Greatest Generals. 270 B.C - 14 A.D

Just who do you think is the Greatest General during the Roman Republic? :yes:

Short List:
Hannibal Barca (247 - 183 B.C)
Antiochus III the Great (241 - 187 B.C)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (235 - 183 B.C)
Titus Quinctius Flamininus (228 - 174 B.C)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (185 - 129 B.C)
Gaius Marius (158 - 87 B.C)
Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138 - 79 B.C)
Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysius (132 - 63 B.C)
Lucius Licinius Lucullus (116 - 56 B.C)
Gnaius Pompeius Magnus (106 - 48 B.C)
Gaius Julius Caesar (101 - 44 B.C)
Vercingetorix (? - 46 B.C)
Marcus Antonius (83 - 30 B.C)
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63 - 12 B.C)
Nero Drusus (40 - 9 B.C)
Arminius (19 B.C - 19 A.D)
Germanicus (15 B.C - 19 A.D)

What about Phyrrus?

Looking at the list:

Hannibal was a great general but eventually failed, Scipio Africanus was a literal student of Hannibal's, but still very skilled.

I respect Sulla a lot for his victories in Greece, but Mithradates wasn't a brilliant general in his own right, was a fantastic conqueror though.

Lucullus has to be be the most undervalued/unappreciated people in history. He was a fantastic general, but due to his unpopularity Pompey (a non-entity in my opinion) managed to take the credit.

Agrippa was great too, but I have to go with Caesar. I mean he was deified! lol. Probably the greatest general that ever lived, But I'm open to discussion.

Where is Pyrrhus of Epirus? And why is Antiochus III the lowlife there?

Anyway, I vote for Hannibal, I was going to vote for Scipio Africanus but, after all, he was the student of Hannibal's tactics. (Although he did overcome him in the end.)

I vote for Sulla Felix, but I would have chosen Mithradates IV too. Not neccesarily the best generals, but easily the most fascinating pair. I mean, drinking small amounts of poison regularly to innoculate yourself against real poisoning attempts? How cool is that?

Definately Hannibal Barca. Simply the amount of battles he won and always as the lesser in number. Any other nation at that time would simply have submitted to carthage under such defeats. The only reason he failed in the end was he didn't expect he had to take rome to win.

I think the main reason was the lack of support in his own nation, Carthaginians didn't support him, thus, leaving Hannibal alone with a bunch of mercenaries in southern Italy. He was very close, and it seems like the defecting states of Rome were all for nought.

Sorry about Pyrrhus, I just completely forgot about him. Antiocus III was there because I felt someone should represent the Seleucids in this poll.

The only person who should be representing the Seleucids (in a good way of course) should be King Pyrrhus of Epirus, clearly more worthier than Antiochus.

Was King Pyrrhus of Epirus a Seleucid?

The most favored king of the Seleucids, this guy almost overcame Rome, he reached as far as Tarentum.

I see.

but by 270 he was dead. ;(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fahad I

The most favored king of the Seleucids, this guy almost overcame Rome, he reached as far as Tarentum.

---

Whom? ~:eek:

Epirus - is the answer.

Pyrrhus of Epirus died in 272 B.C

I thought Epirus was part of the Seleucid Empire at that time?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fahad I

I thought Epirus was part of the Seleucid Empire at that time?:inquisitive:

---

http://rbrally.gamenavigator.ru/foru...lies/tired.gif

Say, because he was 'Seleucid' in RTW's historical battle?

Wot about Pyrrhus?

Went 4 my old fav 'Gaius Julius Caesar '

I know much more about him than most of the others.

So, these two guys get into a bar fight in Zama.

One wins.

One loses.

And there you have it. ~:smoking:

Oh, Beirut, you don't know half about the can of worms you've just opened...

Anyways, I'd vote Lucullus if it wasn't for his impopularity, which is kinda a thing you need to keep an army moving, especially back in those days. So instead, I'll have to say Caesar.

Pyrrhus was a good general but theres a reason that its called a Pyrrhic victory!:laugh4:

And I agree totally with Quirinus, Sulla and Mithradates the Great were both fascinating! But I read the question as being who was the best (ie most successful) general!

Lucullus was better than both of those ~;p

I agree, but that doesn't stop them from being more interesting!

Mithridates sure is, as is Sulla, but Lucullus' political and military career, in all its adversity despite his brilliance, surely should be a match for the drama of the lives of both the former, don't you think?

Well Lucullus certainly had a struggle...

