The Art of War

[TheSmilingBandit]

I agree but when you say greatest, the one who comes into mind is Hannibal. Pyrrhus was never beaten but in his last battle with the Romans, he suffered heavy losses although he won the battle thus the term "Pyhrric victory" which means shallow victory.

 

The thing is Hannibal won every battle with the Romans but eventually lost the war coz his grand strategy was to take Rome and destroy it. He never did. Siguro naglalaro ka din ng Rome Total War.

So in effect, though Hannibal won the battles (except for his last), he lost the war, not because he was an inferior general but because Carthage didn't support him. Pyrrhus too won all his battles, but he lost so much men that in the end it didn't matter. Just like Hannibal, the other Hellenic cities didn't support him, so his victories would end up as naught as well.

 

FYI: Hannibal considered Alexander and Pyrrhus as the greatest generals to have lived according to Plutarch and Appian, he modeled his campaigns after those two.

 

Rome: Total War is a pretty good game if only the AI were decent. As were Shogun: Total War, Medieval: Total War (1 and 2), and Empire: Total War.

[Guest megalodon]

So in effect, though Hannibal won the battles (except for his last), he lost the war, not because he was an inferior general but because Carthage didn't support him. Pyrrhus too won all his battles, but he lost so much men that in the end it didn't matter. Just like Hannibal, the other Hellenic cities didn't support him, so his victories would end up as naught as well.

 

FYI: Hannibal considered Alexander and Pyrrhus as the greatest generals to have lived according to Plutarch and Appian, he modeled his campaigns after those two.

 

Rome: Total War is a pretty good game if only the AI were decent. As were Shogun: Total War, Medieval: Total War (1 and 2), and Empire: Total War.

I stand corrected. Since he really didn't achieve his grand strategy of conquering Rome, he can't be considered the greatest general of all-time. I would give that label to Alexander the Great. I mean Alexander annihilated the Persians, the Axis of the East at that point in time.

 

It's not that Carthage didn't support Hannibal but coz Scipio ravaged the food supply of Carthage by resorting to guerilla tactics without really facing off with Hannibal until he was sure that he could beat Hannibal through attrition.

[TheSmilingBandit]

I stand corrected. Since he really didn't achieve his grand strategy of conquering Rome, he can't be considered the greatest general of all-time. I would give that label to Alexander the Great. I mean Alexander annihilated the Persians, the Axis of the East at that point in time.

 

It's not that Carthage didn't support Hannibal but coz Scipio ravaged the food supply of Carthage by resorting to guerilla tactics without really facing off with Hannibal until he was sure that he could beat Hannibal through attrition.

For 15 years Hannibal ranged throughout Italy, if Carthage had given him the soldiers and equipment that he needed to besiege Rome, they could have won and history wouldn't be the same again.

[Guest megalodon]

For 15 years Hannibal ranged throughout Italy, if Carthage had given him the soldiers and equipment that he needed to besiege Rome, they could have won and history wouldn't be the same again.

The thing is the shortest route from Rome to Carthage, the Mediterranean Sea, was blockaded by Rome. It would be too costly for Carthage to send troops via the Alps. Hannibal terrorized Italy for 10-15 years with ragtag troops (Spanish, Libyan, Carthaginian, Gauls, Numidians, etc.). Also, Hannibal didn't have siege weapons like the onager to break the walls of Rome. The onager was the ancient world's tomahawk missile.

[TheSmilingBandit]

The thing is the shortest route from Rome to Carthage, the Mediterranean Sea, was blockaded by Rome. It would be too costly for Carthage to send troops via the Alps. Hannibal terrorized Italy for 10-15 years with ragtag troops (Spanish, Libyan, Carthaginian, Gauls, Numidians, etc.). Also, Hannibal didn't have siege weapons like the onager to break the walls of Rome. The onager was the ancient world's tomahawk missile.

Which is why Hannibal is counted among the great generals of history, with such troops he was able to survive and win for 15 years in enemy territory.

