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

[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.

[Ricdog]

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.

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.

The esteemed military historian Liddel Hart once wrote a book entitled A Greater Than Napoleon. It was about Africanus.

Actually some even consider Dyrrachium to be one of Caesar's most impressive military showings. I hear that it could very well be equal to Alesia in engineering and tactical masterpiece. To quote someone on it, "At Dyrrachium Caesar instituted a blockade that matched Alesia in boldness. His layer of fortifications stretched for 17 miles, not counting another series of fortifications that he built to cut Pompey off from the town. During the construction Caesar came up with the idea of using portable ramparts to shield soldiers as they siezed hills to fortify. Only the fact that Caesar ultimately abandoned the siege prevents it from being the equal of Alesia."

I agree that Caesar also did have a faulty trait of rushing and ultimately being unprepared for certain campaigns. As I believe I stated this in my previous comments. Nonetheless I believe his excellence clearly outshine virtually any other commander in history.

As for Africanus better than Napoleon, I dont see it (not from what I know). Africanus is arguably tied with Napoleon as my favorite general, but I dont think his overall campaigns (or hannibals for that sake) match Napoleon. I consider his victories at Ilipia and the Great Plains to be masterpieces, and I also loved his handling of Spain by using his political manuevers to weaken the Carthrage stronghold. But compared to the achievements of Napoleon, he doesn't hold up.

[Harkilaz]

What is your opinion on his Russian campaign? (a bit off topic perhaps...)

[Ricdog]

What is your opinion on his Russian campaign? (a bit off topic perhaps...)

Well from what i've read, it was the russian's will and Napoleon's blindness to their ways. I mean from what I read he did prepare with lots of supplies for his campaign, but the deeper he got into Russia and casualties started to rise he just didnt change his plan. I mean if im correct a "schorched earth" was something that was virtually never used back then, so that could have got Napoleon by suprise. But I think the real death blow was the fact that Russia didn't surrender when Napoleon reached Moscow. I think I heard that it was completely alien and unheard of in western europe for a nation not to make peace even after the capital was lost. And this could be supported by the fact that Napoleon stayed in Moscow a long time still thinking that Czar would eventually make peace.

Ultimately I think it was a combination of Russia's risky but creative thinking, aswell as Napoleon's lack of competitance in that campaign. Napoleon was virtually unbeatable at times but I admit that he did have a weakness to sometimes seem to lack that leadership that made him great. For example the campaign of Waterloo was amazing (well the overall plan and strategy) but once things started to fall apart, Napoleon's tactics seemed compitant at best.