The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

[MaximiIian]

What oasis?

An oasis in the middle of the desert...y'know the desert that spans the persian empire at the time Alexander invaded it. There were many, probably. It's a flippin' desert, eh, there's bound to be a few bunch of Oasii, Oasises, Oas...whatever.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Depends whether you are looking at their overall qualities or just as battlefield commanders. Your list would seem to be more battlefield orientated. Genghis and Alexander definately outrate Julius and Hannibal if you look at their overall achievements. On the battlefield, however, the top 4 you have are pretty interchangeable.

I'd put them:

1. Genghis
2. Alexander
3. Caesar
4. Napoleon (early, ie. before he got frostbite in Russia!)
5. Hanibal

As I've also said before I'd put General Slim in the Tier 1, what he did in Burma was truly amazing and on a par with Genghis or Alexander when looking at his ability to evolve a new form of warfare that worked in the terain he was fighting.

As for Wellington, even though I am British I'd say Napoleon at his best was better overall. If, however, you are looking for defensive generals then Wellington is definately one of the best (even though, or maybe particularly because, he wasn't naturally defensively minded). It has to be said that the Peninsular campaign was brilliant, but Waterloo was lost by Napoleon being daft rather than Wellington being brilliant. It is actually very difficult to lose Waterloo as Napoleon if you ever do a wargame of it. Mind you, he did have really bad piles so that probably distracted him somewhat

Oasii, I think.

Or maybe a Gallagher?

[Freddie]

LOL. Liam or Noel?

The topic is about the greatest commander which for me it implies a more tactical analysis as opposed to strategic analysis.

The biggest reason why I don’t rate Alexander as highly as the other commanders is because the quality of his enemies wasn’t exactly what you call first rate. Granted there were lots of them, but quality just about wins over quantity every time although there are some exceptions. Alexander greatest achievement was conquering the amount of land that did all by the time he was 30. Its that which merits his 4th place on my list.
Hannibal and Caesar both how great tactical awareness about them and as every great general are able to responded quickly to changing events on the battlefield. For me Caesar sending his cavalry at the battle of Alesia around the back of the Gaul’s fooling them into think Roman reinforcements had arrived was a stroke of genius.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

LOL. Liam or Noel?

don't know, could set fire to both of them and see which resembles scorched earth more?

nah, Alexander still rates more highly than Hanibal overall. He repeatedly showed a brilliant grasp of all aspects of warfare (seiges, logistics, strategic maneuvering), as well as his battlefield wins.

I think I'd rate hanibal as the better battlefield general, though only by a whisker.

[conon394]

Abh

Only the Theban part of the army was of any real quality, anyway. The Athenians were a joke, and Phillip exploited that fact. They hadn't even fielded an army for over 20 years. Alexander was perhaps outnumbered by even superior Greek mercenaries at Issus and possibly even Gaugamela, at least compared to his own phalanx.

Not according to Diodorus.

And in any case your Statement is still incorrect.

The Athenians had won the Battle of Tamynai in 348 BC. They showed considerable skill and disciple. The Athenian epilektoi mounted a successful counter attack out of their camp (after their allies had been routed). Subsequently the main body of Athenian hoplites moved from column to line in the face of the enemy and the combined force routed the army of the Euboians.

[Shawkhan]

...Personally I would maintain that Philip's uniting of Greece after centuries of inter-city bickering was a greater achievement than Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire. Philip's skill in diplomacy was unmatched by his son. If you read the history, Alexander's empire was coming unraveled even before his death, his treasurer Harpalus had run off with several thousand talents and he had as yet not completed the conquest of the original Persian Empire anyway, as Bithynia and the entire Caspian region remained outside his control. Alexander's policy of putting Persian officials in charge of regions had definitely failed as only three Persian (satraps) remained loyal to him to the end. Alexander's form of government was a failure.
...Napoleon won more battles than any five other top commanders put together. Noone in history has ever approached his battlefield success. Alexander simply died before his age could catch up with him;nothing like going out on top. If he had lived to even forty his incredible wounds and his riotous lifestyle(after Hephaestion's death) would have caught up with him as it inevitably does with all humans. Alexander too would have eventually tasted the bitter ashes of defeat.
...Warfare is a case where the side that makes the fewest mistakes wins. Noone is perfect. Napoleon would have won at Waterloo if Grouchy had done his job. If he hadn't been so jealous of Davout and kept him off the battlefield, this greatest of all Napoleonic generals in the place of either Grouchy or Ney would have handily won the battle. Of course it wouldn't have mattered in the long run anyway as Napoleon was indeed doomed, with both the Russians and the Austrians on the way.

