Who is the Greatest Military leader of the Ancient period?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2938
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 15:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who is the Greatest Military leader of the Ancient period?
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Subject: Who is the Greatest Military leader of the Ancient period?
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 16:11
|
Who is the Greatest Military leader of the Ancient period?
Cyrus the Great (R. 559-30)- Persia ruler, first truly great general in history. Darius the Great (R. 521-486)- Persian, annexed Thrace and Macedonia. Alexander the Great (R. 336-323)- Macedonia, conquerored Persia and almost the entire "known" world. Hannibal Barca- Carthaginian, invaded Italy with much success in the Second Punic War against Rome. Scipio Africanus- Roman General, defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 B.C. Dionysius (R. 405-367)- Syracusan, conquerored most of Sicily and southern Italy. Faught four wars against Carthage. Julius Caesar- Roman general, conquerored Gaul and defeated Pompey in the Great Civil War to gain power in Rome. Sulla- Roman general and dictator, won important battles for the empire in Greece (83-81 B.C.) Pompey the Great - Roman general, expanded the empire in the east. ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Replies:
Posted By: RED GUARD
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 19:48
|
Atilla!
------------- Quotes by your's turly: "I came, I saw, and I conquered... but only for the weekend" "This is my tank, this is my weapon, and this is my pride." "Power comes from a barrel of a gun." |
Posted By: aimfire
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 20:52
| Well, most successful would be Alexzander. But you mean most tactcally adept, don't you? There is a certain Mongollian that comes to mind.... |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 14:29
| Chadragupta Maurya - Founded the Mauryan dynasty and empire |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 18:56
|
It's a difficult choice. The three that are most prominent, in my
opinion, are Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, and Hannibal.
------------- |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 20:18
|
And there was me thinking that Dionysius was the god of wine and partying.
-------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 17:00
|
In my opinion Alexander the Great and sargon of akkad he build the first empire in the world the akkadian empire in mesopotamia and i dont know why they didn't put him in the list ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2005 at 13:53
|
The greatest of them all must be Alexander the Great, I can't
think of anyone who could equal his deeds as a military leader. The
next two should be Cyrus the Great and Hannibal Barca.
------------- |
Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2005 at 15:00
|
Not really (Thutmosis III, Tiglath-pilesar III, Madyes, etc.).
------------- τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι; |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2005 at 18:00
|
Alexander the great the best but his suddenly death stopped the invasion and his soldier when they refused to going forward into deep of india after him i elect hannibal ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid 
|
Posted By: Isis
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 12:52
|
Was a tough choice but I voted for Hannibal - the uniting of minorites, the tough journey to Italy, the tactics. All symbolise a great leader. |
Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 13:30
| The greatest military of tolerence and heart was CYRUS. |
Posted By: giani_82
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2005 at 02:31
| Hannibal he had little to none support from Carthage, yet he managed to keep his soldiers faithful (unlike Alexander and Caesar to some extent) though they were mostly mercenaries. At some point he even had to use roman armor and weapons to arm his army. He was not corrupted by power remaining closer to his soldiers than anyone else. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2005 at 10:47
I voted Alexander, as nobody to this day has accomplished what he has.  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-May-2005 at 19:10
|
I would argue that not only was Hannibal the greatest military leader of ancient times, he was the greatest of all time. His leadership, tactics, and negotiation skills were incredible. ------------- |
Posted By: EvilNed
Date Posted: 23-May-2005 at 03:05
|
I say Alexander. He could handle sieges, something that Hannibal could not, and he also manipulated the line of the enemy. Hannibal's tactics were awesome, but Alexander actually changed the way his enemy's lines were formed, in order to get what he wanted! Also, he was never defeated in battle, which is quite an accomplishment. Alexander, with Hannibal a close second. |
Posted By: Kenaney
Date Posted: 23-May-2005 at 13:55
|
I would say METEHAN its by him you can talk about military... ------------- OUT OF LIMIT |
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 17:21
|
If you love Ancient history please check out this great forum: http://ancient-empires.net/forum/index.php?act=idx - http://ancient-empires.net/forum/index.php?act=idx ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 04:08
|
Alexander the Great, because he conquered the most land mass ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: GENERAL PARMENION
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 19:39
|
http://www.livius.org/a/1/greeks/alexander_capit.jpg"> ALEXANDER THE GREAT ------------- "There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks." (Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author" In Interview with newspaper TO BHMA) |
Posted By: kermit_criminal
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 16:50
| lol no mongolians huh |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 05:52
|
I vote for Alexander. Tactics is not everything. Hannibal do know how to gain victory in battle, bur do not know how to win a war. 1. Alexander 2. Iulius Caesar 3. Hannibal |
Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 05:58
|
Tactics is not everything. Hannibal do know how to gain victory in battle, bur do not know how to win a war. ????? my vote for hannibal and alexander as well ------------- "I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!" |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 18:09
|
While Alexander deservedly thrones on top, Sulla and Pompey as usual get far too little recognition. They seem to sort of disappear in the shadow of Caesar and his celebrity status. So my vote goes to Pompey, a seemingly invincible man in his prime, who three times rode in victory processions through the streets of Rome. Admittedly he lost his battle with Caesar, but this happened many, many years after his campaigning days.
