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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Oh hey, its okay, you can name him and called him the "Greatest Commander in History". At least to true to you I suppose.

---

No, I didnt call him the greatest in history. But his military feats and practices are above that of those mentioned, not a single one of those commanders has a battle that could rival lets say Ilipia in greatness..

scipio africanus was great. he was not that great. and i do not think that any of those i named are the greatest i merely addressed east east wilds point. I know about other non european generals and i still think this list is fair at least alexander and genghis khan. think what alexander would accomplish if he hadnt died freakishly thats why i dont consider it the way you did. its not like he was destroyed by internal problems or something.

Quote:

---

Okay I would be impressed but I am really not. And your point for being able to name these people now is to impress?

---

want more? i would add mao, zhakov, and saladin. hell maybe even mohammed onto a greats list.

it has nothing to do with impressing merely saying i know of other great generals and i still think this is a fair question asked in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

scipio africanus was great. he was not that great. and i do not think that any of those i named are the greatest i merely addressed east east wilds point. I know about other non european generals and i still think this list is fair at least alexander and genghis khan. think what alexander would accomplish if he hadnt died freakishly thats why i dont consider it the way you did. its not like he was destroyed by internal problems or something.



want more? i would add mao, zhakov, and saladin. hell maybe even mohammed onto a greats list.

it has nothing to do with impressing merely saying i know of other great generals and i still think this is a fair question asked in the OP.

---

Scipio is not the greatest but I can hardly name many non european generals that could beat him. And thats what this was about, that the reason why historical generals tend to be euro centric is because they simply were better than other ones.

And I only put Khan, Alexander, and Hannibal on the list because they are well known. I personaly dont think they belong up there with Caesar and Napoleon.

Gotta go for the night, later.

Caesar is overated. Napoleon stayed in a homogenous battleground and never diversified himself. phooey i say genghis is king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Childish and definately euro centric.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

No one else is greater than Fredrick the great? Isn't that just your opinion? See how pointless this thread is?

---

This is all not friendly disagreement. One can disagree with the basic premise of a thread without suffocating it with endless qualifications like pointless, childish, uninformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Caesar is overated. Napoleon stayed in a homogenous battleground and never diversified himself. phooey i say genghis is king.

---

Well I strongly disagree their. Napoleon and Caesar I believed showed waaay more military genius threw out their careers than any of the other commanders in list. Their victories are just to phenomenal to be challenged many.

The thing I'm most impressed about Hannibal, save for his strategic and tactical talents, is that of logistics, and his ability to sustain his army in enemy territory for the first 3 years with next to no help from anywhere. Most of the great generals had a supply line of some sort. When Alexander defeated his enemy, he managed to sort out a place for supply miles from home, whereas Hannibal didn't. Hannibal managed to achieve great victories despite this, and some of his strategic goals - a lesser general certainly wouldn't have managed it. Despite Hannibal losing in the end, I really think he deserves to be considered one of the greatest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

The thing I'm most impressed about Hannibal, save for his strategic and tactical talents, is that of logistics, and his ability to sustain his army in enemy territory for the first 3 years with next to no help from anywhere. Most of the great generals had a supply line of some sort. When Alexander defeated his enemy, he managed to sort out a place for supply miles from home, whereas Hannibal didn't. Hannibal managed to achieve great victories despite this, and some of his strategic goals - a lesser general certainly wouldn't have managed it. Despite Hannibal losing in the end, I really think he deserves to be considered one of the greatest!

---

I would also notably mention Winfield Scott, the greatest U.S. general in history. His handling of logistics was absolutely phenomenal in Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

I would also notably mention Winfield Scott, the greatest U.S. general in history. His handling of logistics was absolutely phenomenal in Mexico.

---

hehe, I see you've been lobbying his case over on Historum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

hehe, I see you've been lobbying his case over on Historum!

---

Yea, he just tends to come quick to mind for some reason. Although I personally wish to get a bit more into William Slim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Well I strongly disagree their. Napoleon and Caesar I believed showed waaay more military genius threw out their careers than any of the other commanders in list. Their victories are just to phenomenal to be challenged many.

