'll leave the other four blank as a nod to the ancient cultures I know less about, though Cyrus, Darius and many other deserve a mention. Most of those men had the advantage of luck and superior troops though, and the list has three Macedonians.

[Roy1991]

(I don't know anything about Far Eastern generals, so that's why none of them is on my list)

In no specific order:

- Megas Alexandros
- Gaius Julius Caesar
- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
- Philippos II
- Lucius Licinius Lucullus
- Lucius Cornelius Sulla
- Hannibal Barca
- Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major
- Gaius Marius
- Pyrrhus of Epirus

[shlin28]

What about Agrippa? He was pretty good.

[Kugutsu]

Hannibal didnt seriously think he could take Rome. His march there was a feint which he was hoping would cause the army besieging Capua to break off the siege and come to rescue Rome. As it was he had seriously bad luck. Not only did the general besieging Capua (the name escapes me) not take the bait, but he arrived at the gates of Rome just as two new legions had been enrolled. Capua then fell, prompting a load of other italian cities to abandon Hannibal, and he also lost a significant part of his army there, including his brother Mago, who were the garrison. Rome was very lucky, and this chain of events led to the eventual defeat of hannibal in italy. The loss of the italian cities was probably the most important factor, as then he was truely without supplies or anywhere to retreat to to rest his army...

My choices:
1. Alexander - he did conquer half the world!
2. Hannibal
3. Scipio
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Germanicus
6. Aratus - he must have been good or the Achean League wouldnt have elected him strategos so many times.
And for some outside the roman world...
7. Sun Tsu
8. Sun Ce (from the three kingdoms era)
9. Tokugawa Ieyasu
10. Toyotomi Hideyoshi

The order isnt really important.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Am I the only one who thinks that Arminius, the slaughterer of three legions deserves a mention? And what did Germanicus do so especially?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I don't think I can think of any good Roman general who was good because of his general skills. Scipio Africanvs defeated Hannibal, in a battle that Hannibal knew he couldn't win. Julivs Ceasar divided and conquered a war torn Gaul. He had good long range tactics, but not nessicarily battle tactics. Most good Roman generals were good at politics, propiganda, terror tactics, and/or opertunistic. I like Germanicvs though (most good generals were too popular for their own good).

P.S. Did Sun Tzu ever lead troops into battle? All I ever hear of him is as an advisor to the emporer.

[Roy1991]

What about Agrippa? He was pretty good.

According to the topic title, Agrippa, Ariminius, etc, aren't allowed to participate :yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pompey was good, very good, better than Caesar in fact. I left him off because it's really hard to justify.

Caesar was an excellent tactician but poor in everything else, his politics were mere rabble rousing and his murder was atestemant to his fairly pathetic failure to keep a divided Senate divided. With the exception of Marius, Sulla and Scipio most of Rome's other generals from that weren't worth much, none of them faced really competant opposition.

[kalkwerk]

Fabian Maximus. The only maximus. For not going to battle with Hannibal.

[Boyar Son]

Am I the only one who thinks that Arminius, the slaughterer of three legions deserves a mention? And what did Germanicus do so especially?

Probably, besides when it comes to ambush Hannibal utterly destroys that barbarian.:2thumbsup:

[Boyar Son]

Pompey was good, very good, better than Caesar in fact. I left him off because it's really hard to justify.

Caesar was an excellent tactician but poor in everything else, his politics were mere rabble rousing and his murder was atestemant to his fairly pathetic failure to keep a divided Senate divided. With the exception of Marius, Sulla and Scipio most of Rome's other generals from that weren't worth much, none of them faced really competant opposition.

Plz, note that caeser fought battles outside of gaul ?

And won againt odds

[Orb]

I'm not sure that having better tactical sense than the members of this board (k_raso excluded, of course) really qualifies one as the best general in history though.

:laugh4:

[Veris]

Pompey was hardly impressive, at least in the war against Caesar. He was extremely passive and gave Caesar way too many chances.

