Great Commanders in History
- Thread starter fieldmarshal
- Start date
- Status
Excuse me ,but you are very very very wrong.First of all Kemal didn't win all allies.During 1919-1922,Kemal manage to defeat Greeks and capture the Greek Minor Asia and Greek cities like Smyrni and Ephesos(Owned by Greece after ww1),because the political climate in Greece was very bad and because Italy helped Kemal by arming his soldiers,because they thought G.Britain was using Greece and they surely didn't want this to happen...
Lujan AusMUR
New Member
So hard to say...
Alex for his efforts in his known world, Ceasars for their invisioned rome not as a point of time but as eternity the perfect unison, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hannibal, Philip, Kahn, Rommel, Kennedy, the AXIS & the allies, Nepoleon, cold war, communism, fascism, dictators, maoists, machiavelli(the prince), sun ztu(art of war), cao cao, three kindoms, liu bei, zhang fei, guan liu... even the latest Vlad sseppish who become vlad the impalar our as you may know him as Dracula count of Rommania!
so many men, that became soldiers, then leaders, then titans, then in some even the gods couldnt stop them, even became god themselves!!!!
All were great in there own time, in there own known world, own knowledge... all great amazing men! Titans! All i aspire to to be and become men among men and men of men and all that all i can be and more so all i want to be!
I and proud to be human even in all the blood! for better or for worst they were none the lest great that aspired and done amazing and great things. But of course the slaughter of men is never an aspiration or feat or in any way at all applaudable, BUT, is life. "We men are wretched things"
in the end i vote for all that support and are of use to me at the current time, always valueing the work of them all... for the knowledge they had given me and the use of it that i am able to get.
"Grieve not that such men died. Rather thank God that such men Lived!"
Alex for his efforts in his known world, Ceasars for their invisioned rome not as a point of time but as eternity the perfect unison, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hannibal, Philip, Kahn, Rommel, Kennedy, the AXIS & the allies, Nepoleon, cold war, communism, fascism, dictators, maoists, machiavelli(the prince), sun ztu(art of war), cao cao, three kindoms, liu bei, zhang fei, guan liu... even the latest Vlad sseppish who become vlad the impalar our as you may know him as Dracula count of Rommania!
so many men, that became soldiers, then leaders, then titans, then in some even the gods couldnt stop them, even became god themselves!!!!
All were great in there own time, in there own known world, own knowledge... all great amazing men! Titans! All i aspire to to be and become men among men and men of men and all that all i can be and more so all i want to be!
I and proud to be human even in all the blood! for better or for worst they were none the lest great that aspired and done amazing and great things. But of course the slaughter of men is never an aspiration or feat or in any way at all applaudable, BUT, is life. "We men are wretched things"
in the end i vote for all that support and are of use to me at the current time, always valueing the work of them all... for the knowledge they had given me and the use of it that i am able to get.
"Grieve not that such men died. Rather thank God that such men Lived!"
merocaine said:
Napoleon is joined only by Alexander and Hannibal as true great commanders. What sets these three apart is their ability to win the "stunning victory" the one that they weren't supposed to win. Napoleon finest victory was at Austerlitz but he also won spectacular victories at Dresden and Ulm, and many others. Napoleon's victories were stunning but Alexander and Hannibal's were even more impressive. Alexander routed the Persians at Granicus and Issus, but his greatest feat was Gaugamela. At Gaugamela Alexander was outnumbered 5 to 1 and he still won in spectacular fashon using brilliant tactics. Hannibal managed to cross the Alps then beat the Romans 4 times. He beat them in a skirmish at Ticinus, used brilliant tactics at Trebia, and managed to lure the Romans into an ambush at Trasimine. However, Cannae was where possibly the most impressive victory in history took place. Hannibal was outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 but managed to surround the Romans using brilliant tactics in the first double envelopment. At Cannae Hannibal's army killed 70,000 Romans including decimating the Roman nobility. He did this all within one day making it the bloodiest single day in history. Carthage's refusal to reinforce Hannibal cost them their existance. Had Hannibal recieved reinforcments and siege equipment following Cannae he could've taken Rome and western civilization may have been different. It is in my opinion that Hannibal was the greatest commander in history
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
What about Scipio Africanas? The tremendous skill he showed in defeating 3 armies each larger than his own (his was about 40 000, 2 consular armies of 4 legions and 4 ala), with fresh, green troops during the second punic war. His tactical brilliance during the seige of New Carthage, sacking a well fortified city with enemy reinforcements that outnumbered his own army only days march away. He took the walls within a week, an allmost unheard of feat in the ancient world. After defeating all of the Barca family in spain and their spanish allies, who constantly outnumbered Scipio by as many as 3 to 1, he secured the iberian peninsular, gaining manny spanish allies and cuting of any hope of reinforcements getting through to Hannibal due to roman domination of the Mediterrainian scine the first punic war. Scipio's great victories in spain were the second turning point of the war. After Cannae hannibal had been marching around southern Italy for years, as the war there became one of seige and maneuver and it was clear that nothing decicive could come of it. After the punic defeats in spain, Scipio (the only roman who had won a major victory, let alone victory's this impressive) was chosen to lead the invasion of africa. This drew Hannibal, and his battle hardened veterans of cannea and Trazimene, into the final battle at Zama, where through original tactics, like changing the Triplex Aces formation, negating the punic cavalry and a devestating blow to the center the 'greatest commander in history' was running for the hills while his battle hardned veterans where put to the sword.fylr71 said:Napoleon is joined only by Alexander and Hannibal as true great commanders. What sets these three apart is their ability to win the "stunning victory" the one that they weren't supposed to win. Napoleon finest victory was at Austerlitz but he also won spectacular victories at Dresden and Ulm, and many others. Napoleon's victories were stunning but Alexander and Hannibal's were even more impressive. Alexander routed the Persians at Granicus and Issus, but his greatest feat was Gaugamela. At Gaugamela Alexander was outnumbered 5 to 1 and he still won in spectacular fashon using brilliant tactics. Hannibal managed to cross the Alps then beat the Romans 4 times. He beat them in a skirmish at Ticinus, used brilliant tactics at Trebia, and managed to lure the Romans into an ambush at Trasimine. However, Cannae was where possibly the most impressive victory in history took place. Hannibal was outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 but managed to surround the Romans using brilliant tactics in the first double envelopment. At Cannae Hannibal's army killed 70,000 Romans including decimating the Roman nobility. He did this all within one day making it the bloodiest single day in history. Carthage's refusal to reinforce Hannibal cost them their existance. Had Hannibal recieved reinforcments and siege equipment following Cannae he could've taken Rome and western civilization may have been different. It is in my opinion that Hannibal was the greatest commander in history
In my mind Scipio has to be in the top 5 and i really cant say who's the greatest out of those 5.
