Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by BurningEGO:
Didnt Hannibal actually prefer Pyrrhus? I always heard that for him Pyrrhus was the greatest... And come to think of it, Pyrrhus did crush some roman skulls, and that was a good thing for Hannibal.
And there is someone that beated Alexander in terms of conquest... Genghis Khan.
Didnt Hannibal actually prefer Pyrrhus? I always heard that for him Pyrrhus was the greatest... And come to think of it, Pyrrhus did crush some roman skulls, and that was a good thing for Hannibal.
And there is someone that beated Alexander in terms of conquest... Genghis Khan.
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios:
NO man, he said he was 3rd after Alexandros and Pyrrhos...
Maion
IIRC, different sources compose different lists. According to Livy, it was in a conversation with Scipio (Africanus Major, naturally) that Hannibal rated Alexander, then Phyrrus, as the greatest generals, and himself third—but would have considered himself the greatest general of them all if only he hadn't been defeated by Scipio.NO man, he said he was 3rd after Alexandros and Pyrrhos...
Maion
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Hannibal and Scipio: BROS 4 LYF
Well I think we can agree that Megas alexandros was one of the (if not THE) greatest generals in Antiquity. (if we take the period of Antiquity to last until the birth of Christ.) Who could be the greatest general of the "dark ages" (if we take it from the birt of christ till the fall of the western Roman empire) I couldn't say (although I think Great King Attila would surely be a potential candidate). The greatest General of the Middle ages would probeably be Genghis Khan but I can"t be sure.
But now back to topic: I believe the Nomad factions might have the most easiest to get good generals - since they often need there Bodyguard Horsemen to decide the battles and they can easely win battles where the chances are seriously against them.
But now back to topic: I believe the Nomad factions might have the most easiest to get good generals - since they often need there Bodyguard Horsemen to decide the battles and they can easely win battles where the chances are seriously against them.
According to Hanson, Alexander was a stupid, "drunken thug" and Hitleresque mass murderer, and Epaminondas could kick his butt any day.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well desert you sure seem to be heading towards you goal.
Wait a minute... Oh damm I think I hear a squadron .. no .. two squadrons of Hetairoi aproaching...
Well see youz later. (Gallops of far away..
)
Wait a minute... Oh damm I think I hear a squadron .. no .. two squadrons of Hetairoi aproaching...
Well see youz later. (Gallops of far away..
)The exact timeframe of Antiquity and the Middle Ages is still disputed and there has not yet been a general agreement reached.
From a (Western) European point of view, Classical Antiquity probably ended with the "birth of Christ" whence the divide in the calendar between BC and AD (or, as I prefer to use them BCE and CE- respectively, (Before) Common Era), though a lot of scholars take the Roman Crisis of the Third century as a more historically-oriented (or, if you will, less "mythological") turning point. Afterwards came Constantine the Great and I'm sure you all know what that meant for the European world.
Late Antiquity is the transition from the Classical Era to the Middle Ages, circa 300 to 600 CE. The "Dark Ages" are the part of the Middle Ages from their beginning up to the "Renaissance" or the rebirth of education and all of that.
Now, the Middle Ages is another cause for dispute... they could begin with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the reign of Charlemagne, the death of Justinian I... there is as of yet no consensus on the topic.
With that in mind, I'd say the greatest General of Classical Antiquity would be, without a doubt, Megas Alexandros. Greatest General of the Late Antiquity: Belisarius or maybe Flavius Aetius?. Dark Ages (depending on which reference you take) Charlemagne. Middle Ages: Jeanne D'Arc? =p
From a (Western) European point of view, Classical Antiquity probably ended with the "birth of Christ" whence the divide in the calendar between BC and AD (or, as I prefer to use them BCE and CE- respectively, (Before) Common Era), though a lot of scholars take the Roman Crisis of the Third century as a more historically-oriented (or, if you will, less "mythological") turning point. Afterwards came Constantine the Great and I'm sure you all know what that meant for the European world.
Late Antiquity is the transition from the Classical Era to the Middle Ages, circa 300 to 600 CE. The "Dark Ages" are the part of the Middle Ages from their beginning up to the "Renaissance" or the rebirth of education and all of that.
Now, the Middle Ages is another cause for dispute... they could begin with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the reign of Charlemagne, the death of Justinian I... there is as of yet no consensus on the topic.
