Best ancient generals

[Valens]

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.

I would tend to disagree. At least, I would disagree that he isn't underrated in comparison to Justinian's other Iron General, Narses.

 

I think Narses had a far better grasp on the use of infantry than Belisarius (especially in the way of using infantry as cavalry support).

[Primus Pilus]

I mean underrated in the sense that he is not a widely known name outside of those who study history. Whereas, in contrast, everyone regardless of their historical studies has at least heard of Caesar, Alexander, Hannibal, etc.

[P.Clodius]

Corbulo deserves a nod too, as does Titus.

[Iulius]

Caesar was the best General because he was great at everythign else. Caesar (unlike hannibal) was a master at siege. Alesia is a great example. Caesar was responsble for the Victory of the romans in Gaul, britannia (a stretch but i believe it), aremnia, egypt, north africa, and a small part of spain. He conquered more land than hannibal.

Caeasr also inspired his men. he fought on the field next to them, dug next to htem, and ate what they ate. He was also a more powerful person. He had an overwhelming personality, great at everything he ever did exept stay faithful to his wife.

While maneuvering on the battlefields he fought in the political arena as well.

Many of the troops Hannibal faced were also new recruits. I doubt Rome had 750,000 veterans. But stil it is a lot. Hannibal should have realized the 50000 agaisnt 750000 was not very promising.

I might agree that haniba was betterthan caesar if hannibla had won. Winning is what adds great the the term "great general".

[Guest BoaEssa]

It's my opinion about who is the best: Hannibal or Caesar!

 

In my humble opinion I guess that both were great generals. However, Hannibal had always the most significant disadvantages. I'm not talking about the level of enemies or armies that they defeated but about the type of own soldiers that the two generals had to deal with. Caeser always had the support of an army that had a lot of years of formation and experience since the rise of rome as an empire. The army of Caeser was already very well consolidated with each kind of units with their "jobs" well defined. And at the time of Caeser the roman army was the powerfull army of the world. Each soldier knew exactly what he need to do in battle. In opposition, the Carthaginian at the time of Hannibal were recognized mainly by its success in trade goods with other civilization and by its powerfull navy not army. They even had not an regular army. An to make the things worst , Hannibal were recruiting different kinds of troops along his journey to the Italy. The Hannibal army was a mixture of several types of soldiers. The ability to coordinate an heterogenous army that generally speaks different language and act and live in a different manner that Hannibal used to live is really much more difficult. Then, in spite of ability of their enemies, the real talent of a general is not measure only by the size of the enemy army or the competence of the enemy general but also the ability do deal with different situation with different type of soldiers and to know how to make them to obey and to organize themselves according with the desire of a general.

[Guest rebra]

I believe that the 5 greatest ancient generals were in order:

Gaius Julius Caesar

Alexander The Great

Trajan

Scipio Africanus

Aetius

[Flavius Belisario]

Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon "the Great"

Scipio Africanus Major

Hannibal Barca

Flavius Belisario

Gaius Julius Caesar

[Guest BoaEssa]

In my opinion the five greates anscient generals were:

 

Alexander Magnus The great;

Hannibal Barca

Gaius Julius Cesar

Scipio Africanus

Trajan

[Guest Viatamin_M]

1.alexander the great.

2.julius ceasar

3.Scipio Africanus

4.hannibal

5.Sulla. one of his best quotes i think...( it is unfortunate that it took the death of 160,000 of your men to remind you of our friendship.) Sulla rocks

 

As far as the question asked earlier of atilla. he was a good general. you have to be in order to keep 300,000 to 700,000 blood thirst barbarians in line. but in my opinion he is far over rated. rome at this point in time was only 3 inches from hitting the ground. and the army was alot smaller. not to mention poorly trained, armored, lacked discipline, and lacked most importantly...ROMANS!!! romans during the decline of their empire didnt even join their own army. it was mostly made up of subjugated tribes they conqured. how serious do you think theyll take this position? the only armour they had was a helmet, a tunic, and trousers. thats it. the franks and the visigoths were the true rulers outside of rome so really it was barbarian vs barbarian. atilla really didnt really apply any mind boggeling tactics. he had a huge mobile army. he said charge, they obeyed, thats it. i will give aetius credit for his victory at catalaunian plains given the piss poor conditions. but the scourge of god i think gets too much credit. rome was allready in ruin. when atilla planned to besiege the city rome after his defeat, aetius didnt initiate the slightest counter against him. though some say this was over political reasons. and when atilla took a good look at rome... he withdrew practicaly saying what a waste of time. if the attila were to face up against the early imperial army... he would not have been so successful. infact there probably wouldnt have even been a war.

 

by the way.... hi im new. i really like this site and the group involved with it.

[Tobias]

Here is my list:

1. Gaius Julius Caesar

2. Alexander the Great

3. Hannibal

4. Gaius Marius

5.Scipio Africanus

As far as Attila was concerned, being the one-eyed Roman history buff i am, i'd like to think he wasn't a Roman general, but it's hard to forget that he was appointed Magister Militum and payed tribute by making it look like his Salary lol.

It must be said for Caesar, surely Alesia wasn't a walk in the park? Something that any person could do?

[Segestan]

A. Alexander the Great

B.Scipio

C. Marcus Aurelias

D. Julius Ceasar

E. Antipater of Macedon

 

 

Viatamin M......."atilla really didnt really apply any mind boggeling tactics. he had a huge mobile army. he said charge, they obeyed, thats it."

 

The huns had one Very Big tactic....stirups. They were able to stand-up on the saddle and fire. Prior to this the saddle had no stirup. The mass of calvary with a superior means of horse mounted warfare led the Huns all the way to Gaul and Rome.

 

Your Right that Rome was already in decline. A democracy is in other words a multi-cultural communist state. The Republic a far better political tool for holding that culture that was ..Roman.

Analysis;Ceasar crossing the Rubicon brought the beginning of the end of what was ..Roman.

Aurelius was a true stoic and leader. A Roman who was ruling in an Communist state; it acting as if a fledgling Democracy.

Liberty can force the abolishment of culture if one culture demands liberty in a Democracy. The perfect Communist is without culture or heritage. A true internationalist. The expansion of Rome brought Democracy and Internationalism to Rome...aka..Communism.

Alexander the Great was the best overall leader.

Howevere his own attempt at multi-culturalism saw his empires decayt from within.

 

Antipater was the Regent of Macedon by the Power of Philip II. A general who held the Northern frontiers and policed a rebel land of Hellenic City states.

 

regards,

 

regards,

[Northern Neil]

...What, not one mention of Julian??!

[Germanicus Nero]

I'd suggest rethinking your list if Africanus isn't on it.

 

Hannibal had tactics but ask Mago about the rest, and on top of that what seasoned veteran army did he beat?

 

 

Alexander

Scipio

Caesar

Pyrrhus

Hannibal

Philip of Macedon

Seleucus

Pompey

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

My order would have to be:

Gaius Julius Caeser

Hannibal

Scipio Africanus

Alexander the Great

Gaius Marius

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

Marcus Aurelias???

seiriously what great accomplishments did he achieve i mean i would put Cornelius Sulla before Marcus