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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

I think you haven't really thought this through.

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

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

Oh, and welcome to the .Org.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Hannibal had such low support.

---

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

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

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

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


My own favourite - shock! - is Napoléon.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Welcome to our forum, Ricdoq! :balloon:


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



https://img852.imageshack.us/img852/6969/napolon.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas Gehngis Kahn was a great commander, as well as a great conqueror, Alexander and Napoleon left a much greater legacy to posterity IMO. Both of them left behind a lasting influence on not only military thinking, but political and cultural domains as well. The "Code Napoleon" is still the basis of the French legal system today. I addition, who can deny the influence of Hellenism in both the east and west that resulted from Alexander's conquests? There are not many such achievements left by the Gehngis Kahn, outside of Mongolia, where he is still revered, that I am aware of. All three, of course were noted for their alleged brutal practices during their many campaigns. Is there really any other way for a tyrant to behave?

It's about luck and having a good scribe

rotor your simply wrong about Genghis khans long lasting effect on the world. You should do a little more research on him. Alexander's long lasting effect is negligible in comparison and Hannibal's is nearly non-existent. As well Napoleons is overinflated in my opinion. you can throw around Hellenism to which I can say were more effects of his successors.

lOL

Could you at least point him in the direction of some research?

One could point out that it was the Mongol unification of Asia that granted Europeans access to the spice trade and when the empire subsequently fractured and the mid east was overtaken by the Turks whom in turn cut off the Europeans from the spices.

This of course forces the Europeans to turn elsewhere and in this venture were led by Spain in Portugal, whom for reasons that are pertinent to the thread were the natural choices. Portugal led by Henry the Navigator basically claimed the Africa route forcing Spain to sit there wondering how to get around the damned Portugese when some idoit Italian (synonomous I suppose) contrives some hairbrained scheme using bad math based on pretty good Greek calculations. Of course Isabellas advisors know he's an idoit and reject the plan but for some reason (most likely due to her vagina, not saying she had an affiar just that she was stupid) she kept him around until the Muslims were kicked out of Granada in 1492 (Such a hectic year) Of course now that Spain is unified she sends this man on his merry way and Im sure you can fill in the blanks from there


But yea insulting the poster is equally as good

Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world
Genghis Khan: history's Greatest Empire builder
Anything by Conn Iggulden.


Access to greater Eastern trade is merely the tip of the iceberg. And it was not insulting. If you really want the post to be negative you would be better placed to use a term like reprimand.

Edit: Especially the Jack Weatherford book. One of my favorite books of all time.

:love:

Greatest commander of all time? Would you ask Alexander to lead the Allies against Nazi germany? He would probably use the bullets for a game of tossing the cans.

All great and famour commanders are "Great" in their own time and region. Non is greater then the other because each faces different enemies under different circumstances.

This is by all means stupid and looking at the list, without a doubt, too euro centric too be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Greatest commander of all time? Would you ask Alexander to lead the Allies against Nazi germany? He would probably use the bullets for a game of tossing the cans.

All great and famour commanders are "Great" in their own time and region. Non is greater then the other because each faces different enemies under different circumstances.

This is by all means stupid and looking at the list, without a doubt, too euro centric too be taken seriously.

---

Indeed I believe I mentioned I dont believe several in the list even belong in the top best, however due to popularity i simply chose them. But just outta curiousity who would you also put on the list.

I disagree with any of the differences in tech and or time. I believe that regardless of those a general showes his genius for what he did and that remains so for the ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Greatest commander of all time? Would you ask Alexander to lead the Allies against Nazi germany? He would probably use the bullets for a game of tossing the cans.

All great and famour commanders are "Great" in their own time and region. Non is greater then the other because each faces different enemies under different circumstances.

This is by all means stupid and looking at the list, without a doubt, too euro centric too be taken seriously.

---

I disagree about euro centric. who would you include over alexander the great. hannibal is maybe unreaosnable but he was a tactical genius he just failed at politics. and genghis khan is certainly no european.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I disagree about euro centric. who would you include over alexander the great. hannibal is maybe unreaosnable but he was a tactical genius he just failed at politics. and genghis khan is certainly no european.

