Top 100 Generals

Originally posted by Challenger2 So how many of Romes allies actually defected? Capua, along with a few minor towns, a few Samnites [there's a surprise!] and Lucanians. After Nola, any wavering allies saw that Rome was far from beaten and decided to stick with the devil they knew.

Firstly I would like to remind you that quite a number of towns and communities defected, a particularly prominent ommission from your list is Syracuse. Not to mention all those communities who though not aiding Hannibal, refused to aid Rome. Though it is obvius that more defections and/or the taking of Rome would be required to end the war. Hannibal's strategy allowed him to achieve far more but with all oppurtunities at reinforcement going sour he did not quite have the numbers to either take Rome or defend more allies simultaneously.

Originally posted by Challenger2 Not really. In 215, one year after Cannae the Romans had about 140,000 men in the field. They concentrated about half that to contain Hannibal. They were, as you well know no longer interested in beating him, just containing him. Rome, as far as I'm aware, did not recall a single army or garrison outside Italy to aid against Hannibal; they were that sure of ultimate victory. By 213 Rome had about 200,000 men in the field, but the troops containing Hannibal remained roughly the same as in 215. Hannibal, although still dangerous, was a spent force as far as Rome was concerned.

I will respond to this later if you feel it is necesary, as It is difficult for me to find my sources on the matter and I really must for my own good retire to bed now.

Originally posted by Challenger2 Yes he did. But at least he had an empire he had created, to lose.  Napoleon achieved  virtually all his his ambitions, albeit for a short time, but Hannibal  failed to achieve any of his from the outset.

Napoleon only created an empire in the sense that he changed the form of government in the french empire to one led by an emperor. Furtheremore as Knights and Spartan have pointed out Hanibal led succesful campaigns in Spain prior to the 2nd Punic war....he certainly achieved the Barca family ambition of consolidating Carthaginian control over Iberia south of the Ebro river.

Originally posted by Challenger2 I've never said  Hannibal was a bad general, far from it. But in a list of 100 military "geniuses" you have to find some way of differentiating between them to be able to rank them.

I agree in principle but not with your methods of differientiating between them.

Originally posted by Temujin no he was not the better. Napoleon deserves this list alone for his camapigns in 1805, 1806 and 1814 taken individually. and no, Napoleon did NOT lose in the end contrary to popular believe. France could remain in the borders before the war and lost only minimal amoutn of colonies (most major colonies were lost already in the 7 years war anyways). Napoleon won over 4 campaigns/wars, hannibal didn't even won one. Napoleon dominated his enmies for almost ten years, hannibal never forced his will on any enemy. in 1814 napoleons army was only seriously defeated at Arcis-sur-Aube btu was still fit enough to fight another battle. napoleon was tricked into followign Wintzigeraodes corps who pretended a retreat to draw him aways from paris while the Coalition forces which outnumbered him significantly bypassed him to capture Paris. there was no Zama were he was defeated on his own soil by his own tactics and Hannibal really showed no skill in Zama at all, it clearly betrays his limited scope.

Firstly I never said he did not deserve a spot on the list what i brought into question was judging him above Hannibal and placing Hannibal out of the top ten because in the end Carthage lost the war. This is a hypocritical argument when applied to Hannibal and not Napoleon (I do not think its a good argument anyway). Secondly Napoleon certainly lost in the end, he was exiled to a little island off the coast of Africa, his enemies the Bourbons returned to power and at the end of the war France had less territory then when he came to power even if only slightly that is still a loss. Furtheremore even if you count Hannibals whole time fighting the Romans in Italy as one campaign then he still won some campaigns in Spain anyway so your wrong about him never winning a campaign. Also though you say Napoleon had "no Zama" (many would see Waterloo as similar to Zama) you go on to explain how he lost anyway by bieng tricked....your not making a good case for Napoleon here. Finaly please explain how Hannibal showed no skill at Zama as it was the closest battle in Scipio's distinguished career, with Scipio only triumphing in the end because of his superiority in cavalry.

Originally posted by Temujin last time i checked Hannibal held the office of "prime minsiter" of this senate, and even then, if the senate had not claled him back from Italy, what was he supposed to do if the Romans captured carthage and took aways his last opportunity of reinforcement and supply. it seems you live the same daydreams as hannibal back then. Hannibal is in every way like Pyrrhus, sucessfull in battle but eventually a strategical failure.

