The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[torzsoktamas]

You can't honestly think that it never crossed his mind in 17 years that his strategy wasn't working?

He probable knew that he decided it wrong, but it was too late.

[Imperial Eagle]

However, a direct attack on Italy was really the best thing Hannibal could have done outside of taking Rome itself.

[chaplain118]

It's amazing that people think Hannibal could've taken Rome after Cannae. Psychologically, it may seem possible, but remember this:

a cornered enemy will never fight harder than he does now (like those stupid units that are fighting to the death rather than routing)

Plus, once he got into Rome, the street to street fighting would have turned against him. There's not enough room for him to pull off the maneuvers he did in battles. Rome had enough food and water to last through a siege, and Hannibal's mercenary army would've been expecting some kind of compensation for a long, protracted siege.

[DaddyPro]

I wonder why Hannibal didn't took rome once he realized that romans are not going to surrender.

[Admiral Piett]

Remember that this topic is entitled "The Better General". Whether or not they held onto their victories is not relevant nor significant. It's how they achieved them and how often they did.

[ISA Gunner]

Alexander. Without doubt.

[torzsoktamas]

Alexander. Without doubt.

Hannibal.Without doubt.

[Sevachenko]

1. Subutai
2. Alexander
3. Hannibal
4. Pyrrhus

[DaddyPro]

1. Subutai
2. Alexander
3. Hannibal
4. Pyrrhus

Did Subutai conquered larger area then Alexander?

[ISA Gunner]

Did Subutai conquered larger area then Alexander?

Yes, but. Subutai did not do it by himself. Genghis Khan had MANY generals directing the Mongol War Machine with many armies and many campaigns.

Alexander took his one, big army and, commanding it personally at every major battle and siege, he conquered a huge swathe of land.

Therefore, Alexander > Subutai.

[Arthurean]

Khalid ibn al-walid, undefeat arab commander who won against numerically ere and sassanid army.

[Eric the Great]

Hey are we talking about generals throughout history or just in ancient times?

[cnaeus]

alexander at the top...very very lonely...all because he took on and beat up the mighty persian empire...and anyone that may say they had a horrible army of peasants with pitchforks that could at their best slaughter a cow might consider thinking about how they got that massive empire then...and alexander took over an empire with vast recources and an almost unlimited supply of manpower and they had some of the best horsemen...also in incredible numbers...and last, but imho not their best card in this game is their fearsome chariots.

then we have Hannibal...he wasnt only a master tactician but also inspired his multicultural army from many different tribes and nations to fight and win against incredible odds. and when it comes to being a great commander i think its more important to inspire the men to keep on fighting then it is to just have the better army....through inspiration he forged the better army from many cultural differing peoples.

and i dont have a third place...but i do think that would indeed be phyrrhus or Gaius julius Caesar.

[Philip_II]

alexander at the top...very very lonely...all because he took on and beat up the mighty persian empire...and anyone that may say they had a horrible army of peasants with pitchforks that could at their best slaughter a cow might consider thinking about how they got that massive empire then...and alexander took over an empire with vast recources and an almost unlimited supply of manpower and they had some of the best horsemen...also in incredible numbers...and last, but imho not their best card in this game is their fearsome chariots.

then we have Hannibal...he wasnt only a master tactician but also inspired his multicultural army from many different tribes and nations to fight and win against incredible odds. and when it comes to being a great commander i think its more important to inspire the men to keep on fighting then it is to just have the better army....through inspiration he forged the better army from many cultural differing peoples.

and i dont have a third place...but i do think that would indeed be phyrrhus or Gaius julius Caesar.

Alexander without Philip? Not biologically of course. IMO, Philip conducted a better campaign to take Greece than Alexander did to take Persia. Persia was a production powerhouse but it bowed easily once Alexander won once or twice. Egypt was eager to open they're gates to him (minus the governor of Memphis and we all know what Alexander did to him) as was almost all of Turkey, post-Granicus River. Philip fought more solidified nations with a stronger military history.