Caesar deserves more credit for seizing Italy, at Pharsalus and his Spanish campaigns than Gaul due to his approaches.

Hannibal and Scipio definitely deserve a lot of credit. Both knew how to use indirect marches to great effect (i,e over the Alps, against Flaminius; Spain, and Africa respectively). Fabius showed a unique and effective response to Rome's greatest enemy but he did not have much to prove outside of that. Also, he was against Scipio attacking Africa rather than trying to forcibly kick Hannibal out of Italy. Other than them most Romans won more due to the poor relative organization/military strength of their enemies and few were able to distinguish themselves over a multitude of occasions.

It's surprising that the successor generals have not been mentioned much. Both Antigonus the one eyed's acquisition of territory and the response by Cassander and Lysimachus were both excellent demonstrations of strategical maneuver and Ipsus was certainly an interesting battle.

Lysander and Themiostocles were definitely quite competent commanders and perhaps deserve a mention for their stunning victories (Salamis especially is a battle of the utmost importance in classical history).

The main person I'm bewildered at not seeing any mention of is Epaminondas. He toppled the Spartan military with his strong innovation of military organization (The first small elite unit outside of Persia?) and went beyond the bounds of hoplite tactics. He was also quite adept at grand strategy as well; the establishment of Megalopolis is a move rarely seen in military history but it proved incredibly effective. It was his theories and practices that directly led to the establishment of probably the strongest army in the ancient world (Cynoscephalae and Pydna were very poor demonstrations of the Macedonian military machine).

As for a list, I won't do that. All that really needs to be said is that Alexander is undisputed #1 and that the rest can be assembled in one way or another with reasonable arguments for and against.

[DMu]

Puh lee se.

Sun Ce? Did I read that right?

You gotta be kidding...

Sun Ce?

He's the weakest of the weak during the 3 kingdoms era.

I mean, why not Taishi Ci? or better Zhou Yu?

You gotta know how to distinguish between politicians and Generals.

Seriously.

[Wolfman]

As for vercingetorix the Roman would've kept coming, and he defeated julius once.

No offence im not opposed to your list:sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:
None Taken.:beam:

[Zaknafien]

I'm more of the opinion that all your Roman greats (Caesar, Marius, Pompey, Scipio, et all), werent necessarily such great strategists or tacticians, but simply good organizers. Roman military tactics were essentially the same with all these men, based as always on METT-TC (Mission, eqiuipment, terrain, troops, time, civil considerations), but these men were excellent at organizational feats of manpower and administration. Politics, really, as has been mentioned before. Although Scipio should recieve great credit for turning the horrible hodge-podge of louts in Spain into a decent army capable of defeating Carthage.

[skuzzy]

I think Roy1991 has a good list within the scope of the question although there is complete disregard to Eastern culture... but who really cares about them anyway (j/k)? It is true that when you're talking about Roman "politicians" that they used other elements besides sheer tactics to obtain victory but this doesn't necessarily mean that they're not generals. They were leading men into battle (maybe not literally in some cases) and overcoming one way or the other so they may not be dubbed general to some but to me they certainly qualify.

[Morte66]

Have we officially dumped the time period in the title? If so, as well as the usual suspects I'll plug Epaminondas of Thebes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimanondas).

Oh, and a general to play EB: Tiberius, successor to Augustus, colonial warrior extraordinaire. He never did anything spectacular, just calmly and with minimal risk inched his way into Germania and built a stable frontier. Exactly what they needed after Varus. In a mod which seems specifically designed to make Alexander impossible, he's perfect.

[SaFe]

Have we officially dumped the time period in the title? If so, as well as the usual suspects I'll plug Epaminondas of Thebes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimanondas).