Hannibal held the office of "prime minister" or Sufet (its really a bad comparison) AFTER the second punic war and the position held no direct military authority unlike the position of Consul. unlike Pyrrhus he was only a general and not a king and facing a much stronger Rome which he came closer to destroying than Pyrrhus did anyway. Pyrrhus as king holds full responsibility for strategic failure's. Hannibal is subject to the Carthaginian senate and its changing stance toward him (which he could not counter while in Italy) and strategic incompetance, acting contrary to his advice.

Originally posted by Temujin yeah obviously zama is the perfect example for this... and unlike Hannibal, Napoleon fought well over 60 battles, unlike Hannibal so its really tedious to hold against him that he lost more than one battle because he fought much more battles than Hannibal! and unliek Hannibal, Napoleon won at least one battle in Africa...

Zama is the only battle I can think of where Hannibal did not fight on his terms. Though I do believe he knew who he was facing but had little choice anyway. he gave Scipio quiet a challenge actually and I don't think he underestimated him. Napoloeon won battles against inferior enemy forces in Africa not led by anyone who demonstrated ability comparable to Scipio Africanus.

Regards, Praetor.

Originally posted by Praetor Firstly I never said he did not deserve a spot on the list what i brought into question was judging him above Hannibal and placing Hannibal out of the top ten because in the end Carthage lost the war. This is a hypocritical argument when applied to Hannibal and not Napoleon (I do not think its a good argument anyway). Secondly Napoleon certainly lost in the end, he was exiled to a little island off the coast of Africa, his enemies the Bourbons returned to power and at the end of the war France had less territory then when he came to power even if only slightly that is still a loss. Furtheremore even if you count Hannibals whole time fighting the Romans in Italy as one campaign then he still won some campaigns in Spain anyway so your wrong about him never winning a campaign. Also though you say Napoleon had "no Zama" (many would see Waterloo as similar to Zama) you go on to explain how he lost anyway by bieng tricked....your not making a good case for Napoleon here. Finaly please explain how Hannibal showed no skill at Zama as it was the closest battle in Scipio's distinguished career, with Scipio only triumphing in the end because of his superiority in cavalry.

France at the end of the napoleonic Wars that remained in its original borders, losign only insignificant colonies and was still a great power, Carthage after the war was nothing as shown in the 3. Punic war. i didn't said he had no Zama, he had his Zama in 1814 in the battle of Arcis-sur-Aube as is aid and i went on to say that even after this major defeat he was still able to win another battles and the coalition forces were still too afraid of fightign him directly and bypassed him to capture Paris. they did so by sendign a single Russian corps west fakign retreat over which napoleon fell with no mercy. this wa sthe bait to get enough time to reahc Paris and have Napoleon out of their way. i don't think Napoleon could have done anything to prevent it, given that the Czar only agreed to this dashign move after having intercepted a depeche containing informations as about he locations of Napoleon and his corps by Cossacks. Arcis-sur-Aube was actually a battle Napoleon hismelf entered, he wanted to fall upon an isolated corps of the Army of Bohemia but acciedntly ran into the whole army and barely escaped total annihilation. givent his, it is remarkable the Coalition overcommand was still afraid fighting him again after this.

Hannibal held the office of "prime minister" or Sufet (its really a bad comparison) AFTER the second punic war and the position held no direct military authority unlike the position of Consul. unlike Pyrrhus he was only a general and not a king and facing a much stronger Rome which he came closer to destroying than Pyrrhus did anyway. Pyrrhus as king holds full responsibility for strategic failure's. Hannibal is subject to the Carthaginian senate and its changing stance toward him (which he could not counter while in Italy) and strategic incompetance, acting contrary to his advice.

from what i know Rome forced Carthage to exile Hannibal and Hannibal in turn went to the services of Romes enemies in Anatolia (Pontus and/or Seleucids, can't remember).
as about Pyrrhus. Pyrhuss could have defeated Rome when he had the chance (given he had the necessary siege engines) but he descided against marching on Rome because he thought Rome was defeated and would pose no longer a thread and because it was recuqired for him to appear on Sicly and intervene there. Hannibal above all knew of Pyrrhus earlier failure and still amde the same mistake and secondly, unlike Pyrhhus he didn't left Italy for Sicily but wasted his time in southern Italy while the Romans took away Spain and threatened Carthage itself.