To be honnest i have to question how good Hannibal really was. Ok, his two great victories at Lake Trazamine and Cannea showed brilliant tactics and planning on hanibals part, but also the truely oustanding army he led. To stay in cover while the whole roman collum marched by, without making a noise or breaking showed dicipline that was verry rare in before the professional roman army. The doulble envelopment that decemated the largest army rome had ever fielded was only possible due to the Lybian spearmen, the best single unit of infantry in the world IMHO. I guess a commander is only as good as his men are capable. But this highlights Scipio's victories, Hanibals troops had fought under him for years in spain long before they marched on Italy. Scipio won brilliant victories with a conscript army that he moulded into an awesome fighting force in a matter of months. Hanibals victories showed a true tactical genius, but his oponents were less than equal. The armys he faced at Trazimene and Cannea were conscript armies who had not seen action, and their commanders were not by any means tactical geniuses. For me the true test of a great commander is only against a worthy oponent. Many great commanders who won great victories like Romell or Pompe the Great won those victories by exploiting enemy weakness, even against larger armys. Romells victory at Gazala was a close run thing and his reckless advance allmost ended in catastrophy, it was only british incompetence that led to victory. After Montgomery took comand of the 8th army Romell never won another battle. Like Montgomery to Romell or Ceaser or Sertorious to Pompe, Hanibals limitations were shown clearly whan he faced Scipio. So personally i dont think he deserves the no 1 spot.
By the way i dont think hannibal ever had a chance of taking Rome, seige equipment or not. Rome was well fortified, had a poulation of over a million and would never have capitulated. If Hanibals army got over the walls it would have been cut to peices in day after day of street fighting. But he probably wouldnt have gotten over the walls for months untill someone defected and betrayed the romans (this was quite common) or starved the city out, but that sword cut both ways. Italian farmers were allready burning their crops and hannibal had to constantly move around southern italy to find fodder and feed. To invest a city like rome, with no supplies from carthage due to roman naval superiority, hanibals army would have been decimated by disease and hunger long before the city was. This is why hanibal decided that rome was more than he could chew.
Ok I'm going to stick up for Hannibal here. Just a few points.
Hannibals army was a Mersenary army.
They fought for money, not glory or land or the Honour of Cartage. How he convinced them to cross the Alps is behond me, and to fight for all that time against army after army, as hope of relief dwindled, is to my mind a feat of Generalship that is unsurpassed.
Those Green troops(!) as you call the Legionaries in spain were part of the finest military machine of the ancient world. They were fighting the enemies that they routinely chewed up, lightly armed tribesmen for the most part, of negible devotion to the Cartagen cause.
This is not to disparage Scripio, an excellent commander, but his human material was far supierior to his enemies.
Rome could afford to lose Legion after Legion (and did) while Cartage could'ent afford to lose there main force, when they were beaten (Zama) there was no reserve.
Hannibal kept Cartage in the game, when he was beaten it was game over. Scripio could have been killed, the would have been a new Scripio in months,
at the head of a new Legion landing in Africa.
Your Rommel V Monty example is a bit disengenious. Look at the Comparison between troop figures during the major battles and there could have been only one winner. Its like saying Grant was a better General than Lee, because he had more supplys, troops, arti, and a larger economy backing him.
What Hannibal, Rommell, and Lee had in common (besides being on the losing side!) was they could'ent afford to lose once, there opponents could and did.
Hannibal has inspired commanders to the present day because of his tactics and i suppose, imagination. With Hannibal, his legacy is all the more impressive because who he was fighting.
One other thing, there were 12 different languages in Hanibals army, to command in battle must have been a nightmare!
Hannibals army was a Mersenary army.
They fought for money, not glory or land or the Honour of Cartage. How he convinced them to cross the Alps is behond me, and to fight for all that time against army after army, as hope of relief dwindled, is to my mind a feat of Generalship that is unsurpassed.
Those Green troops(!) as you call the Legionaries in spain were part of the finest military machine of the ancient world. They were fighting the enemies that they routinely chewed up, lightly armed tribesmen for the most part, of negible devotion to the Cartagen cause.
This is not to disparage Scripio, an excellent commander, but his human material was far supierior to his enemies.
