Who was the Greatest General?

I think Genghis Khan, out of the list, was the best one by far. First off, he had to gain his power, unlike Alexander who inherited it. He also faced the Chinese, who did not have the best military, but were a lot better than the Persians, and had a lot more men. Khan even had to face the Tatars, and slaughtered them easily.

Yes, Khan did have losses, but almost always was outnumbered in his battles by competent enemies. Not like the Persians Alexander faced.

Caesar is definitely up there in the greatest of all generals. I think he is second on the list. Much like Khan, he was outnumbered at Alesia, but the Gauls were pretty crappy, but at least they wanted to fight. The Mongols were a lot fearsome and were different people than the Romans, but they faced many different types of enemies.

You would have to give me more info on the battlefield and the forces Caesar and the Khan would command.

And yes I love rome, but only rome between 100 B.C.E.-44.B.C.E.

 

Khan lost his first battle and adapted to win his second one and take over the clan. Khan displayed all of those qualities and did much better things than Scipio did.

From this list, I would have to choose Julius Ceasar. To me, he embodies everything a Roman is: strength, intelligence, cunning, ambition, and arrogance. To his credit, he refused to study the techniques of his enemies and their generals because he refused to believe that there was anyone with superior generalship.

Personally, I find that the most interesting period of classical Roman history was c260 CE. This was the time when Rome was beset by many strong enemies from the outside and withing, but still strong enough to defeat them all.

I don't view Scipio as being a death-blow to the Republic like Caesar, but he did engage in some dubious practices which the Repbulic lost out on because of. A good example of this is promoting his brother as leader of the Eastern campaign which Africanus was actually responsible for. When they attempted to prosecute his brother (who had received the name Asiaticus for the Eastern campaign) Africanus simply made a powerful speech to the plebs and they all went off making a bid din and leaving the impotent Senatorial prosecutors standing in their wake. Still though, his contributions to Rome do outweigh how he damaged it.

I have to go with Genghis Khan - the Mongol conqueror!!

Morty

 I personally dont rate Alexander very highly at all, but I have a major soft spot for Scipio, he was a military genius, but also a very likeable character in history along with Caeser but for differing reasons.

 Overall though, just for the position he was in I have to say Hannibal, in the enemies back yard for about 15 years, smashing one vast army after another, with barely any hope of reinforcements to replenish the troops he brought with him and for a large part of his campaign almost no real support.

 Theres a difference in class to a general who can invade a country win a few victories and then leave, but to stay in enemy territory for so long and have that many victories is just as far as im aware unmatched anywhere else by anybody else.

 Put Hannibal against Caeser and Caeser maybe could win, but Caeser was never in the kind of position Hannibal was in for aslong as Hannibal was so for the handling of their respective situations Hannibal wins, because I doubt there is anybody who could of kept an army together for that long and kept it to such a high standard for that long.

An interesting thing is, just on that note of Rome's change because of Hannibal, is that Rome was sort of an accidental empire, most wars were defensive, fears of other empires and neighbours invading drove the Romans to attack before they did.