------------- |
Posted By: farohar
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 03:49
I don't think it counts if he died as early as Alexander did... I mean he was a great leader, but he died at his prime, not like anyone had the chance to defeat him ------------- Humata, Hukta, Huvarashta Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds |
Posted By: farohar
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 03:59
|
I vote Cyrus, cause i'm Iranian. My unbiased opinion would be Genghis Khan coz he took over pretty much everything, even though I really really don't like that guy... second Cyrus the Great, coz the first battle he fought against his Grandfather Astayges, the Median King (i'm not sure thats how you spell it), not a single person was killed because the Median army switched sides and that he was a good leader/person as well as a military leader and third Alexander the Great ------------- Humata, Hukta, Huvarashta Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds |
Posted By: reign
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 16:50
|
I vote others. Jayavarman Vll might not be the greatest king, but he is one of the greatest king, and for sure he is the greatest khmer king that ever existed. He deserve recognition and a place on any greatest king poll. Here is my reason. Jayavarman Vll lost the throne twice. One after his father, King Dharanindravarman ll, died to his cousin, Yasovarman. Then, to a priest named Tribhuvanadityavarman who upsurped the throne from Yasovarman. Jayavarman went to exile in Champa leaving his wife Sri jayarajdevi behind. During Tribhuvanadityavarman reign, the empire was clouded by darkness. In 1177, the chams attacked the empire by sea, and sacking Angkor. The chams occupied the empire for 5 years untill Jayavarman organize a struggle for independence and sucessfully drove the invaders out. At the age of 61, he was crowned king. During his reign, he sacked the rich and powerful capital of Champa expanding the empire's territory, constucted 121 hospitals to house his injured warriors, his capital Angkor Thom, a large numbers of temples honoring his mother and father, and the most unique and myterious buddhist temple, Bayon with its 54 face tower. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2005 at 12:45
|
My vote goes to Hannibal followed closely by Scipio Africanus,two great tactitions but Hannibal had minor support so he gets it. Alexanders achievments were Great but were his opposition as good as the Romans or Carthage troops? |
Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 21:49
who made up this poll list??? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Togodumnus
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 19:38
|
I voted for Hannibal because he reminds me of R.E.Lee,having great
success with men and material much inferior to the enemy by strenght of
will and personal brilliance.