Oh, and a general to play EB: Tiberius, successor to Augustus, colonial warrior extraordinaire. He never did anything spectacular, just calmly and with minimal risk inched his way into Germania and built a stable frontier. Exactly what they needed after Varus. In a mod which seems specifically designed to make Alexander impossible, he's perfect.


Tiberius did a fine job, but is is rather unclear if he did fought any battles vs. the tribes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Plz, note that caeser fought battles outside of gaul ?

And won againt odds

Really? No, you must be joking. Please, give me some credit.

Pompey abandoned Italy, Caesar was merely competant in Spain really and Pompey's Spanish service was probably more impressive, given the opponent he faced and fought to a stalemate.

At Pharsallas Pompey made a tactical blunder. He failed to realise that caesar would not engage his cavalry head on when face with a 4-1 dissadvantage. Had he kept half his cavalry in reserve they would have been able to envelope and and destroy Ceasar's veterans, with timely support from auxillary infantry.

With his cavalry gone his flank would have been naked and he would have been enveloped and destroyed.

In other words Caesar lost because Pompey was having an off day. Interestingly letters from Cicero indicate that Pompey had been ill and was perhaps not recovered when the war began.

What is probably difficult to dispute is that Pompey was a better man than Caesar.

[Boyar Son]

Really? No, you must be joking. Please, give me some credit.

Pompey abandoned Italy, Caesar was merely competant in Spain really and Pompey's Spanish service was probably more impressive, given the opponent he faced and fought to a stalemate.

At Pharsallas Pompey made a tactical blunder. He failed to realise that caesar would not engage his cavalry head on when face with a 4-1 dissadvantage. Had he kept half his cavalry in reserve they would have been able to envelope and and destroy Ceasar's veterans, with timely support from auxillary infantry.

With his cavalry gone his flank would have been naked and he would have been enveloped and destroyed.

In other words Caesar lost because Pompey was having an off day. Interestingly letters from Cicero indicate that Pompey had been ill and was perhaps not recovered when the war began.

What is probably difficult to dispute is that Pompey was a better man than Caesar.

Nope wasnt joking, Not. One. Bit.

But I'll give you credit

Pompey made the mistake not to mention Caeser withdrew some troops to the flank to repel the cavalry and was able to destroy Pompeys.

[Caratacos]

I can't believe you've all forgotten Brennos. First man to sweep aside the Romans (at Allia) and then he sacks Roma. He was so good they then ressurect him many years later and he walks over the mainland Greeks (at Thermopylae of all places) and sacks Delphi. But of course the spell wore off and he had to go back to the otherworld (which of course was misinterpreted as his suicide). Come on-- educate yourself people.


:clown:

[kalkwerk]

I'm more of the opinion that all your Roman greats (Caesar, Marius, Pompey, Scipio, et all), werent necessarily such great strategists or tacticians, but simply good organizers. Roman military tactics were essentially the same with all these men, based as always on METT-TC (Mission, eqiuipment, terrain, troops, time, civil considerations), but these men were excellent at organizational feats of manpower and administration. Politics, really, as has been mentioned before. Although Scipio should recieve great credit for turning the horrible hodge-podge of louts in Spain into a decent army capable of defeating Carthage.
Maybe its more important to decide what makes out a good commander. The one who win battles or the one who win wars? The one who flanks with his cavalry or the one who see that his 40 000 army has enough to eat 2000 km from home? Caesars describes in his Gaul War again and again how decisive the supply issues were to win the war.

[Dumbass]

Let's not forget Caesar wrote his own history, so it's likely to biased towards him. Pompey would have won the war, it was only that he was pressured into fighting at pharsalus by impatient senators who had no idea of the tactics Pompey was using.

[vonhaupold]

Maybe its more important to decide what makes out a good commander. The one who win battles or the one who win wars? The one who flanks with his cavalry or the one who see that his 40 000 army has enough to eat 2000 km from home? Caesars describes in his Gaul War again and again how decisive the supply issues were to win the war.


I was going to say something along these lines as well...