---

Bah, they have nothing on Hannibal.

Maneuvering with a much smaller army in a densely populated enemy territory for 11 years, inflicting your enemies defeat after defeat, and not just any defeats, most devastating defeats they have suffered ever and not to just any enemy, to Romans.

Caesar did have his moments and he also grew as a commander during his time in Gaul but he owed his successes more to quality of his soldiers than his skill. In my opinion, he made some dubious strategic decisions and only due to luck and skill of Roman legions did he triumphed in the end. He was very charismatic man and he knew how to inspire loyalty in his men. Most of his victories are over Gaullic tribes and even there he had a few defeats and close calls. Only time when he met Romans in battle, it was against inexperienced soldiers and he found out about enemy plan before the battle.

Much better politician than a general. There, he really is one of the greatest, if not the greatest in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Bah, they have nothing on Hannibal.

Maneuvering with a much smaller army in a densely populated enemy territory for 11 years, inflicting your enemies defeat after defeat, and not just any defeats, most devastating defeats they have suffered ever and not to just any enemy, to Romans.

Caesar did have his moments and he also grew as a commander during his time in Gaul but he owed his successes more to quality of his soldiers than his skill. In my opinion, he made some dubious strategic decisions and only due to luck and skill of Roman legions did he triumphed in the end. He was very charismatic man and he knew how to inspire loyalty in his men. Most of his victories are over Gaullic tribes and even there he had a few defeats and close calls. Only time when he met Romans in battle, it was against inexperienced soldiers and he found out about enemy plan before the battle.

Much better politician than a general. There, he really is one of the greatest, if not the greatest in history.

---

More because of soldiers than skill? I dont remember hearing the soldiers next to Caesar when he planning the great engineering fortifications at Alesia (wanna the greatest in history), nor did I see them helping Caesar planning the new ship that needed to be made to cross into Britian. Or what about perfecting the use of trenches to shield your flanks at Axona? His masterpiece at the Rhine is also a must notable mention. Lets not forget Alexandria when he turned a city section into an unprecendanted fortess. Caesar had his victories because of his amazing ability to use field fortifications in his tactics, and the above I mentioned are not all. As far as I can tell no other general in history can compare to Caesar in engineering feats (which include siege and battlefield use), not Alexander, not Khan, not Hannibal, not Napoleon.

The Gallic tribes were a formidable opponent. The Gauls had an amazing furioucity and willingness. So much infact that they taught themselves how to march, built forifications, and use tactics just like the Romans! Not to mention the other formidabble opponents Caesar fought: Legions, some under Pompey (the greatest roman general at that time), spanish, numerians, egyptians, etc.... Caesar fought the best the world had to offer him in his position and he came out on top.

He did make certain bold blunders, that ill give you. Specificaly his preparations for Britian and Africa I find lacking.

Genghis Khan diverted the yellow river and drowned the walls of a chinese city. lol at you thinking only Caesar used engineering. Alexander built massive barges and diverted the indus to cross into india and he conquered tyre the unconquerable city

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Genghis Khan diverted the yellow river and drowned the walls of a chinese city. lol at you thinking only Caesar used engineering. Alexander built massive barges and diverted the indus to cross into india and he conquered tyre the unconquerable city

---

Actually if im correct Alexander and Khan simply used their engineers and inspired them, they didnt actually come up with the real plans to do them. While Caesar here was his own chief engineer. He personnaly was the one that came up with the blue prints, logistics, and knowledge of how exactly to build exactly what he wanted.

However even given credit to Khan and Alexander doesnt change much, as Caesar's feats still outmatch both. At one point Caesar had to build huge dykes while besieging Venetian fortresses that literally held back the ocean!

Plus like I kinda intended before, I dont think Khan or Alexander used engineering in such a masterful way at tactics to help even in the actual battlefield.

Caesar had one of the greatest engineering corps the world has ever known. Pretty unfair advantage there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Caesar had one of the greatest engineering corps the world has ever known. Pretty unfair advantage there.