------------- History is simply the record of mankinds repeated mistakes...and fruitless efforts at redemption. |
Posted By: Harry Potter
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2005 at 19:40
|
1. Alexander The Great 2. Hannibal Barca 3. Julius Caesar ------------- Macedonian swear in 1903 wars: With the blood we shed all over Macedonian fields and forests, we serve freedom, as the Macedonian army of Alexander of Macedon did, with our slogan Freedom or Death! |
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 11:55
|
Myself, why. ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Posted By: avesta
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 01:06
|
'Greatest Military Leader' means strictly who is the best battlefield commander, is that right? I would have to say either Hannibal, Alexander, Genghis Khan, or Napoleon. Hannibal won the battle of Cannae, encircling the roman legions and slaughtering them. This strategy was employed hundreds of years later by Napoleon, and is taught by modern day military academies. I dont know much about Hannibal, but this seems like quite an accomplishment. To see an interesting thread visit here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25322 - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25322 Alexander never suffered a loss on the battlefield, that certainly counts for something. At Guagamela he defeated an army which had a battle line that stretched at least a few hundred meters past his. Although, the Persian army wasn't really designed for fighting, it was more designed for intimidation and surrender, due to it's sheer size and number of soldiers. Nevertheless, with numbers stated by historians from 250,000 soldiers+ against an army of 47,000 greeks, it is quite an accomplishment to not be outflanked to death by your opponent, let alone win the battle. Some historians would argue that any competent general would have been able to defeat the Persians at Guagamela by simply seeing the weaknesses, and exploiting them, but it does take a great leader to rally so many men to charge into a heap of soldiers when you're so outnumbered. Also don't forget that Alexander was able to cover great distances in a very short period of time. Although this may have caused him to die since he the cause of his death isn't very well documented. I listed Napoleon because he is regarded by historians as the most successful battlefield commander due to his large number of victories. I read somewhere that no one had won more battles in their time than Napoleon. That certainly counts for something. Genghis Khan's horsemanship was something that deserves mention. They were able to cover great distances in short times, and often used hit and run tactics as they relied heavily on mounted missile units. It is said that their cavalry consisted of grass fed ponies. Sacking the city of Beijing is a huge tactical accomplishment. I dont know much about Genghis Khan's (or should I say Chingis Khan to be correct) battlefield brilliance, but I do know that he must have won numerous battles in order to conquer so much territory. Out of these 4 men I would lean towards Napoleon being the best battlefield commander since it is said that he achieved the most victories out of anyone. |
Posted By: Publius Scipio Africanus
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 01:28
|
Wall, I would have chosen Alexander, but since no one chose Scipio, I just had to choose him I chose Scipio, because of all his qualities as a commander and his loyalty to Rome, as well as quite a few victories. ------------- 'I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 96% how I react to it.' Scipio Africanus |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 22:09
|
Julius Caesar because of his military genuise and ability to lead the greatest army in ancient history. Gallic wars, Civil wars, Alexandrian wars, Spanish wars, African wars, and more under his belt. ------------- |
Posted By: King_Cyrus
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 00:22
|
Poirot you are obviosly ignorant to the success of the Mongol Ghengis Khan. Khans empire was 3 times the size of Alexanders. My choice of the Greatist is a tie between Cyrus the Great and Ghengis Khan. Although the two mens tactics were practiclly completly opposites. And for those of u who chose Alexander although it is true he could make his opponents change there movements during a battle most of his success is due to the fact that the Macidonian army was the most advanced army of its time. Also his victory against the Persians only showed that the Persians were weekend by coruption and the large Persian army being put together so fast shows the fact that the majority were untrained levies. Most importantly though the Persians that Alexander fought wore week armor or no armor at all ( which in close quarters combat can make a huge difference). |
Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2005 at 11:52
|
Chingis Khan............... -------------  Jai Badri Vishal
|
Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 23:15
|
I vote for Julius Caesar and Alexandrian.... Julius Caesar wan he fought the Gulls in the final battle he only had 40,000 men wile the Gulls had 250,000 men. ------------- Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris --If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar. "game over!! man game over!!" |
Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 01:35
------------- "I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon" 
|
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 01:49
|
Oh, my... where do I start... 1) stop bickering about Chinghiz, this poll clearly states that it considers ancient military leaders. The Greatest of the Khans lived a thousand years after anything "ancient" could've occured. Set up a poll - in the relevent forum - for "medieval leaders" and I'll be the first to vote for him 2) Why does everyone feel compelled to vote for (or mention) his fellowcountrymen? It states "greatest military leader in ancient times" not "of your nation"... 3) Alexander never lost a battle ramin. you have sources pointing otherwise? because the sources everybody else has say Alex died undefeated... or, as put by his contemporaries, defetaed only by the thighs of Hephaestion |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 06:03
