Top 15 campaigns in Military History

BOTP

Warlord
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
184
I judged these 15 campaigns on their impact, and whether or not they succeeded with flying colors. Which sides met challenges in the face and spanked them to hell. Not just victories, but how they won those victories, and what were the odds and factors of their probable victory. How did they adapt to a changing situation that did not go along with their original plan? How daring were they? How did they react to a sudden dangerous situation?

(15) Tullahoma Campaign

One of the greatest military marvels of the Civil War; The Tullahoma Campaign is often overlooked and overshadowed by the simultaneous events of Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Within a month's time, the Union army advanced 100 miles at the price of 500 casualties, and managed to accomplish more in less than a month than what had taken them years before. According to Michael Bradley the campaign was also a "classic of improvisation. The plan was both audacious and complex involving 4 separate attack columns, and it went off like clockwork, in spite of incessant rain and bad roads.

rosecrans.gif

Thomas rosecrans

For the North, Thomas Rosecrans and his Army of the Cumberland conducted a campaign of light attacks and aggressive maneuvers that drove the Confederate Army of Tennessee completely out of the state of Tennessee. The Union was now poised to take definitive control of the all-important trunk line from Virginia to Memphis and to open the door to the deep South. By a coincidence, the Tullahoma campaign and the battles of Vicksburg and Gettysburg all ended on the same day. The results of the campaign for the Union formed the starting point for General William T. Sherman's capture of Atlanta and his subsequent march to the sea. For the South, losing the Tullahoma Campaign and the ultimate retreat from the state of Tennessee proved to be too much from which to recover. The results of the campaign fought by Union General William S. Rosecrans and Confederate General Braxton Bragg were strategically more significant than Gettysburg and tactically equivalent to Vicksburg.With the loss of manpower, agricultural staples, the industrial base of the region and most importantly, the Chattanooga railroad center, the Tullahoma Campaign was the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.All the more reason for discerning students of history to give this masterpiece of planning and execution its due consideration.

(14) Heraclius' campaign against Sassanid Persia


The Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius used religious appeals to build an army of "fanatics, zealots, martyrs and holy warriors" to defeat the Persian Empire. He was able to smash the Persian empire, recover the flags and standards lost by 100 Byzantine armies over the centuries, regain the lost colonies of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, sacked a dozen great cities, bring back the True Cross from Persia (Christendom's holiest relic) and rebuild the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre. During a six-year campaign, Heraclius had driven the Persians from Asia Minor back into their own territories. The Persian Sassanid dynasty soon passed into history. This campaign’s innovative fusion of military and religious enthusiasm may have influenced the development of the Muslim jihad that would soon overrun much of the Empire, and became a precedent for the Western Crusades and ideals.

heraclius_arezzo.jpg

Battle between Heraclius and the Persian King Chosroes

(13) The Spanish Conquest of Latin America


1519cortezarrival.jpg


The Spanish went in with a very small force of men, and conquered two empires comprising over one million people with ten cannon, twelve horses and one hundred and twenty soldiers. Hernan Cortez, alone had some "big cojones" the man burnt his own ships so as to motivate his men to succeed or die trying. Cortes also happened to be equipped with biological warfare, which killed far more than his army in the form of small pox and influenza. Cortez also had a huge army drawn from the Mexican tribes who were heavily taxed by the Aztecs, often enslaved, and sometimes sacrificed at Moctezuma's great temple. Without them, Cortez would have been toast. But without his incredible courage, Cortez never would have gained their support. The ambition to conquer an empire far from any support with a small group of Spanish soldiers is still an amazing feat.

(12) Sherman's March to the Sea

sb0085marchATLANTATRACKS.jpg

Destruction of Atlanta Railroad tracks by Sherman's Troops

Sherman, in a true stroke of military brilliance once said that he would "make every man, woman and child feel the cold, hard hand of war." By introducing the term “Total War” , and bringing the war, and to the enemy citizenry, he did more to crush the Confederacy than Grant ever did. Of course, war on civilians is nothing new: its one of the oldest tactics in the book. Nor was his destruction of Southern factories, railroads and plantations a revolutionary concept. What made Sherman the greatest general of his century was that his March to the Sea destroyed his enemy's will to fight, and he did it without high casualties. The casualty figures for Sherman’s own troops and casualties inflicted were the lowest of any war America has ever fought in with very recent exceptions, yet he did far more damage to the South’s ability to continue the war.