[Spartan JKM]

Very intelligent analysis, Shawkhan.

At the top of his game, Napoleon shines. But his egregious blunders with Egypt and Russia, well.....like you said, no man is infallible. Napoleon's military genius presents a puzzling paradox. One criterion of general's greatness is to avoid disastrous errors, ones which can be foreseen (relativley). maybe unfair second-guessing on my part, and I do agree with many that Waterloo could have been won.

One issue that bothers about Alexander, as much as I think he was the best (barely), was his lack of foresight to provide for a successor. He was young, but constantly risked his life in battle. The power struggle that ensued among the Diadochi left a power vaccum that Rome would eventually fill. maybe a stretch, and the true facts of Alexander's career are dramatic enough (at least for me).

Thanks, Spartan JKM :original:

[VandalCarthage]

One issue that bothers about Alexander, as much as I think he was the best (barely), was his lack of foresight to provide for a successor. He was young, but constantly risked his life in battle. The power struggle that ensued among the Diadochi left a power vaccum that Rome would eventually fill. maybe a stretch, and the true facts of Alexander's career are dramatic enough (at least for me).

Well, Alexander didn't want to One of his last really interesting pieces of commentary was that he imagined a great fight for his throne, or something to that effect.

nah, Alexander still rates more highly than Hanibal overall. He repeatedly showed a brilliant grasp of all aspects of warfare (seiges, logistics, strategic maneuvering), as well as his battlefield wins.

Sieges:
-Alexander, crudloads of the best siege equipment and artillary you could get. Remember the story of the Gordian knot? Alexander threw a fit, before cutting it with his sword. It wasn't a clever device as romantics might envision it.
-Hannibal, diddly squat. No equipment of any kind.

Logistics:
-Alexander, held together a largely heterogeneus army of Macedons and a few Greeks.
-Hannibal, held together an army of Africans, Spaniards, Gauls, Bruttians, as well as many other of the former Socii of the time.

Maneuvering:
-Alexander, yes he had some impressive marches and river crossings, that certainly cannot be denied.
-Hannibal, maneuvered an army of forty thousand around two consular armies and a praetorian army of more then a hundred thousand men total, within the confines of southern Italy, without ever encountering them seriously. He also performed similar marches to aid Capua, reaching and occupying the same hill three times - right under the Roman's noses, without them noticing.

At the top of his game, Napoleon shines. But his egregious blunders with Egypt and Russia, well.....like you said, no man is infallible. Napoleon's military genius presents a puzzling paradox. One criterion of general's greatness is to avoid disastrous errors, ones which can be foreseen (relativley). maybe unfair second-guessing on my part, and I do agree with many that Waterloo could have been won.

Napoleon underestimated the elements, just like the Germans after him. Napoleon didn't accomodate for the maintainance of an active supply line, and was force to stray to often from what remained of it in Russia. That's why it's so difficult to hold that vast countryside, or march through it.

[Son of the Empire]

I was clearly impressed by your article,, though I might not agree with your list completly. I would certainly put Hannibal at the top instead of Alexander... The reason is that Alexander was a king and could muster all forces he wanted from Greece, while Hannibal had to deal with poor mercenaries from Gaul and Numidia... The last mentioned didn't even get full support from his senate, which were cut in half between the "merchant" family of Hannos and strategical Barcas...

Alexander also fought one of the worst generals of all times in Darius the third, King of Persia, while Hannibal had to fight all the best Rome had to offer, always outnumbered... Hannibal also had an astonishing talent of going at the enemy's last route of expectation, like the Arnus marshes, and attack when least expected, Lake Trasimene.