|
I voted for Pompeus Magnus. He's not very known but he's my favourite Roman hero. I think his greatest campaign was the one against the pirates that infested the Mediterranean: he menaged to bring safety to the sea routes and assured food import to Italy. Without him Rome may have been defeated by famine. ------------- |
Posted By: Menander
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 18:36
|
I think Alexander the Great is extremely overrated. He was a good
general, surely, but he faced a crumbling, corrupt empire led by an
incompetant king using an outdated mode of warfare. To boot, Alexander's army was not of his own creation. As for him being ever defeated in battle, he was never outright defeated in a field battle (with Phillip's innovations, who would have been?), but was outmaneuvered many times, especially in his efforts to subdue Central Asia. Let's not forget that he was quite insane. ------------- "No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." -Siddhartha Gautama |
Posted By: Setchi
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 11:00
| i would say hannibal.but he was out of luck because the senate didnt want support him.maybe if they did it hannibal would showed us more |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 17:12
|
I voted for Alexander the Great because regardless of his personal vices he was a great general who conquered an incredible amount of territory in a relatively short period of time. Also his impact on the ancient world in a cultural sense was immense, he was the catalyst of the hellenistic era. As great as Hannibal was, he himself ranked Alexander as a better general because he (Hannibal) lost the battle of Zama. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: fastspawn
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 19:47
|
Hannibal himself rates,
Alexander Scipio then himself He said if he had finished Zama victorious he would place himself above Scipio. That shows that Hannibal himself proud man as he was, would no matter, what he did, rate himself below Alexander. TO those who repeatedly state mongol, or genghis kahn. Well 1200 is not ancient is it? |
Posted By: PrznKonectoid
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 22:59
|
Alexander might have conquered large amounts of Territory but common, who was the original, Cyrus of course. That is where my vote goes Also a lot of people misunderstand Darius. He did not just become king of the Persian Empire, he had to reclaim almost every satrap which revolted against him with a practically no money and only a modest army, and not even a homebase to begin with. Yet he achieved, he also had many successes against Scythians, the inhabitants of Hindush, and in Europe. Though the Greek wars are often overrepresented as disasters, Darius did win many battles and conquered northern Greece as well as many Greek islands with vital resources. ------------- Want to know more on ancient Iran? http://www.parsaworld.com - http://www.parsaworld.com or join our forums FORUM |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 01:56
i vote for hannibal. it was a big thing to organize this long march
trough spain ,france , croos the alpes and defeat the romans. for that
reason i called my first hamster when i was very young hannibal.  ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2005 at 17:44
|
I voted for Alexander because besides being a great strategos, tactician and leader, he was also a man with a great vision which enabled the spread of hellenism. Why else did the Romans copied the Greek Culture and how else where they also possible to corporate the religion of the rulerscultus (that the leader or king was divine, absolute and the only God on this earth). Just look at the result of the empires that came after Alexander's Macedonian empire: The Seluecid Empire of Asia and The Ptolmaic Empire of Egypt being the most prominent examples. Hannibal never had such an impact, though he was a good strategos. For my dear great Djenghiz Khan, one can say that he had a very strong impact on China, but never one like that of Alexander on the other regions. There was never a real wide-range spread of Mongolian culture. They were nomads to begin with and they belong to the medieval time-period. And the poll was about the Ancient time-period! ------------- |
Posted By: IrishNation1
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 17:37
|
I have to say Alexander the Great. Becasue of how far he went and becasue of His pure skill. I mean the Battle of Gaulamelan it is estimated he Beat a Persin force of anything up to One Million men. I know this may be an exagerasion and Is. But I have no doubht he beat a force far greater than his own. ------------- Early this morning I signed my death warrant. Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 06:44
Can you just rephrase that fastpawn? It's a bit hard to comprehend  Also, I didn't think that conversation between Scipio and Hannibal was very credible  PS. I voted for Hannibal mainly due to the fact that he gathered an army primarily composed of Mercenaries (Iberians, Libyans, Gauls, Ligurians.etc.), marched over the Alps - in Winter, WITH ELEPHANTS - then managed to defeat the Romans in 3 key engagements in the following years (Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae). His tactical and strategic genius basically scared the heck out of Rome, all while Hannibal freely pillaged southern Italy. Hannibal was an amazingly adept general and this is evident from his success. Other great generals also featured on this list are Scipio and Caesar, both expressing brilliant tactical skill and strategic/political genius respectively. I really admire Cyrus as a leader for a number of reasons like the religious tolerance he showed and the respect he gained from many other peoples and leaders at that time.  |
Posted By: Khashayarshah
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 19:26
|
cyrus and dariush the great were the best i think. they both kept a
powerful empire up, conquered empires, and were good to the people.
