dy-nasty

It is quite ironic that the greatest and most efficient empire in history was probably that of Rome, yet three of the most smashing defeats of an army in military history came at her expense. One was during her rise just before she was an international power, the 2nd occurred during her zenith, and the third was when she was decadent and near collapse. 1. In 216 B.C., Hannibal inflicted perhaps the most devastating defeat ever on an army in military history, annhilating 8 legions, the largest Rome ever pitted on the field, within few hours. His classic double-envelopment resulted in the destruction of 80% of a total Roman force of over 90,000 foot and horse. Cannae would enter military textbooks as the model of a perfect battle of annihilation, and never again would an army rely solely on superior numbers of infantry. Cannae was not only one of the bloodiest battles of ancient times, it was one of the bloodiests battles of all time. Around 70,000 Romans and a few thousand Carthaginians were killed in a few hours of fighting. There are few instances in history were such a one-sided battle has so many men been killed. And it was all thanks to Hannibal's genius. 2. In A.D. 9, three legions led by Q. Varus, numbering some 15,000 soldiers and auxiliary cavalry, practically all perished at the Teutoburger Wald (the Rhineland) at the hands of Arminius I, known in Germany as Hermann. Germany would prove unqonquerable to Rome. 3. In A.D. 378, the Goths led by Fritigern, destroyed the 60,000 force of foot and horse under Valens, the Byzantine emperor. 50,000 or so swift Gothic horsemen joined the same number of infantry and descended upon and surrounded Valens' force near Adrianople, a town in modern Bulgaria. The result was comparable to Cannae, with 3/4 of Valens', including himself, wiped out. This smashin

fair enough. But even then, winning is not the true greatness of a general. How you win is. But the difference between Hannibal and the generals you named, is that he was the underdog inn most of his battles. And when you read about him, its a wonder that he could last so long against Rome. It is however, true that, in the end Hannibal lost. But I would say that any general, even Ceaser, Alexander, or Scipio, would have also lost, and probably with less results than even Hannibal managed to achieve. Again, winning is not the true mark of greatness, how well you stand up to adversary is. That is why I admire Hannibal's ability as a General. He nearly toppled the greatest civilization that the world has known, with the greatest tactics the world has ever known (e.g. Rommel, Napoleon, and Schwartzkopf are three of many in history who have studied and admired the genius of Hannibal's tactics). In the end, its not truley about winning (if it is that would make Napoleon a lesser general than Wellington), its what he managed to acheive as a general which puts him above all others. BTW. here's my list 1)Hanninal 2) Phyrus 3) Belisarius 4) Ceaser 5)Marcellus 6) Trajan 7)Vespasian 8)Alexander TG 9) Scipio 10) Euyephues (sp?/Thebes)

co-sign.... I strongly disagree. Ceaser had the best troops of his day under his command, and the Gauls he faced weren't that much of a army, they were often leaderless, until Vertigoth (sp?) united them, but even then it was too late. All ancient authorities attest the Gauls of being some of the most unreliable troops in the world. IMHO. Hannibal, on the other hand, was outnumbered, ill-equipped, and poorly supplied. He was able to wage war against Rome in Italy for 17 years, nearly half a generation, marching in hostile territory however he wised, with absolutely no resupply or reinforcements, and without any naval support, without losing one major battle. He had far more spectacular victoriesand fought against far more competent generals (Marcellus, Nero, Fabius, Scipio). What's more he did it with an army of markedly less quality then the sturdy Roman legions. What puts him above Ceaser is his own genius as a tactican (and occasionaly strategist), and his Numidian cavalry who, by the time of the much lauded Zama, had dwindled to near insignificance I often rank generals who had the odds against them and succeeded with flying colors. Who met challenges in the face and spanked them to hell. Not just victories, but how they won those victories, and what were the odds of their probable victory. How did they adapt to a changing situation that did not go along with their original plan? How daring were they? How did they react to a sudden dangerous situation? Hannibal fits under all this criteria, and that is why I would rank him the highest. The Greatest General is the one that manages to win a battle despite of his inferiority. By the way, I think Cannae is a greater manoeuvre battle than Pharsalus. Although Caesar's army sustained fewer losses in beating Pompeius in comparison to Hannibal's victory over the Romans, the Carthaginians did so with great flair and with a manoeuvre that generals have sought to emulate ever since - double envelopment. Pharsalus, however, involved the skilled use of reserve forces, and although the results were impressive, I don't think it counts as a battle of great manoeuvre. At least, not as great as Cannae.

I wouldn't consider them great, though capable, and competent by those standards of the day. They were indeed agressive, and Hannibal used this trait to his advantage, therby luring them into battle on his own terms... Although a question, were those armies actually "professional"? I know they might have had standard sizes and had some form of basic drill, but didn't the soldiers still supply their own equipment and work the fields during peace-time? Were they paid, drilled, and equipped by the state? Most of these are generally considered traits of a professional army, which is part of the reason why many armies (such as those used in the 30 years' war) aren't considered truly "professional" as they were not fully trained and supplied by the state. I would say its a combination of both. Given his age, he didn't have the strenght to see the battle through, and often remained in his tent. I prefer his earlier work as leader than his later years.

Your reason for placing Caesar above Hannibal is, to me, ridiculous. Caesar did face able generals, but nothing like Hannibal had to deal with. Pompey had been very good while he was younger. By the time of the Civil War, he had lost a lot of the stuff that had made him great. He had been lazy for a few years, and was not in the condition that would allow him to be a serious threat. Even his legions were not the best. They were raw recuits, not used to fighting an army that had been in the field for the past nine years. Hannibal, on the other hand faced some of the greatest generals that Rome ever produced. Marcellus was the greatest Roman general before the last century BCE. No great general ever faced the opposition that confronted Hannibal. Even in his first three years in Italy, before Fabius became dictator the generals that he had to deal with were capable, although not great. But once he had Fabius, Marcellus, Nero and finnaly Scipio opposed to him, it is a wonder that he survived for so long. Had any other general been up against such odds, he more than likely would have been defeated. For not only were the generals opposed to Hannibal amazing, the armies themselves were the greatest in the world. When he descended from the Alps, Hannibal had only 50,000 troops, half of which were newly recuited Gauls. Rome at that time could produce 750,000 of the greatest soldiers that the world has ever seen. The legions of the Second Punic War were head and shoulders above Pompey's army of the Civil War. The legions of the Second Punic War were the greatest legions after only Caesar's. And the reason why Caesar's were better was because of Caesar himself. The legions that opposed Hannibal were made up of citizens who were defending their own land and interest. By the time of the late Republic, the legions were made up of soldiers who were only in it for the money and land that would be given to them following their term of service. As to Cannae, it may not have happened if Varro was not in command. But that is part of what makes Hannibal so great. He knew that Varro was in charge, and what type of personality he was. Hannibal knew that he would be able to draw Varro into battle, and there destroy his army. I do not intend to insult Pompey. When he was younger, he may very well of been deserving of the title Magnus. But by the time of the Civil War, he was not the general that he had been. He was still the best after Caesar, but that only insults the other generals. Caesar was so far above everybody else, that no matter how great you once had been, you would have to be even better just to have a hope of seeing success. Pharsalus wasn't a horribly planned battle, but there was no innovative tactics on Pompey's side. All he did was place all his horse on the wing opposite the river, in hopes of overlapping Caesar's right wing and thus securing victory. Caesar on the other hand had better tactics, in setting up a fourth wing that would work in unison with his horse to take the advantage away from Pompey's horse. Against a lesser general they would have worked. The problem was that Pompey wasn't facing a lesser general. He was facing Caesar, and he should have known that. You cannot use that same tactics against one of the greats that you would use against the ordinary general. Had Pompey indeed been a great general, he would have at least tried to of somehow either lay an ambush for Caesar or use some new tactic that would bewilder him and cause him to lose the battle. The fact that Pompey did nothing of the sort just goes to illustrate that he should not be considered one of the greats of all time, although he was great during his own age.

For those that bring up the fact that Hannibal himself considered Alexander and Pyrrhos the greater general, the actual story goes a little further... ".....When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing at this, and said: 'What would you have said if you had defeated me?' 'In that case', replied Hannibal, 'I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus - in fact, before all other generals' " Livy, The History of Rome from its Foundation XXXV.14

Both are excellent leaders of men, being both very inspiring and brave. Both are leaders, being able to pull off amazing moves. So if both of these Leaders, in the prime of their careers, were to face off against one another, who would prove the victor? The resources that both have available are the full resources of their respective kingdoms without any supply problems such as the ones, which crippled Hannibal's war against Rome. The armies would be made up of the same troops that they commanded in real life. Consider the armies to be of equal size but made up of the troops that each commander had at his disposal. So let's say, if both of these Leaders, in the height of their careers, were to face off against one another, which ancient general would prove to be the victor? Now I consider Alexander to be a sentimental favorite of mines, but my vote goes to Hannibal. Why? In my eyes, one has to rate these two generals by the opponents they faced. In creating simulations for the armies of Hannibal and Alexander you can use a baseline of gauging their respective effectiveness against similar enemies (like the Scythians and Parthians, Persians, and Romans, etc.). After gathering research on as large a number of engagements, you can you can create a statistical probability of their effectiveness (assigning a numeric value) and then compare them to each other. There are many other conditions that would have to be taken into consideration like terrain, location, size, season etc. that makes such comparisons quite difficult. So the best we have to go on is battle record v. opponents, innovations in war, and organization of arms and army. That will give us a credible background for comparison. Now first, I would have to say that Hannibal was the better general considering the limited resources he had at his disposal, whereas Alexander managed to accomplish a great deal more with his impressive war machine, and had the resources of the entire Hellenized world behind him to draw from. Hannibal was only one, if not the best, of Carthage's generals and therefore, and has nowhere near the strategic ability enjoyed by Alexander. Furthermore, it can be said of both Hannibal and Alexander that either faced fierce enemies the other did not. When Alexander attacked Persia, the kingdom was far from its zenith. When Hannibal attacked Rome, she was a formidable military power. Another thing you have to consider is that Hannibal was use to being the underdog in battles, Alexander usually had the best army in the world when he went into battle, despite being outnumbered. To put it simply, Alexander did not face the same difficulties as Hannibal. He is often credited for decimating armies superior in numbers, yet he fought against undisciplined and unreliable peasant levies, who were many in number, but not much of an army (it took 20 Persians to kill one Phalanx!). On the other hand, Alexander inherited the strongest army and nation at the time. Alexander

Alexander was Great, Hannibal was fantastic. Alexander could read other Armies, but so could Hannibal. Alexander could demand the best from his Armies, but so could Hannibal. However, I have to say the edge on leadership would go to Hannibal. Hannibal's army was made up of Gauls Spaniards, Greeks Numidians and Lybians, men from cultures who seemingly had nothing in common, yet Hannibal managed to use all of these troops under one command and break-down the language barrier. At the time that is also quite an accomplishment in his leadership! Hannibal had to fight Rome, despite being outnumbered and lacking resources, with multiple foes with multiple numbers, and each time defeated his opponents. From researching both generals, I