Good Ancients Match-Ups

[FierceKitty]

Frederick, Alexander, Nobunaga for mine.

[Waremblem]

Really!!!     

How many set-piece battles do you score Alexander in his Balkan Campaign?  Are you recording every battle Caesar wrote up as a set-piece battle?

The big three for me are: Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander.

Zero for Balkan Campaign. How many should I score? They were mostly skirmishes between under 8000 men. Basically, it was the equivalent of a Jeb Stuart cavalry raid.

I don't think there is any question Caesar would have beaten Hannibal. And Alexander, in my opinion, when you break down the myth is likely one of the most overrated generals in history. It was already established 100 years before that Greek hoplites would always beat Persian infantry. Phillip took that Greek army and injected steroids into it. Alexander inherited all of that and was able to cross the Bosphorus and win a couple battles with it.

[FierceKitty]

It's also repeatedly been established that Persians can eat hoplites for breakfast on the wargames table if they use their heads, numbers, and mobility. Whether they could have stopped a Macedonian army, and particularly one led by a very resourceful and inventive general, can only be speculation.

[Ithoriel]

For me, Caesar was an inspirational leader, who is well regarded because he wrote his own epitaph and was saved from his strategic ineptitude by his centurions. YMMV

[hammurabi70]

Zero for Balkan Campaign. How many should I score? They were mostly skirmishes between under 8000 men. Basically, it was the equivalent of a Jeb Stuart cavalry raid.

I don't think there is any question Caesar would have beaten Hannibal. And Alexander, in my opinion, when you break down the myth is likely one of the most overrated generals in history. It was already established 100 years before that Greek hoplites would always beat Persian infantry. Phillip took that Greek army and injected steroids into it. Alexander inherited all of that and was able to cross the Bosphorus and win a couple battles with it.

The scoring depends on your definitions, which would seem to be a minimum of two legions or equivalents on each side.  How complete are our historical records?

I am wondering why Caesar would unquestionably beat Hannibal.  Our knowledge of Caesar's victories are mainly known through his own writings [as pointed out elsewhere] whilst those of Hannibal through those of his enemies.  Both generals only fought a limited range of opponents.  Many claims have been made about Alexander inheriting his father's army but he fought a wide range of armies apart from conducting numerous sieges, showed tactical innovation and created the refused flank.  Given the claim that Napoleon was supposed to be worth 50,000 men no comment is needed.  The joy of personal opinion is that each can have their own.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Shapur II gets my vote.

[Waremblem]

It's also repeatedly been established that Persians can eat hoplites for breakfast on the wargames table if they use their heads, numbers, and mobility. Whether they could have stopped a Macedonian army, and particularly one led by a very resourceful and inventive general, can only be speculation.

That is because it is near impossible to replicate what made a hoplite a hoplite. What makes a knight a knight or a samurai a samurai? The Persians tried to raise hoplites after they were beaten in Greece and it didn't work. The nature of wargame rules is to make a fun game (at least modern ones) - history, however, tells us the Persians could not beat hoplites. Most general Ancient rules make hoplites stationary blocks that are easy to flank and defeat.

We know Caesar would have beaten Hannibal because Hannibal was beaten by Roman generals not the equal of Caesar. Caesar actually did fight against a wide range of foes - he beat Gauls, Germans, Spanish Vandals, Britons, Romans, etc. Caesar won huge set-piece battles all over the known world. I would not put Alexander in the top 10. For instance, Gengis Khan would have destroyed Alexander's army in about 3 hours. He would have drawn forward Alexander's impetuous Companion cavalry charge then would have shot the phalanxes to pieces. And that is giving GK Persian era bows so he doesn't have a tech advantage.

I like Napoleon, I have him 3. He was a great general. You can't go wrong with either Caesar or Napoleon both are God Tier generals. Alexander is more of an A or B rated general. About the equal of Rommel or Patton I'd say.

[Ithoriel]

Hannibal lost because Roman manpower and economic resources were greater than Carthaginian ones.

Hannibal understood combined arms, stratagems and tactics far better than Caesar did (IMHO).

A Roman Hannibal would have won the war, probably faster, while a Carthaginian Caesar would still have lost and probably faster too.

All that said, I don't beleive we can ever make a real decision on who was the "best" general because there are so many imponderables. We can certainly have our favourites though. However, like our favourite anythings, they will probably change. Sometimes minute-by-minute in my case

[Waremblem]

Yes, we all have favorites. Probably should start a thread about this topic somewhere so we don't hijack this thread. It is fun to banter about!

[Westmarcher]

For me, Caesar was an inspirational leader, who is well regarded because he wrote his own epitaph and was saved from his strategic ineptitude by his centurions. YMMV

Good ol' Vorenus and Pullo. 

[flamingpig0]

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

[hammurabi70]

That is because it is near impossible to replicate what made a hoplite a hoplite. What makes a knight a knight or a samurai a samurai? The Persians tried to raise hoplites after they were beaten in Greece and it didn't work. The nature of wargame rules is to make a fun game (at least modern ones) - history, however, tells us the Persians could not beat hoplites. Most general Ancient rules make hoplites stationary blocks that are easy to flank and defeat.

