Rank other ancient generals

[blackajax1]

Chime in with your rank of other ancient
generals! I think Alexander is without peer,
Hannibal is a distant second with Caesar in
third place. Agreement, dissent, discussion
encouragedBlack Ajax

[Ranking generals]

1 ALEXANDER IS WITHOUT EQUAL THROUGH HISTORY2 HANNIBAL SECOND WON GREAT VICTORIES AGAINS USELESS ROMAN GENERALS HIS MAIN STRENGTH WAS AMBUSH, ALEXANDER WOULD NOT HAVE FALLEN FOR AMBUSH.3 SCIPPIO AFRICANUUS AS HE HAD THE BRAIND TO BRING HANNIBAL DOWN4 JULIUS CAESAR BRILLIANT LEADER AND TACTICIAN5 EPAMINONDAS THE ORIGINAL ANCIENT MILITARY INOVATOR6 PHILIP 2ND MACEDON THE MAKER AND FORGER OF MACEDONIAN TACTICS AND MIGHT7 SPARTACUS LEAD HIS ARMY TO MANY VICTORIES AGAINST THE ROMAN REPUBLIC8AUGUSTUS CAESAR9 AGRIPPA FANTASTIC ROMAN GENERAL AND NAVAL COMMANDER OF THE TIME10 POMPEYE EQUAL TO CAESAR AT TIMES

[Kit]

If we are limiting ourselves to ancient commanders then I would rank my top five as follows:Alexander the Great
Hannibal Barca
Scipio Africanus
Julius Caesar
Phillip II of MacedonAlexander was, as you say, without peers. You can't really argue with his military record. Never defeated, fought varied opponents, over varied terrain. Fully skilled in all the arts of war, the complete commander.Hannibal- brilliant tactician, lead a multi-ethnic army over vast distances and years, defeated the Romans with apparent ease; to the extent that they avoided set piece battles. Failed to turn victory in battle into victory in war, never really threatened to take Rome, ultimately ran out of ideas. Scipio, pitted himself against one of the best commanders in history and won, operated under a stronger Republic than Caesar, which probably made his job that much harder. He knew Roman strengths and expoited Carthaginian weaknesses. His invasion of Africa to strike at Hannibal's homeland was a masterstroke. However, Rome had most of the advantages, manpower, and ultimately control of the sea etc- so difficult to rank him above the man he defeated. Caesar was a skilled leader, but the quality of his opponents was sometimes suspect- the Celts lacked the organisation and discipline to truly match a Roman army, Pompey's forces often lacked experience when compared to Caesar's. Still he was very successful! Phillip II, made Macedon a 'superpower' and created the army that served his son so well. Decisively defeated a combined Greek army at Chaeronea,however his main skill lay as a politician and innovator. The military option was not his preferred course, therefore we lack the quantity of evidence to rank him higher than the others in the military sphere alone. But, of course, that's just my viewpoint! I'm sure others will disagree.regards,Kit.

[ruthaki]

Alexander, of course. But then the question arises would he have become so great if he hadn't learned a lot of about strategies and warriorship from his renowned father Philip, who in turn learned war skills from Epaninondos. Next I'd pick Hannibal and then the Roman generals. Most of the major warriors after Alexander copied a lot of his tactics, I believe.

[aen]

We had a similar chit-chat on this kind of subject a while back.Look in the Forum archives for 'Hannibal May 17'.Interestingly, he is reported by Acilius to have rated not just Alexander but also Pyrrhus above himself.

[dio]

Interesting speculation! On the assumption we are strictly speaking of Greco-Roman generals then:1) Epaminondas. A revolutionary tactician. His reorganization of the phalanx and utilization of a stand alone elite force set the precedent for Alexanders victories. Whereas the Persians may have been limited chances against the Greeks due to differing armour and weapons there is no such excuse for what Epaminondas did to the Spartans. 2) Alexander, no elaboration needed!3) Hannibal. Strategic and tactical genius. The scourge of the Romans. With more resources he could have finished Rome off. 4) Scipio Africanus. You want to be the man? You have to beat the man. Cliche aside, his campaigns in Spain and against Hannibal were strategic masterpieces. 5)Philip II. Not only a master strategist and diplomat but an amazing general. Singlehandly saved Macedon from disintegration and built her to pre-eminence using the iron fist when the velvet hand did not work. His range of opponents, Thracians, Illyrians, Phokians, Athenians and Spartans is also quite the testament. 6) Belisarius (is this too late of an era?)Phyrrus, Iphicrates, Pelopidas, Caesar, Corbulo, Trajan, Constantine the Great, and many more....