Alexander, i dont like. and thats not just because i'm iranian.
Alexander was a bratty boy that was impatient to become the king of
macedonia. he was selfish, wanting to combine persian and greek
culture, which nobody wanted, and there is a theory that he even killed
his father for power. i say he's a little brat.
------------- Who is the real fool? the man who says what to do, or the man that follows him? |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 12:38
|
Shalmanesar? Essarhaddon? Some more Assyrians perhaps? ------------- |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 06:51
|
Ok there are a couple of things here, that need to be clarified: 1. This topic is about military ability, not personal character or morals, or for that manner ability in any other field- these are all irrelevant (for this topic). 2. I't doesn't matter how much Influence they had (except perhaps in military matters) or if they spread culture or not. 3. I strongly agree with Knights post In several respects: firstly that Hannibal was the greatest general of the ancient world  . Secondly that the source about Hannibal's conversation with Scipio
isn't very credible (in this area), but would like to add that the
source says when Hannibal was asked by Scipio who the greatest generals
in History was He said that Alexander was the best, then Pyrrhus and
then himself. Scipio (probably a bit annoyed) asked him how he would
rank himself (Hannibal) if he had defeated him at Zama. To which
Hannibal replied that he would not ONLY place himself above those
generals but above all other's as well. There's a double meaning here .------------- |
Posted By: Christos
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2006 at 12:13
|
I voted Alexander because of the results, conquered more land than anyone else. (we say military leader so we dont have to think about stability and organization, and for a military leader who conquers then alexander is the best)
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 22:35
|
My vote goes to Alexander. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 01:53
| Lets not forget that Philip ll The Great created the "launching pad" for his great son. |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 09:36
| Cyrus the Great. |
Posted By: Shiroyeh
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 10:26
|
Cyrus the Great... forged an empire in just six years... that is impressive.
------------- ' How shall a man escape from that which is written; How shall he flee from his destiny? ' Ferdowsi |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 12:26
|
Cyrus.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 01:53
| The Roman Emperor Trajan should also be on that list. |
Posted By: Khashayarshah
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 20:47
|
The most strategic is definitly Ghengis Khan or Kublai khan, or Atilla.
As for first, and most influential, it is Cyrus and Dariush.
------------- Who is the real fool? the man who says what to do, or the man that follows him? |
Posted By: Khashayarshah
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 20:49
|
I think its because im iranian, but i dont like alexander. He conquered
one empire when it was at its weakest point and was called the "Great".
The Persians conquered The Egyptian empire, the babylonian empire, the
medes, and the assyrians to form a HUGE empire, and when it was at a
weak spot, alexander conquered it and was a hero for conquering a
fallen empire.
------------- Who is the real fool? the man who says what to do, or the man that follows him? |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 09:16
firstly Genghis Khan and Kublai khan are from the middle ages and hence invalid. Secondly I't doesn't mater how influential they were just how skilled. Finally Attila the Hun's military abilities and that of the Huns in general is highly overrated, just to sum it all up for Attila: Attila, his Huns and many other "tribes" that formed part of his coalition attacked a Roman empire divided in two and in a steady state of decline for over 200 years from among many other factors Dozens of Barbarian invasions before it. They then preceded to attack the weaker half of this decaying empire and LOST! True they werent conquered but Attilas Hunnic Empire didn't even outlast the Rotting corpse that was the western Roman empire. ------------- |
Posted By: Xshayathiya
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 10:04
Good Point. This is essentially what Khashayarshah is saying about Alexander. ------------- "I like rice. Rice is great if you are hungry and want 2000 of something." - Mitch Hedberg |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 10:49
To some extent yes, there are a few key differences however as Alexander though attacking a weakened empire, was fighting a united one and most importantly he won.....unlike Attila (Alexander also faced far greater odds than Attila). In Khashayarshah analysis Alexander's achievements in his short life time are compared to the conquests of the entire persian state (admittedly a great deal of this took place under one man:Cyrus). Alexander's other conquests are ignored in the analysis also. Finaly I would like to say that I voted for Hannibal not Alexander and would be more than willing to justify it if you or anyone else asks. |
Posted By: New User
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 21:48
|
Pretty much depends on what one means by greatest, ie most succesful or most talented etc etc. I voted for Alexander cos he was talented , succesful and his actions had long term effects. Also I do not know enough about Cyrus the Great to vote for him.
