Greatest General of the Ancient World

[jmob]

Hey guys, just wondering which general you would choose. I know each general has his own + and downsides. Attilas ruthlessness and great mobility, Leonida's valour, Hannibals great strategies, Caesar's command etc.

[The Cimmerian]

I voted Hannibal, because I can relate to him the best. I love his strategies and his application of the 'eye for an eye' system.

[wilpuri]

Originally posted by The Cimmerian@Mar 23 2004, 09:17 PM
I voted Hannibal, because I can relate to him the best. I love his strategies and his application of the 'eye for an eye' system.

That's not the same guy. I think you've mixed Hannibal Barca and Hammurabi's Code.

[Lord Tomyris]

Giving Alexander's ability to conquer anywhere he conquered (and I quote CA there ), I voted for his leadership.

[Wilf]

It was a toss up between Alexander and JC.... I had to go for JC because I've always been interested in him.

[Lord Stronghold]

Hannibal only lost his last major battle because of a lack of numidian cavalry which forced him to use elephants instead. Hannibal could outwit most of us easily if he still lived.

[Christu_Navus]

I voted Julius Caesar, because my favorite are the Romans. Though Scipio was also a fantastic general or legat... eheh

For sure, we and I (because i did not vote for 'em ) owe much respect to the other, especially to the genius Hannibal (military skills very high)
Alexander the great (military skills high, and high capacity to rally to his cause, much and much tribes among his big conquest, in the East)

The other too, but I choosed Caesar lol

[Hermes]

Hannibal was a true genius that would have easily defated any of those generals, provided the battle was fair. Too bad he had to go and defeat the romans... (kind of)

-Hermes

[Peachy Carnehan]

First off, I would have any one of those lead my army any day of the week. They are all superb in their own right.

I picked Alexander because to me he represents one of the great tactical commanders of all time, and with his ability to almost predict the enemies reaction I think I would have to choose him to lead my army into battle.

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

On an Average day, Id picked Alexander, but today is special, so I pick Epimanondas...

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

Alexander the Great

Conquored the world. 'Nuff said.

On an Average day, Id picked Alexander, but today is special, so I pick Epimanondas...

You just being a snobby intellectual!! Hard to beat the guy. I dont think Philip would have trampled thebes like he did if his mentor and trainer, Epimanondas, had not died after his victory against SPARTA AND ATHENS a few years before... Now that would have been a battle!

NM

[Dienekes]

Leonidas was never really given the chance to prove his skill as a conventional battlefield commander in a large scale fight.

He is most remembered for his outstanding courage, bravery, and his ability to lead his men through having been together, training together, and bleeding together. As much as I respect him for his tactics that he used at Thermopylae (the rotation of the units, lining up in a formation on the final day that was most suitable to kill the most persians), he will always be remembered because of his leadership skills, not his tactics.

If I was going to select a General out of those given, I would choose Alexander the Great, he lead from the front, fought with his men, and he was a master tactician.

Hannibal Barca was #2 on the list though, a real master on the battlefield.

[Lord Stronghold]

Where's Anibal? He would bring up the vote for Hannibal.

But seriously, Alexander the Great fought battles against unarmored, poorly armed , poorly trained soldiers. Most were just peasants. Anybody could beat an archer army. All you would have to do is get your cavalry in there and bam there dead.

Hannibal survived for 16 years in Enemy territory. Most of his soldiers were mercenaries and gauls at first but as time went on his army was bottis?(can't remember name of tribe). No general(roman) dare faced him after Cannae. The soldiers Hannibal fought were trained, disciplined, overwhelming, armored, well armed legionnaires and some peasant legionnaires. He had no way of communication to Carthage itself and had to fact both his brother's deaths. He was the last great chance against Rome.

I will not doubt that Alexander created some brilliant tactical maneuvers and victorys, however most of his victorys were against a civilization that had poor soldiers and poor technology. It was like a war with Tanks(pikemen) on Macedonia's side and marines armed with rifles (archers) on Persia's side. All he really would have had to do was extend his flank so as to prevent a flank by the persians and advance his men. The persians only hope was hit and run and their arrows could barely get past the shields of the hoplites.

Vote Hannibal people. B)

[lord_of_the_power]

What sort of army would they be leading, because im sure if you gave Attlia an army made up of mainly heavy infantry he wouldnt be all that great.