Rome could afford to lose Legion after Legion (and did) while Cartage could'ent afford to lose there main force, when they were beaten (Zama) there was no reserve.
Hannibal kept Cartage in the game, when he was beaten it was game over. Scripio could have been killed, the would have been a new Scripio in months,
at the head of a new Legion landing in Africa.
Your Rommel V Monty example is a bit disengenious. Look at the Comparison between troop figures during the major battles and there could have been only one winner. Its like saying Grant was a better General than Lee, because he had more supplys, troops, arti, and a larger economy backing him.
What Hannibal, Rommell, and Lee had in common (besides being on the losing side!) was they could'ent afford to lose once, there opponents could and did.
Hannibal has inspired commanders to the present day because of his tactics and i suppose, imagination. With Hannibal, his legacy is all the more impressive because who he was fighting.
One other thing, there were 12 different languages in Hanibals army, to command in battle must have been a nightmare!
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Old Blood and Guts
Well if you think lack of support is influential in stopping great commanders from being truly awesome, how can you go past General George S. Patton, especially from accounts taken from himself he believed he was Hannibal, his chances at greatness were superceded by political motivations etc, all of his campaigns were fought in good fashion and remained undefeated.
Well if you think lack of support is influential in stopping great commanders from being truly awesome, how can you go past General George S. Patton, especially from accounts taken from himself he believed he was Hannibal, his chances at greatness were superceded by political motivations etc, all of his campaigns were fought in good fashion and remained undefeated.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Candidates?
Tactically, Napolean has got to be one. Winning a battle of Ulm without firing a shot. Too bad he lost the war.
Next closest is Nobunaga (guy who almost unified Japan). Vs Imagawa several times its size (just struck at the centre & killed the guy). Too bad he got assassinated before unification of Japan.
Strategically, Gandhi has got to be the ultimate. Winning a war of independence without even carrying a gun.
Candidates?
Tactically, Napolean has got to be one. Winning a battle of Ulm without firing a shot. Too bad he lost the war.
Next closest is Nobunaga (guy who almost unified Japan). Vs Imagawa several times its size (just struck at the centre & killed the guy). Too bad he got assassinated before unification of Japan.
Strategically, Gandhi has got to be the ultimate. Winning a war of independence without even carrying a gun.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
merocaine said:
I'll have to dissagree with you on the Romell v Montgommery. Aukinleck also had material superiority, but he still lost. Ok The allies had the advantage but it was by no means pre determined that Romell was going to loose. I've heard that argument before and i really dont agree.
But you're right it was a bad example of what i was trying to say. A better example is Pompe the Great. Pompe was reguarded as romes greatest general in the last half of the 1st century AD by his peers and was undoutably an outstanding commander. He had led troops on the field scine he was 20 in romes first civil war in 88bc. He was a verry skilled tactition and was equally skilled in logistics, was carismatic and cared for and inspired his men. He was a diciplened trainer and was used novell tactics. All the hallmarks of a truely great general. His operation against cillition pirates showed just how well he could command land and naval forces over a large area of operation with anchient comunications (ok he had massive rescources but a lesser man would not have been up to the task). His invasion and conquest of armenia and pontus was more impressive. His army of 6 legions (about 40 000 men including auxillaries) defeated a combined pontic and armeanian army of over 100 000. To be fair his legions were much better than those at cannae and the roman army had evolved much over the past century, and the lightly armed eastern troops were cut down by roman heavy infantry. But it was brilliant tactics that won the day. But theres a difference between a great commander and one of the greatest in history. However brilliant pompe was only twice was he confronted by a commander who was his equal. in the first civil war in 88bc, the young pompe marched an army to spain to confront Gius Marrius and his general Sertoroius who had set up annother sennate. the young pompe outnumbered Sertorious by 2 to 1 but was outmanuvered and out fought by, IMHO, one of the three best roman commanders ever. ok he was 20 and not verry experianced, understandable. But in the 2nd civil war in 44 bc he faced Julius Ceaser. When they met on the battlefield in Greece, Pompe had a a 2 to 1 superiority in infantry and more importantly 3 to 1 in cavalry (often the decicive arm in manny ancient battles). But again was outmanuvered by the better man. Pompe was truely a great general but he failed the final test. A battle against a worthy foe when he held the advantage.
Much of the same could be said about hannibal. I'm not disputing his tactical genius or his amazing ability to forge an army of over 20 different tribes into one of the greatest armies ever fielded. And to convince them to campain in italy for almost a decade. However brilliant and inspiring his victories at Cannae and Trazimene were, they were against an army, who might have been roman but was a long way from the professional cohort army that germanicus led. The legions at Cannea were orginized in the traditional tripplex aces with the hastati, pricipes and triarii and were all organized and equiped the in the same manner. But they were all millitia men. Peasants, farmers and land owners who had been hastily levied in the wake of the devistating defeat at Trazimene. They were in no way comperable to Hannibal's battle hardened veterans, especially in cavalry, most of whom had campaigned under hannibal for a decade. The only time Hannibal faced an army who was as good as his, under a commander who was as skilled was at Zama.
