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

[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.

[Harkilaz]

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!

[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.

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.

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.