... but Mithradates was so scared of being murdered that he delibrately poisoned himself daily! Then he tried to commit suicide by poison and failed! :dizzy2: lol. To reign over an Eastern court and plot to bring down Rome itself is a grand ambition. To survive until old age is incredible!

Sulla is just beyond description. He had so many vices and yet managed to become dictator of Rome and completely rewrite the constitution! The rest, relaxation and debauchery at the end of his life ensure that he should be remembered :no: . The addition of Metrobius to the story makes it even more interesting considering the homophobia of Rome (in comparision to Greece).

But yes Lucullus is intrigiung in his own right. The suicide of his father due to the machinations of a new man led to his Optimate politics, and his point of always adhering to the Senates will even if it was stupid! I find it interesting how he dabbled in drugs and alcohol as well :dizzy2: . And he married his wife when she was 15 or something if I'm right, when he was into his 40s! :dizzy2: (This is all off the top of my head so it may not be strictly 100% accurate). Also he was, as you have said a much better general than Pompey and maybe Sulla.:whip:

So yes I'll add him to my list of interesting people!:egypt:

I think the threat title is a bit misleading, as it implies its actually covering 270 B.C.-14 A.D., as opposed to what it actually is, covering the Roman republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Pyrrhus was a good general but theres a reason that its called a Pyrrhic victory!:laugh4:

---

According to Hannibal himself, the 3 greatest generals in History were...

1. Alexander the Great
2. Hannibal
3. Phyrrus

He said that if he had won at Zama then he would have placed himself first. So if Phyrrus was ranked third then he definately should be in discussion.

Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar probably would have been ranked pretty highly if they were alive at Hannibal's time. Although, to be honest, I've always viewed the Roman's strategy as "throw enough meat into the grinder and eventually it will break".

Love the ego from Hannibal, but he does deserve to be there!

I'll grant you that Phyrrus deserves to be discussed, its just that personally I believe that many of the Generals actually mentioned were better. Most of those were out of Hannibals timeframe anyway.

I also agree with your views on the Roman strategy, although the technological edge (ie. the use of pila, and yes I know the Iberian tribes used them too) was also a factor, and the later republican generals weren't so bad for that.

Who voted for Antiachus III?

Blame me, my computer was a bit stiff when I opened this thread and I wanted to pick Hannibal so I clicked wrong:oops:
Hopefully someone can correct it, cause Antiochus III was in my eyes nothing more then a blistering fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Oh, Beirut, you don't know half about the can of worms you've just opened...

---

Not the first half, no.

But I'm eating the other half that's left in the can right now.

Mmmm... worms. ~:smoking:

Well somebody had to contradict you, so I will!

Alternative: A master and an apprentice face off at Zama, the apprentice has the advantage of superior materials, the apprentice wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Well somebody had to contradict you, so I will!

Alternative: A master and an apprentice face off at Zama, the apprentice has the advantage of superior materials, the apprentice wins.

---

As they say on the Klingon homeworld; "History is written by the victors." As I read it, Hannibal lost his pen when Scipio took it from him. ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

As they say on the Klingon homeworld; "History is written by the victors." As I read it, Hannibal lost his pen when Scipio took it from him. ~:smoking:

---

Umm.....Exactly.:grin:

I know most people have a low opinion of Antiochus III. but he did have inital success in his Eastern and Judaea campaign. only fighting against the Romans brought his total downfall. although all of the most important battles he took part in resulted in Disastrous defeats for the Seleucids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Not the first half, no.

But I'm eating the other half that's left in the can right now.

Mmmm... worms. ~:smoking:

---

Hmm...eating McDonalds food Beirut?

I will vote 4 Caius Julius Caesar.

The easy picks are Gaius Julius Caesar,Hannibal Barca,and Scipio Africanus,but I'd personally have to go with Gaius Marius. If not for his military reforms,the Roman army would probably have never reached its full potential. Caesar may have been the general,but it was the Marian legions who did the fighting that transformed the Republic into an empire.

Ehhhrrr..... yes, Hannibal Barca.

Really, can you get trained by your father to slay a whole race as soon as you're ready? All I can say is: Hannibal was God when it came to strategy.

Slayed 7,000 Romans in one day. That's Cannae for ya'. The other battles only added on to his strategic skill.

Anyone hear that saying about Hannibal? "He knows how to gain a victory, but does not know how to use it." Well that was true when he decided to march back home instead of march a mere 200 miles to Rome itself. However in my opinion he made the right choice. He was low on supplies and his men's morale was depleted. So, yes I vote for Hannibal Barca.~:thumb:

Han Xin?

