The 'Best' Ancient General

[markdienekes]

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

I'm not too knowledgeable on Vercingetorix, other than he suffered a series of defeats until he finally surrendered to Caesar... what do you think makes him a good general?

I heard he may have been quite young when he took command too, at an unsual age among the Celts.

 

[Ajidica]

Attila: No conquests to his name, only did as well as he did because the Roman Empire was in another one of its civil wars, and it had just lost Africa.
Vercingetorix: He lost big time at Alesia against the Romans.

EDIT: People being at a young age when they take command isn't unheard of. Alexius Comnenus was 14 when he was at Manzikert. He wasn't in command, but still.

 

[markdienekes]

14! That is young, but then I guess you'd have had to mature quickly back then!

 

[MajKira]

Me voting for Great Alex!
He came upon his father Philips feet to an incredible Ancient World Conquest, bringing Hellestic Greece to an unknown full bloom, annihilating Persia and reaching Indian Border.
If he wouldnt have died at an early age of 33 he would have gone upon Arabian Peninsula too.
And there were campaign preparations for a western expansion taking upon Rome and Carthago.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I'm not too knowledgeable on Vercingetorix, other than he suffered a series of defeats until he finally surrendered to Caesar... what do you think makes him a good general?

I heard he may have been quite young when he took command too, at an unsual age among the Celts.

forget about my suggestion then.

 

[Dachs]

Attila: No conquests to his name, only did as well as he did because the Roman Empire was in another one of its civil wars, and it had just lost Africa.

How soon we forget. What about the campaigns of the 440s against the East?

 

[LightSpectra]

I would say Gaius Marius. He restructuring of the Roman legion was so effective that campaigns waged in the east would at times result in in-battle casualty counts in the three-digit range.

 

[Dachs]

Eh? The restructure was a social engineering thing, not a tactical instrument thing.

 

[LightSpectra]

Eh? The restructure was a social engineering thing, not a tactical instrument thing.

There were tactical implications to it. For example, the fact that many soldiers opted for life-long service meant that each legion was consistently experienced, rather than a wholly fresh army each time a campaign was waged.

 

[Dachs]

Not really, since it was generally the same farmers picking up sticks and going to fight every campaign, the issue of battlefield experience wasn't connected. If the professionalized military had spent as much time off duty as the levies had, they'd have had as little experience. The entire issue was manpower needs, not casualty rates due to lack of experience (and casualty rates, especially cherry-picked ones, are unreliable anyway ).

 

[markdienekes]

There were tactical implications to it. For example, the fact that many soldiers opted for life-long service meant that each legion was consistently experienced, rather than a wholly fresh army each time a campaign was waged.

Actually, rather surprisingly, the professional soldiers of the first century BC did not generally engage in such complex lateral manoeuvres on the battlefield (compared to the Second Punic War), except for small bodies of reserves behind the lines. The Hanniballic War appears to be the high point of Grand tactical infantry manoeuvre, with a tendency for frontal slogging in other periods. The professionalism would certainly help with the spirit and identity of the legion! I guess in another way you could say they didn't actually need to do complex lateral manoeuvres, being good enough to destroy the enemy now simply slogging it out from the front.

 

[markdienekes]

forget about my suggestion then.

Oh no, it may well be a valid one! He did give Caesar some trouble, I'm just not aware if he achieved much success against the legions? It was a great feat to unite the tribes, and keep them together!

 

[HannibalBarka]

My vote goes for Myself obviously ;-)

 

[Xpl]

Alex and Julius did sort of conquer all of Europe and Africa and held freakishly large empires.
I personally think Cyrus is the best. I mean cmon, he conquered the great Babylonian Empire right under their nose.

 

[Incodcito]

Alex and Julius did sort of conquer all of Europe and Africa and held freakishly large empires.
I personally think Cyrus is the best. I mean cmon, he conquered the great Babylonian Empire right under their nose.

Julius and Alex should not be mentioned in the same breath. Alex is simply a superior general vis a vis Caesar.

 

[markdienekes]

Julius and Alex should not be mentioned in the same breath. Alex is simply a superior general vis a vis Caesar.

I think what impresses me the most with Caesar is his political, literary, and engineering skills, not to mention being a fairly decent tactician and strategist! Though for all that, he didn't see those assassins knives coming, did he!

 

[Incodcito]

I think what impresses me the most with Caesar is his political, literary, and engineering skills, not to mention being a fairly decent tactician and strategist! Though for all that, he didn't see those assassins knives coming, did he!

Ehh, I'm not so sure about his political skills. There wasn't an honor he wouldn't refuse... except the kingship, which he refused in a piece of political theater which backfired in numerous ways. Accepting the dictatorship in perpetuity didn't help either. I think he was a mediocre politician, thrusted to political power solely because of his military prowess and the almost lazy behavior of Pompey. Crassus getting killed in Parthia helped also.

Now Augustus was a good politician. All the power of Caesar which posing as the restorer of the Republic.

 

[Xpl]

Julius and Alex should not be mentioned in the same breath. Alex is simply a superior general vis a vis Caesar.

Well undoubtedly Alex was a better general. I must admit I rushed my post too quickly. But as a leader of an empire? It's possibly debatable?

 

[MajKira]

the greatest landmasses of Ancient was taken by hellenistic Alex, son of Philip Macedoniaaa
Rome wouldnt have come to a mediterrenean world power if Alex woudnt have died soo early, he would have taken whole Mediterranean too, for sure.

Ceasar was quite not bad taking Gaul but whole Persia,Egypt and up to India was by far greatest conquering general of Ancient under hellenization goal

 

[Dachs]

Julius and Alex should not be mentioned in the same breath. Alex is simply a superior general vis a vis Caesar.

Really? I think that you can definitely make an argument. Alex might've been flashier and had a better peak, but Caesar's (relative) longevity and numbers definitely put him into the argument. It's not as though Caesar faced consistently weak enemies or conquered that much less territory than Alex did. It's like Bird/Magic, except without any statistics to lend a cloak of objectivity.