Best ancient generals

[pompeius magnus]

The order of the best generals in ancient history would be this in my eyes:

 

Gaius Julius Caesar

Alexander the Great

Hannibal

Gaius Marius

Phyruus

[Zeke]

I think it would be,

 

Alexander the Great

Hannibal,

Caeser,

Cyrpus the Great,

Many heros from the Trojan Wars

[pompeius magnus]

What makes you put Hannibal over Gaius Julius Caesar. I'm not doubting Hannibal as a great general but just not as great as Caesar. Caesar was going into most battles with at least a 1:4 ratio in Gaul and not to mention being almost, if not, outnumbered 2-1 against Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and still manage to crush him in Greece, the name of the battle slips my mind, but it began with a P. Hannibal was outnumbered as well against the Romans, however the Roman military command system was flawed, the consels often had very little military skills in the field. He used basic outmanuvering and outsmarting the Romans at Carrae but in the end he commited Suicide and Carthage was burned to the ground after the next Punic War, number 3.

[Viggen]

Caesar was going into most battles with at least a 1:4 ratio in Gaul and not to mention being almost, if not, outnumbered 2-1 against Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and still manage to crush him in Greece, the name of the battle slips my mind, but it began with a P.

I think you talk about Pharsalus

 

found at

http://www.unrv.com/military/battles-of-th...an-republic.php

 

cheers

viggen

[Primus Pilus]

My unscientific list. =P

 

Alexander

Caesar

Hannibal

Scipio

Marius

[Viggen]

and my even more unscientific list

 

Caesar

Hannibal

Alexander the Great

Gaius Marius

Sulla

Arminius

Scipio

Aurelian

Aetius

 

in no particular order

[Primus Pilus]

And what of Stilicho.

[Spurius]

I posted this list to the describe a Roman battle heading, but it is appropriate here. In explaination, I think that the list should be broken into two parts at the very least. Great generals if you were a soldier, great generals for the nation.

 

Soldiers List (judgement being made on relative care, feeding, loot and survivability of troops)

1) Caesar- You had a great chance at living through all of his battles if you did what he told you to do. Good $ $ too.

2) Lysander- What can you say about someone who first controlled coasts, pirates and Persians. All without drowning masses of his men.

3) Marius- Father of legions. May not like his discipline but his ideas made being a legionaire survivable.

4) Fabius the Delayer- Didn't have to fear salughter by Hannibal under his command, and he gave confidence back.

5) Aurelianus- Glory and money, with a future emporer no less.

 

National List (judgement being made on national prestige, loot, lifetime effect on nation, long term outcomes)

1) Alexander- History sings of him and the Hellenized world rocked!

2) Caesar- The key spark for the fire of Empire and greater glory than anyone has seen.

3) Hannibal- Beat Rome at its own game and propped Carthage up for years.

4) Cyrus the Great- Thunder from the east and builder of empire.

5) Agrippa- If not for him, no Augustus and perhaps no stable Roman Empire.

 

Bear in mind this is completely unscientific and posted with a bit of thought but no research to back up my oft-times faulty memory. Take as you will the fact that I posted it in another thread

 

Later...

[Valens]

Got a few:

 

Agesilaus II

Pausanias

Lysander

Brasidas

Epaminondas

Philip II

Alexander III

Pyrrhus

Antiochus III

Cincinnatus

Scipio Africanus

Scipio Aemilianus

Gaius Marius

Septimius Severus

Flavius Vespasian

Pompeius Magnus

Domitius Corbulo

Julius Caesar

Narses

[dy-nasty]

What makes you put Hannibal over Gaius Julius Caesar.  I'm not doubting Hannibal as a great general but just not as great as Caesar.  Caesar was going into most battles with at least a 1:4 ratio in Gaul and not to mention being almost, if not, outnumbered 2-1 against Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and still manage to crush him in Greece, the name of the battle slips my mind, but it began with a P.    Hannibal was outnumbered as well against the Romans, however the Roman military command system was flawed, the consels often had very little military skills in the field.  He used basic outmanuvering and outsmarting the Romans at Carrae but in the end he commited Suicide and Carthage was burned to the ground after the next Punic War, number 3.