In short; Alexander was a king, while Hannibal was a general,,

To end this reply I will qoute a dialog between Hannibal himself, and Publius Cornelius Scipio "Africanus" (his nemesis and the only roman he ever respected) in Ephesus 192 BC:

Scipio:" Who do you consider the greatest military genius?"
Hannibal:"Alexander of Macedonia."
Scipio:"And in second place?"
Hannibal:"Pyrrhus of Epirote."
Scipio:"So, who would you put in third place?"
Without giving it a thought, Hannibal replied:" Myself! Already as a youngster I've conquered Iberia. After Heracles I was the first to cross the Alps. Then I moved in to Italy and not one of you had the courage to confront me while I burned down 4oo of your cities and even threatened Rome itself - all without the slightest assistance from Carthage."

Scipio thought it over. "But which position would you give yourself had I not defeated you at Zama?"
Hannibal: Well, in that case I would put myself above Alexander."

If any of you have a different view than I, please come forth with it,, Till then: "Strenght and Honor to you all!!"

[{nF}remix]

wow they really had that conversation?...amazing. Whats the source?

[Spartan JKM]

Thanks, everyone. The more we compare Hannibal with any other general, the more his genius seems to shine. There is just something about Alexander's overral character and energy, which he never harnassed. The fact he did what he did before the age of 33, well.............

The famous story of Hannibal's meeting with Scipio may be apocryphal, as Livy loved to entertain the aristocracy, but I am certain, true or not, it reflects the character of both great men.

I don't have the time right now, and will not be posting for a couple of days. Do you all know the story of Hannibal's great oxen stratagem he pulled on Fabius Maximus in the Falernian Plain in 217 B.C.? Well, as Adrian Goldsworthy puts it, "it is a classic of ancient generalship, finding its way into nearly every historical narrative of the war and being used by later military manuels".

Also, the incredibly wily ruse he inflicted on the Pergamunian King Eumenes' ships in the Sea Marmara, circa 188 B.C.?

BTW, I appreciate all the suggestions, and it looks like I underestimated Seleucus I Nicator and William Slim. I think I overestimated Godfrey de Bouillon, and Joshua Chamberlain, whose stand at Little Round Top I deemed heroic and substantial, indeed needs to be dropped from the list. Mark Clark, McClellan, and Bragg are on thin ice! :laughing:

Keep it coming!!!!

Thanks, Spartan JKM :original:

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

This is turning into quite a good thread. I’m not to sure who the better commander was; Hannibal or Caesar. Caesar had divine loyalty from his men who wouldn’t dream of deserting there leader. Were as Hannibal could rally and command men from different countries, who spoke different languages, had different believes and values in the art of war yet still managed to gel them into an effective fighting machine. I will admit to being biased towards the Romans (I just think if the Roman empire existed today how much moe advanced we would be) so hear it goes;


1) Julius Caesar
2) Hannibal
3) Genghis Khan
4) Alexander the Great (but the not the greatest LOL)
5) Duke of Wellington

Actually, that's not 100% correct. Caesar's troops were not abnormally loyal to him. He endured several mutinous legions, the best he had actually, after the Battle of Pharsalus. The 7th, 8th, 9th, and even his famous 10th Legion all were bordering on mutiny after that battle, because their enlistment period had run out, in some cases over a year earlier. Later in the civil war, he sent his 8th, 9th, and 16th (I beleive) legions in Spain, veterans who had fought for him for over 20 years, and they defected to the Pompeiians. This was due to the same reason as the Pharsalus mutiny: expired enlistments and continued service backed only with empty promises.

[VandalCarthage]

Thanks, everyone. The more we compare Hannibal with any other general, the more his genius seems to shine. There is just something about Alexander's overral character and energy, which he never harnassed. The fact he did what he did before the age of 33, well.............

A good bit of what Hannibal did was before the age of 33, or very close to it. He inherited a springboard into Iberia, nothing more, compared to Alexander...

The famous story of Hannibal's meeting with Scipio may be apocryphal, as Livy loved to entertain the aristocracy, but I am certain, true or not, it reflects the character of both great men.

Livy was biased obviously, and wrote entirely from within his own study. Polybius is a far better authority from which to draw information. Hannibal's character is revealed in several authentic quotes.

1) Gisgo, before Cannae, was fretting to Hannibal about the enemy and Hannibal replied something to the effect: "You know what else will catch your attention? Not one of those men is Gisgo."