Zama is the only battle I can think of where Hannibal did not fight on his terms. Though I do believe he knew who he was facing but had little choice anyway. he gave Scipio quiet a challenge actually and I don't think he underestimated him. Napoloeon won battles against inferior enemy forces in Africa not led by anyone who demonstrated ability comparable to Scipio Africanus. Regards, Praetor.

the battle of the pyramids was not an easy battle, Napoleon was much afraid of the Mameluk cavalry and orderd all his infantry to take up square formation and to let the Mameluks approach his own position, a tactic akin to that of Scipio at Zama when he faced Hannibals elephants. if Napoleon would have approached them in line he would have probably been swept away by the furious charges of the mameluk army. and what does the Mamluk comamnder has to do with anything? what about the Roman commanders of lake Trassimene and Cannae? they weren't exactly geniuses either, what does that tell you?


Edited by Temujin - 16-Aug-2007 at 15:10

i think you misunderstood me, i didn't said Hannibal was ordered to march to Rome and take it, but they didn't prevented it either. and it should have been its real goal, you cannot defeat an enemy without taking his capital. Carthage DID however sent in reinforcements to Hannibal, they were however destroyed in the battle of Metaurus. it seems the carthaginian senate gets bashed for no reason at all here. again, how xou expect Hannibal to finally defeat Rome if Carthage itself and all hsi posessions get conquered by the Romans? and lets assume Hannibal was not called back to defend Carthage, how in the world should he overcome the Romans at all?

i have the feeling Hannibal is more praised for what could have been and not for what really happened. in this case why not put Hitler on first spot...


about Mamlukes. European light cavalry was equipped not much differently than Mamelukes at this time and it could have happened that the Mamelukes would overrun French battaillions in line and put them to flight by sheer ferocity and fright of those ancient warriors.


Edited by Temujin - 16-Aug-2007 at 17:07

Scipio Aemilianus (the Roman who took Carthage in the third Punic War) was known as Scipio the Younger. Scipio's (the one who beat Hannibal at Zama) son adopted Scipio Amelianus.
Scipio Africanus, the victor at Zama, is sometimes referred to as Scipio the Elder. It's a bit confusing isn't it? Oh and Scipio's (Zama Scipio) father was also Publius Cornelius Scipio, just did not bear the agnomen of "Africanus".
If you want me to rephrase this or elaborate further, let me know.

Originally posted by Temujin France at the end of the napoleonic Wars that remained in its original borders, losign only insignificant colonies and was still a great power, Carthage after the war was nothing as shown in the 3. Punic war. i didn't said he had no Zama, he had his Zama in 1814 in the battle of Arcis-sur-Aube as is aid and i went on to say that even after this major defeat he was still able to win another battles and the coalition forces were still too afraid of fightign him directly and bypassed him to capture Paris. they did so by sendign a single Russian corps west fakign retreat over which napoleon fell with no mercy. this wa sthe bait to get enough time to reahc Paris and have Napoleon out of their way. i don't think Napoleon could have done anything to prevent it, given that the Czar only agreed to this dashign move after having intercepted a depeche containing informations as about he locations of Napoleon and his corps by Cossacks. Arcis-sur-Aube was actually a battle Napoleon hismelf entered, he wanted to fall upon an isolated corps of the Army of Bohemia but acciedntly ran into the whole army and barely escaped total annihilation. givent his, it is remarkable the Coalition overcommand was still afraid fighting him again after this.

France did lose territories and the allies could have taken far more territory from  France if they wished, it was not Napoleon's doing that France's losses at the end were so light. Furtheremore you claimed that " Napoleon did NOT lose in the end contrary to popular believe" and if he was forced from power and the Bourbons restored to it, ending the first French empire which he founded and restoring to power people he opposed as much as any foriegn monarch alied against him and France lost territory (it really doesn't matter how much) and he was exiled to an island, then I believe is is safe to say he LOST!!!! "there was no Zama were he was defeated on his own soil by his own tactics" I took this statement as a claim he had no Zama, though it is highly debatable whether Scipio defeated Hannibal with his own tactics.

Originally posted by Temujin from what i know Rome forced Carthage to exile Hannibal and Hannibal in turn went to the services of Romes enemies in Anatolia (Pontus and/or Seleucids, can't remember).

It was the Seleucids at first, to my knowledge he never served Pontus and why is this relevent?

Originally posted by Temujin as about Pyrrhus. Pyrhuss could have defeated Rome when he had the chance (given he had the necessary siege engines) but he descided against marching on Rome because he thought Rome was defeated and would pose no longer a thread and because it was recuqired for him to appear on Sicly and intervene there. Hannibal above all knew of Pyrrhus earlier failure and still amde the same mistake and secondly, unlike Pyrhhus he didn't left Italy for Sicily but wasted his time in southern Italy while the Romans took away Spain and threatened Carthage itself.