And the spanish tribesmen were no walk over, neither were the gauls, namibians or lybians. Its easy to blow them off as simple tribesmen but they were in fact formidable wariors, heavily armed, often armoured and almost a foot taller than the average roman. The roman's suffered some massive defeats at the hands of similar tribesmen in tranzalpine gaul between the 1st and 2nd punic wars loosing entire legions. So dont think Scipio's green, untiried army's victories in spain against three armies who each outnumbered his own was by any means a cakewalk. Scipio could have been anhialated at any time if he allowed his enemies to concentrate. But through outstanding generalship he took New Carthage, ran around sapin keeping his enemies dispersed and defeated them each in turn. The various tribes allegiances mostly lay on three things, the strength of a power which could only be judged by victories on the battlefield, the promise of loot, and the personal relationship between tribal leaders and either roman or punic aristocracy/commanders. The many tribal leaders in spain had verry strong personal loyalties to the Barca fafily. It was only after Scipio defeated two of the punic/allied armies in spain and took New Carthage that many of those tribal leaders saw the righting on the wall, and due to Scipio's outstanding diplomacy.
Sure carthage couldn't afford hannibal to loose, rome could afford Scipio to loose but were not comparing the war efforts of rome and carthage, or the union and confederacy, were comparing the comanders themselves and the way we all seem to be judging that is through there performance on the battlefield (we might compare strategic decisions, wich IMO is just as important but perhaps another time). Sure Carthage was allways going to loose, Scipio or not, because unlike any other anchient power, Rome saw war as a compleat contest were the looser was subjugated and therefore defeat was unaceptable at any cost. All the other mediterainian powers saw war as purely an extention of diplomacy, the objective was to get a favorable peace treaty. Nevertheless we can only judge Hannibal on his actions on the battlefield, not on the Punic war effort.
Just like Pompe, Hannibal won brilliant victories, especially at Cannea when he was outnumberd 2 to 1. These flashy and inspiring victories are well documented and everyone knows them and just like pompe, Hannibal has gained great fame (rightly deserved fame). However, just like pompe, his true test was only at Zama,(as pompe's was when he faces Ceaser) where he held the numerical advantage (just like pompe), had his battle hardened vetterans and local units, deployed elephants which were oftern devestating and was fighting on his own ground. He was defeated by the outnumbered Scipio who proved to be more than hannibals equal. hannibals victories are worthy of being studied and showed a tactical genius and a brilliant imagination. But IMHO he doesn't deserve the no 1 spot because of the simple fact that the only time he faced a commander of comperable ability, comanding an army that wasn't hastily mobilized, and was as battle hardned and trained as his, when he held several advantages (numerical superiority, elephants, fighting on his own ground, logistical advantage), he was unable to capitalise on his enemies incompetence and was soundly defeated.
For me thats the true test of a great commander, not just brilliant exploitation of enemy mistakes but the defeat of a worthy foe on similar terms. Flashy tactics oftern gain the reputation of one of the 'greatest commanders in history' but we need to look at the context of these battles, and the commanders performance in battlles where the context was on more equal terms. If you look at things this way, Romell looses his magic, and so does Hannibal, yet Napoleon, Scipio and Julius Ceasar become more impressive.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard,
I'd love to reply in detail but I'm heading away for the weekend, but I'd like to say that the above is a super post. Your knowadge of Roman warfare is pretty supurb. You have me convinced, maybe Hannibal doesent deserve the very top spot.
Still I think your being a little harsh with the Zuma battle, although I do agree in substance with what your saying. Every Commander loses a battle at some point, Hannibals crime was to loses the one he could least afford to.
Everyone makes mistakes in war, a great commander learns to exploit those mistakes and extract maximum advantage from them. Otherwise war becomes something like two computers playing x's and o's. At Zuma, Scripio seiced on Hannibals mistakes, his relyence on his heavy cavalry and war elephants. Until then no other Commander had the Imagination to see Hannibals great strenght as his weakness. Hannibal for his part under estimated his Roman opponent, and came at him exacltly as Scripio thought he would. I'll try to respond to your other points at a later date.
Anyway dude I'm going to read more about Scripio, you've piqued my couriosty!
I'd love to reply in detail but I'm heading away for the weekend, but I'd like to say that the above is a super post. Your knowadge of Roman warfare is pretty supurb. You have me convinced, maybe Hannibal doesent deserve the very top spot.
Still I think your being a little harsh with the Zuma battle, although I do agree in substance with what your saying. Every Commander loses a battle at some point, Hannibals crime was to loses the one he could least afford to.
Everyone makes mistakes in war, a great commander learns to exploit those mistakes and extract maximum advantage from them. Otherwise war becomes something like two computers playing x's and o's. At Zuma, Scripio seiced on Hannibals mistakes, his relyence on his heavy cavalry and war elephants. Until then no other Commander had the Imagination to see Hannibals great strenght as his weakness. Hannibal for his part under estimated his Roman opponent, and came at him exacltly as Scripio thought he would. I'll try to respond to your other points at a later date.
Anyway dude I'm going to read more about Scripio, you've piqued my couriosty!
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Merocaine: Thanx man i've got a real fetish for anchient warfare, anything roman in particular!:cheers
Two of the best books i've ever read on roman military history are:
The Punic Wars & In the Name of Rome
By Adrian Goldsworthy.
I couldn't put these down (but i allmost c*m when ICEASAR's on so they may not be for everybody) i'm after his new one Cannae. So if you want a really factual read that isn't F**king painfull to read, jump on these.
You may be right dude I might be being to hard on Hannibal, i mean he haddent fought a major battle in allmost a decade and he may not have been the man he once was (like Napoleon at Waterloo). But the question of "who is the greatest comander' is a tough one to answer, and if we're comparing the men themselves, each of them exellent in there own way we have to be tough.
Two of the best books i've ever read on roman military history are:
The Punic Wars & In the Name of Rome
By Adrian Goldsworthy.