2) While attending a lecture after his exile in Epirus, dealing with characteristics of a leader, he said: "I have heard many old fools; but none greater then this one.

Undoubtedly though, he was not the monster Livy would have you believe.

I don't have the time right now, and will not be posting for a couple of days. Do you all know the story of Hannibal's great oxen stratagem he pulled on Fabius Maximus in the Falernian Plain in 217 B.C.? Well, as Adrian Goldsworthy puts it, "it is a classic of ancient generalship, finding its way into nearly every historical narrative of the war and being used by later military manuels".

Yep. Lured the body of his army away from the pass, and slipped through with minimal fighting.

Also, the incredibly wily ruse he inflicted on the Pergamunian King Eumenes' ships in the Sea Marmara, circa 188 B.C.?

I've never heard that one. It must have been when he was a Seleucid admiral? I'd love to hear it though.

[Freddie]

Thanks, everyone. The more we compare Hannibal with any other general, the more his genius seems to shine. There is just something about Alexander's overral character and energy, which he never harnassed. The fact he did what he did before the age of 33, well.............

To be fair I don't think Hannibal had Alexander ambitions. Hannibal fought for survival and revenge, Alexander wanted to rule the world. The only way you measure who was the better commander was if they ever meet on the battlefield, which can never happen and we can only speculate as to what would happen if they did.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

An oasis in the middle of the desert...y'know the desert that spans the persian empire at the time Alexander invaded it. There were many, probably. It's a flippin' desert, eh, there's bound to be a few bunch of Oasii, Oasises, Oas...whatever.

I think one could point out on a map any oasis large enough to support an entire army...This is a ridiculous claim backed up by no source.

If you read the history, Alexander's empire was coming unraveled even before his death, his treasurer Harpalus had run off with several thousand talents and he had as yet not completed the conquest of the original Persian Empire anyway, as Bithynia and the entire Caspian region remained outside his control. Alexander's policy of putting Persian officials in charge of regions had definitely failed as only three Persian (satraps) remained loyal to him to the end. Alexander's form of government was a failure.

Yes, such a failure that his Successors dominated the world for centuries after, and were only conquered by the Romans in the end...He was basically using the same method used by Cyrus himself, and used by men like Genghis Khan well after him. I don't see what your basis for only three Persian satrapies staying loyal to him, as Alexander only got rid of a handfull. Your claim is baseless.

-Alexander, crudloads of the best siege equipment and artillary you could get. Remember the story of the Gordian knot? Alexander threw a fit, before cutting it with his sword. It wasn't a clever device as romantics might envision it.
-Hannibal, diddly squat. No equipment of any kind.

Carthage had very good siege equipment even before Hannibal. They were stated as having some 100 capatapults at one point. Hannibal didn't have siege equipment in Italy because he chose not to bring it, not because he had no access to it.

-Alexander, held together a largely heterogeneus army of Macedons and a few Greeks.

Nearly half his amry was barbarian, and he relied more on mercenaries then Hannibal did.

-Hannibal, held together an army of Africans, Spaniards, Gauls, Bruttians, as well as many other of the former Socii of the time.

All of which had no other option but to fight under him. Unless death is what you consider a good second choice. The original army was made up of only veterans of his past campaigns, and he had no mercenaries besides a few Liguarians. He had more manpower and more money at his disposal when he started then Alexander did.

-Alexander, yes he had some impressive marches and river crossings, that certainly cannot be denied.
-Hannibal, maneuvered an army of forty thousand around two consular armies and a praetorian army of more then a hundred thousand men total, within the confines of southern Italy, without ever encountering them seriously. He also performed similar marches to aid Capua, reaching and occupying the same hill three times - right under the Roman's noses, without them noticing.

Wow. Could you be more vague with Alexander for all of these, and more specific with Hannibal? Alexander's crossing of the Hydapses was pure brilliance, and was one of the greatest logistical achievements of the ancient world. It was good enough to serve as the basis for some of Hannibal's own manuevers. And much of what Hannibal did was possible because those brave Romans showed no haste and/or simply didn't want to fight him at that point. Alexander marched faster and with fewer losses than anyone in history. He took a massive force across the Hindu Kush with no losses, certainly an achievement greater then Hannibal's crossing of the Alps.

while Hannibal had to deal with poor mercenaries from Gaul and Numidia...