With that in mind, I'd say the greatest General of Classical Antiquity would be, without a doubt, Megas Alexandros. Greatest General of the Late Antiquity: Belisarius or maybe Flavius Aetius?. Dark Ages (depending on which reference you take) Charlemagne. Middle Ages: Jeanne D'Arc? =p
Some of the 'barbarian' generals were pretty good too.
Well I only described those "time borders" because I myself am not sure how to place these "ages". But thats not important. Burebistas timeframe seems to fitt very well.
I'm not 100% sure about Aetius though - sure he was a capable commander but the Greatest of his time.... I don't know... his fame is based alot on the draw at Katalaunum (or Chalons as some call it) and him defending Italia against "the barbarians from the east". I would no doubt call him a good commander - he knew that as soon as the Huns came over the alps the only thing the "Emperor" could do was to sue for peace many of his actions prove his capabilities and after his death no one could replace him. (can be said about all the three I have named below)
I still say Attila would deserve to be among the candidates. Nobody doubts his capabilities as a Warleader and his conquests and acions have left an important mark on History - he "forced" the founding of Venice and also took part in streghtening the power of the pope (even if it was not his goal).
The greatest commanders of Late Antiquity would be (according to my judgement): Belarius, Aetius, Attila - the later two were Allies and supported eachother for a long time and that makes the situation even more complicated.
Originally Posted by Burebista:
With that in mind, I'd say the greatest General of Classical Antiquity would be, without a doubt, Megas Alexandros.
Surely with no doubt.With that in mind, I'd say the greatest General of Classical Antiquity would be, without a doubt, Megas Alexandros.
Originally Posted by Burebista:
Greatest General of the Late Antiquity: Belisarius or maybe Flavius Aetius?.
I don't know too many details about Belisarius but I think he would surely deserve it.Greatest General of the Late Antiquity: Belisarius or maybe Flavius Aetius?.
I'm not 100% sure about Aetius though - sure he was a capable commander but the Greatest of his time.... I don't know... his fame is based alot on the draw at Katalaunum (or Chalons as some call it) and him defending Italia against "the barbarians from the east". I would no doubt call him a good commander - he knew that as soon as the Huns came over the alps the only thing the "Emperor" could do was to sue for peace many of his actions prove his capabilities and after his death no one could replace him. (can be said about all the three I have named below)
I still say Attila would deserve to be among the candidates. Nobody doubts his capabilities as a Warleader and his conquests and acions have left an important mark on History - he "forced" the founding of Venice and also took part in streghtening the power of the pope (even if it was not his goal).
The greatest commanders of Late Antiquity would be (according to my judgement): Belarius, Aetius, Attila - the later two were Allies and supported eachother for a long time and that makes the situation even more complicated.
Originally Posted by Burebista:
Dark Ages (depending on which reference you take) Charlemagne. Middle Ages: Jeanne D'Arc? =p
I don't know too much about these eras so I will not add anything to it.Dark Ages (depending on which reference you take) Charlemagne. Middle Ages: Jeanne D'Arc? =p
Alexander as the greatest general of all time... He is definetely overrated.
Oh come on, beating a "military genius" such as Darius III shows no real skill. When Alexander fought in the Hydaspes, and fought someone smarter he had eventually to stop his conquests even after winning that battle with a lot of dificulty.
Hannibal on the other hand... Fought one of the greatest superpowers with limited resources over more then one decade, used similar strategies like Alexander but much more refined. I mean, the guy used every single thing to his advantage. Things like the wind, the sun, or even the sand. Definetely, the best general of the ancient era, if not the greatest of all.
As for the dark ages... Belisarius. Beating Persia, conquering Italy and northern africa usually with outnumbered forces, was a great feat. And I wouldnt consider Charlesmagne a great leader simply because of his rather simple, and brute tactics.
For the middle ages its really hard to choose one. Henry V, Edward III or Timur are some that come to mind, but i think i would definetely pick Timur. He virtually created an empire from nothing, from India to Anatolia, and never lost a single battle.
Oh come on, beating a "military genius" such as Darius III shows no real skill. When Alexander fought in the Hydaspes, and fought someone smarter he had eventually to stop his conquests even after winning that battle with a lot of dificulty.