[Kit]

Hi Diomedes,I think by and large we agree, although I would question Epaminondas inclusion above Alexander, Hannibal etc.He was an innovator to a degree, but his tactic at Leuctra really came down to overloading his left wing to 'steamroller' the spartan right. Whilst this was effective, and had probably only been done by accident before, it lacked a certain finesse!His main failing, as I see it, was his failure to integrate cavalry to the extent of Alexander/Phillip/Hannibal. The Thebans did well against other likeminded hoplite adversaries, but would they have fared as well against the far stronger Persian cavalry? I suspect not. Also, one great victory alone is insufficient evidence to rank someone as the 'best'. He died at Mantinea before victory was assured.I believe that you will find the Sacred Band was formed in 379/378BC by Gorgidas, and was first deployed together (as opposed to spreading them amongst the phalanx as previously done) by Pelopidas at Tegyra in 375BC. So I don't think we can give Epaminondas sole credit for them.Still, I agree he was a very good commander.regards,Kit.

[agesilaos]

As a laconophile I am honour bound to agree that Epaminondas has a shaky claim to greatness.But how about Agesilaos III militarily he was good but politically a disaster; or Kleomenes III reviver os Spartan fortunes and near ruin of Antigonos Doson, his campaigns demonstrate speed and decisiive action on much slender resources than Alexander.Also why ignore the Diadochoi; Lysimachos demonstrates brilliant generalship facing off Antigonos Monopthalmos and the plan for Ipsos is surely his(hence Athene Nikophoros on his coins)and he was facing organised enemies.Or Xanthippos saviour of Carthage, Alexander is the greatest conqueror but does comparison of the quality of his opponents and the resources he had available really make him the greatest general?

[Thebans not that good]

To put epaminondas above Alexander is down right silly he was a good inovator but Philip omacedon used these tactics and added to make a more compact formidable war machine, the Theban tactics worked well against the Spartan hoplites, but they were smashe completely at Cheronaia by Alexander companion cavalry on the right wing.To say Alexander fought minimal opposition a was also ludicrous , Granicus offered like and Memnon of Rhodes was a superb commander whodid have a good idear how to stop Alexander with a scorched earth policy.Gaugamella and Issuss Alexander was vastly out numbered and if taken from the rear he would have been enveloped and in real danger.Tyre and the other fortifications were awesome challenges and the result not always clear.guerrilla warefare in Afghanistan a challenge for any commander before or since.Pir Sar and the sogdian rock how many commander would have even dared to take them.Porus the Indian leader very brave and solid soldiers Alexander rouse tactics and mind games were brilliant.A head wound down to the bone, a bolt throughthe leg and an arrow to the lung showed courage braver and the determination to win and defeat any army or enemy.Without doubt the Greatest Military leader of all time.
Alexes Desciple

[Kit]

With regard to the Diodochi, did Alexander really have more resources available to him than they did? When he left for Asia he famously had nothing left but his hopes! The expansion in Hellenistic armies was a direct consequence of Alexander's conquests, and specifically his release of the contents of the Persian treasuries. This allowed his successors to raise vast armies, repeatedly, and they based them on the lessons learned from Alexander & Phillip. Although none of the Diadochi truly understood the 'key' lay not in the components themselves (cavalry/infantry/artillery), but in the balancing of them. The end result was that the phalanx became increasingly unflexible, which made things much easier for the Romans. The Diadochi would also have been generally fighting similar armies, Alexander fought just about everything around at the time!I like the Spartans too, and would agree that Agesilaos was a very good general, though made poor political decisions which directly contributed to Sparta's decline.All things considered however, I still believe that Alexander was a better general than those you have listed (probably not a shock to you as this is Alexander's website!). To some extent the end result, victory or defeat, will play a major role in determining a 'pecking order'- results matter: and Alexander got them!But as I said before, I'm sure others will disagree.best wishes,Kit.

[dio]

Hello Kit,The oblique order may have been simply overloading the left wing to overwhelm the Spartan right but it is amazing that his was the first recorded use of this appearingly simple, but brutally effective tactic. The fact that he destroyed a three century old Spartan battle invicibility and within a very short time even attacked Sparta itself speaks volumes to his military efficiency. I have to disagree on this tactic 'lacking finesse'. I believe it is was a revolutionary concept that evolved the art of generalship from merely being another soldier (albeit a high ranking one)fighting in the ranks to using tactics to best utilize your strengths against your enemies weaknesses to achieve maximum results (although still fighting in the ranks). The oblique order was later used by Alexander at Guagamala with brilliant results. Epaminondas did not have the oppurtunity to fully develop the cavalry arm of the Theban army as he was killed relatively young and the Theban hegemony was not complete. Bearing in mind that Thebes did not have the cavalry resources of Thessaly and Macedonia but in time this may have changed, especially if the Thebans could have done what Philip later did do, become Lord of Thessaly. I have also read somewhere and I will post this if I can locate the source, that Epaminondas was indeed beginning to show tactical innovation with the cavalry. It is not merely the victory at Leuctra that gives Epaminondas precedence in my eyes. It was the revolutionary developement of tactics and generalship combined with his battlefield victories at Leuctra, the invasions of the Peloponnesus with their subsequent bottling up of the Spartans, and the final victory at Mantinea (admittedly inconclusive due to Epaminondas death).You are indeed correct about Gorgias and Pelopidas creation of the Sacred Band but Epaminondas was the general who integrated them so effectively into the set piece battle with the desired results. It cannot be mere coincidence that Philip spent some years in Thebes at the house of a close friend of Epaminondas, went back to Macedon and reformed the army and went on to such spectacular success which was handed down to Alexander. I will stick with my opinion that Epaminondas is the greatest of ancient Greco-Roman generals. It was his innovations that linearly led to some of the great Alexander victories

