The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[XxSpartanxX]

My pick for best is Alexander, then i would have to pick Hannibal then Ceaser ( I dont know anything about the other guy) I dont know why some guys understimate the persians. They held one of the greatest empires in history and Alex was able to topple them in such a short time. Their power was in speed and numbers (its what they needed to conquer such vast territory). They had great generals but not one nearly as good Alex himself. Yes, he did have a more disciplined army equipped with superior armor and incredible moral (due to Alex and the phalanx formation they fought in which let them feel secure atleast mentally) but the persians with there numbers,speed, and good leaders would give anyone a hard time, even hannibal and ceaser. Alex fought head on and did not need to use ambushes to defeat armies atleast 3-10 times bigger than his. Yes, a good amount of them were slaves but remember any man can kill another man, heck a women or a kid could kill a man. Slaves were not wimps. The other men were proffesional soldiers. THe persians had hundreds of Calvary. Even more archers and just a plain stupid amount of infantry soldiers. Yes, ceaser had to face many gauls but not nearly as much and their generals were nothing compared to ceaser, hannibal, Alex or or most other generals. When Alex reached India he had to face an army probably as big or almost as big as he had to face at gaugamela. Their army was was of the same type as the persians except for the fact that they used Indian elephants. Obviously India was a much tougher situation for Alex than much others and he came away with draw. I do not believe that hannibal would be able to fight the indians and come out with a victory (with the men he used to fight rome) mainly because strategy can only do so much and the Indians were famouse for having such vast and strong armies (though they never expanded like the persians for variouse reasons) In my opinion hannibal and ceaser could conquer persia but i dont think they could of done it as efficiently as alex could have, but we will never know will we?

[chaplain118]

Alright, I'm starting to get tired of the stereotype and perceptions that people are having because of that movie 300. The Achaemenid Empire (the Persian empire that Alexander defeated) followed after Zoroastrianism, which prohibits slavery. Although rebellious armies were sold into slavery, the entire force of the Persian empire were free men.

The Persians also employed heavy use of the scythed chariots, which were a chief psychological weapon that were just as frightening, if not more so, than elephants considering the noise they made, along with the knowledge that they were controlled by animals that were tamable. The Persian archers were more than enough to truly overwhelm any Greek/Macedonian phalanx. It was due to a combination of strong light infantry and frightening cavalry that the Persians dominated the first few battles of the Greco-Persian war, which were located in Ionia and northeastern Greece, both areas were relatively flat. It wasn't until the Persians began pushing into the hilly regions of the Pelopennesses that their advantages were cut down.

In fact, prior to the Greco-Persian conflicts, peltasts were largely confined to Thrace. It was only after the conflict with Persia that the Greeks learned the true power of Peltasts, especially against cavalry and slow-moving heavy infantry. Peltasts began to play a large role in the Pelopenessan Wars and Alexander employed a large number of them in his assault against Persia. Alexander understood the need to use a combined-arms tactic against an enemy that could harrass his soldiers from both distance and near. In fact, the hammer-and-anvil tactic most of the phalangite loving players use in game couldn't be normally pulled off against a faction that relies on all light-infantry and light calvary because of the inability to pin them down to deliver the fatal cavalry charge.

In short

- The Persian empire army was NOT an army of slaves
- The Persian empire army was NOT a pushover army
- Alexander was able to conquer them because he was brilliant and understood strategy along with combined-arms tactics, something that the Diadochi failed to realize and see how they were defeated by the Parthians, Armenians, and eventually Romans.

So from this list, Alexander was the greatest general, without a doubt, Hannibal is definitely second for his ability to deliver a crushing victory (Cannae was a flat ground, no ambushes there) as well as his coordination abilities (a multi-nation mercenary army that somehow made it across the Alps is pretty impressive. Only a handful of generals ever tried that insane tactic). Pyrrhus comes dead last because he, well, couldn't truly finish anything that he started. Even when he sieged Sparta, he was beaten back. The victories he won at Italy were too costly to be considered good. So he never lost, but he never managed to win either.

But if we're talking about the greatest general:

[Mulattothrasher]

Before Caesar is put up upon too much of a pedestal...

Gallic society at this time was composed of nobles and their retainers/vassal, thus a semi feudal society reigned over most of Gaul. In the Middle Ages if you defeated the lords, knights, and their retainers in battle, there was little else to oppose you except the levy and militia. Same situation in the Gallic war. It should be known that the Gallic armies he faced had been already torn apart by war for years and were in no shape to repel a force like Rome's. Caesar mentioned the Aedui had lost all/nearly all of their nobility in wars against the Arverni and Germans. This means the Aedui, one of the two largest and most powerful tribes in Gaul (the Arverni being the other) had a vastly depleted army. The martial strength of the Celtic lords, their mounted nobility (knights), leading warriors and trained bodyguards of veterans was significantly reduced. Thus the Gauls needed Germanic help to tilt the Aedui vs. Arverni war in favor of one or the other side.