Almost none of his army was made up of mercenaries.

A good bit of what Hannibal did was before the age of 33, or very close to it. He inherited a springboard into Iberia, nothing more, compared to Alexander...

A springboard? He controlled over half of Iberia from the start, and only conquered some near the Ebro and to the river Durive. He did little in Iberia.

[avesta]

One issue that bothers about Alexander, as much as I think he was the best (barely), was his lack of foresight to provide for a successor. He was young, but constantly risked his life in battle.

Yes this was what I was talking about in my other thread.

Alexander's form of government was a failure.

I agree. Any form of governemnt which endures a total collapse subsequent to the death of the king could not have been a very effective one.

[VandalCarthage]

Carthage had very good siege equipment even before Hannibal. They were stated as having some 100 capatapults at one point. Hannibal didn't have siege equipment in Italy because he chose not to bring it, not because he had no access to it.

That would be part of the city armory listed by Polybius. Hannibal was only allowed the leeway he was because the whole of his operations didn't cost the Carthaginian senate a dime. Cities outside of it were notoriously badly supplied, as numerous historians tell us, because of great paranoia.

Nearly half his amry was barbarian, and he relied more on mercenaries then Hannibal did.

Not mercenaries that fought, by tradition, without armor and proper equipment of any kind. Rabbelrous men that were unstable by their nature. Alexander had a system in place, an ingenious and efficient one, that brought such men into an effective order. Hannibal had no resources to do a comparable thing. Both men are distinguished by their incredible ability to use what they had. Because Alexander did so much more is mitigated by the fact that he had so much more to do it with.

Hannibal didn't have the time or ability to build and transport large siege engines, bigger then the elephants he barely managed to get through the mountains.

All of which had no other option but to fight under him. Unless death is what you consider a good second choice. The original army was made up of only veterans of his past campaigns, and he had no mercenaries besides a few Liguarians. He had more manpower and more money at his disposal when he started then Alexander did.

One cannot deny that Hannibal was a wealthy man, for indeed he was among the wealthiest individuals of the time, but when you simply can't shop at Herods you go to Wal-Mart, as he most certainly did, so often. Alexander, had a notably better mall to shop at.

All of which had no other option but to fight under him. Unless death is what you consider a good second choice. The original army was made up of only veterans of his past campaigns, and he had no mercenaries besides a few Liguarians. He had more manpower and more money at his disposal when he started then Alexander did.

Armies are certainly capable of dispersing, and an army rebelling under Hannibal would have been supported by the Romans. Even if they weren't rebelling, they could just slink into the background, just as Marcellus' slave legions did after he was killed in Hasdrubal's ambush.

Wow. Could you be more vague with Alexander for all of these, and more specific with Hannibal? Alexander's crossing of the Hydapses was pure brilliance, and was one of the greatest logistical achievements of the ancient world. It was good enough to serve as the basis for some of Hannibal's own manuevers. And much of what Hannibal did was possible because those brave Romans showed no haste and/or simply didn't want to fight him at that point. Alexander marched faster and with fewer losses than anyone in history. He took a massive force across the Hindu Kush with no losses, certainly an achievement greater then Hannibal's crossing of the Alps.

Perhaps his crossing of the Kush is a greater achievement, and I don't deny that it was, but was he pressed constantly by enemies of numerical superiority at all times? Armed with superior equipment, veterans of previous combat with Hannibal, and the product of a life-long training regimen, preparing them for such a thing? Hannibal was faced at all times in the latter parts of his campaign by no less then two armies, each of superiority in every regard save their commander. Alexander was an excellent marcher under the conditions he faced; Hannibal was a brilliant one. Especially because of the comparative size of the territory we're dealing with. Bruttium, compared to India and Central Asia; the only way he would have had less breathing room was if he was fighting on Crete.

Almost none of his army was made up of mercenaries.

You're right. Hannibal's army were more conscripts then mercenaries, loyal to him, and apparently frequently forgiving his lack of repayment to them. Such speaks highly of the man's character and vigorous talent for command.