It was not required for Pyrrrhus to appear in sicily, he saw an oppurtunity to gain power there and he took it. Only problem was he hadn't finished dealing with Rome first and by the time he was booted out of sicily for tyranical behavior Rome had recoverd and learnt from its defeats which had themselves cost pyrrhus much. he lacked focus and left the job half finished to move on to another, what a waste of men he was clearly a fairly poor strategist.

Originally posted by Temujin the battle of the pyramids was not an easy battle, Napoleon was much afraid of the Mameluk cavalry and orderd all his infantry to take up square formation and to let the Mameluks approach his own position, a tactic akin to that of Scipio at Zama when he faced Hannibals elephants. if Napoleon would have approached them in line he would have probably been swept away by the furious charges of the mameluk army. and what does the Mamluk comamnder has to do with anything? what about the Roman commanders of lake Trassimene and Cannae? they weren't exactly geniuses either, what does that tell you?

You made the remark that "and unliek Hannibal, Napoleon won at least one battle in Africa... " and I was responding to that and your criticism of Hannibal for losing the battle of Zama, when mentioning the inferiority of the Mamluk army compared with Napoleons own forces, though the cavalry may have been fierce they possesed nothing else even comparable to Napoleons forces. compared to Zama Napoleon's battles In Egypt were cake-walks. i do admit however that Varro and Titus Flaminius were no military geniuses.

Originally posted by Temujin about Senate: the carthaginian senate obviously sanctioned his daredevil plan to invade Italy from Spain crossing the Alps, which alone should convivne everyoen that teh senate did not hinder him. the senate onyl recalled him from Italy after 15 years of no progress being made and Carthage itself being threatened. yes, Carthage itself being threatened. he had no other choice anyways, senate or not. what should he have done in italy anyways? his efforts of winning support of more Italic allies failed, there was no prospect of takign Rome herself.

The senate did originally support Hannibal but by the time he requested reinforcements, this had changed. With the party of Hanno the "Great", supplanting the supporters of the Barcas as the dominant power in Carthaginian politics. Hanno was a life long enemy of the Barcid clan and their policies. Largely due to Hanno's pettiness and inability to see the big picture, Hannibal as never reinforced on order of the Carthaginian senate to any significant extent.
Secondly, contrary to your opinion, I do not disagree with the decision reached by the Carthaginian Senate to recall Hannibal to defend Carthage from Scipio Africanus. But, I do disagree with the assertion that Hannibal had achieved no progress in 15 years in Italy. Though he failed to achieve enough progress to conclude the war, in removing many of Rome's key allies from the war. and stretching its resources to near breaking point. I would call that progress.

Originally posted by Temujin anyways, Hannibal had only one chance, cross the Alps [achieved], defeat any army bewteen him and Rome [achieved] and then capture Rome itself, which would have been shown the weakness of Rome and each and every italic ally would have fallen away from them, and Romes manpowerpool would have been drained. this he failed to achieve and there was no other way to show the italic allies who was the real power in the western mediterranean.

Capturing Rome would not necesarily mean the war was over, though in my opinion it would have resulted in the end of the war when taking into account what damage Hannibal had already done.

Originally posted by Temujin i think you misunderstood me, i didn't said Hannibal was ordered to march to Rome and take it, but they didn't prevented it either. and it should have been its real goal, you cannot defeat an enemy without taking his capital. Carthage DID however sent in reinforcements to Hannibal, they were however destroyed in the battle of Metaurus. it seems the carthaginian senate gets bashed for no reason at all here. again, how xou expect Hannibal to finally defeat Rome if Carthage itself and all hsi posessions get conquered by the Romans? and lets assume Hannibal was not called back to defend Carthage, how in the world should he overcome the Romans at all?

Carthage did not send significant reinforcements to Hannibal, the commander of the Carthaginian army at Metaurus was Hasdrubal Barca and acted on his own initiative with no orders from Carthage in order to link up with his brother and take Rome. On another note you both can win a war without taking a states capitol and taking a states capitol does not always mean you win the war, take the celtic sack of Rome or Napoleon's siezure of Moscow for example.

Originally posted by Temujin i have the feeling Hannibal is more praised for what could have been and not for what really happened. in this case why not put Hitler on first spot...