I couldn't put these down (but i allmost c*m when ICEASAR's on so they may not be for everybody) i'm after his new one Cannae. So if you want a really factual read that isn't F**king painfull to read, jump on these.
You may be right dude I might be being to hard on Hannibal, i mean he haddent fought a major battle in allmost a decade and he may not have been the man he once was (like Napoleon at Waterloo). But the question of "who is the greatest comander' is a tough one to answer, and if we're comparing the men themselves, each of them exellent in there own way we have to be tough.
Last edited:
I agree with you there 100%. I believe it was Polybius who wrote that some time after Hannibal had fled from Carthage he met with Scipio Africanus. During their discussion Scipio asked Hannibal to rate the best commanders in history. Hannibal ranked Alexander first, followed by Pyrus of Ephisus (I don't know why) second, and then himself third. Supposedly at this point Scipio began to laugh and said something to the effect of "And where would you have ranked yourself had you beaten me?"
Regarding the Lybian Spearmen, they were mercenaries just like the rest of Hannibal's army maybe they had better training or something but they were certainly inferior to the Roman Legionaires. I am however interested as to where you found out the information on the Lybian spearmen as information on the specifics of Hannibal's contingents are hard to come by.
The Roman army of the time was not really a conscript army. People would sign on for the duration of the campaign. These people would recieve intensive training and man for man the Roman legonaire even before the reforms of Marius was the best infantry in the world with the possible exception of some the renowned ancient units. (Sacred Band??)
The army Hannibal had to face Scipio was militia form Carthage along with what was left of his veterans. The Carthaginian soldier on that day was far inferior to his Roman counterpart except for Hannibal's veterans which constitiuted less then one third of his troops. Hannibal's Numidian cavalry also defected to Scipio's side depriving him of one of his most potent weapons. There is also a belief that Hannibal was mentally exhausted at the time of Zama. I personally believe that the vigor and lust for vistory that he showed at Cannae had left him. He felt abandoned by Carthage. Very few men can endure 15 straight years of fighting without any support form their homeland.
Also, Hannibal was so good that the Roman's would not face him on the open battlefield. Very few commanders can say that the enemy would not face them. In addition, Hannibal gave us the tactic by which the the armies of today live by: The double envelopment. The most recent successful use was in desert storm
I agree Hannibal at that time probably couldn't have taken Rome. However if he recieved massive reinforcements and was able to lay siege to Rome for a long time, he might've been able to secure a peace favourable to Carthage.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
flyr71:
I read that too. It was when they were both waiting to see the king of the Selucid empire. Everyone seemed to think the world of Phyrus. He obviosly showed some impressive generalship fighting the romans in southern Italy. Its just too bad that there are no accounts of his battles, it seems that before the first punic war there is virtually no roman writen history, from the time anyway. Apparantly Hannibal was talking to someone else when they asked him who he thought were the best generals. After Scipio asked him where he would have placed himself if he had beaten Scipio, hannibal replied "the greatest", rather diplomatically.
Re Lybian Spearmen. Let me clear something up, when i said they were the best in the world i meant at the time. And yes they were mecenaries, but as soon as people hear that word, images of some rag bag bunch of cuthroughts who would slit there commanders throught if someone paid them enough seem to appear, but that doesnt seem to be the case at all. Hannibals, and in fact most punic armies were multicultural, composed of african, spanish and gaulic allies and mersenaries, with few carthaginians (carthage's power lay in massive wealth from trade, not from manpower). And most of these armies performed admirably through two punic wars and the conquest of spain, often under extreem hardship, so just because their motives seemed to be different, doesnt mean that they were somehow beneath a roman legionary. And because they were "mercenaries" also ment that they were professional soldiers and undouptably had years of training and a wealth of experiance. In fact most legionaries of the time were motivated by the massive wealth that could come from victory, loot made many a peasant a wealthy land owner. So really calling them mercenaries is just semantics, since most allied troops and roman soldiers had the exact same motivation, wealth. Forget the "glory of rome" BS. Sure many of the aristocracy may have been verry patriotic (and the fact that sucsessfull millitary service was a pre requisite for any career in politics couldn't hurt either) but i'm not sure that the average Capuan cared enough about roman glory to spill his blood.
And i think you missunderstood me. In general terms the roman legionary may have been the best type of soldier, ie compared to hoplites, swordsman ect. Although legionary isn't really an acurate word to use. An average legion in the manipular roman army was comprised of units of hastati, pricipes, triarii, vrilites and cavalry, all equiped and trained in different ways. But if you look at pricipes for example, equiped with a large square shield, gladius, three pila and chainmail armour, this in itself was not unique. Several other mediterainian powers equiped their soldiers to a similar standared. Macedonian, Selucid and Ptolemaic Egyptian armies all equiped their units with armour, spears, round shields and short swords, (ok they all used a variation of the hoplite, but the point is that all thier main units were equiped to the same standard). And all of these nations gave their soldiers intencive training. In fact the Macedonian army that faced the legions in the third macedonian war in 168bc was a professional force, and undoubtably much better trained than the legions facing them. (they were cut to shreds however, since manny of the tribunes, centurians and generals facing them were veterens of the second punic war, and they were a shadow of their ansesters who conquered persia, especially in cavalry.)
I agree that the legion itself was the best unit in the world. Using the triplex aces formation gave them flexibility and increadible staying power, much more than the average hoplite line. However i wasnt talking about unit types but the individual units themselves. Like the 1st U.S. division, the hemon goering division or napolean's imperial guard. Roman training could not build unit cohesian, improve morall, grant experiance in campaigning, improve familiarity with commanders, build comradship, and immunise the average soldier to the awefull blood and gore of anchient battlefields (or blooding), that years of campaigning and manny victorious battles could. There was no single century, maniple, legion or army that compared to the lybian spearmen, or hannibal's army in general, roman training and equipment or not, maybe with the exeption of scipio's.
