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

[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.

[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.

[Sarmatian]

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?

[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.

[CountArach]

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.