Simply put what Caesar faced in the Gallic War were armies composed of a significantly higher percentage of levy troops and a much lower percentage of veteran professionals.

Note, too, that when facing tribes of regions outside the power and control of the Aedui and Arverni (they controlled mainly the central and southern regions of Gaul), such as the Belgae to the north, the Helvetti in the east, and the British tribes Caesar did not perform so 'invincibly' and these battles were hard fought. Caesar's loss at Gergovia, the destruction of around 9,000 soldiers at the hand of Ambiorix, the hard fought battle against the Helvetti which went undecided for around half a day and into the night, the near defeat at the hands of the Nervi/Viromandui/Atrebates, the raising of two additional legions iirc when Vercingetorix rose to power against the Roman invaders, etc... it should be obvious what the outcome would have been if Caesar marched into a Gaul that was not war weary and faced intact armies of the Arverni or Aedui and their many allies and dependent tribes.

Not trying to diminish Caesar's accomplishments here, but the propaganda surrounding the Gallic War is broadly accepted and most that subscribe to it have not read the Gallic War (in an unbiased, critical fashion) themselves. Still, its a rather reoccurring weakness of Celts everywhere that the love of independence and freedom causes them not to unite in face of a common threat until its too late.

On topic, I would go with Alexander The Great probably. Its not his fault that he was a 'blip' upon the world scene; never known when malaria (or was it fever?) will kill you. His young age doesn't diminish his accomplishments against a true World Empire: Persia.

[OLIVIER]

for me its possible to comapre alexander and hannibal. but compare them with pyrrhus is more difficult because we have not a lot of info regarding his battle. but byrrhus was a good one because he adapted is tactics in order to fight the romans: instead of a rigid line of phalanxes he adopted a more flexible line (ittalic allies-falanx-ittalic allies-falanx). the elephants were put in reserve and used at a critic time not like the successors who put the phalanx to the front (whings)

alexander and hannibal: for me they are almost equals. same tactics used based on flexibility in perfect coordination of cav and infantery. this coordination was decisive in gaugamela and cannae. by moments its also possible to say that hannibal could be better than alexander because what he have done in cannae is still incredible: surrounding and destroying a well trained army 2 times bigger with an army of various nationality is just awesome comparing to alexander whose army was more homogene, better quality and more easy to command.

other argument : my brother in law has studied in st cyr millitary academy. some time we like discuss millitary strategy. he told me that the battle of cannae and even the ambush at trasimene was his subject in his 3rd year exam. nowadays, hannibal tactics are more studied in millitary acadmy than the tactics of alex

finnaly i would say that tacticaly hannibal and alexander are almost matched ( hannibal slightly better) but strategicaly (hability to expand or defend an empire by using army, diplomacy etc) alex was better

[Scipio praeditus]

Caesar might not have been the best general, but he was the best propagandist in history, becoming the god of all the known world, still worshiped anonymously in every church, mosque and Buddhist temple to this day.

[dvk901]

From my friend Mulattothrasher I have likely learned more about the Celtic world that I ever would have, and I'm grateful because RS2 will be so much the better for it. I have come to admire the Celts, and appreciate that the history books don't always tie togther ALL the facts relevant to situations. One thing I really appreciated was the insight that the Celts were much like the Greeks in sharing a common problem....their disunity. How different the world might've been if either the Celts or the Greeks had all managed to come together in a common purpose like the Romans.

However, I 'stick with my guns' about Caesar, because he was shrewd enough to take advantage of this weakness. All the infighting amoungst the Celts was just a weakness to exploit, and he exploited it very well.
His tactics of gathering intelligence, pitting one tribe against another, and to thus 'divide and conquer' were IMH, quite brilliant. One could say that where Hannibal and Alexander used military tactics to prevail, Caesar was brilliant at using political tactics and intelligence about the enemy to do the same thing.

[torzsoktamas]

1)Hannibal
2)Alexander
3)Julius Caesar

I think between these three gratest generals Hannibal is the best, because hist strategy,tactics and his achevements(he didn't took Rome, because he was foolish and didn't wanted to).As a general Alexander and Caesar are equal in my opinion,but Alexander conquered more territory, so he is the number 2---after all Caesar said that a unified gaul can defy the world.In my opinion there are many more generals that are better than Pyrhus...for example:Lysander,Epaminondas,Antigonus,Attila...