[Guest megalodon]

Which is why Hannibal is counted among the great generals of history, with such troops he was able to survive and win for 15 years in enemy territory.

Ok. He's the second greatest after Alexander the Great. He was the most feared enemy general of Rome. An interesting war would have been Alexander's Greece vs. Caesar/Pompey/Crassus' Rome. I'd pick Alexander over the Triumvirate.

[macbolan00]

er... just a suggestion: never use "of all time" as a qualifier. it's senseless. only half-witted fans of michael jordan talk like that. peace.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Ok. He's the second greatest after Alexander the Great. He was the most feared enemy general of Rome. An interesting war would have been Alexander's Greece vs. Caesar/Pompey/Crassus' Rome. I'd pick Alexander over the Triumvirate.

That's my dilemma, both sides have good points, I just can't seem to find any single thing that will swing a decision decisively in this situation.

 

er... just a suggestion: never use "of all time" as a qualifier. it's senseless. only half-witted fans of michael jordan talk like that. peace.

I did say one of the great generals of history.

 

Antiquity had 4 such famous generals

Alexandros Megaira

Pyrrhus of Epirus

Hannibal of Carthage

Gaius Julius Caesar

 

Medieval period wasn't quite as generous

Edward I of England

Belisarius of Byzantium

Genghis Khan

 

The next set were

Napoleon

Suvorov

The Iron Duke

Of course, there is always Carl Gustav of Sweden

 

This is all in my opinion of course.

 

Edited December 10, 2009 by TheSmilingBandit

[Guest megalodon]

I'm giving the advantage to Alexander the Great mainly coz of the countries he conquered.

 

@macbolan

 

The phrase "of all-time" was used by historians in the History channel when they described Hannibal.

[TheSmilingBandit]

I'm giving the advantage to Alexander the Great mainly coz of the countries he conquered.

Why? Seriously, a comparison of troop ability and command ability of the other leaders are pretty equal. If it is just about nations conquered the Roman armies expanded their territories a lot more than the Macedonians.

[Guest megalodon]

Why? Seriously, a comparison of troop ability and command ability of the other leaders are pretty equal. If it is just about nations conquered the Roman armies expanded their territories a lot more than the Macedonians.

Yup but Alexander clobbered armies that had more or less a peer of Greece when it came to warfare. Persia was kingpin of the East until Darius made the mistake of going head to head with Alexander.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Are we just comparing the leaders or the armies and nations that back them up?

[Guest megalodon]

Are we just comparing the leaders or the armies and nations that back them up?

The leaders and their countries.

Edited December 10, 2009 by megalodon

[TheSmilingBandit]

The leaders and their countries.

 

At the height of Alexander's empire, he had conquered (or inherited) control of most of Greece, pretty much all of the Persian Empire: Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and Bactria with even parts of northwestern India under his domain.

 

The First Roman Triumvirate controlled most of Southern Europe and Northern Africa (Iberia, Gaul, Italy, Greece, Mauretania, Numidia, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor)

 

Comparing production of food, the Roman Republic would have a bigger breadbasket, on the other hand, they also had a bigger population to feed. Arms and armor were pretty much equal, and though the standing Roman army was more professional, I'm not certain that against the enthusiasm and esprit-de-corps of Alexander's fighting units, they wouldn't be balanced out.

 

Alexander is definitely a better over-all tactician and strategist than Caesar and Pompey, though Crassus certainly understood logistics better if only he could accept that he was not a battlefield general.

 

Alexander's edge is that he could make decisions solely on his desires whereas the Triumvirate still had to decide as a group which policies to enact.

[Guest megalodon]

Alexander is definitely a better over-all tactician and strategist than Caesar and Pompey, though Crassus certainly understood logistics better if only he could accept that he was not a battlefield general.

 

Alexander's edge is that he could make decisions solely on his desires whereas the Triumvirate still had to decide as a group which policies to enact.[/color][/size][/font][/i]

I agree with you on these points. But the best among the Triumvirate was Caesar. Remember he defeated Pompey in the Roman civil war and to think Pompey was already considered a great tactician.