(11) Winfield's Scott's Invasion of Mexico

Scott's offensive is regarded by many as the greatest in American military history. Scott landed about three miles south of the city on March 10, 1847, and encircled Vera Cruz in four days, laying siege to the Mexican city. By the end of the month the encircled city surrendered. The attack was the largest amphibious landing of any nation up to that date until D-day. He later began a 260-mile march toward Mexico City. Scott's invasion of Mexico was strategically brilliant and daring, cutting off his own supply lines to get his army out of the Yellow Fever zone around Veracruz he marches inland taking only enough supplies for a short campaign.

ex047_16b_rgb72.jpg

Landing of the Troops at Vera Cruz

European observers considered him insanely stupid, but Scott borrowed a page from Cortez and knew if he could break out of the mountains at Puebla and get into the Valley of Mexico he could live off the land. His plan worked and so surprised the Mexicans that they were unable to react before Scott reaches Mexico City. In a truly classic campaign, Scott managed to preserve his force and steadily advance. His forces achieved their object despite overwhelming obstacles, including extreme heat, insufficient supplies, widespread disease as well as intense enemy opposition in unfamiliar territory.


(10) The Tunisian Campaign 1941-1942


In May of 1941, Erwin Rommel, already famed as the "Desert Fox," launched an audacious campaign against the British forces defending the road to Alexandria, the Suez Canal, and the oil-rich Middle East. This campaign was unavoidably opportunistic. This was a campaign that depended on mobility, improvisation, and unorthodox tactics. It was a highly strategic conflict, in which logistics was a critical and often deciding factor. No achievements in this campaign were more spectacular than Rommel’s. He demonstrated his ability to take troops of inexperience and mixed quality and optimize their performance.

rommel.jpg

Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox

Despite this numerical and qualitative inferiority Rommel managed to contain and then threaten the British and Commonwealth armies in this offensive, winning a number of battles until in July 1942 he was poised to enter Egypt itself with its prize of the Suez Canal. In a classic blitzkrieg campaign, British forces were comprehensively outfought by his always under-to-un-supplied panzer armies. Within weeks they had been pushed back into Egypt. The struggle for Torbuk was as much a part of warfare in the Second World War as those factors given a higher status in history such as heroic people and momentous battles, indeed it was in this arena that the conflict was won or lost.

(9) D-Day Invasion (Operation Overlord)

d-day.gif


Operation Overlord was, the largest amphibious assault ever conducted, and is one of the most fascinating and evocative battles fought in history. After nearly 2 years of planning and preparation, the Allies managed to land 180,000 +-10k men in 3,000 landing craft over the English channel into the beaches of Normandy, heavily rigged with hidden dangers. The Germans had been the forces that had pushed the allies of out the European continent, and now there was this force that clearly had no cover from the heavily entrenched German positions. The Allies was able to come up with schemes to cross through this hazardous fortress that was Europe once engulfed by the German war machine. The D-Day landings signaled the beginning of the end of Hitler's Germany, and the liberation of France.

(8) “Stonewall” Jackson's Shenadoah Valley Campaign

One of most brilliantly conceived and executed campaigns of the Civil war. In early 1862, Union troops under George B. McClellan had arrived within range of Richmond and threatened to take the Confederate capital. Robert E. Lee ordered Jackson to march north through the Shenandoah Valley, hoping to tie down Federal forces that might otherwise reinforce McClellan's troops. The strategy worked, and for two months the Confederates evaded and harassed their Union pursuers. Jackson's classic Shenandoah Valley campaigns showed how an aggressive use of this advantage could give the appearance of being nearly everywhere at once and in overwhelming force at the chosen point, yet being outnumbered himself. Jackson's speed and audacity effectively neutralized 60,000 union soldiers with 15,000 of his own.