The reason i consider the lybian spearman the best single unit in the world in 216BC was the part they played in the battle of Cannea. Reading Adrian Goldsworthy's work he puts forward an interesting theory about Cannae. Instead of the story we all know: a convex formation with the gaulic units in the centre, his spanish and micelanious units on either side, the lybian spearman on the flanks and cavalry on the extreem flanks, numidian on one flank, gaulic on the other. So when the roman attack came in the center the convex line slowly bent arround the roman center into a concave formation, slowly eveloping the roman army while the cavalry attacked from behind. Goldsworthy's theory is that hannibles formation was not a convex line, but actually shaped like the letter U, with the bottom of the U facing the roman line. The same convex line with the gauls in the middle spanish and other units on the flanks a little further back. But the 11 000 odd Lybian spearman were deployed in two lines running at 90 degre angles from the flanks making up the sides of the U. So the gaullic units absorbed the brunt of the roman attack and were slowly pushed back. When they finaly broke, the roman line had degraded into an uncontrolable morass. As the legions persued the gauls, the lybians turned and marched toward the romans, closing the vice. This theory makes scence to me for several reasons. At terbia, hannibal used similar tactics to deal with the inevitable roman attack in the centre, pushing the roman flanks back unsing a double invelopment. However at terbia, 2 roman legions cut their way threw the center to safety. And at terbia Hanibal only faced 4 legions and 4 ala, not 8 legions and 8 ala, yet the centre held all day at Cannae??? Also it would be difficult for the punic line to bend around the roman line and fully envelope two sides while they were enguaged. the U formation seems to fit the facts better. So for the thin line of Lybian spearmen, who showed dicipline worthy of the grande arme, to hold as their comrades broke, turn and attack in line without charging and, hold and slowly slaughter a massive roman army was a feat that no other single infantry unit could have accomplished in 216BC IMHO.
RE Zama.
Your right Hanibals army was not the same one that took the field at Cannae. However he did have several advantages over scipio, outlined in my previous post (numerical advantage, logistical advantage, fighting on his own ground, advantage in cavalry and elephants). And Zama was the only time Hannibal faced an opponant when he did not have a massive advantage as a tactition, or in the quallity of his army. All the army's that faced Hannibal before Zama may have been roman, and therefore trained and equiped as romans, but they were no where near as capable. Every punic army was a hodge podge diferent tribal allies and mercenaries serving under punic aristocracy, and therefore every one was different. Hannibals was a freak of sorts. A truely outsanding commander rivaled only by the likes of Napoleon Bonapart, Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great, (and of corse Scipio) some individal units that were the best around, like the Gaulic swordsman, lybian spearman and numidian cavalry, exelent junior commanders and an incredible cohesian and skill that would only be surpassed by the professional roman army. The army's he faced in italy (your right they weren't conscrips, i guess i got a bit carried away) were not professional soldiers, they were citizens, farmers, peasants and land owners. They may have served in the legions, and therefore have all the mistique that goes with it. But that doesnt make them exellent soldiers. Their operational doctorine and equipment may have been exellent but they still didnt compare to Hannibals battle hardened veterans.
Sure hannibal may have not been the man he was in 216BC. No commander is perfect and they all make mistakes. But we are talking about the Greatest commander in history. And in my above post i was originally disputing the statement that Hannibal was number 1 on the list. There are several reasons behind this argument, manny have been stated above.
No1. The fact that most people base their admiration for Hannibal on his victories in the early part of the 2nd punic war such as Trazamine and Cannae, however the opponants he faced in these battles were not his equals, commanders or the armies themselves, even if they did numerical advantage. The only time he faced a commander with a tactical genius close to his, with an army that was as good as his was at Zama and he was soundly defeated, even when he had several advantages.
No2. Hannibals strategic decissions were truely tragic. He initiated the 2nd punic war when he attacked the city of Massila on the northen spanish mediterainian coast, with the intention of starting a war, to avenge the humiliating defeat in the 1st punic war. His plan was to take an agressive stratagy and invade Italy (the 1st punic war was fought over sicily and most battles occured there. There was an invasion of africa, which was defeated. and there was also several large naval battles). by taking the fight to the Romans hanibal intended to defeat rome on the battlefield and seperate Rome from her allies which was the source of roman power. This would force rome to come to peace terms, and without her allies she would become a local italian power again. He knew rome herself was too togh of a nut to crack. Hannibal however, missed the mark by a country mile. He missunderstood the roman and latin psychie. Rome would never capitulate, and not one of romes latin allies defected because their culture, security and prosperity were intertwined with romes. Hannibal virtually ensured the destruction of Carthage. After the second punic war all carthaginian assets and allies that were not in the city itself were ceeded or defected to rome, and carthage's security was entrusted to rome i.e. no armed forces. And it was the terrible memory of the price that rome payed in defeating Hannibal that allowed Roman hardliners to send an army under annother Scipio (a decendent of africanus) to invest the city in the 3rd Punic war from 149/146BC. Such was the hate that hannibal instilled in the romans that when carthage fell, the entire city was raised, its population sold into slavery, every building was demolished and the "earth was salted so nothing would ever grow their again". Hannibal may have been a tactical genius but he was a strategic moron.
