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

[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.

[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.

[Spartan198]

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.

[Tabuu]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Han Xin?

[A Nerd]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[A Nerd]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

2.5 year bumps, ftw!

[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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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).

[Caesar the IIIV]

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

[therup]

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.

[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.

[Ricdog]

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.

[Harkilaz]

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.

[Ricdog]

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.

[Harkilaz]

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!

[Ricdog]

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.