Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Here's the short version of the story. :2thumbsup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
He has a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
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.
(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
What about Agrippa? He was pretty good.
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.
Am I the only one who thinks that Arminius, the slaughterer of three legions deserves a mention? And what did Germanicus do so especially?
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.
According to the topic title, Agrippa, Ariminius, etc, aren't allowed to participate :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by shlin28
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.
Fabian Maximus. The only maximus. For not going to battle with Hannibal.
Probably, besides when it comes to ambush Hannibal utterly destroys that barbarian.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Plz, note that caeser fought battles outside of gaul ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And won againt odds
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
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.
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.
None Taken.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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.
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.
Have we officially dumped the time period in the title? If so, as well as the usual suspects I'll plug Epaminondas of Thebes.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morte66
Tiberius did a fine job, but is is rather unclear if he did fought any battles vs. the tribes.
Really? No, you must be joking. Please, give me some credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalkwerk
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
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
More like 1/4 of the "known" world, and less than 1/20 of the inhabitated world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kugutsu