Hannibal was undoubtably an outstanding commander and worthy being studied. But i think we need to look through the myths and examine his victories, defeats and decissions. After I add it all up, i still, really dont think he deserves the no1 spot.
Sorry about the length of this post, i hope you didn't fall asleep reading it!!!:sleepy2
I read that too. It was when they were both waiting to see the king of the Selucid empire. Everyone seemed to think the world of Phyrus. He obviosly showed some impressive generalship fighting the romans in southern Italy. Its just too bad that there are no accounts of his battles, it seems that before the first punic war there is virtually no roman writen history, from the time anyway. Apparantly Hannibal was talking to someone else when they asked him who he thought were the best generals. After Scipio asked him where he would have placed himself if he had beaten Scipio, hannibal replied "the greatest", rather diplomatically.
Re Lybian Spearmen. Let me clear something up, when i said they were the best in the world i meant at the time. And yes they were mecenaries, but as soon as people hear that word, images of some rag bag bunch of cuthroughts who would slit there commanders throught if someone paid them enough seem to appear, but that doesnt seem to be the case at all. Hannibals, and in fact most punic armies were multicultural, composed of african, spanish and gaulic allies and mersenaries, with few carthaginians (carthage's power lay in massive wealth from trade, not from manpower). And most of these armies performed admirably through two punic wars and the conquest of spain, often under extreem hardship, so just because their motives seemed to be different, doesnt mean that they were somehow beneath a roman legionary. And because they were "mercenaries" also ment that they were professional soldiers and undouptably had years of training and a wealth of experiance. In fact most legionaries of the time were motivated by the massive wealth that could come from victory, loot made many a peasant a wealthy land owner. So really calling them mercenaries is just semantics, since most allied troops and roman soldiers had the exact same motivation, wealth. Forget the "glory of rome" BS. Sure many of the aristocracy may have been verry patriotic (and the fact that sucsessfull millitary service was a pre requisite for any career in politics couldn't hurt either) but i'm not sure that the average Capuan cared enough about roman glory to spill his blood.
And i think you missunderstood me. In general terms the roman legionary may have been the best type of soldier, ie compared to hoplites, swordsman ect. Although legionary isn't really an acurate word to use. An average legion in the manipular roman army was comprised of units of hastati, pricipes, triarii, vrilites and cavalry, all equiped and trained in different ways. But if you look at pricipes for example, equiped with a large square shield, gladius, three pila and chainmail armour, this in itself was not unique. Several other mediterainian powers equiped their soldiers to a similar standared. Macedonian, Selucid and Ptolemaic Egyptian armies all equiped their units with armour, spears, round shields and short swords, (ok they all used a variation of the hoplite, but the point is that all thier main units were equiped to the same standard). And all of these nations gave their soldiers intencive training. In fact the Macedonian army that faced the legions in the third macedonian war in 168bc was a professional force, and undoubtably much better trained than the legions facing them. (they were cut to shreds however, since manny of the tribunes, centurians and generals facing them were veterens of the second punic war, and they were a shadow of their ansesters who conquered persia, especially in cavalry.)
I agree that the legion itself was the best unit in the world. Using the triplex aces formation gave them flexibility and increadible staying power, much more than the average hoplite line. However i wasnt talking about unit types but the individual units themselves. Like the 1st U.S. division, the hemon goering division or napolean's imperial guard. Roman training could not build unit cohesian, improve morall, grant experiance in campaigning, improve familiarity with commanders, build comradship, and immunise the average soldier to the awefull blood and gore of anchient battlefields (or blooding), that years of campaigning and manny victorious battles could. There was no single century, maniple, legion or army that compared to the lybian spearmen, or hannibal's army in general, roman training and equipment or not, maybe with the exeption of scipio's.
The reason i consider the lybian spearman the best single unit in the world in 216BC was the part they played in the battle of Cannea. Reading Adrian Goldsworthy's work he puts forward an interesting theory about Cannae. Instead of the story we all know: a convex formation with the gaulic units in the centre, his spanish and micelanious units on either side, the lybian spearman on the flanks and cavalry on the extreem flanks, numidian on one flank, gaulic on the other. So when the roman attack came in the center the convex line slowly bent arround the roman center into a concave formation, slowly eveloping the roman army while the cavalry attacked from behind. Goldsworthy's theory is that hannibles formation was not a convex line, but actually shaped like the letter U, with the bottom of the U facing the roman line. The same convex line with the gauls in the middle spanish and other units on the flanks a little further back. But the 11 000 odd Lybian spearman were deployed in two lines running at 90 degre angles from the flanks making up the sides of the U. So the gaullic units absorbed the brunt of the roman attack and were slowly pushed back. When they finaly broke, the roman line had degraded into an uncontrolable morass. As the legions persued the gauls, the lybians turned and marched toward the romans, closing the vice. This theory makes scence to me for several reasons. At terbia, hannibal used similar tactics to deal with the inevitable roman attack in the centre, pushing the roman flanks back unsing a double invelopment. However at terbia, 2 roman legions cut their way threw the center to safety. And at terbia Hanibal only faced 4 legions and 4 ala, not 8 legions and 8 ala, yet the centre held all day at Cannae??? Also it would be difficult for the punic line to bend around the roman line and fully envelope two sides while they were enguaged. the U formation seems to fit the facts better. So for the thin line of Lybian spearmen, who showed dicipline worthy of the grande arme, to hold as their comrades broke, turn and attack in line without charging and, hold and slowly slaughter a massive roman army was a feat that no other single infantry unit could have accomplished in 216BC IMHO.