jacksons_campaign-vi.jpg


(7) German Blitzkrieg, 1940

The swift, sensational, and sudden offensive that was a turning point in modern military history. The Germans initially moved into the Netherlands and Belgium. This led them to move the British Expeditionary Force north. The reason being that the allies expected a Schieflen like attack wheeling behind Paris as occurred in the First War. Instead the Germans moved their Panzer Divisions through the Ardennes and cut off the British Army and units of the French and Belgium Army from the main mass of the French Army. The British and French units were either forced of the continent or surrendered en masse. After six weeks of fighting, both French and British field armies were surrounded and combat ineffective. The Germans had captured more than a million men, the British, Dutch, and Belgian armies were decimated, and the defenses of France shattered. The worst military defeat in modern times had been achieved in matter of six weeks. The invasion of France gave the Germans the opportunity to master modern war at all levels. Military strategists all over the world analyzed the invasion and tried to adapt their doctrine to the new style of waging war after the German Blitzkreig. To this reckless taking of initiatives and quality of leadership, Wehrmacht training had added great skill in all arms co-operation, and proved to be a formidable fighting force. Afterwards, the German Army of 1939-1942 was much superior to any of it's contemporaries as proved by it's lightning conquest of most of Europe in that period.

p19p01.gif

The dive bombing Stuka terrorized civilian populations during the German's blitzkrieg.

(6) Caesar’s Gallic Conquest

caegalmx.gif


The conquest of Gaul is one of the best known episodes in Roman history.The conquest of Gaul is in my opinion one of the greatest the world has ever seen thanks to Caesar's military strategy and his motivational techniques that he used with his troops. During his ventures in Gaul, Caesar obtained everything he wanted from his superiority over his enemies. He knew that if all Gaul rose up together against him, it would be near impossible to defeat them with the army he had. He brilliantly managed to keep the tribes seperate, until Vercingetorix arose, and by then Gaul was too weak to pose a serious threat to Caesar. His besiegement of Alesia, where he conducted two sieges against two Gallic forces on opposite sides, one of which numbered a quarter of a million men, was uncanny. With incredible speed and brilliant tactics, Caesar crossed the Alps and suppressed the Gauls. During this course, he faced a wealth of enemies many of which were greatly skilled, and over many different grounds and in many perilous situations.
 

(5) Frederick II of Prussia's exploits


frederick-ii.jpg


Inheriting, in 1740, a small kingdom with an oversized army from a cruel father, Fredrick made Prussia into a major European power. He conquered Silesia with an army which was roughly 80.000 men strong and defended it against enemies who could send 10 of their soldiers to one Prussian. Even more impressive was his spectacular defense against his opponents (preventing unification of superior enemy armies, and being at the right place at the right time to keep enemy armies out of Prussian core territory). Because of his sense of strategy, Frederick the Great held off Russia, France, Austria, Sweden, and Saxony for seven years, with only little British help (and not very trustworthy). His exploits were studied and admired by Napoleon Bonaparte and his exploits exerted great influence on the art of warfare.

(4)The Mongolian Conquest of Asia


AD1237%20KipchakKhanate.gif


Genghis Khan’s conquest of Asia was the inspiration for all armored warfare strategies of the 20th century, thanks in part to the efforts of Basil Liddel Hart's 'The Great Captains Unveiled', which featured a chapter on Chingiz Khan's commanders Jebei and Subodei. In the process of laying wastes to the empire’s country, he was able to perfect the art of siege warfare, despite being a nomadic people, and thus made themselves the most versatile army in history. He had a habit of making examples of cities in order to force the surrender of others. Herat was leveled. He beat everyone in all conditions - the Chinese, Indians, Persians, Syrians, Turks, Russians etc. The Mongol military campaign and its revolutionary aspects include the rout of imperial China, a siege of Baghdad and the razing of numerous European castles. The Mongols waged war through intimidation and creative warfare techniques absorbed from multiple cultures, but even more impressive to understand how they ruled and the amazing innovations Genghis Khan implemented in the regions he conquered. In just 25 years, in a manner that inspired the blitzkrieg, the Mongols conquered more lands and people than the Romans had in over 400 years.