Scipio. Liked his ever since I played 'Centurion: Defender of Rome'. No other valid reasoning to back up my choice however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

Scipio. Liked his ever since I played 'Centurion: Defender of Rome'. No other valid reasoning to back up my choice however.

---

Sounds like you're ready to vote in the general elections.

Quote:

---

Sounds like you're ready to vote in the general elections

---

I'll vote Republican now and if they do a poor job I'll vote Democrat later. For this reason, I don't vote at all! :P

2.5 year bumps, ftw!

You're leaving out a great one: Quintus Sertorius. Outmaneuvered several Roman generals, Pompey among them all while being greatly outnumbered and possessing mainly native troops. Most brilliant in the era if you ask me. In the absence of him I'll vote for C. Iulius Caesar. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

You're leaving out a great one: Quintus Sertorius. Outmaneuvered several Roman generals, Pompey among them all while being greatly outnumbered and possessing mainly native troops. Most brilliant in the era if you ask me. In the absence of him I'll vote for C. Iulius Caesar. -M

---

He did have a goodly rep when he was with the Republic and pretty well kept it when he wasn't. It would've been interesting to see how he'd have fared against a Sulla or a Marius (Pompey wasn't properly cognominated as you are aware).

Hannibal by far, I mean, his ability to get elephants through the Alps, and actually get NEAR Rome was a great achievement.

I think Surena of Parthia should be included. Coward tactics but still he got the job done against the romans.

I know by writing this someone will say that crassus was just a fool and maybe he was but victory is mostly gained by the mistakes of the enemy.

There are also alot of others who should be included but i voted Hannibal even if i believe his father was just as good by fighting the Romans in sicily for several years with inferior troops and the winning the mercenary war for carthage and expanded in iberia and therefor giving Hannibal the ability to do what he did.

I say Cesar! Hannibal may be better in battle, but JC knew how to win a battle and end a war!

Mithradites Eupator shouldn't be there. He didn't lead any troops in battle, but his generals were very good. He was a better organizer and army builder than general.

Caesar is obviously the greatest of all in this whole time period. Nobody in history except for Napoleon can really be considered his equal.

Some other notable mentions from that era though is Scipio Africanus and Pompey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Caesar is obviously the greatest of all in this whole time period. Nobody in history except for Napoleon can really be considered his equal.

Some other notable mentions from that era though is Scipio Africanus and Pompey.

---

Why? Why is he better than Hannibal?

Hannibal: The only general who succeeded in ambushing an enemy in the battlefield chosen by the enemy.

Napoleon did the same at Austerlitz but he chose the battlefield.

No mention of Antiochus IV?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

No mention of Antiochus IV?

---

How good can you be the best when there are three persons ahead of you...

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Why? Why is he better than Hannibal?

---

Why isen't he? His campaigns and battles show skills that can easily be said to outshine Alexander's, Khan's, and even Hannibal's.

His tactics to politically control Gaul by keeping its tribes seperated showed much greater knowledge than Hannibal. And ofcourse his even greater showing in gaining the popular support of the people and later even most of the senate is remarkable considering that roman politics could be considered the harshest in history.

His tactics in his battles like Avaricum, Alesia, Thapsus, etc.. easily rival Hannibal's and Alexander's victories. But the subject that Caesar outshine EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMMANDER EVER is in engineering, in that Caesar has no equals. Unlike other commanders like Khan or Alexander who simply had many engineers, Caesar himself was the leading engineer. He designed the amazing bridge to cross the Rhine River, he even invented a brand new ship to cross the British Channel (it was a hybrid between the Roman and Gallic fleets), his fortifications and engineering in Alesia, Charleroi, Ilerdia, etc... were absolutely the greatest in history, he even had major plans to beautify Rome and create canals, roads, etc.. all over the empire. Caesar was the first general in history to use field fortifications as a tactical device, like in Alexandria how he turned an entire section of the city into a giant fortress, again making use of innovative construction methods, as well as coming up with new tactics to use in the fighting.

Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, Alexander's siege at Tyre, and Khan with his siege weapons were all great and all......but nothing compared to the sheer amount of innovation and brilliance Caesar showed. And this does not even fully take into account his other amazing showings in military, political and adminstraive, literary and oratical, and even astronomical affairs.