A springboard? He controlled over half of Iberia from the start, and only conquered some near the Ebro and to the river Durive. He did little in Iberia.

Controlled? All of Iberia was a flighty people. The territory he effectively controlled at the beginning was most of Southern Iberia, with central Iberia being subservient through tribal alliances. If the Barcas controlled the land, how was Hasdrubal the Handsome assassinated in his capital?

The Romans thought they controlled their chunk around Emporium, but the lion's share of their army was dispersed by bribery! Flightiness at it's best. The Iberian tribes fluttered easily, in the lightest of breezes.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

That would be part of the city armory listed by Polybius. Hannibal was only allowed the leeway he was because the whole of his operations didn't cost the Carthaginian senate a dime. Cities outside of it were notoriously badly supplied, as numerous historians tell us, because of great paranoia.

At least 1/3 of Hannibal's forces were African. That's a lot of manpower the senate gave him for attacking Rome, a war which the nation was divided on. Hannibal is recorded as having used various siege engines at Saguntum. There is absolutely no reason to doubt he had access to them, and they were most likely superior to what Alexander had more than a century before.

Not mercenaries that fought, by tradition, without armor and proper equipment of any kind. Rabbelrous men that were unstable by their nature. Alexander had a system in place, an ingenious and efficient one, that brought such men into an effective order. Hannibal had no resources to do a comparable thing. Both men are distinguished by their incredible ability to use what they had. Because Alexander did so much more is mitigated by the fact that he had so much more to do it with.

I never realized Thracians and Illyrians were so civillized...

Hannibal didn't have the time or ability to build and transport large siege engines, bigger then the elephants he barely managed to get through the mountains.

Bigger then the elephants...? How large do you think capapults were? Alexander had some that were as small as just 85 pounds. Hannibal, a man who studied in Greece, should have known the very latest and best of siege techniques.

One cannot deny that Hannibal was a wealthy man, for indeed he was among the wealthiest individuals of the time, but when you simply can't shop at Herods you go to Wal-Mart, as he most certainly did, so often. Alexander, had a notably better mall to shop at.

Iberians were known for being pretty damn good warriors. They would certainly prove effective troops for Romans, and put up a good amount of resistance against them when they invaded. Hannibal's troops were all experienced in countless wars. He had more then twice as many men as Alexander did at the start of his campaign. At Saguntum estimates go all the way up to 150,000 men. Alexander had to sell off most of what he owned just to finance his army.

Armies are certainly capable of dispersing, and an army rebelling under Hannibal would have been supported by the Romans. Even if they weren't rebelling, they could just slink into the background, just as Marcellus' slave legions did after he was killed in Hasdrubal's ambush.

Rome was about to let the Italians who betrayed them go free? Give me a break. And the Africans Iberians and Gauls? They'll just let them roam around Italy for a while, huh?

Perhaps his crossing of the Kush is a greater achievement, and I don't deny that it was, but was he pressed constantly by enemies of numerical superiority at all times? Armed with superior equipment, veterans of previous combat with Hannibal, and the product of a life-long training regimen, preparing them for such a thing? Hannibal was faced at all times in the latter parts of his campaign by no less then two armies, each of superiority in every regard save their commander. Alexander was an excellent marcher under the conditions he faced; Hannibal was a brilliant one. Especially because of the comparative size of the territory we're dealing with. Bruttium, compared to India and Central Asia; the only way he would have had less breathing room was if he was fighting on Crete.

You're assuming that small time manuevering like that in Italy is more difficult then marching through vast unhospitable territories without suffering any losses. As Hannibal showed on his way to Italy; where he lost 80% of his forces, it's no easy task, yet Alexander mastered it. Alexander never had an enemy that simply moved out of his way as the Romans did, either. Most of his manuevering was possible because the Roman generals didn't want to meet him in the field.

You're right. Hannibal's army were more conscripts then mercenaries, loyal to him, and apparently frequently forgiving his lack of repayment to them. Such speaks highly of the man's character and vigorous talent for command.

Or it speaks more highly of the men then you care to give them credit for. Macedonians were hardly civillized people, and the Greeks Alexander used hated him for the most part. I can't imagine many of the barbarians cared much for him at the beginning, either.