---

But he none the less was his own chief engineer and thus deserves the credit for a lot of his creatons. Aswell as deserving credit for being smart enough to use them as tactical tools to defeat his opponents in the battlefield beyond simply sieges or crossing rivers.

Bah, Caesar was also his own publicist.

Your argument that Gauls used military tactics at Roman level is quite bold, to say the least. Having rudimentary concept of military tactics doesn't make Gauls equal to Romans in that regard, or it makes them equal in military technology overall.

Caesar fortifications in Alesia were indeed great but they were a huge gamble. Giving away your ability to move, not merely maneuver, but move, for a rather weak protection afforded by wooden walls, ditches and trenches is a questionable decision. Had it been Romans in relief force instead of Gauls, Caesar's legions would have suffered disaster.

He had indeed defeated Romans but it was with veterans against green troops and he had known the exact battle plan of his enemies.

His use of engineering was indead fantastic but it doesn't give him the mantle of the greatest general. As a rule, he always faced military inferior troops, in regards to technology, tactics and training. One victory over Romans against inexperienced troops is simply not enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Scipio is not the greatest but I can hardly name many non european generals that could beat him. And thats what this was about, that the reason why historical generals tend to be euro centric is because they simply were better than other ones.

---

And I've only just noticed this. European general weren't better than the rest, you simply know more about them than you do about Muslim or Chinese generals. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid easily eclipses Caesar in military accomplishments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

And I've only just noticed this. European general weren't better than the rest, you simply know more about them than you do about Muslim or Chinese generals. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid easily eclipses Caesar in military accomplishments.

---

There's a danger with Khalid as a lot of his victories are thought to have been won by other generals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Bah, Caesar was also his own publicist.

Your argument that Gauls used military tactics at Roman level is quite bold, to say the least. Having rudimentary concept of military tactics doesn't make Gauls equal to Romans in that regard, or it makes them equal in military technology overall.

Caesar fortifications in Alesia were indeed great but they were a huge gamble. Giving away your ability to move, not merely maneuver, but move, for a rather weak protection afforded by wooden walls, ditches and trenches is a questionable decision. Had it been Romans in relief force instead of Gauls, Caesar's legions would have suffered disaster.

He had indeed defeated Romans but it was with veterans against green troops and he had known the exact battle plan of his enemies.

His use of engineering was indead fantastic but it doesn't give him the mantle of the greatest general. As a rule, he always faced military inferior troops, in regards to technology, tactics and training. One victory over Romans against inexperienced troops is simply not enough.




And I've only just noticed this. European general weren't better than the rest, you simply know more about them than you do about Muslim or Chinese generals. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid easily eclipses Caesar in military accomplishments.

---

No, they weren't masters at Roman tactics but the Gauls nonetheless were still a serious threat. One that under great leadership only got turned into an even greater force.

Alesia was a siege, that later turned into a battle. It was a gamble that payed off big time. Caesar's engineering genius once again was used masterfully to help in tactical battle. However this wasen't the only time he tried this. At Dyrrachium Caesar instituted a blockade that matched Alesia in boldness, his fortifications stretched for miles. Although he still lost that engagement, his engineering in that battle also pretty much rivals any other.

Green troops lead by some serious commanders, Pompey and Labienus. Plus I believe that in certain engagements they showed to be a serious containder to Caesar's legions. But still it was Caesar's genius at engineering and strategy at campaign of Ilerda that made an entire army of 5 strong legions surrender to Caesar. A feat that could be close to matching one of Napoleon's greatest victories, the Ulm Campaign.

Maybe your right, maybe I just know more about western generals. But nonetheless I can't say its for a complete lack of trying, I have tried to learn about ANY serious eastern generals that could rival Napoleon, Caesar, or Africanus. And although I know some were "successful" commanders, that doesn't translate into world geniuses.

No Suleiman the Magnificent? Arguably a man who brought together Eastern and Western disciplines and gave the Ottomans an Empire the size of which had not been seen since the Romans or even Alexander the Great. During his time he was by far the most serious threat to European dominance and was the largest contributor in Venice and Genoa's trade empire decline and ultimately the catalyst that launched a thousand European ships anywhere but the Mediterranean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

No, they weren't masters at Roman tactics but the Gauls nonetheless were still a serious threat. One that under great leadership only got turned into an even greater force.

