Who was the greatest ancient military leader? (and some random digressions!)

[Mausolos of Caria]

I know this is the most cliché question which gets endlessly debated, but I'm curious how the results of a poll would look on here and how you argue for your choice. We had a Hannibal vs Alexander thread on here, but what about Pyrrhos who featured so heavily in RTR VII?
What about the Roman generals like Julius Caesar, Sulla, Scipio Africanus, Marcus Antonius or Agrippa? What about hellenistic leaders like Antigonos Monophtalmos or Demetrios Poliorketes or about ''Barbarians'' like Arminius or Vercingetorix? Here it is, the ultimate poll on this question! Have fun in the discussion and let's see who's the RTR's forum's choice for the best general in antiquity!

Restrictions: Thinking of ancient times, we focus on Europe and the Mediterrenean naturally so this should also be the case here, which means no Chinese or Japanese generals for example. And the time frame should roughly be 1000 BC till 500 AD.

Damn I forgot Scipio in the poll, can a moderator edit and change that?

[Punic Hoplite]

My answer is bias. Hamilcar was good, but we don't know how far he could have gone if Carthage hadn't ended the war.

[Caligula Caesar]

Alexander the Great had all the tricks in the bag, even if his enemies generally fell for them hook, line and sinker and weren't really too great at warfare usually. So I'd have to go with him. For those who go with Hannibal, I'd just like to put out a question: The guy spent 17 years in Italy, and despite initial successes after Cannae, the area he controlled got smaller and smaller, until he was confined to the toe of Italy. Obviously he didn't have the easiest of tasks, but surely that isn't a sign of greatness?

[Sertorio]

Hannibal himself voted for Alexander, though I believe him to be better than Pyrrhos.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

I vote for Hannibal. The man is often misunderstood but any close look at his campaigns shows genius in every single faucet of warfare. Unlike the other greats. After him goes Alexander the Great, the Caesar, Scipio, Seleukos Nikator, and Hamilcar.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Marcus Antonius - all others were conqueror of men. He conquered the women too.

[JaM]

From all these, Alexander... but i would vote also for Scipio Africanus and Hanibal.

[Maurits]

Octavianus Augustus, he managed to use war to create a long-lasting peace, which imo is the most important result one can gain by military operations.

[Mausolos of Caria]

But Augustus was more of a politician than a general. You are right about his great and almost unique success though and that's why I voted for Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. He won all the battles for Augustus, both at land and sea and was a great military organisator as well. Furthermore Agrippa defeated Marcus Antonius twice, another one of the greatest generals of this age, and in the end him and Augustus were far more successful than Hannibal or Julius Caesar and survived longer than Alexander

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

I agree in part with CC Alexander was certainly a military genius...but Seleukos saw how to rule it, not to mention his various military victories. Ipsos is completely forgotten, Seleukos marched his elephants from India for the battle, a massive feat, and helped win the battle....what's always forgotten is Hannibal took massive casualities on his much shorter campaign

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Whats always forgotten is Seleukos failed in India. Hannibal suffered some casualties obviously he had enough men to win several field victories afterwards. He only took 46,000 to the Alps. Most were less to the cold. It was worth the casualties for a suprise attack and the withdrawal of an invasion force heading for Carthage.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Whats always forgotten is Seleukos failed in India. Hannibal suffered some casualties obviously he had enough men to win several field victories afterwards. He only took 46,000 to the Alps. Most were less to the cold. It was worth the casualties for a suprise attack and the withdrawal of an invasion force heading for Carthage.

The sources are unsure on this, but you are quite right..India did slip out of Seleukid control, no matter how it came about. Hannibal lost according to some estimate up to half his army crossing the Alps, if he had tried any venture the size of Alexander he would be in serious trouble before crossing the Taurus mountains

[Holger Danske]

As a military leader. That would Alexander the Great. As a general, Hannibal.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Seleukos was quite an awesome general and I admire Ipsus. My second favorite general. As for Hannibal he lost 20,000 out of 46,000 men. He left all those who weren't made of stern enough stuff. He had an army of only the best when he entered Italy. Both greats.

I disagree, adminstration is part of being a leader. He failed at that, he failed to excercise self control, logistics in the Gerdrosian....

On another note Hannibal actually directed a larger army than Alexander. He also had a harder logistical challenge.

Merged posts - Maurits

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

This is what I mean Seleukos doesn't have massive fame... but he won important victories, but most of all he had success in stitching together his realm
It might be said that the Gedrosian incident was a sulky, angry, and vengeful Alexander leaving behind his less than stern stuff. Besides it was mostly the baggage train that fell victim to the dessert, and he showed again that he could do what others could not...this was Alexanders Alps!

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

This is what I mean Seleukos doesn't have massive fame... but he won important victories, but most of all he had success in stitching together his realm
It might be said that the Gedrosian incident was a sulky, angry, and vengeful Alexander leaving behind his less than stern stuff. Besides it was mostly the baggage train that fell victim to the dessert, and he showed again that he could do what others could not...this was Alexanders Alps!

He lost many many men in the Gerdrosian. It was a way to get back at his men. I agree with you about Seleukos I rank him just below Hannibal.

[Caligula Caesar]

I can't vouch for Seleukos' tactics as I haven't read much about his battles (I don't think they are recorded very well), but he was very successful, so he must be up there. From Diadochi generals, it seems to me like Eumenes was the pick of the crop as far as it came to battlefield tactics, though.

About Seleukos losing in India: Remember that at this point, Chandragupta Maurya had unified quite a large chunk of India. I don't think anyone could really have invaded India successfully, with the resources the Mauryans could bring to bear.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

About Seleukos losing in India: Remember that at this point, Chandragupta Maurya had unified quite a large chunk of India. I don't think anyone could really have invaded India successfully, with the resources the Mauryans could bring to bear.

This is very true

[Sertorio]

Marbahal said it well, "Hannibal,You know how to win a battle, but not what to do with it."
Hannibal strategy collapsed when he was unable to rise the South Italy against Rome. He had no backup plan for that situation and without naval support he got himself pinned by a Rome who would not give him battle on his terms.
Alexander on the other hand won an empire.
Similar to both is the reliance on pitched battles to win their goals.
Hannibal is my favourite general by the way. Still I had to vote Alexander. After all he never lost a battle.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Marbahal said it well, "Hannibal,You know how to win a battle, but not what to do with it."

Indeed, although to be fair it was probably Polybius that said it