Only Napoleon with his amazing victories, great military knowledge, and equally impressive administrative skills can be considered Caesar's equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

His tactics to politically control Gaul by keeping its tribes seperated showed much greater knowledge than Hannibal.

---

Though I agree with much of what you posted, I don't agree with this as it doesn't consider the variables in their campaigns. Hannibal's diplomatic problems he faced were much more difficult than Caesar's in Gaul. Hannibal had already faced and dealt with similar warrior society tribal problems in Spain, either through diplomacy or conquest - Italy was a completely different ball park - the nature of the alliances to both Hannibal and Rome were dictated by centuries of interstate rivalries that determined what actions the cities and towns would take when faced by Hannibal - political factionalism within the cities governing elite and interstate rivalries hindered Hannibal's strategy - for example - gaining Capua turned a number of cities from ever joining Hannibal out of choice because of their fear of Capuan Hegemony - those in the past that had joined Capua in her policy decisions in war turned from Rome - and those that didn't had fought that very same Capuan league in the past, and their very survival depended on staying with Rome as they feared they'd lose out in an alliance with Hannibal. This was the case all over the South where he tried to turn others. In Bruttium, centuries of warfare between the Greeks and the Bruttians made the Greeks hesitant of joining Hannibal when most of Bruttium joined him, which is true of Greek intercity rivalry too - when he captured Locri, who had previous interstate rivalry with Rhegion, the Rhegions turned to Rome for help fearing Locrian Hegemonic aspirations. Likewise, the Bruttians also attacked Croton without Hannibal's knowledge, which shows they also expected more power - sadly - with Rome's reaction after Cannae to garrison cities that might sway in order to prevent such a thing (though this did not mean it would work - see Tarentum in 213/2) this limited Hannibal's success massively, and was in no way, a failing on Hannibal's part due to his own skill. The combination of long term conditions (local rivalries) and short term factors (Rome's military response) proved to much for Hannibal's strategy to overcome. That's not to say he didn't face tribes with history of rivalry either, but in contrast, the Gauls were certainly easier to manipulate and defeat militarily than the towns and cities of the Italian Peninsular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

Though I agree with much of what you posted, I don't agree with this as it doesn't consider the variables in their campaigns. Hannibal's diplomatic problems he faced were much more difficult than Caesar's in Gaul. Hannibal had already faced and dealt with similar warrior society tribal problems in Spain, either through diplomacy or conquest - Italy was a completely different ball park - the nature of the alliances to both Hannibal and Rome were dictated by centuries of interstate rivalries that determined what actions the cities and towns would take when faced by Hannibal - political factionalism within the cities governing elite and interstate rivalries hindered Hannibal's strategy - for example - gaining Capua turned a number of cities from ever joining Hannibal out of choice because of their fear of Capuan Hegemony - those in the past that had joined Capua in her policy decisions in war turned from Rome - and those that didn't had fought that very same Capuan league in the past, and their very survival depended on staying with Rome as they feared they'd lose out in an alliance with Hannibal. This was the case all over the South where he tried to turn others. In Bruttium, centuries of warfare between the Greeks and the Bruttians made the Greeks hesitant of joining Hannibal when most of Bruttium joined him, which is true of Greek intercity rivalry too - when he captured Locri, who had previous interstate rivalry with Rhegion, the Rhegions turned to Rome for help fearing Locrian Hegemonic aspirations. Likewise, the Bruttians also attacked Croton without Hannibal's knowledge, which shows they also expected more power - sadly - with Rome's reaction after Cannae to garrison cities that might sway in order to prevent such a thing (though this did not mean it would work - see Tarentum in 213/2) this limited Hannibal's success massively, and was in no way, a failing on Hannibal's part due to his own skill. The combination of long term conditions (local rivalries) and short term factors (Rome's military response) proved to much for Hannibal's strategy to overcome. That's not to say he didn't face tribes with history of rivalry either, but in contrast, the Gauls were certainly easier to manipulate and defeat militarily than the towns and cities of the Italian Peninsular.

---

Maybe, but I would say that Caesar's ability to unite his enemies (the Gauls) just shows more excellence by him. I wouldn't confuse the Gauls with the Germans. The Gauls were divided into thousands of mini-states that were just as sophisticated as the more "civilized" peoples around the Mediterranean. Caesar's genius was to draw them into a unified province that would last for centuries. It almost backfired on Caesar as the Gauls did in fact use the provincial unity that he had imposed on them to unite properly (Vercingetorix). Not to forget the sheer number of different kings that Caesar had to put in place and keep track of administrating to ensure stability to his plans.

