Who is the Greatest Military leader of the Ancient period?

Originally posted by andrew   This was quoted by Herodutus and he is among the most honest and accurate historians of his time. He said 1,000,000 Persian were at Thermompalyae and guess what he was right. Persia was strong and before the Greek conquests it had reached the height of its empire so that long decline you claim is not even a point to be taken seriously. Many Greeks believed he was mad just to ATTEMPT to cross into Asia...the rest as we say is history.

Herodotus was dead by the time Alexander invaded Persia, Furtheremore most modern historians do not believe the Persians had 1 million men at Thermopalaye but about 250 or 200 Thousand men.

Regards, Praetor.

Originally posted by Praetor Originally posted by andrew   This was quoted by Herodutus and he is among the most honest and accurate historians of his time. He said 1,000,000 Persian were at Thermompalyae and guess what he was right. Persia was strong and before the Greek conquests it had reached the height of its empire so that long decline you claim is not even a point to be taken seriously. Many Greeks believed he was mad just to ATTEMPT to cross into Asia...the rest as we say is history. Herodotus was dead by the time Alexander invaded Persia, Furtheremore most modern historians do not believe the Persians had 1 million men at Thermopalaye but about 250 or 200 Thousand men. Regards, Praetor.

Edited by andrew - 09-Jun-2007 at 10:59

Estimated world population at various dates.

Originally posted by andrew This was quoted by Herodutus and he is among the most honest and accurate historians of his time. He said 1,000,000 Persian were at Thermompalyae and guess what he was right. Persia was strong and before the Greek conquests it had reached the height of its empire so that long decline you claim is not even a point to be taken seriously. Many Greeks believed he was mad just to ATTEMPT to cross into Asia...the rest as we say is history.

I also disagree that the Persians had 1 million strong at Thermopylae. Possibly around 500,000 strong while the rest were basically support, slaves, and workers... at the time I believe it was very diificult for any nation to raise an army over 1 million strong. The Roman Empire had just as many resources as the Persians and they never reach 1 million strong at any particular battle. Thus the possibility of the Persians having 1 million strong is highly doubted in my opinion. However it was still a great number against the tiny little Greek city-states

Also considering Napoleon's Grande Armee invasion of Russia was no more than 550,000 even with all its grandness of the areas he had conquered can only mustered around half a million suggest that the Persians themselves couldnt have raised such a large army. I believe that the Greeks tend to exaggerate about their winnings making it more than it seems. Believing in heroic warriors that defeat armies greater than themselves, I guess this is the Greek way of "thinking"...

 My vote goes to Julius Caesar.  I voted for him over Alexander the Great since Alexander's empire collapsed immediately after his death, while Caesar's conquest was far more permanent. With Caesar's conquest much of the permanent Roman borders were established with the exception of later minor territorial correction in the Balkan region (which was not later conquered for the territorial gain but for the purpose of better protecting the borders), parts of the Middle East and Northwest African coast. On the other hand, I consider Alexander to be an impulsive warrior who delivered no longterm political gains to Hellenic people. I wonder what would have happened if Philip actually ruled at least a decade longer and had enough time to properly influence his son?

P.S. Why was Sargon of Akkad left out of the contest? I think he qualifies as one of the greatest Military leaders of the ancient period as well.

 Yes, but that was a cultural gain not political. His Empire fell apart as soon as he died.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Originally posted by andrew [       The United States army can mobilize 1,000,000 troops to anywhere in the world within 24 hours including Antartica.   You are joking. They haven't the faintest capability of that

Originally posted by andrew Originally posted by Peteratwar Originally posted by andrew [       The United States army can mobilize 1,000,000 troops to anywhere in the world within 24 hours including Antartica.   You are joking. They haven't the faintest capability of that   You'd be amazed then.

I believe man kind and penguins can co-exist peacefully If not I'd like to see the Americans land a million men on an ice-shelf, only to realise it's 2 inches thick

Everything that Julius Caesar did relied on speed, chance and agression. Look at the battle of Dyrachium - he lost horribly because he just tried the same tactics over and over again. Pompey could have completely left Caesar's army to starve, but the politicians in his camp like Cato and Marius forced him to attack and thus lose later in the campaign.

Yes, but if you look at the Generals who defeated Hannibal like Scipio Africanus and Marcellus, they were just as talented. Hannibal a competent general, yes, but he was taking a huge gamble and was driven on by his fury and hatred for Rome. Marcellus and Scipio managed to see through his plan and defeat it using ingenious methods. He could never have won anyway - as you said, he never had the support of Hanno and the council at Carthage, and the Roman republic was organized enough to stop him. When looking at these military masterminds, you also have to wonder how well they exploited their victories - and Alexander for one was not good at that!