(3) La Grande Armee's Campaign of 1805

One of the most brilliant military campaigns in history saw Napoleon Bonaparte out-think and out-fight the armies of the Third Coalition. Not only was it the first campaign Napoleon waged as Emperor of France, but also the first great test for his Grande Armée. The Emperor himself regarded it as his greatest victory and it undoubtedly won him a mastery of Europe that would remain unbroken for almost a decade.

auster.jpg


His "wagon wheel" from the low countries was even imitated by the US military in the 1991 Gulf War. A Combination of speed, schwerpunkt, and coherent control that wiped out Russia and Austria, his two fiercest rivals. Each time marching deeper and deeper into hostile territory, culminating to the victories to Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Koiginsburg, Eylau and Freidland, all which had the Allies reeling. It highlighted operational brilliance, combined operations, and rendered an unprecedented victory.

(2) Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps and invasion of Italy


Hannibal's plight against Rome was incredible. Abandoned by Carthage, Hannibal was able to maintain himself in Italy with a series of bold and skillful campaigns, against vast odds, having no equal in history. Indeed, the first three years culminating with Cannae were truly amazing. Overcoming the overwhelmingly difficult terrain and frequent attacks made by fierce barbarians, he traversed his entire army across the insurmountable Alps; one of the Greatest Military feats on record. When he reached Italy, Hannibal began his campaign with a bold offensive, operating hundreds of miles from his base of supply and in the heartland of hostile enemy territory, leading a force of various races, ethnicities, religions and languages. In this bitterly contested campaign, he nearly toppled an opponent who managed to raise three-quarters of a million men against him. How frustrated Rome felt after sending everything at this man and every time getting utterly destroyed.

zpage126.gif

Hannibal crossing the Alps

Despite the odds and being greatly outnumbered, Hannibal performed brilliantly and handed out defeat after defeat to his enemies. On the battlefield alone, he outshone every other general in almost every aspect. For 17 years he remained in Italy, roaming the land at will and not a single Roman army dared approach him, safe the odd skirmish. Hannibal faced a more than formidable opponent in the Roman military machine and despite his dwindling numbers and men, he still managed secured victory after victory, in spite of the fact that the government in Carthage failed to take the necessary precautions to aid him in his endeavor when he needed it most. Who would’ve guess that after soundly defeating the Romans in their own backyard AND marching around Italy for 17 years that the Romans would not yield. Never had a single man inflicted such damage to Rome in it's entire History and after him nobody would.


(1) Alexander the Great's conquest of the Known World


The most glorious conquests in history. With a small but determined and skilled army, Alexander accomplished more than probably any other general in history. Within a decade, he conquered nearly the entire known world, from Greece and Egypt all the way to India and Pakistan. He beat the Persians at the Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. Then managed to take not one but two nearly impregnable fortresses. He took the Sogdian Rock (Where he was told by the Sogdians that the only way he could take it was with "soldiers who coud fly.) and he also managed the impossible by taking another defense stronghold at Pir-Sar. (which was just as formidable as the Sogdian Rock, if not more so.) Add to this his army's great victory against the Indian Rajah Porus, at the Jhelum River and you have an excellent showing of not only generalship but leadership as well. The Great Alexander crossed Deserts, Rivers, and Mountains (including the Hindu-Kush Range, some of the most difficult terrain on earth) to gain his Empire.

Image1b.gif

Alexander the Great and his vast Empire

Always outnumbered, fighting different enemies across a vast landscape that would become his Empire, maintaining a logistics to his men some thousands of miles away from his homeland, diplomatic implementation through his own Greece and Egypt, maintaining loyalty of his Army, and a legend that has survived for thousands of years, has made this campaign one of histories best. Because of the billions of dollars in Gold and Silver Alexander coagulated throughout key regions Hellenian culture survived for centuries and was found well into Eastern China. Had Alexander not died so early, he more than likely would have conquered Europe and Carthage, and then moved into India, expanding his empire to the sea! He succeeded and accomplished such a feat that is still admired to this day by famous generals.
 