Hannibal on the other hand... Fought one of the greatest superpowers with limited resources over more then one decade, used similar strategies like Alexander but much more refined. I mean, the guy used every single thing to his advantage. Things like the wind, the sun, or even the sand. Definetely, the best general of the ancient era, if not the greatest of all.
As for the dark ages... Belisarius. Beating Persia, conquering Italy and northern africa usually with outnumbered forces, was a great feat. And I wouldnt consider Charlesmagne a great leader simply because of his rather simple, and brute tactics.
For the middle ages its really hard to choose one. Henry V, Edward III or Timur are some that come to mind, but i think i would definetely pick Timur. He virtually created an empire from nothing, from India to Anatolia, and never lost a single battle.
You're all wrong. Belisarius is the greatest
EDIT: So, err, props to you BurningEGO. Sorry, i read these posts too quickly.
EDIT: So, err, props to you BurningEGO. Sorry, i read these posts too quickly.
BEST NAME EVAR ^
As stated, Alexander was the greatest conquerer. In one lifetime, he took over an empire that had taken countless to make. Tactically speaking, he was only above-average. Hannibal could win any battle, but he couldn't siege, and he couldn't take advantage of them. Alexander took the greatest cities, with the greatest walls.
I support a campaign to take Alexander and Hannibal into a teleporter, and cause a The Fly moment and create the most awesome general ever.
As stated, Alexander was the greatest conquerer. In one lifetime, he took over an empire that had taken countless to make. Tactically speaking, he was only above-average. Hannibal could win any battle, but he couldn't siege, and he couldn't take advantage of them. Alexander took the greatest cities, with the greatest walls.
I support a campaign to take Alexander and Hannibal into a teleporter, and cause a The Fly moment and create the most awesome general ever.
Originally Posted by :
I support a campaign to take Alexander and Hannibal into a teleporter, and cause a The Fly moment and create the most awesome general ever
Or their heads will be conjoined at the neck and they'll spend all eternity bickering as to who is the greater generalI support a campaign to take Alexander and Hannibal into a teleporter, and cause a The Fly moment and create the most awesome general ever
Hannibal: What? You're full of it, I'm so much better than you!
Alex: Um, except, you lost...n00b
Hannibal: Oh please. Just because I didn't fight against a guy who ran away every time doesn't make me any worsea general.
And so on into infinity...
You wouldn't happen to know Alexander the Pretty Good, would you?
To tell you the truth, between Alexander and Hannibal I always prefered the latter. But I have to be honest... that's only because he stuck it to the Romans.
I'd say Hannibal was an excellent tactitian but, overall, Alexander was better. Not to mention the fact that he accomplished all that he did before he was 33. The only other man to have such a great impact on history in such a short amount of time was Jesus of Nazareth.
It would certainly be interesting to see a battle between those two. I'd have my money on Alexander to tell you the truth. Hannibal was an expert at choosing his field but Alexander could make the best of any field you gave him. Hannibal was very creative when it came to tactics, but Alexander knew how to exploit his adversary's weaknesses.
En fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
The only reason I chose Aetius over Attila (without neglecting the Hun's impact on History) was because those two actually fought each other.
Oh, and Hun... as for medieval times, there's one general I'm sure you'll recognise who's perhaps one of my personal favourites: Janos Hunyadi, The White Knight.
I'd say Hannibal was an excellent tactitian but, overall, Alexander was better. Not to mention the fact that he accomplished all that he did before he was 33. The only other man to have such a great impact on history in such a short amount of time was Jesus of Nazareth.
It would certainly be interesting to see a battle between those two. I'd have my money on Alexander to tell you the truth. Hannibal was an expert at choosing his field but Alexander could make the best of any field you gave him. Hannibal was very creative when it came to tactics, but Alexander knew how to exploit his adversary's weaknesses.
En fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
The only reason I chose Aetius over Attila (without neglecting the Hun's impact on History) was because those two actually fought each other.
Oh, and Hun... as for medieval times, there's one general I'm sure you'll recognise who's perhaps one of my personal favourites: Janos Hunyadi, The White Knight.
Ah, so much Hannibal-love in this thread. Don't be ashamed; embrace it! 
Also +1 for Charlemagne.