Alesia was a siege, that later turned into a battle. It was a gamble that payed off big time. Caesar's engineering genius once again was used masterfully to help in tactical battle. However this wasen't the only time he tried this. At Dyrrachium Caesar instituted a blockade that matched Alesia in boldness, his fortifications stretched for miles. Although he still lost that engagement, his engineering in that battle also pretty much rivals any other.

Green troops lead by some serious commanders, Pompey and Labienus. Plus I believe that in certain engagements they showed to be a serious containder to Caesar's legions. But still it was Caesar's genius at engineering and strategy at campaign of Ilerda that made an entire army of 5 strong legions surrender to Caesar. A feat that could be close to matching one of Napoleon's greatest victories, the Ulm Campaign.

Maybe your right, maybe I just know more about western generals. But nonetheless I can't say its for a complete lack of trying, I have tried to learn about ANY serious eastern generals that could rival Napoleon, Caesar, or Africanus. And although I know some were "successful" commanders, that doesn't translate into world geniuses.

---

Well, I'm of the opinion that military organization, quality of troops and amount of manpower is what wins wars. Generals come only after that and that's why I give less credit to Roman general than some other. Roman army was definitely the most efficient military machine in the western world and that allowed room for a lot of mistakes, both tactical and strategic. Densely populated Italian peninsula also gave Romans vast amounts of manpower. Caesar made a lot mistakes, especially in the early periods and only the quality of Roman army allowed him to have an army to lead the next day.

If I may be so blunt, he couldn't do what he did in Alesia if he was leading Gaulish army. They wouldn't have been able to build the fortifications and they wouldn't have had the discipline to hold the line. So, like other Roman commanders, he gets a bit lower score in my book.

That doesn't mean I think him bad, far from it. He was a very competent general, great at engineering and unlike many great generals, he knew how to use his military victories for political purposes. Overall, I'm a great admirer of Caesar but in terms of generalship, he just can't compare with the likes of Hannibal, Chingis, Al-Walid...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, I'm of the opinion that military organization, quality of troops and amount of manpower is what wins wars. Generals come only after that and that's why I give less credit to Roman general than some other. Roman army was definitely the most efficient military machine in the western world and that allowed room for a lot of mistakes, both tactical and strategic. Densely populated Italian peninsula also gave Romans vast amounts of manpower. Caesar made a lot mistakes, especially in the early periods and only the quality of Roman army allowed him to have an army to lead the next day.

If I may be so blunt, he couldn't do what he did in Alesia if he was leading Gaulish army. They wouldn't have been able to build the fortifications and they wouldn't have had the discipline to hold the line. So, like other Roman commanders, he gets a bit lower score in my book.

That doesn't mean I think him bad, far from it. He was a very competent general, great at engineering and unlike many great generals, he knew how to use his military victories for political purposes. Overall, I'm a great admirer of Caesar but in terms of generalship, he just can't compare with the likes of Hannibal, Chingis, Al-Walid...

---

Well I've also always been in the thought that the armies discipline comes from its leaders above. Caesar's feats were done extremely fast and beyond anything someone had done before, atleast that I know off. And he used this with his brains aswell as the support of 50,000 (or whatever the number was) disciplined troops, could no other troops have done that? I dont see exactly why not. Under the leadership of great captains the Gauls not only united but marched drilled like romans, learned how to build their own fortifications, they even went to Spain I believe to learn some engineering, and I think i've heard they even mastered how to do the famous roman legion tactic the testudo formation.

Heck I think the reasons why you listed to lower Roman general leadership is why Pompey is considered in such high regard. His ability to mobilize and support a vast number of troops was one of his main effective attributes I hear.

Regardless of his roman army, I think Caesar has done more than enough to pretty much outmatch any other general in history.