Caesar in effect had to wage what can only be described as a colonial war against some very, very, very stubborn natives who unlike most colonial wars had metallurgy to match the conquerors. Gallic metallurgy was second to none. Though they were at a disadvantage technology wise to the Romans they learned from their foes and learned how to build field fortifications, armed camps, etc. They learned to drill and march like the Romans did and use organized formations in battle.

The fact that for the next almost 400 Gaul didnt have too much of a big revolt shows Caesar's brilliant empire building, administrative, and statemen skills. This alone rivals anything Alexander could be said to have done in Persia. And again this barely even takes notice of any of Caesar's other amazing skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Caesar in effect had to wage what can only be described as a colonial war against some very, very, very stubborn natives who unlike most colonial wars had metallurgy to match the conquerors. Gallic metallurgy was second to none. Though they were at a disadvantage technology wise to the Romans they learned from their foes and learned how to build field fortifications, armed camps, etc. They learned to drill and march like the Romans did and use organized formations in battle.

---

Do you post on historium? :) Is this where you've been hiding, Div?

The Celts were very good metal workers - they are said to have invented mail armour in the 4th century BC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

Do you post on historium? :) Is this where you've been hiding, Div?

The Celts were very good metal workers - they are said to have invented mail armour in the 4th century BC!

---

Im not Divus, but I do visit Historum from time to time. Although im not really that big of a poster there or here.

Hiding? Yea, I wonder where the hell he went to. I hope he aint died or something. LOL

But you actually might have known I wasen't Divus with my previous posts. Divus considers Caesar "the greatest", I agree except I also put Napoleon as his equal. I've just found his reasons for putting Caesar a bit higher to be unconvincing, plus the fact that I might also think he overrates Caesar's campaigns and enemies a little bit.

He calls certain parts of Caesar's career, like Britian and Thapsus, as masterpieces. But i'll admit ive a lot of my Caesar knowledge come from J.F.C. Fuller, and he aint too enthusiastic about them. And although I admit Fuller was a bit harsh, I haven't necessarily heard from Caesar fans whats wrong with his critique. At the same time it does seem to have some weight behind it.

I've read Fuller's book on Caesar too and tend to agree with lots of his assessments - but then Caesar isn't the only one to regularly put himself in trouble and show a flash of brilliance to get himself out of it - Hannibal did that when he got himself trapped by Fabius - and used the oxen to trick his way out of the pass!

Div is a great source for Caesar though, very well researched!

Div also says Scipio was a masterful besieger too and Hannibal was terrible at it - but that simply wasn't the case - for example, Scipio spent two years in Africa trying to capture Utica and failed, and didn't capture any other city either for that matter - which really does show how a well defended place can withstand siege - his criticisms of Hannibal is also not as well researched in that area - he did actually storm and take quite a few towns and cities - only the ones he didn't are noticed more, but then they had heavier garrisons in the thousands!

As I am writing my Honours thesis on him I was very tempted to go for Africanus but ultimately I think Hannibal is the better of the two generals. I don't think Africanus could have survived as long in Africa as Hannibal did in Italy without his fleet to provide supplies and reinforcements. He also was rather fortunate in the fractured nature of Numidian politics at the time, whereas Hannibal had to work much harder to tear away Roman allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Why isen't he? His campaigns and battles show skills that can easily be said to outshine Alexander's, Khan's, and even Hannibal's.

---

Dyrrachium stands as the most obvious counter-example. He was exceptionally fortunate to not be completely destroyed there, and it shows that his overall grasp of strategy, as distinct from the tactical element which was a master of, was lacking. Further, his failure to secure enough ships for the Meditteranean war even after Pharsalus (as we can deduce by the sheer difficulties he had in getting into Africa, including not being able to tell his supply ships where there was a safe port to land at because he couldn't guarantee them one) shows that as far as strategic planning goes he was left wanting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Only Napoleon with his amazing victories, great military knowledge, and equally impressive administrative skills can be considered Caesar's equal.

---

The esteemed military historian Liddel Hart once wrote a book entitled A Greater Than Napoleon. It was about Africanus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

As I am writing my Honours thesis on him I was very tempted to go for Africanus but ultimately I think Hannibal is the better of the two generals. I don't think Africanus could have survived as long in Africa as Hannibal did in Italy without his fleet to provide supplies and reinforcements. He also was rather fortunate in the fractured nature of Numidian politics at the time, whereas Hannibal had to work much harder to tear away Roman allies.