As a general, I feel you must take into account everything that encompasses being a military leader; before, during, and after battle. For me, that eliminates Hannibal because he didn't get the job done. Philip created his army, consolidated his nation, and took Greece by both force and coercion. Just read Alexander's remembrance of his father:

"The speech which I am about to deliver will not be for the purpose of checking your start homeward, for, so far as I am concerned, you may depart wherever you wish; but for the purpose of making you understand when you take yourselves off, what kind of men you have been to us who have conferred such benefits upon you. In the first place, as is reasonable, I shall begin my speech from my father Philip. For he found you vagabonds and destitute of means, most of you clad in hides, feeding a few sheep up the mountain sides, for the protection of which you had to fight with small success against Illyrians, Triballians, and the border Thracians. Instead of the hides he gave you cloaks to wear, and from the mountains he led you down into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighbouring barbarians, so that you were no longer compelled to preserve yourselves by trusting rather to the inaccessible strongholds than to your own valour. He made you colonists of cities, which he adorned with useful laws and customs; and from being slaves and subjects, he made you rulers over those very barbarians by whom you yourselves, as well as your property, were previously liable to be carried off or ravaged. He also added the greater part of Thrace to Macedonia, and by seizing the most conveniently situated places on the sea-coast, he spread abundance over the land from commerce, and made the working of the mines a secure employment. He made you rulers over the Thessalians, of whom you had formerly been in mortal fear; and by humbling the nation of the Phocians, he rendered the avenue into Greece broad and easy for you, instead of being narrow and difficult. The Athenians and Thebans, who were always lying in wait to attack Macedonia, he humbled to such a degree, I also then rendering him my personal aid in the campaign, that instead of paying tribute to the former and being vassals to the latter, those states in their turn procure security to themselves by our assistance. He penetrated into the Peloponnese, and after regulating its affairs, was publicly declared commander-in-chief of all the rest of Greece in the expedition against the Persian, adding this glory not more to himself than to the commonwealth of the Macedonians."

Btw, I know it was about those three I was just curious what people thought about it.

Sorry bout DP

[DIVUS IVLIVS]

Who dare's compare Hannibal and Alexander to Caeser?

Caesar faced in Gaul a far greater challenge: the area he had to pacify in Gaul was smaller, but it was infinitely more difficult to pacify. 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.

As far as being outnumbered is concerned, Caesar is the winner, not Alexander. At the battle of Charleroi Caesar faced some 60,000 Gauls under Ambiorix with a force of just 6000 or so legionaries and about 1000 cavalry. He routed them completely without even losing a single man. A feat Alexander cannot match.

I rate that Gauls as massively superior foes to anything Alexander faced from Persia, and I assure you that this is not bias. There is a tendency to regard the Gauls as mere savages hacked to pieces by disciplined Roman troops. Little could be further from the truth. 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. And above and beyond all else they were posessed of a fierce patriotism and valor that Alexander never had to face in his Persians.

At Pharsalus in Greece Caesar was outnumbered 1000 cavalry to 7000, 22,000 foot to 51,300. And the foot in question were crack Roman Legionaries, a foe of calibre Alexander never had to deal with, commanded by Pompey Magnus, one of the Great Captains of antiquity. Darius III was not such a stellar figure.

And Alexander's battle tactics are far from incomparable. He used essentially the same order of battle that he had at Granicus and Issus. It was a brilliant plan all the same, but faulty in places. A gap opened up that a skilled oponent would have been able to make use of to crush Alexander. The Persians however rushed through it and kept right on rushing on to Alexander's camp. Caesar never allowed for such an opening.

Also Caeser made huge improvements in the engineering of war:

- At the Axona river Caesar perfected the technique of using trenches to shield his flanks. He combined this with innovative use of redoubts packed with artillery that effortlessly put to shame Sulla's innovations years before.

- In besieging Venetian fortresses Caesar built huge dykes that literally had to hold back the ocean.

- For his naval battle against the Veneti Caesar invented a new type of weapon that was effectively a long scythe crossed with a pike that his men used to play havoc with the Venetian rigging.