I did not vote for Hannibal as if I have a great military leader for my country I would want them to win the war not just the battles. Talent means nothing in war if you don't win in the long run. Scipio spanked his bum and sent him home.
|
Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 07:41
|
Whoa!!
hard to say, yes, but I have 4 favorites:
-Alexander the Great
-Hannibal Barca
-Julius Caesar
-Darius the Great
For Other which are not mentioned are:
-Antiochus III (Seleucid Empire)
-Augustus caesar (Roman Empire)
-Vincingetorix (Gaul)
-Hamlicar Barca (Carthage)
------------- "Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 09:04
|
Even if we take the subjugation of Asia away from Alexander, the simple fact that he was able to re-conquer Greece, as well as the Thracians and the Illyrians, would still put him atop many of historys greatest military leaders. |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 14:22
Alexander the Great!!! 
|
Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 17:56
|
Alexander the Great of macedon greatest Greek of all and one that was the shortest general to have ever graced the field!His legs couldnt reach the floor when he sat on the persian throne and they brought him a table to do it. The persian emperor was one big fellow!
------------- http://www.hoplites.net/ |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 02:06
Augustus Caesar rarely took the field personally the majority of his victories in the civil wars were the result of his general Agrippa's ability, and those of his later years were won by Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 05:05
Alexander for sheer brilliance without having the natural advantages Cyrus had.
Yes, he was a politician not a warrior. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 02:23
| Antiochus The Great of the Seleucid Empire, the 6th Seleucid ruler, should be on that list, becuase he "walked in the footsteps Alexander The Great left". The defeat he recieved at the hand of Pharoah Ptolemy IV of Egypt, in 217 BC, was a defeat that should have completely destroyed/ended the Seleucid Empire as a whole, but it didnt. He held the Empire together. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 08:26
|
Yes, Antiochus was certainly a capable general, probably better than the likes of Dionysius (who is on the list), however, he did have his downsides. He lost a few battles largely due to impetuousness, as he got a bit carried away with his cavalry pursuits...still, he managed to pull through and win back the war despite losing battles like Raphia. In my opinion, Selecus was the greater of the two (He and Antiochus), but I am no expert on the subject and am open to objection. - Knights - ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 08:56
|
For reasons already mentioned, I will go with Alexander.
------------- |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 09:12
What may I ask are Cyrus's "natural advantages"? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 04:06
|
The problem with Alexander is we don't actually know what he personally managed and what his generals achieved which he was given credit before. The sources are all from when the cult of personality was in full swing and many of the generals practically need Alexander to tell them how to walk.
Now he could have achieved everything credited but then it begs the question why he was able to choose such poor help.
Personally I'd go for Scipio, he might not be the greatest at set peice battles or being the most dynamic but when it comes to seeing the big picture and stripping a resource base then he couldn't be beaten.
|
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 19:24
Well, he personally managed to lead the Companion Cavalry into battle  |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 19:41
|
Alexander the Great and Hannibal Barca. I can see strengths in boths:
Alexander had to face overwhelming, which is an understatement, odds to defeat a land that was thought at that time unconquerable the Persian Empire. Not only did he defeat it he down right crushed it at its height. I do believe however, the Persian army was weak. The nicely clothed, sheer numbered Persians are no match for the heavily armoured well trained Greek army as was displayed in Thermompalyae. Still defeating waves of million of Persians with 20,000 men detatched from their homes in Europe fighting a war against the strongest nation in the world, Persia, was amazing to say the least.