Without knowing that i choose hannibal

[jmob]

Lord Stronghold makes some very good points. I also pick Hannibal because he had to go up against bigger Roman armies while having to coordinate a multinational force( Gauls, Numidians, Carthage etc.)
I also understand that Hannibal's tactics at Cannae are still being used as a model for flanking in modern day military schools. I think the man was a genius. There is a reason after all that ROME feared him unlike anyone else.
Nothing against Alexander but Hannibal is my choice.

[Trobalov]

Alexander the great would be my choise objectively speaking about generals. But I would really like to imagine the bravery of leonidas inside Alexander. (not that he wasnt brave just that Leonidas was a true warrior and combining with Alexander's strategy results could be even better )

Cheers -_-

[Carolus XII]

Alexander...just by his track record (he never lost). Someone mentioned Epaminondas (correct spelling). His campaign to once and for all take out the Spartans is my favorite of all ancient war campaigns. Inspirational!

[Anibal Barca]

Where's Anibal?

- Lord Stronghold
eheh not far away

Very good points you made. I'll even add that Philip (Alexander's father) was the one who brought up and trained the first professional army ever, the first ever eficient military machine. Besides, he not also fought a bunch of "unarmored, poorly armed , poorly trained soldiers"...but also fought against a 'clumsy' and coward general who runned away of the field almost as quickly as the first couple of guys fell in the ground. Nevertheless, Alexander was a wise and brave general who had much merit in his ingenious battle tactics.

I think though that everyone wiling to read on Hannibal's Iberian conquest and on his battles during the march over the southern Gaul and the Alps, and finally on his 16 year constant minor/major engagements in Italy (where facing a VERY capable outnumbering enemy and with no supply lines) can even doubt his position as the greatest commander of all times. One can only imagine the kind of charisma and valour this man must have had to always keep trust, cohesion, discipline and never face mutiny for so long behind enemy lines, in front of such heterogeneous troops and facing such outnumbering and powerful enemy. Besides the battles he won with his true/model army (so I kind of exclude Zama here) speak for himself.

Another problem with Alexander is that the sources we have may be unreliable being so unmatching among themselves and so 'fantasticly' described, so we may never know the extent of his prowesses. OTOH the main source on Hannibal we have is a very moderate and objective man called Polybius (as his 40 books make people unanimously conclude), and, perhaps most important of all, a man who wrote for the romans (with all the pressure added to it) and who also fought against Carthage.

[Siblesz]

Anibal turned a battered and beat empire around, with a simple 35,000 men army while running against a roman army twice of its size. Now that's admirable. Just look at Cannae! The guy practically whooped Roman a$$ in half, completely destroying the Roman army, and then whooping the Romans in every single battle for the next 16 years that he spent in Italy trying to destroy Rome.

This Roman army is not the Roman army that it was 100 years before.... This Roman army had led one of the greatest armies of the time, commanded by King Phyrrus, away in just 5 years out of Italy. The Roman army had also united Italy by beating the Gallic raiders, the Etruscans, the Samnites, the latins, and other important factions in Italy. This Roman army was the most professional army of its day.

And Anibal, turned his 35,000 Carthaginian men army into even better veterans. It turned that army into an international army of Gauls, Iberians, Celt-Iberians, Numidians, Carthaginians, and Lybians as well. How did he manage to controll such a diverse army? How did he manage to cross the alps with 35,000 men and 28 elephants, a feat never accomplished by anyone before him? How did he manage to siege and defeat two of the most powerful cities in the Western World (Tarentum, Saguntum)? How did he managed to defeat the Romans, time and time again in battles like Ticinus River, Lake Trasimene, Trebbia, and Cannae? This man, in my honorable opinion, was as great of a strategist and conqueror as Alexander the Great. This man, though underrated by history, is still held as a legend.

[The Cimmerian]

Originally posted by wilpuri+Mar 23 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wilpuri @ Mar 23 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Cimmerian@Mar 23 2004, 09:17 PM
I voted Hannibal, because I can relate to him the best. I love his strategies and his application of the &#39;eye for an eye&#39; system.

That&#39;s not the same guy. I think you&#39;ve mixed Hannibal Barca and Hammurabi&#39;s Code. [/b][/quote]
Oops, my mistake I must have been out of it when I posted that. On the other hand, didn&#39;t Hannibal apply a similar method to Hammurabai?