- Against the Morini and Manapi Caesar came up on the spot with a double-rampart running inland as a method over attacking through woodland. In boldness and technique it was a match for anything Diades came up with at Tyre.

- For his campaigns in Britain Caesar designed a new type of ship altogether. He had discovered in his Veneti campaign that Roman ships simply could not function well away from the Mare Internum, so he completely reconfigured the bow and sail design of the ships and implemented superior Gallic construction methods. He also added in the things that normal Roman ships had that were superior - banks of oars, onboard artillery, etc. The result was a hybrid between Roman and Gallic Ships that was perfect for sailing in the British Channel. As if it wasn't enough to have demonstrated his engineering genius by designing a new ship he then went on to build a fleet of 800 of them to use to attack Britain.

- Having taken the above mentioned fleet to Britain, to protect it from storms Caesar dragged the entire fleet onto the shore and enclosed it inside a massive series of fortifcations, displaying brilliant constrcution methods.

- To cross over the Rhine river to punish the German tribes Caesar built a brdige that was undenibaly his masterpiece. Hundreds of meters long, the brdige was as wide as a modern highway and unbelievably solid. It had an extre layer of defences against the possibility of the Germans launching logs or boats upstream to ram into it, and featured towers and inbuilt artillery. And Caesar built it in just ten days. Designing this bridge alone would have established Caesar as one of the greatest engineers in history.

- At the battle of Charleroi Caesar demonstrated a mastery of field fortifications unrivalled. It was as much thanks to his innovation in fort construction as in tactics that routed the Gauls.

- Caesar's great Siege Ramp at the battle of Avaricum was not one of his greater works, but should still be mentioned.

- The Siege of Alesia, the greatest in history, was Caesar's masterpiece to rival his bridging of the Rhine. In addition to constructing 25 miles of field fortifications riddled with towers, artillery, and defensive genius Caesar invented no fewer than three additional engineering defensive measures. he combined far greater engineering mastery than even Diades with superior innovation to Alexander and far more sophisticated tactics.

- At the siege of Uxelledorum Caesar, in addition to great siege-works, found occaison to once more make an innovation in engineering - brilliantly cutting off the Gallic water-supply through diversion of the springs they used for water.

- At the siege of Brunidisium Caesar actually built a wall across the entrance of a harbour. He did not do this by building a mole like the one Diades and Alexander used at Tyre and then building on that - that would have taken too long. Instead he actually built the wall on top of the water by using chains and rafts to make a steady foundation and throwing up ramparts on that. He then to boot manned the thing with troops and artillery. He did this at the same time as he directed a siege of the city on the other side of the bay.

- At Ilerda Caesar undid his opponents by creating a ford in a fiercly flowing river. His method was a series of expertly laid trenches that were another stroke of his engineering genius.

- 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.

- In Alexandria Caesar had to turn his engineering genius to a new challenge: an unprecedented example of Urban Warfare. Caesar 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.

- At Corbuda Caesar built a series of complicated fortifications designed to include a bridge whose method in constrcution matched the brilliance he displayed on the Rhine.

Caesar was the first general in history to use field fortifications as a tactical device, demonstrating his skill in doing so at Ilerda, Pharsalus, and Thapsus. And this is just a lost of the major innovations. Even when he wasn't coming up with new stuff his brilliance was evident in the scope of what he did, how quickly he did it, and how efficiently he worked - his fortifications at the Rhone, in Africa, and at numerous sieges were all examples of genius. Upon becoming Dictator of the Republic he planned a massive series of roads to encompass places from Italy to Spain to the Eastern Provinces. He planned a canal that would cut through the Corinthian Peninsula and improve communications with the East. In Italy he planned to construct a new waterway, drain both the Pontine Marshes and the Fucine Lake, create a artificial lake outside of Rome, divert the Tiber River, and dredge and completely remodel the harbor at Ostia. A keen architect (while still rising up the political ladder he had designed houses that all had agreed were magnificent) and urban planner, he founded more cities and colonies than Alexander did, and planned them far better - whereas many of Alexander's cities were soon abandoned, only Alexandria being a great success, Caesar's cities and colonies invariably thrived. Most notable of all were the reconstructions of Carthage and Corinth - the two great cities that Rome had destroyed in the past. He planned the beautification of Rome, planning for intensive remodelling, and such works as a Great Library, a new Senate House, a Basilica, a new Forum, a series of structures for voting in, a Theatre that was to be the largest the world had ever seen and a Temple dedicated to Mars that was also to be that largest the world had ever seen. And he did all this while making similar progress in the realms of military, political and adminstraive, literary and oratical, and even astronomical affairs.