Originally Posted by Burebista if you think I am going to open Character Map and even ATTEMPT to retype your name you are joking but I guess I could just copy/paste it but I prefer typing pointless rubbish like this:
En fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
At least only until humans discover time travel. Yes, I have watched Bill & Ted's etc. etc. recently (and let me tell you I would do thinks differently; I mean, Billy the Kid (aged 33)?)En fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
Also +1 for Charlemagne.
Originally Posted by desert:
In no way am I pointing that out just to see Maion enter Rage Mode.
*A long, machine like noise that steadily rises in volume is heard in the background as Maion enters Rage Mode*In no way am I pointing that out just to see Maion enter Rage Mode.
Maion
need help? *pulls out a wormhole based mechanism that allows one to summon a full stack of Cyborg Makedonians armed with Plasma Sarrisae and beam Javalins* =D
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος:
It would certainly be interesting to see a battle between those two. I'd have my money on Alexander to tell you the truth. Hannibal was an expert at choosing his field but Alexander could make the best of any field you gave him. Hannibal was very creative when it came to tactics, but Alexander knew how to exploit his adversary's weaknesses.
I surely agrre on that one. ButIt would certainly be interesting to see a battle between those two. I'd have my money on Alexander to tell you the truth. Hannibal was an expert at choosing his field but Alexander could make the best of any field you gave him. Hannibal was very creative when it came to tactics, but Alexander knew how to exploit his adversary's weaknesses.
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος:
En fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
Amen to that brotherEn fin, we'll have to accept the fact that we'll never know.
I hope we won't start a Alexander vs. Hannibal debate
.If someone wants to see one like that then go here:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184720
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος:
The only reason I chose Aetius over Attila (without neglecting the Hun's impact on History) was because those two actually fought each other.
An unusual argument if you ask me but lets leave it.The only reason I chose Aetius over Attila (without neglecting the Hun's impact on History) was because those two actually fought each other.
Originally Posted by Βελισάριος:
Oh, and Hun... as for medieval times, there's one general I'm sure you'll recognise who's perhaps one of my personal favourites: Janos Hunyadi, The White Knight.
Yes youre right - I know the history of Hunyadi János the "turk-beater" quite well. In fact for me he is the greatest General of Medieval times (at the same level as Genghis Khan) but I don't know much detail of the Medieval history of other nations so I couldn't say for sure. (Good to know you respect him aswell. I always remember him when I hear the noon bell.)Oh, and Hun... as for medieval times, there's one general I'm sure you'll recognise who's perhaps one of my personal favourites: Janos Hunyadi, The White Knight.
However I know for sure that Hunyadi János and his son Mátyás had a great affect on History. Not just that of Middle- and East-Europe but also that of whole Europe. You can even hear it today...
Waitaminute... wasn't he the guy who killed Vlad Dracul's father?
back to the topic.
I seem to be having a small problem with training my romani generals. Everytime i leave them for a year or two in Italian academies they always seem to be getting the nasty pedantic/scholastic trait. This only seems to have happened when i leave them in Italian cities.
Currently my best general was a Athenian educated bloke.
I seem to be having a small problem with training my romani generals. Everytime i leave them for a year or two in Italian academies they always seem to be getting the nasty pedantic/scholastic trait. This only seems to have happened when i leave them in Italian cities.
Currently my best general was a Athenian educated bloke.
While Janos and his son Mathias might have had some impact upon Hungarian history and of those of nearby countries, i fail to understand how he was that great. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Oh and how many times did you actually do that saber?
Oh and how many times did you actually do that saber?
Athens is perhaps one of the best school cities in the game. I built Sparta up in my KH Campaign but Athens is better for any potential governor.
Wait wait... Regions matter when building your characters skills? I thought it was tied to Academies, to their "Sharp" trait and to their nationality (Syrios, Hellene, etc).
I dunno, it just seems like that. Placebo effect and the fact that you usually end up with a school one tier better there than in most other places.
Originally Posted by BurningEGO:
While Janos and his son Mathias might have had some impact upon Hungarian history and of those of nearby countries, i fail to understand how he was that great. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Oh and how many times did you actually do that saber?