---

Any Emperors/kings that managed to outlive his oponent while expanding/creating their lasting(at least a few centuries) empire/kingdom during their life time but eventually died in his death bed an old man manages accomplished more than Alexander the Great, who conqured a massive persian empire that consisted of a huge piece of underpopulated central asian land. Who's failed campaign against the indian kingdoms was written like a victorious defeat?
Just too many if you are willing to dig up a history book THAT IS NOT ABOUT EUROPE.

His military exploit is genius but his empire fragmentated into pieces as soon as he gibbed. He is great for his time, like all other generals who are famous in their time and region, but he is not always evidently better nor worse then the others.

Of the 3 generals in the list, 2 are europeans or at least mediteranian(Zzz). Who doesn't know about Mr Temujin? (Only known to the european because one of this general raided eastern europe with a "relatively small" expedition twice...kicking ass)

If anyone one of you are able to name a few generals outside of european history that is not Mr Temujin, Great Khan of Mongol(or his generals that actually did the raiding). I think alot of people will be very impressed.

Honestly I don't know enough about other famous generals outside of European history either but I would not just "conveniently" pick them up from my favourite "region" or history book and then try to brand them as the "Most successful military commander in HISTORY!"

Childish and definately euro centric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Any Emperors/kings that managed to outlive his oponent while expanding/creating their lasting(at least a few centuries) empire/kingdom during their life time but eventually died in his death bed an old man manages accomplished more than Alexander the Great, who conqured massive persian empire that consist of a huge piece of underpopulated central asian land? Who's failed campaign against the indian kingdoms was written like a victorious defeat? Just too many. His military exploit is genius but his his empire fragmentated into pieces as soon as he gibbed. He is great for his time, like all other generals who are famous. No better no worse then the other famous in their time.

Of the 3 general in the list, 2 are europeans or at least mediteranian(Zzz). Who doesn't know about Mr Temujin?

Can anyone one of you name a general outside of european history that is Mr Khan of Mongol.

Honestly I don't know much about other famous generals outside of European history but I would not just "conveniently" pick them up from my favourite region and then try to brand them as the "Most successful military commander in history!" childish and definately euro centric

---

Khalid ibn al-walid, Winfield Scott (if you dont consider American a European), Yi Sun Sin (although he was an admiral), Han Xin, Tamerlame, etc... Well if you dont want to consider European generasl the greatest, then who? I dont want to be ignorant of other regional leaders, indeed I dont know as much about them as the European ones, but I still have yet to meet many that could even be said to be greater than Fredrick the Great (or even his equal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Indeed I believe I mentioned I dont believe several in the list even belong in the top best, however due to popularity i simply chose them. But just outta curiousity who would you also put on the list.

I disagree with any of the differences in tech and or time. I believe that regardless of those a general showes his genius for what he did and that remains so for the ages.

---

I wouldn't put any or start such a thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Khalid ibn al-walid, Winfield Scott (if you dont consider American a European), Yi Sun Sin (although he was an admiral), Han Xin, Tamerlame, etc... Well if you dont want to consider European generasl the greatest, then who? I dont want to be ignorant of other regional leaders, indeed I dont know as much about them as the European ones, but I still have yet to meet many that could even be said to be greater than Fredrick the Great (or even his equal).

---

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

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?

---

Well ofcourse someone is better than Fredrick the Great, but then I would probubly name mostly Europeans (which is what you dont want). I meant say that when you limit the option to non-europeans then it gets harder to name a good amount of generals that could beat him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Well ofcourse someone is better than Fredrick the Great, but then I would probubly name mostly Europeans (which is what you dont want). I meant say that when you limit the option to non-europeans then it gets harder to name a good amount of generals that could beat him.

---

How so? Your statement just proved my point. If you had suggested "Who is the most succesful commander in the european history" I would not be bothered.

But the trend I see from such threads have never failed to amuse me when people start putting up threads like "Greatest general of the WORLD" then came out with a list of generals mostly from the european history. Can you blame me for thinking that this is too euro centric? History does not revolves only arould that part of the "world".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

How so? Your statement just proved my point. If you had suggested "Who is the most succesful commander in the european history" I would not be bothered.

But the trend I see from such threads have never failed to amuse me when people start putting up threads like "Greatest general of the WORLD" then came out with a list of generals mostly from the european history. Can you blame me for thinking that this is too euro centric? History does not revolves only arould that part of the "world".

