Primus Pilus Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 I agree that Cannae stands far above Pharsalus. I guess, despite there being no question to Hannibal's greatness.... In the end... Alexander didnt lose. He died. Caesar didn't lose, he was assassinated. Scipio didn't lose, he was politically disgraced. Hannibal won many victories, but lost in the end, both for Carthage and for Seleucia (though his role was minor). That doesn't take away from his ability, I just view the entire package as a piece of the overall picture. Had Hannibal truly 'beaten' the Romans, then he would stand far above all in the history of warfare. Had Hannibal known when to force the Romans to peace, he would've extended the life of Carthage, perhaps as much as another few generations. By the time he really tried, the Romans knew he couldn't beat them, even though they couldn't beat him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dy-nasty Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 I agree that Cannae stands far above Pharsalus. I guess, despite there being no question to Hannibal's greatness.... In the end... Alexander didnt lose. He died. Caesar didn't lose, he was assassinated. Scipio didn't lose, he was politically disgraced. Hannibal won many victories, but lost in the end, both for Carthage and for Seleucia (though his role was minor). That doesn't take away from his ability, I just view the entire package as a piece of the overall picture. Had Hannibal truly 'beaten' the Romans, then he would stand far above all in the history of warfare. Had Hannibal known when to force the Romans to peace, he would've extended the life of Carthage, perhaps as much as another few generations. By the time he really tried, the Romans knew he couldn't beat them, even though they couldn't beat him. 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rand Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 I would say Julius Caesar was the best general, his men loved him, and he never lost a battle according to Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, a Roman Historian. Alexander the Great would come next, mainly because he conquered most of the world. Then, Hannibal, who in some peoples eyes was the greatest because he trained from childhood and won many great battles, one of those destroyed one of Rome's greatest armies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valens Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 I agree that Cannae stands far above Pharsalus. I guess, despite there being no question to Hannibal's greatness.... In the end... Alexander didnt lose. He died. Caesar didn't lose, he was assassinated. Scipio didn't lose, he was politically disgraced. Hannibal won many victories, but lost in the end, both for Carthage and for Seleucia (though his role was minor). That doesn't take away from his ability, I just view the entire package as a piece of the overall picture. Had Hannibal truly 'beaten' the Romans, then he would stand far above all in the history of warfare. Had Hannibal known when to force the Romans to peace, he would've extended the life of Carthage, perhaps as much as another few generations. By the time he really tried, the Romans knew he couldn't beat them, even though they couldn't beat him. 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) Nah, Philip II has got to make his way on this list somehow. He was certainly every bit the tactician his son was, and was without a doubt the greater military reformer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted October 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Im back to shed some light on the reasons why caesar was better than hannibal. first of all, yes hannibal was outnumbered but nothing to what caesar faced. Even though the roman army hannibal faced was more organized the gauls had enourmous numbers and Vercingertorix was a very a able commander and against the typical throw away lives roman general, with exceptions to Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Lucullus, and the new age generals to say, vercingetorix would have won a resounding victory over the roman armies. And mind you that during the time of Hannibal it was only a hundred years or so after the roman conquest of Italy and the Saminite wars, which Carahae, spelling, was very close to, so there was a possiblity of dissention in the ranks. Also it was before the Marius reforms and only the patriicans, and those who could afford to buy military equipment, were in the army as well as members of the Italian League who commonly sent armies to assist rome. In conclusion, a poet, whose name slips my mind as so many things do, made a great remark about Hannibal " Hannibal knew how to get a victory, but not how to use it." Caesar knew how to beat you and how to treat you afterwards, clemency during Italian Civil War with pompeius and how to handle the beaten Gauls. hannibal had rome defenseless, but didn't attack, then a patrician stepped up, you might of heard of him Scipio Africanus and he shadowed hannibal and eventually defeated him at the battle of Zama. In the end Hannibal commited suicide to avoid humilation and acceptance of defeat instead of becoming a prisioner, whereas Caesar was assisinated on that fine March day in the year 44 BC because his glory overshadowed everyone else in roman history, oh and the whole taking over the republic thing had something to do with it. Also Caesar made people commit sucide due to defeat, Cato and example, whereas Hannibal was the one commiting suicide. Point Made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetorian Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 The quote was said by Maharbal. If i am correct he was a carthaginian cavalry commander who said this to Hannibal when he refused to march on Rome after the battle of Cannae You know how to win victory, Hannibal, you do not how to use it [Lat., Vincere scis, Hannibal; victoria uti nescis.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 My list...non-alphabetatically Hannibal, Spartacus, Alexander The Great, Achillies (He may have been mythical...), Hector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Octavius Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 here : Gaius Julius Caesar , Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa , Gaius Julius Octavius ( Augustus - may be not on the battlefield but he is a great man) . Marcus Ulpius Trajanus .. Hmm i agree with most of names in post here , but i love them more.. p.s - Lucius Cornelius Sulla - hah what do you thing What a name wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 hi guys,which general most inspired his men,ill vote for edward the third.at the battle of Grecy he was out numbered 25000 french to 8000 english and he destroyed them annialating the french aristocracy.a commander who fights in the front line with his men must get more loyalty than stratergists who keep out of the ruff stuff. my un educated opinion.lol..longbow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I think that Edward III falls outside of Ancient generals. Crecy is one of the great victories of Medieval times though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maximus Decimus Meridius Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 In Order the greatest generals of the ancient world 1. Julius Caesar 2. Flavius Aetius ( Defeated Attila the Hun ) 3. Alexander III of Macedon ( Alexander the Great ) 4. Hannibal 5. Scipio Africanus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 I admit I do not know much about Attila the Hun, but I was under the impression that he was a fairly good general. Anyone have any comments on him? Really all I know about him is the way he struck fear into the hearts of Romans and Barbarians alike and that he did end up conquering a lot of land before he was killed. Also, this might be a little past your time period, but you cant forget Genghis Khan and also Saladin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 I find it hard to understand why anyone would place Hannibal above P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus! Scipio ran rampant in Spain checkmating the Carthaginians at every encounter with inferior in number forces. He showed his flexibility as a commander by taking Nova Carthago by seige warfare, then defeating Hasdrubal at Illipa in a brilliant manouver. Then he paid Hannibal the compliment by beating him with his own tactics at Zama. Hannibal was a great general, no doubt. But he seems to have been left wanting in the intelligence department for he seriously underestimated just who he was up against. I can just imagine what went through his mind when he received the response to his demands from Rome after Cannae. "WHOOPS" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belisarius Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I believe Belisarius is not focused on enough due to lack of interest in Byzantine history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 If not for Justinian's jealousy, Belisarius may very well have re-established a lasting reformation of the Empire in the west. Or maybe not, still, he definately gets a nod as one of hte most underated military historical figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.