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

[Beirut]

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

One wins.

One loses.

And there you have it.

[The Wizard]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

[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.

[Beirut]

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.

[Paradox]

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.

Umm.....Exactly.

[Quintus.JC]

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.

[Caius]

Not the first half, no.

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

Mmmm... worms.

Hmm...eating McDonalds food Beirut?

I will vote 4 Caius Julius Caesar.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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

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!

[The Wizard]

Lucullus was better than both of those

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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

[The Wizard]

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?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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! 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 . 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 . And he married his wife when she was 15 or something if I'm right, when he was into his 40s! (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.

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

[seireikhaan]

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.

[woad&fangs]

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

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".

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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.

[Quintus.JC]

Who voted for Antiachus III?

[Globe]

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

[Franconicus]

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

[tobit]

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.

[Brenus]

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.

[Brennus]

No mention of Antiochus IV?

[Sarmatian]

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.

[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...

[lolpah]

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?

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.