Alexander the Great vs Napoleon vs Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan vs Hannibal

[Centurion1]

Caesar is overated. Napoleon stayed in a homogenous battleground and never diversified himself. phooey i say genghis is king.

[Ricdog]

Caesar is overated. Napoleon stayed in a homogenous battleground and never diversified himself. phooey i say genghis is king.

Well I strongly disagree their. Napoleon and Caesar I believed showed waaay more military genius threw out their careers than any of the other commanders in list. Their victories are just to phenomenal to be challenged many.

[Harkilaz]

The thing I'm most impressed about Hannibal, save for his strategic and tactical talents, is that of logistics, and his ability to sustain his army in enemy territory for the first 3 years with next to no help from anywhere. Most of the great generals had a supply line of some sort. When Alexander defeated his enemy, he managed to sort out a place for supply miles from home, whereas Hannibal didn't. Hannibal managed to achieve great victories despite this, and some of his strategic goals - a lesser general certainly wouldn't have managed it. Despite Hannibal losing in the end, I really think he deserves to be considered one of the greatest!

[Ricdog]

The thing I'm most impressed about Hannibal, save for his strategic and tactical talents, is that of logistics, and his ability to sustain his army in enemy territory for the first 3 years with next to no help from anywhere. Most of the great generals had a supply line of some sort. When Alexander defeated his enemy, he managed to sort out a place for supply miles from home, whereas Hannibal didn't. Hannibal managed to achieve great victories despite this, and some of his strategic goals - a lesser general certainly wouldn't have managed it. Despite Hannibal losing in the end, I really think he deserves to be considered one of the greatest!

I would also notably mention Winfield Scott, the greatest U.S. general in history. His handling of logistics was absolutely phenomenal in Mexico.

[Harkilaz]

I would also notably mention Winfield Scott, the greatest U.S. general in history. His handling of logistics was absolutely phenomenal in Mexico.

hehe, I see you've been lobbying his case over on Historum!

[Ricdog]

hehe, I see you've been lobbying his case over on Historum!

Yea, he just tends to come quick to mind for some reason. Although I personally wish to get a bit more into William Slim.

[Sarmatian]

Well I strongly disagree their. Napoleon and Caesar I believed showed waaay more military genius threw out their careers than any of the other commanders in list. Their victories are just to phenomenal to be challenged many.

Bah, they have nothing on Hannibal.

Maneuvering with a much smaller army in a densely populated enemy territory for 11 years, inflicting your enemies defeat after defeat, and not just any defeats, most devastating defeats they have suffered ever and not to just any enemy, to Romans.

Caesar did have his moments and he also grew as a commander during his time in Gaul but he owed his successes more to quality of his soldiers than his skill. In my opinion, he made some dubious strategic decisions and only due to luck and skill of Roman legions did he triumphed in the end. He was very charismatic man and he knew how to inspire loyalty in his men. Most of his victories are over Gaullic tribes and even there he had a few defeats and close calls. Only time when he met Romans in battle, it was against inexperienced soldiers and he found out about enemy plan before the battle.

Much better politician than a general. There, he really is one of the greatest, if not the greatest in history.

[Ricdog]

Bah, they have nothing on Hannibal.

Maneuvering with a much smaller army in a densely populated enemy territory for 11 years, inflicting your enemies defeat after defeat, and not just any defeats, most devastating defeats they have suffered ever and not to just any enemy, to Romans.

Caesar did have his moments and he also grew as a commander during his time in Gaul but he owed his successes more to quality of his soldiers than his skill. In my opinion, he made some dubious strategic decisions and only due to luck and skill of Roman legions did he triumphed in the end. He was very charismatic man and he knew how to inspire loyalty in his men. Most of his victories are over Gaullic tribes and even there he had a few defeats and close calls. Only time when he met Romans in battle, it was against inexperienced soldiers and he found out about enemy plan before the battle.

Much better politician than a general. There, he really is one of the greatest, if not the greatest in history.

More because of soldiers than skill? I dont remember hearing the soldiers next to Caesar when he planning the great engineering fortifications at Alesia (wanna the greatest in history), nor did I see them helping Caesar planning the new ship that needed to be made to cross into Britian. Or what about perfecting the use of trenches to shield your flanks at Axona? His masterpiece at the Rhine is also a must notable mention. Lets not forget Alexandria when he turned a city section into an unprecendanted fortess. Caesar had his victories because of his amazing ability to use field fortifications in his tactics, and the above I mentioned are not all. As far as I can tell no other general in history can compare to Caesar in engineering feats (which include siege and battlefield use), not Alexander, not Khan, not Hannibal, not Napoleon.

The Gallic tribes were a formidable opponent. The Gauls had an amazing furioucity and willingness. So much infact that they taught themselves how to march, built forifications, and use tactics just like the Romans! Not to mention the other formidabble opponents Caesar fought: Legions, some under Pompey (the greatest roman general at that time), spanish, numerians, egyptians, etc.... Caesar fought the best the world had to offer him in his position and he came out on top.

He did make certain bold blunders, that ill give you. Specificaly his preparations for Britian and Africa I find lacking.

[Centurion1]

Genghis Khan diverted the yellow river and drowned the walls of a chinese city. lol at you thinking only Caesar used engineering. Alexander built massive barges and diverted the indus to cross into india and he conquered tyre the unconquerable city

[Ricdog]

Genghis Khan diverted the yellow river and drowned the walls of a chinese city. lol at you thinking only Caesar used engineering. Alexander built massive barges and diverted the indus to cross into india and he conquered tyre the unconquerable city

Actually if im correct Alexander and Khan simply used their engineers and inspired them, they didnt actually come up with the real plans to do them. While Caesar here was his own chief engineer. He personnaly was the one that came up with the blue prints, logistics, and knowledge of how exactly to build exactly what he wanted.

However even given credit to Khan and Alexander doesnt change much, as Caesar's feats still outmatch both. At one point Caesar had to build huge dykes while besieging Venetian fortresses that literally held back the ocean!

Plus like I kinda intended before, I dont think Khan or Alexander used engineering in such a masterful way at tactics to help even in the actual battlefield.

[Centurion1]

Caesar had one of the greatest engineering corps the world has ever known. Pretty unfair advantage there.