There are many factors that make up a great general and not all great generals have these traits.

Alexander was great because of his revolutionary tactics that utterly crushed any opposition he faced. He also had to be extremely charismatic to be able to get thousands of men to march in to the unknown world thousands of miles from their home. How do you motivate people to do that? I think that is one of the most remarkable things about him.

As for Hannibal he similarly had to motivate his men too though not to the degree Alexander did. He formed many alliances as he marched and was not only able motivate his men, but men from other lands as most of his army was mercenaries. Also Hannibal understood his opponent's (Rome) way of fighting and used this against them. For examples of this please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Trasimene

These two battles really show what a brilliant commander Hannibal truly was.

I haven't read enough about other commanders but Alexander & Hannibal have to top the list. As mentioned before other great commanders were:

-Scipio Africanus
-Phyrrus
-Hamilcar Barca

[Megalos]

To make a top ten up is pretty hard, so i'll just speak up for my #1.

To choose a great general I think you have to look at many different aspects of his persona and achievements. So i'll list my choice and the reasons why starting with the most important reason.

Alexander the Great (should be renamed to greatest!)


Logistical Innovation - Undoubted champion of logistics. Marched his army around the known world and beyond by foot mostly. Did away with the baggage train (unheard of iirc) by getting the men to carry their own equipment and provisions (did away with after the romans and only taken up again by military generals in the last century). This enabled them to cover harder terrain not accessable with a train, and to travel distances at a much greater speed than any other army, also making them flexible. He set up a chain of supply ships to travel back and forth to the greek mainland and later to other non greek cities to gather and deliver much needed supplies to where ever he needed them on his campaigns! Not easy to do without todays communications and technologies! It might take months to get a ship back and forth with supplies, not to mention knowing where to drop the supplies off after that amount of time! Only two other campaigns in history have required more logistical planning than that of Alexanders campaign - The D-Day landings and The First Gulf war... When both generals who were in charge of the above mentioned plans were asked who their greastest military inspiration was - guess who?

Tactical Innovation - Took his fathers brilliant reforms and tactics to new levels, some may even say perfection.

Adaptbility - Always ready to adapt tactics and plans, enabling him and his army to take on anyone.

Charisma - Thought of as a God by most. You have to b pretty charismatic to get your men to walk around the world and into the unknown carrying their own equipment through harsh conditions and enviroments don't ya think?

Guts - you have to be very brave indeed to take on the greatest Empire up until that time.

Determination - Always followed through his goals no matter how grisly unless they defied common sense.

Common Sense - If something was too hard or not worth the expense, common sense prevailed - not something found to be found in 9/10 generals!

Command Chain - He identified the most intelligent, charismatic and loyal men he had available to him, and instead of thinking of them as rivals (in most cases) he promoted and gave them official positions within his army thus making it much easier to deligate with assurance.

Propaganda- He conqured many peoples and tribes by many different means. You might say well this or that General did that!...but did the general make the people whom they had conqured think that the general had done them a favour? Did they gain the conqured peoples love? I think not

Achievements - Destroyed the mighty Persian Empire. Conqured and Controlled the biggest Empire of all time! period! (all done in a few years too! how many years did it take for the Roman Empire to reach it's zenith?).


Some may argue that the opposition he faced was weak compared with opposition that later Generals fought...but you can only beat what is put in front of you, and the Persian Empire was quite advanced for it's time not to mention the huge resources it had at its desposal! The fact of the matter is, Alexander never gave his opponent an inch, never allowing them to come up with a response to his army, never allowing them to regroup, never allowing them to rest, this is the mark of a truely great General and Alexander had it stamped all over him...can you really think of another General who has achieved so much?

My two pence anyway.

Mega

[Intranetusa]

My choices:
1. Alexander - he did conquer half the world!
The order isnt really important.

More like 1/4 of the "known" world, and less than 1/20 of the inhabitated world.