---

Proved what point, that its all euro centric? Yes history does not revolve just around Europe, but military history probubly does. If European generals generally are the greatest in history, then its acceptable for these kinds of threads to be "euro centric". Unless ofcourse evidence is given to show that there is plenty of other non european generals to balance everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Proved what point, that its all euro centric? Yes history does not revolve just around Europe, but military history probubly does. If European generals generally are the greatest in history, then its acceptable for these kinds of threads to be "euro centric". Unless ofcourse evidence is given to show that there is plenty of other non european generals to balance everything else.

---

Again you prove my point. Because europeans generals generally, are not the greatest in history and that is just an opinnion from most european, who are generally(naturally) proud of his own history or that of a person who only knows mostly european history, generally. Saying "probably" does not make it most probable either. European countries only started to catch up around the 15 and 16 hundreds and eventually advanced ahead the rest of the world, as world dominating powers much much later.

In our era, they are no longer the dominating powers either((again).

tamerlame, nobunaga, sun tzu, how many more do you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

tamerlame, nobunaga, sun tzu, how many more do you want.

---

Well from what I know, this is not enough. I might think that someone like Scipio Africanus is beyond any of the three mentioned here.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Well from what I know, this is not enough. I might think that someone like Scipio Africanus is beyond any of the three mentioned here.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

Napoleon a a good generl and a good leader.

Alexander was a general.

Ceasar is overated

---

The quote that Caesar is overrated is the only thing thats overrated.

All 3 should be given of great importance.

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!).

---

Hannibal's achievements could have also been exaggerated to increase the reputation of the Scipios!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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.

---

He was there for 15 years!

Hannibal wasn't trying to slay the Republic, but to simply return it to a regional Italian power once again.

War was always used by Romans to increase their political standing... that is nothing unusual for a Roman.

This thread is three pages of fail. lol. Comparing Generals from different eras is rather like comparing architects from different eras... they've all built their tactics around someone who revolutionized warfare before them. Only occasionally there will be a few who come out and really make radical changes, there's really only one exception to that rule and it's Alexander the Great... in terms of taking a battered Greece and transforming it into a Pan-Continental Empire in just a decade... Genghis Khan as well, but neither's empires lasted long, there was no long term plan. Caesar on the other hand while not a battlefield Genius, was certainly no slouch, I doubt anyone on this board could take him at his game. However, the Romans were not nearly as fragmentary in attitude as the Greeks and the Mongolians, so Rome held onto it's conquest substantially longer than any other Empire in history, save China.

Whatabout Takeda Shingen?

What about Napoleon Bonaparte?

Look we're at the mercy of the record keepers, so some corking good generals who worked miracles with nothing have probably vanished under the weight of propaganda.

of the ones we know I am amazed at the overall military efforts of Heraclius and his Persian foes, a conflict of terrible consequences for Rome and Persia. Just bnecause it ended badly does not detract from the courageous and skillful efforts of the combatants as soldiers (although as statesmen they might've ended the war sooner and saved their bacon).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Well from what I know, this is not enough. I might think that someone like Scipio Africanus is beyond any of the three mentioned here.

---

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

Tamerlane is a very good candidate for the greatest general of all time.

Perhaps his greatest triumph of all is kicking this generals rear!

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

i cant believe this guy isnt trolling.............. scipio africanus was a great general but better than alexander, genghis, and hannibal!

plus it doesnt matter if their empires latest its damned generals all that matters is how they fought in battle.

and genghis did have a plan he pass on his empire in traditional mongolian manner to everyone in his family. its a damned good inheritance policy to to prevent succession crises. the franks did it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sulla1982ad

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

Tamerlane is a very good candidate for the greatest general of all time.

Perhaps his greatest triumph of all is kicking this generals rear!

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

---

Tamerlane is a notable mention. So would Fredrick the Great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i cant believe this guy isnt trolling.............. scipio africanus was a great general but better than alexander, genghis, and hannibal!

plus it doesnt matter if their empires latest its damned generals all that matters is how they fought in battle.

and genghis did have a plan he pass on his empire in traditional mongolian manner to everyone in his family. its a damned good inheritance policy to to prevent succession crises. the franks did it as well.