Or for that matter Napoleon Seriusly though comparing Hitler to Hannibal is ridiculous as though Hitler was the autocratic head of his state and never commanded in the field. He had excellent generals but constantly interfered in military affairs with disastrous consequences (for the third reich), whereas Hannibal was a field commander who's requests for reinforcements were largely ignored by his government and let down in all other theaters by incapable commanders (though not all other Carthaginian commanders were inept, Carthage certainly did not possess as many high quality generals as Hitler had at his disposal).

Regards, Praetor.

Concur. Zizka definitely did display very innovative tactics, which paid off for him. His foremost achievement was making full use of a lower quality army, and managing to stand up to a European superpower. While Zizka definitely possessed a keen military eye, I don't believe he is worthy of a place in the top ten.

EDIT: Excuse the pun ^


Edited by Knights - 17-Aug-2007 at 07:59

Originally posted by DSMyers1 One point though--if I remember correctly, Carthage was larger than Rome at the time of the Punic Wars, something like 700,000 to 600,000.  Rome's great advantage was their populous allies--most of Carthage's allies were low-population desert tribes.  Thus, Hannibal's object was to break Rome's allies away, which he succeeded in doing in part.  However, Carthage never threw its weight behind him fully.  Rome was straining every resource to defeat Carthage; Carthage was not straining every resource in response.  It was the political situation in Carthage that defeated him, in spite of Hannibal's putting them in position to win.

Population didn't matter so much to Carthage, she could hire mercenaries by the boatload. Rome was based on a militia citizen force at this time, yet remarkably managed to rebuild her armies time and again. Scary!

Great discussion everybody.

 

Edited by Spartan - 17-Aug-2007 at 16:22

Originally posted by Praetor France did lose territories and the allies could have taken far more territory from  France if they wished, it was not Napoleon's doing that France's losses at the end were so light. Furtheremore you claimed that " Napoleon did NOT lose in the end contrary to popular believe" and if he was forced from power and the Bourbons restored to it, ending the first French empire which he founded and restoring to power people he opposed as much as any foriegn monarch alied against him and France lost territory (it really doesn't matter how much) and he was exiled to an island, then I believe is is safe to say he LOST!!!! "there was no Zama were he was defeated on his own soil by his own tactics" I took this statement as a claim he had no Zama, though it is highly debatable whether Scipio defeated Hannibal with his own tactics.

no the allies could not have taken any more territory. this is not like the classical age where you conquer and annex. Napoleon soundly defeated Austria two times and Prussia once, even Spain and Portugal were for short time totally under French control. and all of italy and central europe were under his control. he could have kept it this way if he had not invaded Russia so he had gambled for something and lost in the end. he annexed big parts of Prussia and Austria individually but both countries combined together with Spain and Russia weren't able to strip France of significan territory.
not like Hannibal, Hannibal is not good because he lost in the end, he never was close to victory and his spectacular battles don't change that. therefore my comparison with Hitler. since he was never able to beat britain he was doomed from the beginnign and all the spectacular conquests of almost all of europe don't change that. Hitler after the spectacular Blitzkrieg victory over France was nicknamed G�FAZ, which si short for "greatest commander of all times". and after the war was lost Hitler was again blamed. so you can see as long as everyhting went just fine, Hitler was hailed, and after everyhting was lost, Hitler again was blamed. of course i'm talking about a "what if". same here with hannibal. if his campaign had suceeded, he would have been hailed as greatest comamnder ever. now that eh lost, the blame goes to the senate, now thats very convenient... victory and defeat is either the credit of the head of state, or the general(s) but you can't remodel everything to fit your taste. thats why i also proposed to remove von Manstein. there are generals who won battles with even less ressources against bigger odds and suceeded, so it is really hypocrise to blame defeat on superficial reasons that didn't contributed much to the matter, even though Hannibal apparently was sucessfull on a small scale during his time in Italy, it doesn't change the fact that his very plan of conquest was flawed fromt he beginnign and the seeds of his defeat were already sown the second he crossed the Alps. every great commander in history defeated their enemies fast and determined, France was not conquered by bypassing the Maginot Line and then wait in southern france for italian reinforcements or Franco to join the struggle...

napoleons abdication in 1814 was a result of Paris beign taken and a refusal of his marshals to continue fighting. his venture in 1815 was also already doomed from the beginning as he had only one strong army and was facing 5 enemy armies this time around and lost already against the first two btu ti showed how France but more importantly the French Army and many of his former Marshals accept him again.