Hanibal was a trained general and was fueled by hate for Rome. He knew hot to command his troops and was the best strategic commander of his time, moreso then Alexander. He beat Rome when it was still a young fledgling state but the Roman army was still far superior to the Carthaginian one seeing as how Carthage overly depended on their ships. He had no support and was not fueled by riches but was driven by his emotions. Taking the battle to Rome's turf at that time was unheard of but he beat them in a string of battles. The Battle of Cannae is a testament to this military mastermind.
I choose Alexander because he knew hot to exploit a victory.
As Hannibal's companion Maharbal said, "Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but did not know how to use it."
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 02:06
Firstly Persia was not at its height when conquered by Alexander but had been in decline for some time. Secondly Alexander had approximately 50,000 men at Guagamela not 20,000 And Its believed that the Persians had 200,000 to 250,000 men not one million men at this battle also (this was the battle where Alexander faced the largest Persian force in his career). However Those are great odds in thier own right though you have (I assume unknowingly) vastly exagerated them.
Sigh....once again I hear this misconception supported by this dubius qoute, I feel too lazy to explain this again so I will refer you to a thread that discusses this misconception: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18816&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18816&PN=1 Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 15:42
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.
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 00:57
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 02:08
| The army of Emperor Xerxes is said to have moved in one huge group, without being split up into seperate units. That alone would prove that the army was not 1,000,000 strong, becuase it would be entirely too difficult for a group of people to travel in such a mass. Impossible even. |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 10:56
Please re-read my post not once did I say that Herodutus was alive during Alexander's conquest of Persia.
"The army of Emperor Xerxes is said to have moved in one huge group, without being split up into seperate units. That alone would prove that the army was not 1,000,000 strong, becuase it would be entirely too difficult for a group of people to travel in such a mass. Impossible even."
Impossible for us to think or fathom it? Maybe. Impossible for the Persians to actually do it? Probably not. The Persians were known for their ground breaking achievements.
The United States army can mobilize 1,000,000 troops to anywhere in the world within 24 hours including Antartica.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 22:30
|
andrew, good points, and i would also like to say that even if the army wasnt truelly 1,000,000 strong...200-300,000 would still be the largest army to walk the earth at that time, which in itself is a ground breaking achievement. Xerxes also did the incredible by digging a channel through the isthmus of the peninsula of Mount Athos, storing provisions in stations on the road through Thrace and building two gigantic bridges across the Hellespont. All of which were "groundbreaking" accomplishments on his part. |
Posted By: Yekta
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 01:26
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population - Estimated world population at various dates . ------------- The fire that never dies burns in our hearts. |
Posted By: Southerneighbr
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 01:37
Off-course Alexander the Great had the best army...by succesfully spreading Hellenism throughout the then known world his achievements are even today celebrated by many civilazations.Go Greece!!!!
|
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 23:43
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"... |
Posted By: eumenes
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 13:03
| I think that Quintus Sertorius deserves mention. He defeated his fellow Romans in many battles in which they often outnumbered him, including Pompey the Great. Too bad he was assassinated before he could continue with his successes or set up an independent Hispania. :( |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 04:20
|
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. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 04:30
|
No long term political gains? He created the Hellenistic world!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 07:43
|
Yes, but that was a cultural gain not political. His Empire fell apart as soon as he died. |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 09:50
You are joking. They haven't the faintest capability of that
|
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 16:15
You'd be amazed then.
 |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 06:52
|
andrew- Are there any available sources claiming US army can mobilize one million of their troops and ship them as far as Antarctica within the 24 hours margin? If what you are saying is true, I can't help but wonder if the residents of New Orleans are furious with the fact that it took the relief efforts much longer than 24 hours to arrive and help them during the hurricane disaster? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 16:25
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------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 23:30
Larus, Alexander's empire didnt collapse. It simple gave birth to other empires, in the form of the Diodochi, the "successors". When Julius Caeser died, some of these empires were still in existence. Also, each and every one of them, continued to maintain and spread the Hellas culture, which can still be recognize in these locations today.
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 04:53
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 05:31
|
I would say Alexander, but I must confess I tend to equate military to social achievements. He conquered by his administration bringing Greek progress to areas in other lands that wanted to have a better way of life. For battle tactics alone I would probably chose Hannibal. How unfortunate that he did not have the support of Carthage at the time he most needed it.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 06:25
|
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! ------------- |