Zap Brannigan
Here's looking at you, kid!
My choice is Scipio Africanus. This may seem like an unusual choice only because he gets no publicity and is virtually unknown compared to other choices such as Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Alexander, Robert E. Lee, Wellington etc.
Scipio had no glaring flaws - made no disasterous moves - was never defeated.
When Scipio came to command Rome was on it's knees trying to hold off Hannibal. He took over soldiers who were demoralised and had already been defeated by Carthaginian armies - he was not taking over a strong force. The reason I choose Scipio is because I believe he had the best combination of leadership, overall strategy and individual battle tactics.
His leadership is evident in restoring his armies' morale and discipline in both Spain and Sicily (most great commanders would have this talent) but also in giving his subordinates and allies credit when due (he maintained strong loyalty and unity by doing this) - he didn't feel he needed all the glory for himself.
His overall strategy was most impressive - his army in Spain beat 3 larger Carthaginian armies in 3 years (armies which had beaten previous Roman armies). He managed again and again to steal Hannibals allies from him - first in Spain and then the Numidians - this move was the major factor in defeating Hannibal at the battle of Zama. Scipio forced Hannibal to react to his moves instead of the opposite. He fought Hannibal on his terms.
For evidence of Scipios battle tactics look at the misdirection used during the taking of seemingly Cartegena's impregnable town, the battle of Baecula or his neutralising Hannibal's elephants at Zamaand defeating another larger army.
Scipio's greatest trait was the abilty to adapt to the situation he was in - adopting many of Hannibal's strategy's in going to Spain and then Carthage much as Hannibal went to Italy - recognising the Numidian cavalry were the key and forging an alliance.
Scipio didn't learn from his mistakes - he learned from the mistakes of others.
Unlike most other great leaders Scipio faced enemies who were the equal or superior of his own men and a legendary general to command them and HE WON.
Scipio had no glaring flaws - made no disasterous moves - was never defeated.
When Scipio came to command Rome was on it's knees trying to hold off Hannibal. He took over soldiers who were demoralised and had already been defeated by Carthaginian armies - he was not taking over a strong force. The reason I choose Scipio is because I believe he had the best combination of leadership, overall strategy and individual battle tactics.
His leadership is evident in restoring his armies' morale and discipline in both Spain and Sicily (most great commanders would have this talent) but also in giving his subordinates and allies credit when due (he maintained strong loyalty and unity by doing this) - he didn't feel he needed all the glory for himself.
His overall strategy was most impressive - his army in Spain beat 3 larger Carthaginian armies in 3 years (armies which had beaten previous Roman armies). He managed again and again to steal Hannibals allies from him - first in Spain and then the Numidians - this move was the major factor in defeating Hannibal at the battle of Zama. Scipio forced Hannibal to react to his moves instead of the opposite. He fought Hannibal on his terms.
For evidence of Scipios battle tactics look at the misdirection used during the taking of seemingly Cartegena's impregnable town, the battle of Baecula or his neutralising Hannibal's elephants at Zamaand defeating another larger army.
Scipio's greatest trait was the abilty to adapt to the situation he was in - adopting many of Hannibal's strategy's in going to Spain and then Carthage much as Hannibal went to Italy - recognising the Numidian cavalry were the key and forging an alliance.
Scipio didn't learn from his mistakes - he learned from the mistakes of others.
Unlike most other great leaders Scipio faced enemies who were the equal or superior of his own men and a legendary general to command them and HE WON.
Dude, I'm serious, that IS blasphemy...