They were both champions of Christianity. And Janos killed Vlad II Dracul, who was Vlad III Dracula's father, or Vlad the Impaler. Ironically, since Vlad II and his son were both champions of Christianity as well. But Janos was (half) Hungarian and Vlad Romanian... the two nations have always hated each other and it looks like they'll continue to do that for a long time to come, but let's not start that.While Janos and his son Mathias might have had some impact upon Hungarian history and of those of nearby countries, i fail to understand how he was that great. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Oh and how many times did you actually do that saber?
To give you an idea of what an impact Janos had on history, here's what the Pope said when he died: "the light of the world has passed away".
Sultan Mehmet II, the Conqueror of Constantinople admired him, though they were mortal enemies.
But this is a discussion for a Medieval II thread, so we can continue it there if you like.
Returning to the original topic. In my experience I've never really gotten any good combat traits by sitting my generals in cities. At best an "understanding of tactics" which you'll sooner get through campaigning against your enemies.
A solution I accidentally came upon was to "role-play" only one general. Leave the others to administrative tasks or support, that way one general sees most of the action and it greatly increases his traits... ensuring that his offspring will likewise be a breed of fine warriors.
I've actually had more success from guys sitting in Athens than a general I've used since 272 BC. Especially if they're selfish, which will give them some ridiculously negative ratings
Originally Posted by BurningEGO:
Alexander as the greatest general of all time... He is definetely overrated.
Oh come on, beating a "military genius" such as Darius III shows no real skill. When Alexander fought in the Hydaspes, and fought someone smarter he had eventually to stop his conquests even after winning that battle with a lot of dificulty.
I am surprised how many people readily assume that Darius was incompetent. I suppose this is part of the general devaluation of the enemies of Rome and Greece. Darius wasn't a military genius, indeed, but if you look at his tactics, they actually make a great deal of sense. Unfortunately for Darius, he was up against a real military genius who anticipated Darius' actions and planned accordingly.Alexander as the greatest general of all time... He is definetely overrated.
Oh come on, beating a "military genius" such as Darius III shows no real skill. When Alexander fought in the Hydaspes, and fought someone smarter he had eventually to stop his conquests even after winning that battle with a lot of dificulty.
well, I see that alot of people here can cnquer the EB world; they have got to be really ,mighty good and apatient players...also ones with a lot of free time?
Originally Posted by satalexton:
need help? *pulls out a wormhole based mechanism that allows one to summon a full stack of Cyborg Makedonians armed with Plasma Sarrisae and beam Javalins* =D
need help? *pulls out a wormhole based mechanism that allows one to summon a full stack of Cyborg Makedonians armed with Plasma Sarrisae and beam Javalins* =D
Maion
Strangely enough, I find that the Celtic Lesser Kings make AMAZING generals (playing as Getai here). IF you throw them into the fight, they'll gain morale boosters like crazy. My current best general is a Celt who has 7 command stars and a whole slew of morale boosters, he's also got 2 gold chevrons since I always use him to reinforce the centerline. My only annoyance is that he's also the most disloyal bastard out of my entire empire.
Cavalry based commanders are better for mobility but they always lack the staying power of the infantry based ones.
If you want a defensive general, just take a town that several enemies want badly and try to keep hold of it. My best defensive general held Nikaia against about 2 Seleuikid full stacks and 2 Macedonian full stacks. He's now got 5 commands stars and many morale boosters.
I gotta say though, Genghis Khan is probably the best all round general ever. Why?
1: His grasp of tactics was amazing.
2: He employed psychological warfare and used it VERY well, have a look at the Europeans at the time, they believed that he was sent by god to punish them. He was the one to claim he'd been sent by god to punish them.
3: He knew how to keep the cities under him happy.
Cavalry based commanders are better for mobility but they always lack the staying power of the infantry based ones.
If you want a defensive general, just take a town that several enemies want badly and try to keep hold of it. My best defensive general held Nikaia against about 2 Seleuikid full stacks and 2 Macedonian full stacks. He's now got 5 commands stars and many morale boosters.
I gotta say though, Genghis Khan is probably the best all round general ever. Why?
1: His grasp of tactics was amazing.
2: He employed psychological warfare and used it VERY well, have a look at the Europeans at the time, they believed that he was sent by god to punish them. He was the one to claim he'd been sent by god to punish them.
3: He knew how to keep the cities under him happy.
Happy? If you kill half the population, its fear that makes them "happy"
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO