Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 571

Thread: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

  1. #61

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Hannibal > Alexander > Caesar > Napoleon Bonaparte > Erwin Rommel > Stonewall Jackson > Beetle Smith > George Armstrong Custer > Pyrrhus



  2. #62

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by cherryfunk View Post
    Hannibal > Alexander > Caesar > Napoleon Bonaparte > Erwin Rommel > Stonewall Jackson > Beetle Smith > George Armstrong Custer > Pyrrhus
    Nice ranking, but if you include modern generals you must include George S. Patton two.-He was a great general too with impressive fear factor(from the germans).





    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg></a></p>

  3. #63

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    But Patton slapped a soldier!



  4. #64

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Also you could have writed more ancient/medieval generals as it was more hard to fight in those days:like Epaminondas,Lysander,Richard the Lionheart etc.But this is just a matter of opinion.

    And yeah Patton had a bad reputation of kicking his own soldiers asses.





    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg></a></p>

  5. #65

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Great View Post
    I thought playing a Total War game automaticly earns you a Masters in Ancient History.

    Also, I watch a lot of History channel. lol
    haha thats true rome totalwar makes learning about history fun,and youre not alone i to watch alot of history channel because flemmish tv sucks. (3 days in the week we got "csi nights" with 5 different csi series's its insane and utterly boring)

    Atheist
    Quantum physics
    Paleonthology
    RSII Betatester
    Ultimate irony Quote by total relism:
    -this is the number one tactic of evolutionist hand waving they close there ears and eyes to any evidence they do not want to here.

  6. #66

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar: each one of them did fantastic and heroic actions. If you can put togheter this three men you can have Superman!

    Ambition, discipline, respect for their soldiers, courage and a little crazy mind are part of these great leading character of the history.
    Tito Labieno
    - Legatum Propraetore -
    "De Labieni mira virtute victoriaque" - De Bello Gallico LIBER SEPTIMUS LXII.

  7. #67

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by torzsoktamas View Post
    And yeah Patton had a bad reputation of kicking his own soldiers asses.
    So did Wellington, and he managed to beat Napoleon (if anyone tries to cheapen the great victory at Waterloo after the heroic stalling actions at Quatre Bras, i will destroy you with my giant lazar (shoop-da-woop etc.))!
    'Ecce, Roma Surrectum!' Beta Tester and Historian
    Under the proud patronage of MarcusTullius

  8. #68
    Ybbon's Avatar The Way of the Buffalo
    Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    locally
    Posts
    7,234

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by cherryfunk View Post
    Hannibal > Alexander > Caesar > Napoleon Bonaparte > Erwin Rommel > Stonewall Jackson > Beetle Smith > George Armstrong Custer > Pyrrhus
    Who was Beetle Smith? Walter Bedell Smith?

  9. #69

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Hannibal certainly has the coolest name of them all.

    Do not hate a weak child, it may be the son of a tiger.



  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torzsoktamas View Post
    Sorry,but your wrong.Hannibal stayed more than 10 years in Italy after Cannae before going home.Thats enough time to sieg a city and take it or starve it.And again:Hannibal didn't took the city because he taught that the romans would surrender....-quite foolish but that was.As I said As general I think Hannibal was the best,but as king or politician, he is worst than the 10th because of this foolishnes.
    Hannibal stayed in Italy for ten years, which was full of disease and desertion. He could not get reinforcements. Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca attempt to supply Hannibal with fresh men, however his army was annihilated in Spain by Scipio Africanus. Hannibal did defeat a large Roman Army at Cannae, he did not defeated all of the Roman army. Romans did not send every man to Cannae. If they did then who did Hannibal fight for the next ten years? In addition, few men can defend a walled city like Rome, long enough for Scipio to arrive. Really during those ten years Hannibal tries to stay afloat and win some battles in Italy while the Romans slowly cut off his supplies.
    If he did siege: Yes, it is easy to build ladders and rams, these were easily defended against. That is why certain siege equipment is necessary, and an overwhelming force.
    Hannibal's tactics was the drive out all of the Roman armies out of their cities and defeat them in the fields. After sometime, the Romans caught on to his plan and refuse to fight him. Hannibal as brilliant as he was with battlefield tactics, but could not see the overall objective. He was so stubborn that it took him ten years to realize this.
    What he should have done was after the battle of Cannae was return to Spain, defeat Scipio and met up with his reinforcements and then attack Rome. This is why he lost, and to rank someone the best they need to win wars. Alexander did that and he die in a bed from a disease. Hannibal roamed around in Africa and committed suicide in 183bc.

    Please Note: I strongly believe Hannibal was a great leader and general, just not the best of this time period.

    One more piece of knowledge just for fun:
    Plutarch records that Hannibal ranked Pyrrhus as the greatest commander the world had ever seen, though Appain gives a different version of the story, in which Hannibal placed him second after Alexander the Great.


    Please edit your post's instead of double posting. This is the second time I say this to you so please make sure to do that next time. Thanks/apple
    Last edited by apple; August 05, 2009 at 04:17 PM.

  11. #71

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Eric, what do you know about Hannibal???It seems that almost nothing.
    After the battle of Cannae ALL of the roman army was defeated exept some FEW town guards in Rome, which is almost nothing.I know Hannibal and its war as I read mutch about him and know that after Cannae all of the senators except Scipio wanted to surrender.Scipio said that atleast wait till Hannibal comes to the city and than surrender.Hannibal thinked like a fool and didn't marched to Rome, because he wanted to wait for Romes surrender(so it would be a very big shame for Rome), and not because he could not take the city.

    IF you don't understand what I wrote than read it multiple times, and don't post such as: Hannibal could not take Rome for sure....---even the romans knew that Hannibal could take their city, but they waited rather than go and pray for their lives.





    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg></a></p>

  12. #72

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Great View Post
    Hannibal stayed in Italy for ten years, which was full of disease and desertion. He could not get reinforcements. Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca attempt to supply Hannibal with fresh men, however his army was annihilated in Spain by Scipio Africanus. Hannibal did defeat a large Roman Army at Cannae, he did not defeated all of the Roman army. Romans did not send every man to Cannae. If they did then who did Hannibal fight for the next ten years? In addition, few men can defend a walled city like Rome, long enough for Scipio to arrive. Really during those ten years Hannibal tries to stay afloat and win some battles in Italy while the Romans slowly cut off his supplies.
    If he did siege: Yes, it is easy to build ladders and rams, these were easily defended against. That is why certain siege equipment is necessary, and an overwhelming force.
    Hannibal's tactics was the drive out all of the Roman armies out of their cities and defeat them in the fields. After sometime, the Romans caught on to his plan and refuse to fight him. Hannibal as brilliant as he was with battlefield tactics, but could not see the overall objective. He was so stubborn that it took him ten years to realize this.
    What he should have done was after the battle of Cannae was return to Spain, defeat Scipio and met up with his reinforcements and then attack Rome. This is why he lost, and to rank someone the best they need to win wars. Alexander did that and he die in a bed from a disease. Hannibal roamed around in Africa and committed suicide in 183bc.

    Please Note: I strongly believe Hannibal was a great leader and general, just not the best of this time period.

    One more piece of knowledge just for fun:
    Plutarch records that Hannibal ranked Pyrrhus as the greatest commander the world had ever seen, though Appain gives a different version of the story, in which Hannibal placed him second after Alexander the Great.
    Even though Torzsoktamas has an slightly rude way of saying it, there are some things up there that don't really fit. Let me explain.

    1) Hannibal did get reinforcements, especially after Cannae, when some of the socii defected to him and allowed him to recruit troops and use their ports to get fresh troops from Africa. It is true, however, that the carthaginian senate tended to prioritize the battlefields in Spain, and Hannibal often complained about this after the war.

    2) Hannibal didn't kill every roman soldier at Cannae, but what was left of the roman military after the battle could hardly be called an army. Rome started to desperately recruit anyone they could get, but hadn't Hannibal left Rome alone, there would hardly have been enough time to train them into anything of military worth. If I recall it right, there were some sizeable troops left in northern Italy, but they were ambushed and defeated by the celts before they could do much. You could argue that what saved Rome was their own denial of reality.

    3) I admit that I don't know enough about siege warfare to say for sure whether he could have taken the walls. But I doubt you do, either. However, had he attacked, the defenders would have largely been women and old men, which wouldn't have looked to well for the romans. On the other hand, Hannibal was amazingly incapable when it came to sieges, so he would have had no choice but to starve the city.

    4) Noone would have come to relieve Rome. Which Scipio are you talking about? Scipio Africanus was still in Rome, and a political nobody at the time. If you're talking about his father and uncle in Spain, they were barely able to hold their own positions against Hasdrubal Barca. They were constantly begging the Senate to send reinforcements, and in he end even recruited mercenaries into their armies, something no roman commander would have done unless he was truly desperate. It seems most if not all of their victories in Spain were only inventions of the self-proclaimed roman historians.

    5) In fact, Hannibal rarely got to fight any sizeable battle after Cannae. The romans had finally learned their lesson, and retreated to the next fortified city whenever Hannibal approached, only to harrass his allies once he left. While Hannibal was powerless against this, each and every roman glory hunter who dared ignore the fabian policy and face him in battle got his ass handed to him. This is another reason while Hannibal is the best of them: for years, his ennemies didn't even try to fight him!

    6) That little dialogue between Scipio and Hannibal, when Hannibal ranked the best generals of the time never took place. Scipio and Hannibal weren't even on the same continent at that time.
    Last edited by The Sloth; August 06, 2009 at 06:39 AM.

  13. #73

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Sorry for being rude.I just don;t kike when someone dosen't really listen what I write, or those that argue abotu somebody, but don't really know mutch about him.Again sorry.





    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg></a></p>

  14. #74
    Caligula Caesar's Avatar Horse Lord
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,510

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Great View Post
    Hannibal stayed in Italy for ten years, which was full of disease and desertion. He could not get reinforcements. Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca attempt to supply Hannibal with fresh men, however his army was annihilated in Spain by Scipio Africanus. Hannibal did defeat a large Roman Army at Cannae, he did not defeated all of the Roman army. Romans did not send every man to Cannae. If they did then who did Hannibal fight for the next ten years? In addition, few men can defend a walled city like Rome, long enough for Scipio to arrive. Really during those ten years Hannibal tries to stay afloat and win some battles in Italy while the Romans slowly cut off his supplies.
    If he did siege: Yes, it is easy to build ladders and rams, these were easily defended against. That is why certain siege equipment is necessary, and an overwhelming force.
    Hannibal's tactics was the drive out all of the Roman armies out of their cities and defeat them in the fields. After sometime, the Romans caught on to his plan and refuse to fight him. Hannibal as brilliant as he was with battlefield tactics, but could not see the overall objective. He was so stubborn that it took him ten years to realize this.
    What he should have done was after the battle of Cannae was return to Spain, defeat Scipio and met up with his reinforcements and then attack Rome. This is why he lost, and to rank someone the best they need to win wars. Alexander did that and he die in a bed from a disease. Hannibal roamed around in Africa and committed suicide in 183bc.
    1. I don't think too much of Hannibals army deserted, otherwise he wouldn't have been left with much. When one goes, more are almost sure to follow.

    2. He did get a few reinforcements from the locals, but you are right in that he didn't get any from the senate.

    3. Hasdrubal's army was annihilated in Italy in the Battle of the Metaurus River by Marcus Livius and Gaius Claudius Nero, not in Iberia by Scipio.

    4. All the Scipio's in Iberia were managing was keep the other Barcids in Iberia, but they weren't exactly winning. They won some and lost some, but until Africanus took over when the older Scipios died in battle in 211 BC the situation really wasn't good for them until Africanus took over and Hasdrubal Barca left Iberia for Italy. Before then, the situation favoured Carthage, and Mago was able to temporarily leave Iberia to deal with a rebellion in Africa.

    5. As far as I know, the Romans lost 1/6 of their potential fighting force, so given time, the Romans could have recruited five more of those armies...

    6. If you always needed a hugely overwhelming force to win a siege, no one would ever have won one.

    7. If Hannibal had returned to Iberia as you suggest, he would have recieved reinforcements, but he would have been greeted back in Italy by at least one hugely overwhelming force, and would have to begin work from scratch again. The Romans would have had plenty time to recouperate and may even have taken the fight out of Italy.

    8. Hannibal probably realised he wasn't going to capture Rome unless something really remarkable happened, but in fact he only left Italy after 16 years in Italy when Scipio went to Africa.

    9. Hannibal never roamed around in Africa. In fact, he roamed around Asia Minor (Turkey) and Syria...

  15. #75

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    For Caligula Caesar:about pount 8:
    Hannibal didn't taught that he can't take Rome.He just didn't wanted as he wanted Rome to come out and surrender thus giving the romans a very big shame.But beleave me that if he would have taught that Rome would not come out to surrender, than he would have marched to Rome and won the battle.The roman senators wanted to surrender, but they didn't gone to Hannibal, they just waited ,with fear,Hannibal and if Hannibal would have marhced there, than they would have surrendered.But Hannibal didn't do this, and after time the romans observed this and gathered some army and went to Iberia.SO Hannibal lost the war because of hes naive thinking, NOT because he had a bad strategy and could not take Rome.

    All of your other points are good.And thanks ofr supporting Hannibal.





    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg></a></p>

  16. #76

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by torzsoktamas View Post
    Sorry for being rude.I just don;t kike when someone dosen't really listen what I write, or those that argue abotu somebody, but don't really know mutch about him.Again sorry.
    I took no offense. Being wrong is apart of learning. I books I read amittly focuses more on Scipio tend Hannibal. Thanks for the info!

  17. #77

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by The Sloth View Post

    Scipio Africanus was still in Rome, and a political nobody at the time.
    Scipio Africanus was at Ticinus, Trebbia, and Cannae as a military tribune. He saved his father at Ticinus, and escaped with his life at both Trebbia and Cannae. Quite amazing for the fact that the last two battles were complete encirclements. Having personally witnessed the way Hannibal uses the pincer movement not once, but TWICE, Scipio was able to figure out how to counter-act this attack.

    Crusades
    Historical fiction - Fifty Tales from Rome


    Can YOU dance like the Cookie Man?
    Improbe amor quid non mortalia pectora cogis? - The Aeneid
    I run an Asteroid mining website. Visit it before James Cameron takes it from me.

  18. #78

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Great View Post
    I took no offense. Being wrong is apart of learning. I books I read amittly focuses more on Scipio tend Hannibal. Thanks for the info!
    No problem.





    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg></a></p>

  19. #79

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Macro View Post
    haha thats true rome totalwar makes learning about history fun,and youre not alone i to watch alot of history channel because flemmish tv sucks. (3 days in the week we got "csi nights" with 5 different csi series's its insane and utterly boring)
    Quite true. Where are "The Mentalist" and "House"? And they even stopped with The Simpsons! :O

    I don't know enough of Pyrrhus to compare them honestly... But he did make it the Romans quite difficult. I'm gonna go to the library and look for some books 'bout him.
    Vale,

  20. #80
    Caligula Caesar's Avatar Horse Lord
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,510

    Default Re: The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

    Quote Originally Posted by torzsoktamas View Post
    For Caligula Caesar:about pount 8:
    Hannibal didn't taught that he can't take Rome.He just didn't wanted as he wanted Rome to come out and surrender thus giving the romans a very big shame.But beleave me that if he would have taught that Rome would not come out to surrender, than he would have marched to Rome and won the battle.The roman senators wanted to surrender, but they didn't gone to Hannibal, they just waited ,with fear,Hannibal and if Hannibal would have marhced there, than they would have surrendered.But Hannibal didn't do this, and after time the romans observed this and gathered some army and went to Iberia.SO Hannibal lost the war because of hes naive thinking, NOT because he had a bad strategy and could not take Rome.

    All of your other points are good.And thanks ofr supporting Hannibal.
    You can't honestly think that it never crossed his mind in 17 years that his strategy wasn't working?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •