Greatest Leader In Ancient Times?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Rameses, he's pretty great, but I just hear "Alexander is the best!!!!!!!!" and no explaination as to why... way too much. You put out some good reasons. I take note of logical answers.

 

My thanks.

 

Edit: None of us should like any of the huns because thier conquests started many of the mass migrations of 'barbarians' into Roman lands and contributed to the weakening of the Empire. All supporters of Atilla shall be :giljotiini:

Edited August 23, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Kosmo]

Maybe conquest it's not enough to consider one a great leader.

If so, others will be worth mentioning like Justinian that was very influencial with his conquests in the West, Heraclius that resisted the persians, the avars and the slavs, reformed the empire but failed against the arabs.

Or people like Aurelian that restored the empire.

[Tobias]

How about Lucius Cornelius Sulla? Roman general, politician and dictator, and the one who essentially put Rome back on her feet after the Social War, the wars against Mithridates and the years of chaos revolving around he and Marius' struggle against each other.

[Cohort]

You guys said

[Skarr]

Alexander did face an overwhelming number of Persians and ultimately prevailed..

 

However, a few things to consider...

 

Many of the nobles supporting the Persian King Darius were dissatisfied and saw Alexander as an alternative... There were too many candidates amongst themselves to replace him and any one of them could plunge the entire region into chaos because of the intense rivalry among the various chieftains..

 

Alexander's primary tactic was to go after the bodyguard surrounding the Persian King, the famous "Immortals". Ultimately, Alexander was given a tacit nod by the Persians, who watched as he chased their men and as a "neutral" king of kings, he was eminently more acceptable than one of their own.

 

Darius's own men killed him - a satisfaction that was denied Alexander, who chased the king and found his dead body.

 

Chop the head and there is no fight - that was the ancient way. Once Darius was dead, Alexander could claim victory and assume leadership over the entire region as the 'king of kings'. As long as the various nobles retained their respective properties and could manage their own fiefdoms, I don't think many of them cared whether it was Darius or Alexander on the throne. In fact, Alexander was eminently preferable as Darius was planning a number of things they didn't like.

 

Well, this is based on my own theory, based on some reading of the war and also a translation of a tablet that was found. Most accounts of Alexander are by the Greeks and I don't think there is an unbiased version. Details of the critical battle are also sketchy.

 

There is no doubt that Alexander was a good fighter and probably quite charismatic. However, in terms of sheer strategy, the different kinds of terrain, the siege equipment that were designed and put together on the spot, including ingenious fortifications, etc. etc. - too numerous to enumerate, the clear winner, by a mile is none other than - Gaius Julius Caesar.

Edited August 25, 2006 by Skarr

[M. Porcius Cato]

J. F. C. Fuller, often called the Clausewitz of the 20th century, had a very different opinion of Caesar.

 

Except for his settlement of Gaul, and his reform of taxation of the eastern provinces, as a statesman he created nothing; neither a rejuvenated republic, nor an acceptable monarchy, let alone anything resembling the Principate, which his adopted son, Octavian - an incomparably greater statesman - did. ...

 

Caesar's army, it would seem, in no way differed from that of his uncle Marius, which in Numidia had failed to bring Jugurtha to book, and later, under Pompey, had failed to subdue Sertorius in Spain. ... As far as can be gathered from his Commentaries, and from those compiled by Hirtius or others, not one of his campaigns was adequately prepared, and some not prepared at all. In his campaign against the Helvetii, because Rome, like Great Britain in after centuries, was never ready for war, he may be excused. But his two invasions of Britain were amateurish in the extreme: no provisions were made to carry in the ships supplies of corn, or provide reserve vessals, or extra anchors, cordage, tackle, etc. in the event of loss or damage by storm. So we read, when disaster came there was "great dismay throughout the army", because "there were no other ships to carry [the troops] back." We are told that "everything needful for the repair of ships was lacking; and as it was generally understood that the army was to winter in Gaul, no corn had been provided in these parts against the winter."

 

Neither was this incompetence good leadership nor was it even an isolated incident. Caesar was continually faced with attempting to extricate himself from his own disasters. At Ilerda, his army was almost lost to starvation. At Dyrrachium, it was eating grass. At Alexandria, he was continually appealing to neighbors for food, and most of his campaign in Africa was little more than a foraging mission, and nearly a fatal one at that.

 

I grant that Caesar was a good fighting general, but leadership is much more than what happens on the day of battle.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

J. F. C. Fuller, often called the Clausewitz of the 20th century, had a very different opinion of Caesar.

 

Except for his settlement of Gaul, and his reform of taxation of the eastern provinces, as a statesman he created nothing; neither a rejuvenated republic, nor an acceptable monarchy, let alone anything resembling the Principate, which his adopted son, Octavian - an incomparably greater statesman - did. ..

 

"as a statesman he created nothing" I personally think this is a bit harsh, one of Caesar's greatest achievments was probably his long and patient handling of the problem of debt.

He did this by enforcing a new set of regulations regarding the payment of loans to creditors whereas the debtors could repay the loans in land or property at pre-war prices instead of currency which at the time was very hard to find due to it being hoarded against better times at the start of the cival war.

After his new regulations came into force, financial confidence started to come back, and money began to to be freely lent and borrowed. In this field, Caesar had achieved more than any previous statesman; he had broken the back of the republic's most unmanageable problem.

Edited August 26, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Gaius Octavius]

Without demeaning or deriding anyone or their achievements:

 

It may have been the author (Fuller) who said that Alexander fought an oriental mob.

 

Alexander's achievements lasted for his lifetime. Caesar's achievements (no matter how flawed their execution), have lasted to this day. (Augustus', also.) Who else may that be said of? If his raids into Britain were a failure, then they set the stage for its eventual conquest. Caesar's military campaigns are studied in every military school today. After all is said and done, the question to be answered is: would the West, and indeed the World, be as it is today, except for Caesar and Augustus?

 

Scoundrels, who only achieve infamy, such as Brutus, generally don't murder their own ilk; it is usually their betters as their motive is profit and/or the enrichment of their class. Gavrillo Princeps murdered Archduke Ferdinand for the freedom of Serbia and not to fill his pockets.

 

I believe that it was Fuller who held that Scipio Africanus was the Greatest Captain in History. Again, had it not been for Scipio, would the world be as it is today?

 

My opinion only.

[M. Porcius Cato]

"as a statesman he created nothing" I personally think this is a bit harsh, one of Caesar's greatest achievments was probably his long and patient handling of the problem of debt.

 

Perhaps you mean the debt he acquired to get elected Pontifex Maximus? Otherwise, there was nothing creative in his debt legislation, which originated with Valerius Flaccus.

[Gaius Octavius]

J. F. C. Fuller, often called the Clausewitz of the 20th century, had a very different opinion of Caesar.

 

This is conclusive proof of nothing.

 

Except for his settlement of Gaul, and his reform of taxation of the eastern provinces, as a statesman he created nothing; neither a rejuvenated republic, nor an acceptable monarchy, let alone anything resembling the Principate, which his adopted son, Octavian - an incomparably greater statesman - did. ...

 

How does Fuller know that this was his object or what his object was? Fuller does say that Caesar created something before he goes on to mention that he created nothing.

 

Caesar's army, it would seem, in no way differed from that of his uncle Marius, which in Numidia had failed to bring Jugurtha to book, and later, under Pompey, had failed to subdue Sertorius in Spain. ...

 

Nor did he establish 'atomic divisions'. Is this to be taken to mean that their opponents organizations were better? Marius and Caesar won in the end. Would reformed units have made any difference? Remember, Caesar was a complete incompetent!

 

As far as can be gathered from his Commentaries, and from those compiled by Hirtius or others, not one of his campaigns was adequately prepared, and some not prepared at all. In his campaign against the Helvetii, because Rome, like Great Britain in after centuries, was never ready for war, he may be excused. But his two invasions of Britain were amateurish in the extreme: no provisions were made to carry in the ships supplies of corn, or provide reserve vessals, or extra anchors, cordage, tackle, etc. in the event of loss or damage by storm. So we read, when disaster came there was "great dismay throughout the army", because "there were no other ships to carry [the troops] back." We are told that "everything needful for the repair of ships was lacking; and as it was generally understood that the army was to winter in Gaul, no corn had been provided in these parts against the winter."

 

A great storm intervened. Ships and supplies were to come from Gaul. Provision was made for this. The legionaries were supposed to make repairs. The beached ships were taken asea; their supplies were thus lost. Like all ancient armies, the legions would gather their food and other necessities from the land (as the legions did do in Britain and Gaul). In Gaul, Caesar would have bought from merchants or taken by force the supplies needed for his winter quarters. The implication here is that he may have intended to winter in Gaul and not in his supposed conquered Britain.

 

Neither was this incompetence good leadership nor was it even an isolated incident. Caesar was continually faced with attempting to extricate himself from his own disasters.

 

Yet, he did! That was part of his genius.

 

At Ilerda, his army was almost lost to starvation. ALMOST. At Dyrrachium, it was eating grass. He did gain the day. At Alexandria, he was continually appealing to neighbors for food, and most of his campaign in Africa was little more than a foraging mission, and nearly a fatal one at that. Once again, NEARLY.

 

I grant that Caesar was a good fighting general, but leadership is much more than what happens on the day of battle. How generous! Yet, this intelligence is shattering!

 

The above critique notwithstanding, it is my well considered and unalterable opinion that Caesar's ashes (when found) should be consigned to the Tiber; his statues defaced and his name erased from the eyes and memory of mankind. New Jersey should be re-named New Cato. An universal holiday be proclaimed to the glory of Cicero on June 1st of the year.

[Ursus]

Topics like this are always subjective at best. Given some of the recent hyperbole, it is best to consign it to the Arena.

 

And thus it is done.

[Cohort]

I believe that it was Fuller who held that Scipio Africanus was the Greatest Captain in History. Again, had it not been for Scipio, would the world be as it is today?

 

My opinion only.

 

welllll, I have to say that is not my take at all..regards the Fuller quote...

 

 

 

Hart said Scipio was "greater" than Napoleon which in my eyes from almost any perspective is hogwash.

[tflex]

Caesar before Alexander as an all around leader, but Alexander before Caesar as strictly a militarly leader, Caesar would be second.

 

A great leader can miltarily think on his feet and adjust in a fraction of a second for the unexpected using instinct and common sense, Caesar and Alexander were the finest at this.

 

A great political leader usually makes a significant change that lasts for centuries after his passing, his ideas don't die but live on, and thats what Caesar accomplished.

Edited August 27, 2006 by tflex