 

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.

[Valens]

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.

 

 

Totally disagree, Hannibal's greatest successes came against rather lackluster Roman counterparts(Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae all being prime exaomples of Hannibal against inferior opposition). Caesar's decisive victories at Munda and Thapsus saw Caesar fighting commanders much greater than the likes of Flaminius or Varro.

 

 

The legions of the Second Punic War were head and shoulders above Pompey's army of the Civil War.

 

 

The ones that defeated Hannibal were very well-trained, but the legions at Trebia and Lake Trasimene were certainly not all too formidable, and rather unprepared when the battles actually began. Pompey's seven vetrean legions in Spain were certainly formidable foes, and in general, the professional legions of the 1st Century BC and onwards were far more flexible and better trained than the militia of early centuries.

 

Also, it seems very fair to say the Pompey's losses came only becuase he was fighting a commander that could've beaten him at any time during his life, and not becuase he was losing his touch.

[dy-nasty]

Totally disagree, Hannibal's greatest successes came against rather lackluster Roman counterparts(Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae all being prime exaomples of Hannibal against inferior opposition).  Caesar's decisive victories at Munda and Thapsus saw Caesar fighting commanders much greater than the likes of Flaminius or Varro. 

 

 

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...

 

The ones that defeated Hannibal were very well-trained, but the legions at Trebia and Lake Trasimene were certainly not all too formidable, and rather unprepared when the battles actually began.  Pompey's seven vetrean legions in Spain were certainly formidable foes, and in general, the professional legions of the 1st Century BC and onwards were far more flexible and better trained than the militia of early centuries.

 

 

 

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.

 

Also, it seems very fair to say the Pompey's losses came only becuase he was fighting a commander that could've beaten him at any time during his life, and not becuase he was losing his touch.

 

 

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.

[Ursus]

This isn't quite my area of expertise, but I'd put Alexander at the top followed somewhere by Caesar and Hannibal.

 

Don't know if a naval commander counts as a "general" or not, but if it weren't for Themistocles we'd all be speaking Persian.

[Primus Pilus]

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.

 

 

 

The Roman armies of the Second Punic War were mixed in professionalism. When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, its safe to assume that the Roman forces were properly trained and semi professional. Later, after many losses, the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms. They were taken from any class of people and quickly trained for emergency service. Hannibal's great victory at Cannae was in small part because of this.

 

Caesar's and Pompey's armies were fully professional with career soldiers. That's why I tend to give the nod to Caesar over Hannibal. Caesar proved his brilliance in many tactical situations and against many opponents. The Helvetti, Belgae, Suebi and fellow Roman all proved their own unique tactial challenges. The siege of Alesia stands as one of the most brilliant tactical victories in the history of warfare. Hannibal never had to face such differing opposition. His opponents fought in similar style throughout. His one engagement against a competent Roman at Zama, unfortanetly never gave us a better picture however, as he was stuck with mainly raw recruits and without his vaunted cavalry.

[dy-nasty]

The Roman armies of the Second Punic War were mixed in professionalism.  When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, its safe to assume that the Roman forces were properly trained and semi professional.  Later, after many losses, the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms.  They were taken from any class of people and quickly trained for emergency service.  Hannibal's great victory at Cannae was in small part because of this. 

 

 

co-sign....

 

Caesar's and Pompey's armies were fully professional with career soldiers.  That's why I tend to give the nod to Caesar over Hannibal.  Caesar proved his brilliance in many tactical situations and against many opponents.  The Helvetti, Belgae, Suebi and fellow Roman all proved their own unique tactial challenges.  The siege of Alesia stands as one of the most brilliant tactical victories in the history of warfare.  Hannibal never had to face such differing opposition. His opponents fought in similar style throughout.  His one engagement against a competent Roman at Zama, unfortanetly never gave us a better picture however, as he was stuck with mainly raw recruits and without his vaunted cavalry.

 

 

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.