[mattfriend0]

alexander because out of all of them he only had the title Great

and every one knows the greats genrals are every ROMA surrectum players

[Maximus Macro]

its funny everybody here acts like they got a ancienthistory masters edjucation

[torzsoktamas]

its funny everybody here acts like they got a ancienthistory masters edjucation

Well probably most of us know history quite well, but we have different opinions.

[Dafuge]

Matt, in Roman terms Magnus was the name for great, thus Pompey Magnus.

[Eric the Great]

If you rank them on their ability to a win battle I would rank them as the following:

-Alexander defeated the greatest empire at the time. He invaded India and won a brillant battle there. War was Alexander's specialty, however not politics. He could not run his Empire let alone select an heir, this is why it fell apart the moment he died.

-Hannibal was brillant. His tactics would have caused the end of Rome for sure. He avoided sieges and defeated armies that were greater then his own. However, it was time that defeated him. Hannibal could not break the Romans' spirit and was forced to return home before he conquered Italy.

-Julius Caesar was smart but war was not his thing. In war he was lucky more then anything, he tried and failed to invade Brition twice, and nearly lost several battles in Gaul. If he did not have a well trained army Caesar would have been some random general who died trying to make money in Gaul. Plus, Caesar fought people who where technologically inferior to him and was were not a united nation. It is like Dane Cook beating up Joan Rivers and claiming to be the best fighter in the world.

-Pyrrhus....well.....A victory at a great cost is like no victory at all. I view it as a tie where both sides lose. "Ties are like making out with your sister" -From Bad News Bears

[Eric the Great]

its funny everybody here acts like they got a ancienthistory masters edjucation

I thought playing a Total War game automaticly earns you a Masters in Ancient History.

Also, I watch a lot of History channel. lol

[DaddyPro]

Alexander had Hannibal's military skills and he had Ceasars politics, after all he managed to conquer huge territories, his empire felt apart only after his death, who know what would have happened if he wouldn't died so early.

[Eric the Great]

Alexander had Hannibal's military skills and he had Ceasars politics, after all he managed to conquer huge territories, his empire felt apart only after his death, who know what would have happened if he wouldn't died so early.

Alexander was a man of strategies, He was cunning and succeeded at getting people to follow him. You rarely hear about his policies. He barely keep his empire together, that is why some historians believe Alexander was murdered (though highly unlikely), also he was planning another campaign that many of his men were openly against. Caesar was murdered but Roman Empire did not fall apart, and this was due to policies and ideas that Caesar and his heir Augustus created. Even Hannibal's campaign had a political goal: to gain more control over trade that the Romans stole from Carthage after the first Punic War. Alexander might been trying to out do his father, but then again so was Hannibal. A man with Caesars grasp of politics and Alexander's supreme strategic mind could conquer and maintain an empire.

[chaplain118]

Alexander's empire fell apart mostly due to his lack of a proper successor. He never really appointed one, so when he died, his generals went scrambling for power.

And well, we see what happened.

[dvk901]

If you rank them on their ability to a win battle I would rank them as the following:

-Alexander defeated the greatest empire at the time. He invaded India and won a brillant battle there. War was Alexander's specialty, however not politics. He could not run his Empire let alone select an heir, this is why it fell apart the moment he died.

-Hannibal was brillant. His tactics would have caused the end of Rome for sure. He avoided sieges and defeated armies that were greater then his own. However, it was time that defeated him. Hannibal could not break the Romans' spirit and was forced to return home before he conquered Italy.

-Julius Caesar was smart but war was not his thing. In war he was lucky more then anything, he tried and failed to invade Brition twice, and nearly lost several battles in Gaul. If he did not have a well trained army Caesar would have been some random general who died trying to make money in Gaul. Plus, Caesar fought people who where technologically inferior to him and was were not a united nation. It is like Dane Cook beating up Joan Rivers and claiming to be the best fighter in the world.

-Pyrrhus....well.....A victory at a great cost is like no victory at all. I view it as a tie where both sides lose. "Ties are like making out with your sister" -From Bad News Bears

Ooooo....you're gonna get it when Mulattothrasher sees that 'technologically inferior' comment.
Better hold on to your butt.

[Eric the Great]

Ooooo....you're gonna get it when Mulattothrasher sees that 'technologically inferior' comment.
Better hold on to your butt.

I admit that I know very little about the Gauls, so like many politicians have done I retract my statement about the Gauls being "technologically inferior." Please send Mulattothras my appologies.

[Mulattothrasher]

Lol nah, its cool man... check out this thread for some info on Celts/Gauls. Pretty cool stuff if you are interested: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=180996

[dvk901]

Awwww......he bit my head off when I said stuff like that!! No fair.