Can't agree on Caeser. beat some Gauls embroiled in a civil war, beat some German raiders, retreated hastily from Britain (after he beat them he assures us) and then some sharp work killing fellow Romans. A good commander among a fairly pedestrian lot. Now Scipio had imagination I believe and Marius, now there's a general.

Napoleon beat a smorgasbord of varied competent foes repeatedly. Alexander never lost: we know some of his opponents were competent and certainly diverse tactically. Surprised Caesar gets in before Hannibal: he lost just the once in an amazing career and his victories stunned the known world. Likewise Napoleon just kept doing things no contemporary thought possible. Caesar was just another competent tyrant sullying the Republic to death and his victories were appreciated but not shockingly amazing at the time.

Genghis surprised everyone, hes up there as transforming the course of events with his campaigns.

Out of the hat Alexander=Napoleoon, Genghis 3rd (I know less about him) and Caesar nowhere really, good commander and great self-publicist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Can't agree on Caeser. beat some Gauls embroiled in a civil war, beat some German raiders, retreated hastily from Britain (after he beat them he assures us) and then some sharp work killing fellow Romans. A good commander among a fairly pedestrian lot. Now Scipio had imagination I believe and Marius, now there's a general.

Napoleon beat a smorgasbord of varied competent foes repeatedly. Alexander never lost: we know some of his opponents were competent and certainly diverse tactically. Surprised Caesar gets in before Hannibal: he lost just the once in an amazing career and his victories stunned the known world. Likewise Napoleon just kept doing things no contemporary thought possible. Caesar was just another competent tyrant sullying the Republic to death and his victories were appreciated but not shockingly amazing at the time.

Genghis surprised everyone, hes up there as transforming the course of events with his campaigns.

Out of the hat Alexander=Napoleoon, Genghis 3rd (I know less about him) and Caesar nowhere really, good commander and great self-publicist.

---

Have to strongly disagree here, infact I would say that Caesar could arguably be wanna the most "challenged" generals in history. The enemies he fought in the Gallic Wars alone I believe to be very competant and possibly more dangerious enemies than that of what even Alexander faced. The Gauls, Germans, and Brits each had a their own distinct type of warfare that tested Caesar in multiple areas of combat. And this is only the enemies he faced in the north, we cannot forget the Legions, Egyptians, and Numidean Cavalary (which I believe was one of the best in the world) that he also had to put down.

His victories not shocking? I would say that his victories at Pharsalus, Alesia, Ilerda, and many more would outshine the likes of Khan, Alexander, and Hannibal. Only Napoleon has the victories to beat possibly beat Caesar's.

Again you're comparing Romans and Gauls. They.Simply.Can't.Compare. I thought we agreed on that.

What is funny is that you're putting them ahead of Persian army, as "more dangerous" opponents! Genghis faced much more diverse enemies, from steppe nomads to great fortified cities of China, but you're simply ignoring it. It's quite obvious you don't want to accept what doesn't suit your theory and it's getting quite tiring arguing with you... Have a nice day.

Hannibal fought Iberians, Celtiberians, and Celts too... sadly his brilliant victory at the Tagus River is often forgotten where he managed to beat off an army reportedly 100,000 strong (though of course, ancient figures are indeed dubious) with less than 30,000 and the way he fell back, tricked them and used the river in his attack was genius!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Again you're comparing Romans and Gauls. They.Simply.Can't.Compare. I thought we agreed on that.

What is funny is that you're putting them ahead of Persian army, as "more dangerous" opponents! Genghis faced much more diverse enemies, from steppe nomads to great fortified cities of China, but you're simply ignoring it. It's quite obvious you don't want to accept what doesn't suit your theory and it's getting quite tiring arguing with you... Have a nice day.

---

Who knows maybe you dont like to see just how much of a threat the Gauls were to Caesar simply because you don't wish to mark him as a greater commander. Indeed Genghis faught in the steppes but compared to the political strategy that Caesar had to put up with in Rome, Gaul, Egypt, etc... he pairs in comparison. And like I previously implied neither Genghis's sieges or Alexander's can probubly match the numerious and amazing feats of Caesar himself. Not to mention that he himself probubly needs to get a more credit by default, given that he actually helped blue print the models for his siege equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

...Caesar ..Caesar...amazing feats of Caesar ...probubly needs to get a more credit ....