RE Zama.
Your right Hanibals army was not the same one that took the field at Cannae. However he did have several advantages over scipio, outlined in my previous post (numerical advantage, logistical advantage, fighting on his own ground, advantage in cavalry and elephants). And Zama was the only time Hannibal faced an opponant when he did not have a massive advantage as a tactition, or in the quallity of his army. All the army's that faced Hannibal before Zama may have been roman, and therefore trained and equiped as romans, but they were no where near as capable. Every punic army was a hodge podge diferent tribal allies and mercenaries serving under punic aristocracy, and therefore every one was different. Hannibals was a freak of sorts. A truely outsanding commander rivaled only by the likes of Napoleon Bonapart, Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great, (and of corse Scipio) some individal units that were the best around, like the Gaulic swordsman, lybian spearman and numidian cavalry, exelent junior commanders and an incredible cohesian and skill that would only be surpassed by the professional roman army. The army's he faced in italy (your right they weren't conscrips, i guess i got a bit carried away) were not professional soldiers, they were citizens, farmers, peasants and land owners. They may have served in the legions, and therefore have all the mistique that goes with it. But that doesnt make them exellent soldiers. Their operational doctorine and equipment may have been exellent but they still didnt compare to Hannibals battle hardened veterans.
Sure hannibal may have not been the man he was in 216BC. No commander is perfect and they all make mistakes. But we are talking about the Greatest commander in history. And in my above post i was originally disputing the statement that Hannibal was number 1 on the list. There are several reasons behind this argument, manny have been stated above.
No1. The fact that most people base their admiration for Hannibal on his victories in the early part of the 2nd punic war such as Trazamine and Cannae, however the opponants he faced in these battles were not his equals, commanders or the armies themselves, even if they did numerical advantage. The only time he faced a commander with a tactical genius close to his, with an army that was as good as his was at Zama and he was soundly defeated, even when he had several advantages.
No2. Hannibals strategic decissions were truely tragic. He initiated the 2nd punic war when he attacked the city of Massila on the northen spanish mediterainian coast, with the intention of starting a war, to avenge the humiliating defeat in the 1st punic war. His plan was to take an agressive stratagy and invade Italy (the 1st punic war was fought over sicily and most battles occured there. There was an invasion of africa, which was defeated. and there was also several large naval battles). by taking the fight to the Romans hanibal intended to defeat rome on the battlefield and seperate Rome from her allies which was the source of roman power. This would force rome to come to peace terms, and without her allies she would become a local italian power again. He knew rome herself was too togh of a nut to crack. Hannibal however, missed the mark by a country mile. He missunderstood the roman and latin psychie. Rome would never capitulate, and not one of romes latin allies defected because their culture, security and prosperity were intertwined with romes. Hannibal virtually ensured the destruction of Carthage. After the second punic war all carthaginian assets and allies that were not in the city itself were ceeded or defected to rome, and carthage's security was entrusted to rome i.e. no armed forces. And it was the terrible memory of the price that rome payed in defeating Hannibal that allowed Roman hardliners to send an army under annother Scipio (a decendent of africanus) to invest the city in the 3rd Punic war from 149/146BC. Such was the hate that hannibal instilled in the romans that when carthage fell, the entire city was raised, its population sold into slavery, every building was demolished and the "earth was salted so nothing would ever grow their again". Hannibal may have been a tactical genius but he was a strategic moron.
Hannibal was undoubtably an outstanding commander and worthy being studied. But i think we need to look through the myths and examine his victories, defeats and decissions. After I add it all up, i still, really dont think he deserves the no1 spot.
Sorry about the length of this post, i hope you didn't fall asleep reading it!!!:sleepy2
Ozzy Blizzard,
Excellent post, good point about Hannibal underestimating the Roman will. I heard somewhere that after Cannae when Rome refused to come to terms Hannibal then realized that Rome was more then just a city, it was an idea. I think in the 2nd Punic war, Carthage would've been better off rebuilding its navy and fighting Rome at sea. If they won some victories at sea and Hannibal stayed in Spain and constantly frustrated the Romans, then Rome might have agreed to leave them alone.....for the moment.
I'll revise my statement regarding Hannibal as the greatest commander in history. That might go to Alezander or Napoleon. However I still believe he is the greatest military tactician of history
Would've been interesting if Antichus III had given him command of his army
Also, who would your #1 be?
Excellent post, good point about Hannibal underestimating the Roman will. I heard somewhere that after Cannae when Rome refused to come to terms Hannibal then realized that Rome was more then just a city, it was an idea. I think in the 2nd Punic war, Carthage would've been better off rebuilding its navy and fighting Rome at sea. If they won some victories at sea and Hannibal stayed in Spain and constantly frustrated the Romans, then Rome might have agreed to leave them alone.....for the moment.
I'll revise my statement regarding Hannibal as the greatest commander in history. That might go to Alezander or Napoleon. However I still believe he is the greatest military tactician of history
Would've been interesting if Antichus III had given him command of his army
Also, who would your #1 be?
Belisarius is another general that should be mentioned. Doesn't get a lot of press but he re-conquered the west for the Emperor Justinian.
I only stumbled upon him when I saw a this day in history somewhere
I only stumbled upon him when I saw a this day in history somewhere
mysterious
New Member
Unfortunately many in here forget Fredrick II the Great of 18th Century Prussia! He proved himself as one of the greatest commanders and military tacticians of all times. He won battles by doing the unthinkable, especially when he faced off against impossible odds! More to come...
- Status