Too US Centric, but good reads , great job BOPT, but too US centric.

For the top 15 contending campaigns, we should have quotas.
2 for North America, 2 for South America, 2 for Australasia
3 for Africa, 3 for Europe, 3 for Asia

By these criteria. We get a more demographically, militarily and geographically balanced set up.

North America
General Lee
General Rosencrants

South America
Cortez
Bolivar

Africa
Rommel
Scipio Africanus
Jan Smuts, Boer War

Europe
Caesar in Gaul
Napoleons best campaign
Guderian , Blitzkrieg

Asia
Alexander, Persia-India
Dzhenghis Khan
Japans conquest campaign in the Pacific (Yamamoto)
 
I would also include the Reconquista
 
honestlly- i;d throw out hannival campaign, and insert the cmapign of Scipio Africanus- he achived more repsults, and waged a fa rmore prolific war, coqouring the carthaginian colonies, securing the Iberians and Numdians as temporary allies, and goign on to smash even hannibal in North Africa- spo whiel hannibal may have been a military genius, he didnt actually achieve much of anything-scipio, while possibly less of a gerneral, did achive his results, no matter what anyone, senate or otherwise, said.
 
Xen said:
honestlly- i;d throw out hannival campaign, and insert the cmapign of Scipio Africanus- he achived more repsults, and waged a fa rmore prolific war, coqouring the carthaginian colonies, securing the Iberians and Numdians as temporary allies, and goign on to smash even hannibal in North Africa- spo whiel hannibal may have been a military genius, he didnt actually achieve much of anything-scipio, while possibly less of a gerneral, did achive his results, no matter what anyone, senate or otherwise, said.

This is laughable. Take out Hannibal's Campaign? Are you mad. Crossing the Alps alone was a feat in itself, and definately better than anything Scipio had accomplish in Spain. Then the decisive victories he gained at Ticinus, Trebia, Lake Trasimene and the genius accomplishment at Cannae. Besides, Scipio never had to cope with the strategical and operational difficulties that Hannibal did. He was not stranded in the middle of enemy territory against an enemy whose manpower pool was HUGE and ability to project that power was efficient. He was not leading an army of culturally different groups who fought mainly for the gold and he was not opposed and handicapped by his own senate. He had the advantage of the Roman legions and the Roman masses. He had the advantage of a wide open communication and supply line.He had the advantage of being able to study his ingenius opponent. He had the advantage of reinforcements. He had all the material advantages, attrition alone would've brought victory. If he deserves credit it's for speeding and cheapening the cost of victory. He had the advantage of transportation. Scipio campaign was impressive, but look at the Criteria I used, and ask yourself, does that really deserve to be on the top 15? Scipio's campaign may be an example of good generalship, but it's not top 15 stuff. To include it in a "top 15" list is insulting to the other entries. There are plenty of far better examples.
 
Weed out some US patriotic Civil War stuff, and I will be happy. You had one local major war, and expect some of your local generals should be global standards. North America is allowed 2 max 3 Generals Campaigns out of 15.
 
Provolution said:
Weed out some US patriotic Civil War stuff, and I will be happy. You had one local major war, and expect some of your local generals should be global standards. North America is allowed 2 max 3 Generals Campaigns out of 15.

A great Campaign should show some exceptional brilliance, be innovative to the point of Revolutionary or extremely risky and succeed despite the odds, American or not.
 
BOTP said:
This is laughable. Take out Hannibal's Campaign?
- thats what i said- it failed ot amount to anything- leaving it IN is an insult to ervey other leader on that list- hannibal may have wo his battles, but he sure as hell didnt win his war, nor even the CAMPAIGN- and that is what we are talkign about here- a campaign- in which, pbviouslly, hannibal failed at.
 
