The 'Best' Ancient General

[markdienekes]

Who would you say was the best general in antiquity? Select your option in the poll and let me know your reasons!

 

[Dachs]

Thread needs moar Thrasyboulos, Eumenes tes Kardias, Constantius III, and Demetrios I Aniketos.

 

[markdienekes]

Thread needs moar Thrasyboulos, Eumenes tes Kardias, Constantius III, and Demetrios I Aniketos.

The option 'other' and 'please specify' should cover that...

 

[Tee Kay]

Someone whose name is lost to history who actually did all the work that his superiors took credit for.

 

[markdienekes]

Someone whose name is lost to history who actually did all the work that his superiors took credit for.

I thought all these guys were one man armies.

 

[Incodcito]

Good question. Problem is, I don't know how to judge who a good general is. My gut instinct is Alexander due to the sheer amount of victories combined with no losses on the field of battle.

 

[markdienekes]

Good question. Problem is, I don't know how to judge who a good general is. My gut instinct is Alexander due to the sheer amount of victories combined with no losses on the field of battle.

The first post in this thread has some ideas on the criteria to judge generals: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?266934-The-Top-100-Generals-of-History

 

[sophie]

How trite.

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[markdienekes]

How trite.

Thanks for your welcome to the forums and contribution to the thread, if you have nothing to add to it, I don't see the point of being rude. If this is a dull topic for you, I hardly see the point in posting here.

Personally I feel it could be a good way to learn about generals you don't know about in this period and discuss those you do...

 

[sophie]

Thanks for your welcome to the forums and contribution to the thread, if you have nothing to add to it, I don't see the point of being rude. If this is a dull topic for you, I hardly see the point in posting here.

Personally I feel it could be a good way to learn about generals you don't know about in this period and discuss those you do...

I just don't see the purpose of "ranking" generals who operated in completely different political, historical, and geographical locations like some kind of "ESPN TOP TEN PLAYS" sort of thing. What purpose does this serve other than indulging the "3rd grader history buff" in you? There are better, more meaningful ways of showing off your history penis.

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling and language. Pls leave personal comments out of the discussion, thanks. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[markdienekes]

I just don't see the purpose of "ranking" generals who operated in completely different political, historical, and geographical locations like some kind of "ESPN TOP TEN PLAYS" sort of thing. What purpose does this serve other than indulging the "3rd grader history buff" in you? There are better, more meaningful ways of showing off your history penis.

Why do you think I wrote 'best' like that. It is impossible to rank them really... it is just a bit of fun.
?

 

[SnowlyWhite]

belisarius is antiquity? interesting...

 

[markdienekes]

belisarius is antiquity? interesting...

Lord Mahon and Ian Hughes both believe he was of Late Antiquity in their biographies of him, if I recall correctly!

 

[Ajidica]

I was going to say Belisarius or Narses. It is hard to say who was the better general. While Belisarius was probably better in the field, Justinian trusted Narses more so he gave him more troops and proper resources.

However, as Owen said ranking generals is like 'best sport plays'. It doesn't really accomplish anything besides fighting over which of several excellent generals should be 'best'.

 

[Dachs]

Then don't suggest the people you think were "best", suggest the competent ones that are most interesting to you. Is this really that hard?

 

[markdienekes]

I'll ask the moderators to delete this thread then

 

[Dreadnought]

My vote's for Scipio

 

[Ajidica]

I might be remembering this poorly, but didn't Scipio have a huge advantage because the bulk of the Carthaginian army was away in Spain so Hannibal was forced to make do with sub-standard troops against the Legions?

 

[markdienekes]

I might be remembering this poorly, but didn't Scipio have a huge advantage because the bulk of the Carthaginian army was away in Spain so Hannibal was forced to make do with sub-standard troops against the Legions?

Hannibal did have poor troops when he faced Scipio, but Scipio had done a lot of groundwork by capturing Spain (though, this was a much easier task than what Hannibal faced in Italy) and taking out a few armies in Africa before Hannibal was finally recalled to face him. Scipio beat Carthage's Numidian allies, and turned the rest onto their side. Hannibal had a core of veterans from his Italian campaign, but the rest of his troops were fairly raw and freshly levied following the disasters of the Great Plains and the burning of the camps (both Scipio victories against Hasdrubal Gisco and the Numidian king Syphax.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Themistocles was hardly a general, only fighting in one battle.
I chose Attila, but Vercingetorix should also be on the list.