---

Well was Scipio any weaker than those? If im correct he always knew to maintain a decent amount of supplies for his army, used grand strategy to win the war, got more in detail with strategy by taking support away from his enemy from the local tribes, and ofcourse had extremely great tactics to win decisive victories. I believe some of Scipio Africanus' battles could rival and even surpass those of Khan, Alexander, and Hannibal in pure genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

This thread is three pages of fail. lol.

---

We can close this thread now.

The only way we can ever accurately compare the generals is to clone them, and put them all in a simulator that simulates every type of warfare. Since that is not possible, this is simply a pissing and fact contest.

isnt every single thread on the internet?

Of course it is all sillyness to compare generals of such different eras and circumstances, without any clearly defined definitions of 'greatest' either.

But why should that distract from a fun debate? This is not an academic thread. It6 doesn;t pretend to be either. It is just some innerwebs small talk. A war games forum is bound to attract talk about wars and campaigns and generals. None of which is any more silly than the standard bar / stadium stand topic of 'which team was the greatest, the one from 1923 or 1985 or 2011?' It is not meant to be scientific, just an invitation to discuss aspects of a subject that you think others around you may also be interested in discussing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YACG...feature=fvwrel


Vive l'Empereur!

Vive la France!


~~o~~ :france: ~~o~~:knight:~~O~~ :france: ~~O~~:knight:~~o~~ :france:~~o~~


Arc de Triomphe

https://img69.imageshack.us/img69/45...ordeobelis.jpg

hes french dont trust his opinion in all things except for food and fashion.

oh and heavy cavalry.

Frederick the great was very lucky. He would of lost the war if Russia hadn't pulled out. Also he lost a few battles as well.

Tamerlane has countless more victorys than him. In fact as far as I know he never suffered any majoy defeat. He died a old man, still a undefeated completely victorious general.

Frederick was great at the attack, but knowing when not to attack is an inportant part of being a general. He was also fixated on certain battle techniques, and over used the oblique order of battle. This lead to the formation getting countered, and losing badly in one battle.

Frederick is B rank + Tamerlane is A+++

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sulla1982ad

Frederick the great was very lucky. He would of lost the war if Russia hadn't pulled out. Also he lost a few battles as well.

Tamerlane has countless more victorys than him. In fact as far as I know he never suffered any majoy defeat. He died a old man, still a undefeated completely victorious general.

Frederick was great at the attack, but knowing when not to attack is an inportant part of being a general. He was also fixated on certain battle techniques, and over used the oblique order of battle. This lead to the formation getting countered, and losing badly in one battle.

Frederick is B rank + Tamerlane is A+++

---

Im aware of Tamerlane's undefeatedness but I wouldn't put him too much above someone like Fredrick, who I believe got some of his talents from Churchhill (who in turn I think could match Tamerlane) and definitely not in Caesarian/Napoleon level. I always put him as a sort of lower version of Khalid ibn-alwalid. But I would say I hear good things from his tactics in India.

In the next few weeks, I think Spike TV's Deadliest Warrior is doing a matchup of Genghis Khan vs Hannibal. So I suppose we could then use that to further fuel the debate.

And what about Attaturk or Paul Emil von Lettow Vorbeck? Attaturk managed to defeat the allies at Gallipoli and eventually went on to form the nucleus of the movement which defeated the foreign invaders of Turkey and enabled Turkey to negotiate a new peace treaty with the allies.

And Paul Emil von Lettow Vorbeck was the German commander in Tanganyika in WW1 who managed with inferior numbers to fight off various British and Belgian armies and by the end of the war, was wandering into British territory.

Nocommunist I wikied Paul Emil Von lettow. Very interesting character, and fine general. Theres always something new to learn about!

Besides this being a pointless discussion. My opinion vs Your opinion. Based on nationalistic pride, not knowing about other regions and their history. Or worst of all not even knowing your own history.

For e.g. the many Alexander the Great vs Romans topics. Many Greeks or Pro Greeks say Romans never conquered Persia and faced weaker enemies and the Romans were all about larger numbers of men. Well there is some truth in it but it does not tell the whole story.

Is it not that by the time the Romans encountered the Persians those Persians were also better at war. (Learned from their mistakes against Alexander, making them tougher). And how is Hannibal a weaker enemy or the Greeks themselves ?

Anyways its really about opinions and nothing more.