[dio]

Dear Alexander's disciple,I would have to disagree that the 'Theban' tactics were to blame for the defeat at Charonea. Firstly, it was a combined Theban and Athenian army. Secondly, it was the Athenians who fell for Philip's feigned retreat and blindly rushed forward that cost the battle. Thirdly, Epaminondas was not their to lead them. I do not at all say that Alexander fought 'minimal' opposition. I merely point out that the Greeks had an advantage in their combined arms system of heavy infantry and heavy cavalry. Alexander fully used this to maximum advantage. What makes me respect Epaminondas so is that he did not have this advantage but through his generalship created an advantage. At Guagemala, Alexander used an oblique battle formation which was developed by Epaminondas. He basically loaded up one wing (his wing) marched at an oblique to hold back the weaker wing from contact with the Persians for as long as he could until his 'heavier' side won the battle. A la Leuctra. Alexanders siege and guerilla warfare are amazing accomplishments, but so are Epaminondas masterly bottling up of the Spartan power and subjucation of the Athenians and Spartans. He reduced a three century old Spartan military invicibility in a matter of a few years to the point of barely being able to hold Sparta. All this against a top rank general such as Agesilaus no less. It is no coincidence that Philip stayed at the home of a good friend of Epaminondas while he was a hostage in Thebes, went back home to Macedon and reformed the army to such an effective degree. This was handed down to Alexander.

[davej]

Karl! What about Brasidas and Gylippus or even Lysander? Brasidas nearly won the Pelop War by himself. Agesilaos was a gret general, no doubt and he sure showed how soft Persian defense was. But he did bring about the political and military reforms at Thebes that spelt death to Sparta. For that Reason I vote he be struck from the list. Just kidding. I love old gammy leg.

[marcus]

I'm intrigued as to why you include Augustus on the list. He generally left the generalling (if you see what I mean) to other people - in fact, I'm not aware of any occasion when he actually led an army except as a pure figurehead.All the bestMarcus

[Nicator]

Sparta's male population shrank to dismal levels well before Leuctra. Let's not overlook the fact that Sparta could not put a force in the field to adequately compete with the much more populous Thebans in either conflict. The tactic which worked to overwhelm her was of shock. The 120 man deep line simply punched through the right wing of Sparta. This tactic was risky without adequate cavalry protection, and probably only worked because the Spartans never saw it before this. A line that deep lends itself vulnerable to a flanking maneuver. Typically, ATG kept his line depth to a much more reasonable 8 deep. With this more traditional depth, he achieved a high degree of maneuverability, and maintained the safety of his flanks...To further protect his flanks he used cavalry on either side of the main army, and used Hypaspists (specialists) to shore up any penetrations made inside. Someone mentioned that Philip II and ATG had a more balanced attack. I couldn't agree more. Though I will agree, Epaminondas definitely had some great ideas, and who knows what he could have done had he not been eliminated at Mantinea, I agree with the statement..."one great victory, does not a great general make"...Let's also not forget that Alexander was a true master of all forms of warfare, speed and shock, the siege, guerilla, pitched battle, ambush, the rouse, and many innovations. It was Epaminondas' maneuver which was used as the basis for the battle of Guagamela, but it was the clever variation and implementation put forth by Alexander which made it effective. The rolling double phalanx box, the pulling maneuver to the right to thin the Persian line, dodging Persia's Schythed chariots, the sweep into the Persian backfield...all innovations in tactics which Epaminondas couldn't have dreamed. All this while outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1, with a mostly offensive force of heavily mailed cavalry, and 15 elephants to boot. These were odds which Epaminondas never had to contend. The fact that Alexander was intelligent enough to use the well known maneuver modified with his own brilliant variations effectively in a battle of this magnitude says multitudes of his genius for battle. This is not even a smattering of his brilliance for innovation and cunning under fire. One could easily run off a multitude of other well known examples of why Alexander was truly the best general ever. Not the least of which were: Hydaspes (tactics still used in modern w