---

Self praise is no reccomendation. In his day Caesar was thought of as one of a group of dangerous politicams threatening the state, not the stand-out general. he knocked off a very famous opponent in Pompey (thats his big claim to fame, and well deserving of credit) but the rest is a combination of fairly standard Roman provincial -bashing (Cato the elder is able to boast of multiple famous victories in the course of his shameful and grasping career in Spain, as could even a hack like Lepidus) and spurious propaganda (then I beat an epic uber-boss, only to defeat and even more epic uber-boss, all before breakfast!).

Caesar shook he Capital with his brazen self advancement. Alexander shook the known world in three mighty battles. Napoleon shocked the known world at least three times, even when his reputation was made he'd pull off a stunt no-one could believe (he was on the Channel coast and next thing he encircled the Austrians at Ulm? Then tricked the two emperors into attacking at Austerlitz? he made the freaking Prussian army disintegrate? he advanced into Poland in winter?. Napoleon was one giant "WTFOMG no way? Waaaaay!"

Likewise Hannibal. Here son, have a small tough army, turn a foothold into the start of a land empire and then sit Rome on their asses for like ten years. He taught Romans to avoid battle, they never got schooled like the one-eyed bloke schooled them (not that I'm biased or anything ;-))

Alexander used war to re-make the known world, Napoleon used war to burn the lessons of revolution into the soul of Euyrope and Hannibal used war to nearly slay the invincible Republic. Caesar used war to push himself up a notch on the brazen self promoter's list in Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Self praise is no reccomendation. In his day Caesar was thought of as one of a group of dangerous politicams threatening the state, not the stand-out general. he knocked off a very famous opponent in Pompey (thats his big claim to fame, and well deserving of credit) but the rest is a combination of fairly standard Roman provincial -bashing (Cato the elder is able to boast of multiple famous victories in the course of his shameful and grasping career in Spain, as could even a hack like Lepidus) and spurious propaganda (then I beat an epic uber-boss, only to defeat and even more epic uber-boss, all before breakfast!).

Caesar shook he Capital with his brazen self advancement. Alexander shook the known world in three mighty battles. Napoleon shocked the known world at least three times, even when his reputation was made he'd pull off a stunt no-one could believe (he was on the Channel coast and next thing he encircled the Austrians at Ulm? Then tricked the two emperors into attacking at Austerlitz? he made the freaking Prussian army disintegrate? he advanced into Poland in winter?. Napoleon was one giant "WTFOMG no way? Waaaaay!"

Likewise Hannibal. Here son, have a small tough army, turn a foothold into the start of a land empire and then sit Rome on their asses for like ten years. He taught Romans to avoid battle, they never got schooled like the one-eyed bloke schooled them (not that I'm biased or anything ;-))

Alexander used war to re-make the known world, Napoleon used war to burn the lessons of revolution into the soul of Euyrope and Hannibal used war to nearly slay the invincible Republic. Caesar used war to push himself up a notch on the brazen self promoter's list in Rome.

---

Regardless of Caesar's reasons for generalship it is irrelevant to his ranking of genius and superiority to virtually all other commanders.

Napoleon's Ulm Campaign is indeed amazing, but Ilerda gives it a run for its money (although I dont think it beats it in greatness). Infact I would say that Ilerda alone almost outshines anything Khan, Alexander, Hannibal, etc... could claim to tactical genius. The way Caesar used maneuver, political, and ofcourse engineering skills was absolutely phenomenal.

And even if it wasen't his intention, Caesar's military impact can't be denied. Unlike a lot of Alexander's established cities and emiper, those of Caesar in Gaul continued to expand and grow for the rest of the empire. The fact that Gaul never really had that huge of a revolt after Caesar says something about his administrative and long term strategic skills.

Napoleon a a good generl and a good leader.

Alexander was a general.

Ceasar is overated