The 'Best' Ancient General

Best Ancient General

  • Thutmose III

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Ramesses II

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Hannibal Barca

    Votes: 18 25.7%
  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 27 38.6%
  • Scipio Africanus

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Alaric I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Themistocles

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pyrrhus of Epirus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philip II of Macedon

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Attila the Hun

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Chandragupta II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ashoka the Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cyrus the Great

    Votes: 5 7.1%
  • Darius I of Persia

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Antiochus III the Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mithridates the Great

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Han Xin

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Pompey

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marcus Agrippa

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Belisarius

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Gaius Marius

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Sulla

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Flavius Aetius

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other: please specify

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Total voters
    70
as do I, and I'm late for work. Just wanna say one thing;
the movie was a good attempt, I think. Farrell pulls it off, Jolie and Kilmer were excellent. The rest of the cast.....Some of the scathing critiques seem to have been around the considerable history that was omitted from his story. If they really wanted to do a full portrait with the most notable events they would need at minimum a trilogy in 9 hours. But, I recently picked up the 214 minute 'final cut' that Stone never took to the theater. Haven't watched it yet, but I hope the extra footage is more than just Farrell bobbing up and down on Jared Leto.
 
as do I, and I'm late for work. Just wanna say one thing;
the movie was a good attempt, I think. Farrell pulls it off, Jolie and Kilmer were excellent. The rest of the cast.....Some of the scathing critiques seem to have been around the considerable history that was omitted from his story. If they really wanted to do a full portrait with the most notable events they would need at minimum a trilogy in 9 hours. But, I recently picked up the 214 minute 'final cut' that Stone never took to the theater. Haven't watched it yet, but I hope the extra footage is more than just Farrell bobbing up and down on Jared Leto.

I disagree. The movie was about one of the greatest Ancient Generals of all time and they had, what? 2 battle scenes? What a total bore. It's like making a movie about Frederick II and only making passing references to the War of Austrian Succession/7 Years' War.
 
yeah, seen one battle seen em all....hehe, riiiggghhht.
that seems to be the complaint of most, and I have to say I was a little disappointed that they skipped a lot of the historical drama.
 
I disagree. The movie was about one of the greatest Ancient Generals of all time and they had, what? 2 battle scenes? What a total bore. It's like making a movie about Frederick II and only making passing references to the War of Austrian Succession/7 Years' War.

Hey, Friedrich der Große wasn't just a warrior king. He was also a composer and political theorist, albeit remarkable at neither of them.
 
Hey, Friedrich der Große wasn't just a warrior king. He was also a composer and political theorist, albeit remarkable at neither of them.

I never said he wasn't.
 
I never said he wasn't.

But you could doubtlessly make a compelling and accurate movie about him without any references to his wars. Just his childhood is dramatic enough by Hollywood standards, really.
 
Make a Fred movie without wars and you miss the chance to have a Hohenfriedberg scene set to the Hohenfriedberger Marsch.
 
why I trolled? I only gave contra to Dachs that he should rather get marked as Troll!
Im noo troll and dont wanna be that ever!
I wont repeat what I said it was not bad at all. And its truth that Dachs is an A s s h o l e to mee
that wasnt ranting at all what I posted. It was assessment

Moderator Plotinus Assessment I dont consent to
but I know moderators actions are not beatable so Im not going against it at all
but jus saying what I think of that
I feel threatened by mod too

Moderator Action: Infraction for flaming and PDMA. Pls discuss mod actions thru PMs, and don't call other posters names. Thks. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Niall of the Nine Hostage was the Best Ancient General, by virtue of prodigious parenthood, which allowed him to build an army to outlast all the others. :p
 
Hannibal, because he had Rome on its knees and was held back by the rest of Carthage.

He was actually defeated by Rome, and Carthage deployed enormous amounts of resources for his expeditions.
 
What actually happened? My understanding was that politicians back home refused to give Hannibal the full support he needed until it was too late.

*braces self for Dachspwn*
Actually, he did get a reinforcement army, not long after Cannae IIRC. (Possibly after he captured Taras/Tarentum. Need to brush up.) That particular army was clearly from Africa. In addition, the Sicilian revolt was backed up by a Qarthadastim army (nobody's entirely sure where that one came from; the assumption is that it was from Africa). And, of course, Mago and Hasdrubal both led armies into Italy during the course of the war, the former coming from Africa and the latter from Iberia.

The story of Hannibal not being fully supported by the Punic republic comes from the fact that there was internal political dissension between the advocates of colonial expansion in Iberia and their opponents. The fact of the matter is that neither of those parties opposed war with Rome. To the best of our knowledge based on Livius and Polybios, the people of Qarthadast and Atiqa supported Hannibal's Italian campaign to the best of their financial ability.
 
So this sounds like the frequent complaint of Generals that they could have won a war if given infinite resources.
 
Well, to be fair, the Romans had near-infinite resources, which is why they won the war. :p
 
What actually happened? My understanding was that politicians back home refused to give Hannibal the full support he needed until it was too late.

*braces self for Dachspwn*

There were several reasons why he didn't get enough reinforcements, lack of support from Carthage was not one of them. In fact, the Barca's most likely had a lot of support, and Hanno's group were a minority, only placing the blame on Hannibal starting the war when he wasn't there and the Romans were in their backyard.

The Battle of Dertosa in 215 BC won by the Scipio brothers against Hasdrubal Barca's army he was bringing to Italy reveals some of their reinforcement plans from both Iberia and Africa. It really dealt Hannibal's efforts a terrible blow. Not only did he lose a large contingent of men coming to support him from Spain, but massive reinforcements from Africa were sent to replace those men lost to the Scipios to defend Spain.

Essentially, this victory prevented Carthage using up to four armies in Italy. Hasdrubal in the north would have applied pressure on the allies there, while Hannibal would have had new troops to defend his allies better while allowing him to take back the initiative lost due to not being able to be in two or more places at once, while Spain would have been fairly secure as the Romans may well have been concerned with the large Carthaginian forces in Italy.

At such a critical time, with Rome on the back foot after Cannae, this could well have been what Hannibal needed to win the war... but of course, some things were not in Hannibal's control.

There is only one recorded instance of Hannibal receiving reinforcements from Carthage, which arrived at Locri on the Bruttium coast in 215 BC under the command of Admiral Bomilcar - they had transported a force which included 40 elephants, cavalry and infantry. They also sent armies to Sardinia and Sicily. Sadly, without Hannibal leading the Sardinian expedition, the army was defeated, while those sent to Sicily ultimately suffered an epidemic which wiped them out. As late as 205 BC, Mago was sent with lots of money and troops to Northern Italy where he hired mercenaries and recruited, captured Genoa and held an area of Northern Italy for a couple of years, where he also received reinforcements from Africa.

Though he did rely on support from Carthage, his main hope, I believe, would have been support in Italy. When speaking to Antiochus of Syria on invading Italy, he said that 'Italy would provide both supplies and troops to an external enemy.'
 
My observation here is that most of the attempts that were made to reinforce Hannibal were on the initiative of the Barcid brothers, not the Carthaginian state.
 
He was actually defeated by Rome, and Carthage deployed enormous amounts of resources for his expeditions.

I know he was defeated, but he was right on the doorstep to Rome and lacked the means to break through the gates. I've also never seen anything that really shows the Carthiginian government giving as much support as they possibly could or should have.
 
Back
Top Bottom