Controlled? All of Iberia was a flighty people. The territory he effectively controlled at the beginning was most of Southern Iberia, with central Iberia being subservient through tribal alliances. If the Barcas controlled the land, how was Hasdrubal the Handsome assassinated in his capital?

What are you talking about? Hasdrubal died campaigning somewhere above the Tagus river. Those Iberians were so loyal they in fact instantly instated the next leader without a problem.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

...Personally I would maintain that Philip's uniting of Greece after centuries of inter-city bickering was a greater achievement than Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire.

Agreed, but that was the achievment of a king/governor, not a general (although I know he had to fight for it). I'm certain ABH will disagree but without Philip there would have been no Alexander. Alexander was far too abrasive a personality to have managed what Philip did, someone would have assassinated him.

If he hadn't been so jealous of Davout and kept him off the battlefield, this greatest of all Napoleonic generals in the place of either Grouchy or Ney would have handily won the battle. Of course it wouldn't have mattered in the long run anyway as Napoleon was indeed doomed, with both the Russians and the Austrians on the way.

Davout, the Marshal that was never defeated, thank you, couldn't remember his name. There is no doubt if he had been at the battle Wellington would have been defeated. I'd agree though, he'd have been beaten by the Russians and Austrians anyway.

I think one could point out on a map any oasis large enough to support an entire army...This is a ridiculous claim backed up by no source.

no, it was humour, you know, someone says something funny and other people laugh? Humour?

BTW, I appreciate all the suggestions, and it looks like I underestimated Seleucus I Nicator and William Slim

Whahaey, Slim gets the recognition he deserves. It is seriously worth reading up on his campaign, it was a work of genius.

I'd still put Genghis top simply because he started with far, far less than Alexander, conquered more and left an enduring empire behind him.

The thing that makes Genghis and Alexander special though is that they combined all the aspects of generalship and then rose above it to create empires as well.

So, Napoleon, Marlborough and Slim were as good as either of them at strategic maneuvering of their armies. Hanibal and Slim were as good at inventing tactical solutions on the spot. Wellington was as good at defensive campaigns. Napoleon and Hanibal were as good at commanding battles. But only Genghis and Hanibal combined all these qualities into one package.

As for Hanibal vs. Alexander, the main thing that worries me about that arguement is the sources. There are (to my knowledge) no direct sources for what Alexander did, all the existing stuff was written some time later and alegedly based on sources from the time that now don't exist. Additionally, the picture painted of his character, even by those that approved of him, is of someone who wanted to be a god and ruthlessly controlled his 'press' and legend to ensure that happened. Hanibal, on the other hand, is extremely well documented and a lot of that documentation is from his enemies. Makes you wonder a bit as to who really did what.........

Anyway, in the end, I'd say that both would have failed if you had swapped them around because neither would have been suited to operating within the constraints imposed on the other.

[Silencio]

Spartan JKM congratulations and admirations on a great post. If I may be allowed, I would plead for the inclusion of Cyrus the Great and Sargon the Akkadian in tier 1. Reasons:

1. Cyrus brought the somewhat obscure Persians to the Hegemony of Asia and forged one of greatest Empires of antiquity. His defeat of the combined Lydian/Babylonian/Egyptian armies was a masterpies (the refused flanks formation). His subsequent defeat of the Lydian Ulans was no mean achievement either. He captured Babylon, without the besieged even realising it. Is it not a greater achievement to capture in a single blow the largest city in the world without loss, than to battle the walls of Tyre for months and loose thousands.

May be most people overlook him, because he did not fight many famous battles (the sources are somewhat obscure), but in my mind what made him Great was him a bility to achieve a smashing victory without fighting costly battles, when he did not have to. And is that not the mark of true generalship.

2. Sargon (Sharru-Kin) of Akkad. O, you ungratefull siblings! You left out the First Conquerer, the First Lord of the Four Quaterers, the Creator of the First Empire, the First King-of-Kings out of Tier1. Damn, he created the Tier, He created the idea of the universal empire and the universal ruler. The rest just followed in his path. A man, probably son of a temple prostitute and a gardener, who more than 23 centuries before Christ conquered most of the lands between India and the Meditarranea, who created the first professional army, who never lost a battle and forged the first world empire. Tier1. Period.