Alexander could encourage his engineers to be innovative, but that was all. Caesar was his own chief engineer, and as such he surpassed the best that Alexander's engineers could do.


Also
Alexander never once engaged in a single great strategic maneuver that would be worth speaking of. He has nothing to answer Caesar's Belgae, Veneti, Treverian, Vercingetorix, Italian, or Spanish campaigns, or Napoleon's Italian, Ulm, or Six Days campaigns.

Alexander's disastrous invasion of India saw his entire Empire fall into chaos and the wave of terror he unleashed to quell the chaos was only a temporary solution.

Battles (aka tactics) are an essential part of being a general, but just as (actually, I would say more) important is strategy. If Alexander was a prodigy in tactics, then Caesar was most certainly a prodigy in strategy. In just his second year of campaigning he turned out his campaign against the Belgae, which pure and simple has no real parallel in the Ancient World. Overall I rate it as one of Caesar's finest campaigns, along with his campaign against Vercingetorix, the Veneti, the Treveri, his Italian, and his first Spanish Camapign.

Caesar as a strategist was pure agression, and he combined this with speed that became legendary (so much so that "Caesar-speed" refers to any army that moves astonishingly quickly). He defeated many of his enemies without even fighting a battle thanks to his ability to appear with an army in places where he had no business to be. He could march a heavily equipped army a mind-numbing 60 miles a day, keep it up for a month, and at the end of this expect his soldiers to fight a battle. For Caesar however even this was too slow, and he would often race ahead by himself. On horse, in a carriage, he travelled from place to place covering 100 miles each day. He would often disperse armies to several different places and then move between them, directing all of them as they came to their objectives. When on the march with his men he would go on foot and march out in front of them. When he came to a river he would simply dive in and swim across. When going about from place to place he would constantly be dictating to up to 7 scribes at a time - saying something to one scribe to write down, then as he was doing so say something to the next one, then as he's writing say something to the next one, etc, and in this way constantly be churning out letters, orders to be conveyed, books about grammar (Caesar wrote a textbook on rhetoric while he was crossing the alps), etc. Even when he slept he didn't stop - he slept on a litter that his slaves would carry, so that even when he was sleeping he kept moving. There are stories that when on campaign in Gaul he would disguise himself as Gaul and ride through enemy territory, and he did the same in the Civil War, disguised as a slave. Not for nothing did Cicero comment: "The wariness and energy of that Bogeyman are terrifying!"

Caesar excelled at maneuvering, had an impecable eye for ground, and had the gift of immediatly being able to discern the critical points on which to concentrate. He adopted a policy of "living off the land" that gave him considerable extra mobility and a marked advantage over his opponents as he cut their supply lines. Once he had formulated his plans, there was nobody better at explaining them to his subordinates. Before he fought a battle he did absolutely everything possible to give himself as much of an advantage during that battle as possible. Thus at first sight a number of his battles do not appear to be as showy as those of an Alexander or a Hannibal, but this is because they did not need to be - Caesar understood the principle of ensuring that a battle was won before it had even begun.

When Caesar did get into a situation where strategy alone wasn't going to cut it though, he showed himself to be as bold and varied as a tactician as he was as a strategist. The second word - variety, is key. Caesar plainly understood Sun Tzu's maxim:

"Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances."