We know Caesar would have beaten Hannibal because Hannibal was beaten by Roman generals not the equal of Caesar. Caesar actually did fight against a wide range of foes - he beat Gauls, Germans, Spanish Vandals, Britons, Romans, etc. Caesar won huge set-piece battles all over the known world. I would not put Alexander in the top 10. For instance, Gengis Khan would have destroyed Alexander's army in about 3 hours. He would have drawn forward Alexander's impetuous Companion cavalry charge then would have shot the phalanxes to pieces. And that is giving GK Persian era bows so he doesn't have a tech advantage.

I like Napoleon, I have him 3. He was a great general. You can't go wrong with either Caesar or Napoleon both are God Tier generals. Alexander is more of an A or B rated general. About the equal of Rommel or Patton I'd say.

So the Allied Generals of WWII were better than the German Generals of WWII because they were the winners?  Caesar's opponents were variants of Celts and Romans, which is hardly a wide range of fighting styles; Alexander had to take on Celts in the Balkans, Persians, Steppe tribes and Indians, which represents a wide range of military technology and fighting styles. Was Caesar's invasion of Britannia a success or failure?  The historians still dispute it.  This is the first suggestion I have ever seen that the Companion cavalry were impetuous.  Alexander took on cultures with a long history of using bows and using them effectively.  Fighting the steppe tribes was a tough struggle but he proved victorious.  Caesar was undoubtedly a great commander but did he not state that a contemporary Roman general in Spain was the greatest ever? 

At Cannae Hannibal comprehensively defeated his opponents on ground of their choosing at a time of their own choosing when outnumbered two to one.  The only loss he sustained, that I know of, was at Zama and it is well worth reading the article in SLINGSHOT on it that discusses the possible approach Hannibal had to winning it.

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

And I think we have a winner; an astute observation.

[Ithoriel]

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

He plucked victory from the jaws of defeat at Kadesh, to win a tactical victory, albeit a strategic draw.

Later he successfully campaigned in the Levant, taking territory as far North as Tunip from the Hittites, which he later traded for a peace treaty that lasted for the rest of his reign.

Best general ever? Probably not, but a force to be reckoned with none the less.

[steve_holmes_11]

The thing about the great generals:

They tend to have the best sergeants / centurions / file leaders ....

Never neglect the quality of your NCOs.

[Waremblem]

So the Allied Generals of WWII were better than the German Generals of WWII because they were the winners?  Caesar's opponents were variants of Celts and Romans, which is hardly a wide range of fighting styles; Alexander had to take on Celts in the Balkans, Persians, Steppe tribes and Indians, which represents a wide range of military technology and fighting styles. Was Caesar's invasion of Britannia a success or failure?  The historians still dispute it.  This is the first suggestion I have ever seen that the Companion cavalry were impetuous.  Alexander took on cultures with a long history of using bows and using them effectively.  Fighting the steppe tribes was a tough struggle but he proved victorious.  Caesar was undoubtedly a great commander but did he not state that a contemporary Roman general in Spain was the greatest ever? 

At Cannae Hannibal comprehensively defeated his opponents on ground of their choosing at a time of their own choosing when outnumbered two to one.  The only loss he sustained, that I know of, was at Zama and it is well worth reading the article in SLINGSHOT on it that discusses the possible approach Hannibal had to winning it.

And I think we have a winner; an astute observation.

Of course, the Allied generals were superior. Few armies and generals in the history of warfare are more overrated than the German army of 1939-45. The exception would be von Manstein who was a tactical genius and someone I would rate an S class general. However, even the much-hyped Rommel had tremendous flaws. I equate the German generals to the Confederates in the ACW - they benefited in the past a great deal from lost cause romanticism which has been curtailed quite a bit with recent scholarship.

Alexander conducting raids against disorganized tribes is hardly a testament to his qualities as a general leading set-piece battles. I have yet to hear about all these major victories Alex won. That is likely because there were only 5. Alex also shares a ton with Ramses - a whole boatload of propaganda about him and it's curious why we have no contemporary sources. The companions as a unit were not impetuous but the way Alex used them was. That would have never worked against Genghis. And - please, there are bows, then there are bow tactics that the Mongols used. Like comparing AA baseball to the Los Angelos Dodgers. And let's not forget Genghis defeated the greatest military power on one side of the world in China, crushed the best Islam had to offer, and then did the same to the Christain West.  

Caesar's invasion of Briton was a success to everyone but his detractors. It was never intended to be a full-scale conquest but a reconnaissance in force. The other vital quality Caesar had was that he never had his army destroyed. Napoleon, for example, lost massive armies in 1812, 1813 and his field army disintegrated in 1815. Now I will grant the Alexander defenders he mostly won (although I am positive his foray into India was a defeat later scrubbed into a "draw" by historians) but as I have already stated it was established 100 years prior hoplites would always beat Persians so I'm not sure how much battlefield credit he deserves for doing that. Alexader was certainly audacious but his actual generalship might have come up short against more equally matched foes.

As for Hannibal - again, I believe not in the same league. It is cited Hannibal won outnumbered at Cannae. I reply, so? Caesar was often heavily outnumbered. He won massive victories at Bibricate and Pharsalus being outnumbered 2:1. At Alesia, he conducted a siege while outnumbered then destroyed the entire assembled Gaul relief force. He invaded Germania and Briton destroying armies in his path just because he could. He won a civil war also being outnumbered - in fact he took Rome with a single legion. He then overthrew the entire Senate and transformed a Republic into an Empire. Tactically, he was innovative and from a morale perspective, few, if any, leaders have inspired men more (remember the Macedonians revolted against Alex). Caesar was a titan.