Dyrrachium stands as the most obvious counter-example. He was exceptionally fortunate to not be completely destroyed there, and it shows that his overall grasp of strategy, as distinct from the tactical element which was a master of, was lacking. Further, his failure to secure enough ships for the Meditteranean war even after Pharsalus (as we can deduce by the sheer difficulties he had in getting into Africa, including not being able to tell his supply ships where there was a safe port to land at because he couldn't guarantee them one) shows that as far as strategic planning goes he was left wanting.

The esteemed military historian Liddel Hart once wrote a book entitled A Greater Than Napoleon. It was about Africanus.

---

Actually some even consider Dyrrachium to be one of Caesar's most impressive military showings. I hear that it could very well be equal to Alesia in engineering and tactical masterpiece. To quote someone on it, "At Dyrrachium Caesar instituted a blockade that matched Alesia in boldness. His layer of fortifications stretched for 17 miles, not counting another series of fortifications that he built to cut Pompey off from the town. During the construction Caesar came up with the idea of using portable ramparts to shield soldiers as they siezed hills to fortify. Only the fact that Caesar ultimately abandoned the siege prevents it from being the equal of Alesia."

I agree that Caesar also did have a faulty trait of rushing and ultimately being unprepared for certain campaigns. As I believe I stated this in my previous comments. Nonetheless I believe his excellence clearly outshine virtually any other commander in history.

As for Africanus better than Napoleon, I dont see it (not from what I know). Africanus is arguably tied with Napoleon as my favorite general, but I dont think his overall campaigns (or hannibals for that sake) match Napoleon. I consider his victories at Ilipia and the Great Plains to be masterpieces, and I also loved his handling of Spain by using his political manuevers to weaken the Carthrage stronghold. But compared to the achievements of Napoleon, he doesn't hold up.

What is your opinion on his Russian campaign? (a bit off topic perhaps...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

What is your opinion on his Russian campaign? (a bit off topic perhaps...)

---

Well from what i've read, it was the russian's will and Napoleon's blindness to their ways. I mean from what I read he did prepare with lots of supplies for his campaign, but the deeper he got into Russia and casualties started to rise he just didnt change his plan. I mean if im correct a "schorched earth" was something that was virtually never used back then, so that could have got Napoleon by suprise. But I think the real death blow was the fact that Russia didn't surrender when Napoleon reached Moscow. I think I heard that it was completely alien and unheard of in western europe for a nation not to make peace even after the capital was lost. And this could be supported by the fact that Napoleon stayed in Moscow a long time still thinking that Czar would eventually make peace.

Ultimately I think it was a combination of Russia's risky but creative thinking, aswell as Napoleon's lack of competitance in that campaign. Napoleon was virtually unbeatable at times but I admit that he did have a weakness to sometimes seem to lack that leadership that made him great. For example the campaign of Waterloo was amazing (well the overall plan and strategy) but once things started to fall apart, Napoleon's tactics seemed compitant at best.

Without a doubt, Hannibal! He taught the Romans the meaning of strategy, and, oddly enough, how to finally defeat him. Rome would never have achieved greatness if they hadn't gone through Hannibal's school of war...

Personally I think either Scipio Africanus or Hannibal. Julius Caesar did not seem to rely much on tactics in battles, whilst Hannibal and Scipio both used them, though that is not a so great weakness as one might think. Caesar was extremely charismatic, however, and could keep soldiers under his control.

Btw, what's Antonius doing there? He was a mediocre commander at best, being too bold and taking too much risks.

Also, why Sertorius (whom I think to really be the best commander) and Lucullus are missing from the list?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevorusn

Without a doubt, Hannibal! He taught the Romans the meaning of strategy, and, oddly enough, how to finally defeat him. Rome would never have achieved greatness if they hadn't gone through Hannibal's school of war...

---

How exactly he taught Romans strategy that helped them after the war? Romans used pretty much the smae head-on and searching for decisive battles after Hannibal as they had used before him. After him, they did not encounter any really equal state whose commanders they could not beat in the battlefield. It is true that during the war they changed their startegy to not to seek decisive encounter with Hannibal and instead used their superior manpower on other fronts, but they did not need to use this strategy afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolpah

Btw, what's Antonius doing there? He was a mediocre commander at best, being too bold and taking too much risks.

---

He did win Phillippi though, which is much to his credit. He also had a great deal of charisma, which was one of the reasons Octavian struggled so much with him for years.