Thus if one looks at the battle of Vosges, the battle of the Sambre, the landing in Britain, the battle of Charleroy, the crossing of the Allier, the battle near-Alesia, the sieges of Avaricum, Gergovia, Alesia, and Uxelledorum, Brunidisium, the battle of Ilerda, the siege of Gergovia, the battle of Pharsalus, the siege of Alexandria, the battle of the Nile, the battle of Zela, the battle of Ruspina, the battle of Thapsus, the battle of Corbuda, and the battle of Munda one notices that Caesar repeatedly changed his tactics drastically: an oblique attack to turn the enemy army on its hinge, a defensive square, innovative naval tactics, elaborate concealment of his forces, fortifying a landing point, complicated combined-arms maneuvers, a brilliant pincer attack, a double flank attack, etc, etc. He combined the boldness of an Alexander with the innovation of a Hannibal and the variety of a Scipio. And when the battle was won, none was better than Caesar in following up and pursuing the broken enemy. Though Vosges and Pharsalus are excellent examples, the battle of Zela stands out as the masterpiece in the art of pursuit. Despite having barely enemy cavalry Caesar in pursuing his broken enemy annihiliated them so efficiently that Pharnaces ultimately ecaped with only a small escort of bodyguards while the rest of his army was slaughtered. Caesar himself was proudest of this battle, and it was of this campaign that he famously declared: "I Came, I Saw, I Conquered".

Alexander essentially used the same move in all three of his major battles against the Persians - an oblique advance to the right, followed up with exploitation of the inevitable gap that opened up with his cavalry. The details varied considerably, and he certainly showed imagination and innovation, but not that of Caesar, IMO. He also left openings that just begged for a truly gifted opponent to exploit (at Gaugamela luck and the ineptitude of the Persians saved him from losing the battle). At Hydaspes (IMO his best battle) he used a different method, but the point stands.

Please don't double post. Use the edit button instead. Thanks /apple

[cnaeus]

you know...no one is gonna read such a long post...atleast...im not gonna, and im even someone very interested in this subject...so you might wanna consider summerising some stuff man.

[torzsoktamas]

Yeah, shorter posts are better.Altough some of your points about Alexander are good.-I agree with you.But you haven't said anything about Hannibal.Don't say that the guy wasn't a genius because he didn't took Rome.Hes ability on the battlefield is unmached in my opinion.And fighting with veaker and mixed mercenaries against roman legionaries(even if there were republicans)is more harder than fighting with elite experienced legionaries against gauls,germans or other roman legionaries.--Also Pompeys toops weren't that experienced and good as Caesars troops.

[Philip_II]

Yeah, shorter posts are better.Altough some of your points about Alexander are good.-I agree with you.But you haven't said anything about Hannibal.Don't say that the guy wasn't a genius because he didn't took Rome.Hes ability on the battlefield is unmached in my opinion.And fighting with veaker and mixed mercenaries against roman legionaries(even if there were republicans)is more harder than fighting with elite experienced legionaries against gauls,germans or other roman legionaries.--Also Pompeys toops weren't that experienced and good as Caesars troops.

Half of Pompey's troops were just as experienced as Caesar's. Pompey's wars in the East brought about as much fame to his Ist legion as was given to Caesar's Xth. Pompey also fought the same way he did against Eastern foes and thus brought up about four times as many cavalry as Caesar did. Now, Caesar just happened to intermix four cohorts of infantry with his limited cavalry and that was how they turned the Republican lines. I think the Battle of Pharsalus is such an intriguing battle based upon how many rules of warfare we learn in a game like RTW get broken simply because one of the generals was better (fighting uphill, numerical superiority, and simple morale principles).

Ultimately, I don't think we can make a firm decision on the "best" general. We can certainly rate them in ability to do certain things but not as a whole body of work can we create a solid hierarchy of generalship.

[DIVUS IVLIVS]

I've been criticised for posting with content and substance!

What kind of fourm is this!

[apple]

I've been criticised for posting with content and substance!

What kind of fourm is this!

Lol. I for one loved your post.