It was the Seleucids at first, to my knowledge he never served Pontus and why is this relevent?

you claimed Hannibal was prime minister AFTER the 2nd Punic War, but how is this consistend with him being forced into exile AFTER the war?

It was not required for Pyrrrhus to appear in sicily, he saw an oppurtunity to gain power there and he took it. Only problem was he hadn't finished dealing with Rome first and by the time he was booted out of sicily for tyranical behavior Rome had recoverd and learnt from its defeats which had themselves cost pyrrhus much. he lacked focus and left the job half finished to move on to another, what a waste of men he was clearly a fairly poor strategist.

the point with Pyrrhus is not that he had not dealt with Rome first, he had crushed Roman armies two times and thought they were done, as all other classical city states would have been in their situation, but Rome conquered the mediterranen world, Thebes, Sparta etc did not, so there must have been a difference. the difference is simple that Rome had the genuine determination to not accept a defeat until all straws are drawn. this was also a gamble on Rome's side and one that turned out sucessful. Pyrrhus gambles took him to Sicily and in his situation it was not a big gamble, but one that turned out bad as we all know. if Pyrrhus had defeated Roem another time, he certainly would have marched on Rome and leveled it to the ground. this was the risk that Rome accepted but they learned from their defeats (which was Romes perhaps greatest trait) and adopted to it. that was the downfall of both Pyrrhus and Hannibal. btu Pyrrhus was first, he couldn't have known but Hannibal knew of Pyrrhus failure, but he apparently didn't learned his lesson.

The senate did originally support Hannibal but by the time he requested reinforcements, this had changed. With the party of Hanno the "Great", supplanting the supporters of the Barcas as the dominant power in Carthaginian politics. Hanno was a life long enemy of the Barcid clan and their policies. Largely due to Hanno's pettiness and inability to see the big picture, Hannibal as never reinforced on order of the Carthaginian senate to any significant extent. Secondly, contrary to your opinion, I do not disagree with the decision reached by the Carthaginian Senate to recall Hannibal to defend Carthage from Scipio Africanus. But, I do disagree with the assertion that Hannibal had achieved no progress in 15 years in Italy. Though he failed to achieve enough progress to conclude the war, in removing many of Rome's key allies from the war. and stretching its resources to near breaking point. I would call that progress.

this progress was just a teardrop in the sea, Rome was at large and Hannibal was not in the situation to change that, despite of small sucesses on his side. nothing Hanibal did in this time seriously hampered Romes war effort.

Capturing Rome would not necesarily mean the war was over, though in my opinion it would have resulted in the end of the war when taking into account what damage Hannibal had already done.

as i said two recuirements have to be met to win a war, defeat the enemy army and capture the enemy capital. if only one of the recuirements are met, victory is still uncertain.

Carthage did not send significant reinforcements to Hannibal, the commander of the Carthaginian army at Metaurus was Hasdrubal Barca and acted on his own initiative with no orders from Carthage in order to link up with his brother and take Rome. On another note you both can win a war without taking a states capitol and taking a states capitol does not always mean you win the war, take the celtic sack of Rome or Napoleon's siezure of Moscow for example.

from what Challenger 2 and Spartan wrote i get another impression. the two examples you agve are flawed because:

1. the Celtic "conquest" was in fact just a raid for loot, which is common in tribal societies. it was never intended as conquest and the Celts left by their own will.

2. the capital of Russia at this time was St. Petersburg, something Napoleon apparently didn't knew either... ;)

Or for that matter Napoleon Seriusly though comparing Hitler to Hannibal is ridiculous as though Hitler was the autocratic head of his state and never commanded in the field. He had excellent generals but constantly interfered in military affairs with disastrous consequences (for the third reich), whereas Hannibal was a field commander who's requests for reinforcements were largely ignored by his government and let down in all other theaters by incapable commanders (though not all other Carthaginian commanders were inept, Carthage certainly did not possess as many high quality generals as Hitler had at his disposal). Regards, Praetor.

as i wrote above, Napoleon actually achieved something, first as general and consul of the Republic until the peace of Amiens, later as Emperor in the period 1805-1809. in both periods he secured his posessions. only in the third phase (1812-15) he was evenutally overpowered and lost everyhting accumlated to that point.

Yes, I have also always wondered why Napoleon was speaking of taking 'the capital' and then marched on Moscow...

Anyways, you note that 1815 was doomed in the beginning and therefore it shouldn't be Napoleon's fault. Italy was also doomed from beginning but that is Hannibal's fault?