Xen said:
- thats what i said- it failed ot amount to anything- leaving it IN is an insult to ervey other leader on that list- hannibal may have wo his battles, but he sure as hell didnt win his war, nor even the CAMPAIGN- and that is what we are talkign about here- a campaign- in which, pbviouslly, hannibal failed at.


First of all, I am reffering to Hannibal's actions in Italy alone, not the war itself. Quite frankly it was not a clear defeat. Rome was on the edge of bankrupcy and the Hannibal, while suffering casulaties, was still in existence. And yes, the results were eventually reversed, but the limited goals of the campaign itself were achieved, and Rome still remained terrified, even after the removal of Hannibal. The swift and well coordinated campaign was almost perfectly to achieve all of its goals. It showed initiative, grand strategic scope, ambitious goals and outstanding results for a brief period of time, despite the outcome of the war itself.
 
BOTP said:
First of all, I am reffering to Hannibal's actions in Italy alone, not the war itself. Quite frankly it was not a clear defeat. Rome was on the edge of bankrupcy and the Hannibal, while suffering casulaties, was still in existence. And yes, the results were eventually reversed, but the limited goals of the campaign itself were achieved, and Rome still remained terrified, even after the removal of Hannibal. The swift and well coordinated campaign was almost perfectly to achieve all of its goals. It showed initiative, grand strategic scope, ambitious goals and outstanding results for a brief period of time, despite the outcome of the war itself.

No it didnt acheive its goals- and we all know what the goal was- to put an end to the war by either forceing Rome to capitulate, or take Rome itself.

I'm rather skepticle fo hannibals real effectivness to 'terrify" the Romans- whiile hannibal was out "terrifying" the Romans so much, the ,ajorit yof Romes allies stayed firm, even though the greeks in the south- well, a good portion fo them- did switch sides, and di suplly haiimbal with supplies, and even some troops- at the same time, we see that Romans were mockign hannibal by turnign him into a 'boogie" man- Rome got desperate, but the evidence dosent show for a second they ever truelly doubted they would coem out victorious, beyond occasional rhetoric soem of the power player sin Rome used to get themselves in the positions of military power they wanted; though thier were evne many exceptions to that!

hannibal is a callsi case of winnign all the battles, but still loseing the war- or the campaign in this case, either way, he still lost- all he did was kill a bunch of Romans and itallian allies, and secure harsh fate for both carthage and souther Greeks, while Scipio africans DID wage an effecti ve military camapign, as well a s diplomatic one, that completlly reversed the tide of the second Punic war.
 
Xen said:
No it didnt acheive its goals- and we all know what the goal was- to put an end to the war by either forceing Rome to capitulate, or take Rome itself.

I'm rather skepticle fo hannibals real effectivness to 'terrify" the Romans- whiile hannibal was out "terrifying" the Romans so much, the ,ajorit yof Romes allies stayed firm, even though the greeks in the south- well, a good portion fo them- did switch sides, and di suplly haiimbal with supplies, and even some troops- at the same time, we see that Romans were mockign hannibal by turnign him into a 'boogie" man- Rome got desperate, but the evidence dosent show for a second they ever truelly doubted they would coem out victorious, beyond occasional rhetoric soem of the power player sin Rome used to get themselves in the positions of military power they wanted; though thier were evne many exceptions to that!

hannibal is a callsi case of winnign all the battles, but still loseing the war- or the campaign in this case, either way, he still lost- all he did was kill a bunch of Romans and itallian allies, and secure harsh fate for both carthage and souther Greeks, while Scipio africans DID wage an effecti ve military camapign, as well a s diplomatic one, that completlly reversed the tide of the second Punic war.


whoa :eek: talk about making typos. Re-type that and just maybe I'll be able to respond
 
nope, deal with it as such. I make few exceptions to that rule, so please dont feel spited, or insulted.
 
Xen said:
No it didnt acheive its goals- and we all know what the goal was- to put an end to the war by either forceing Rome to capitulate, or take Rome itself.

Of course, but this isn't relevent. We are arguing the skill of generals, the innovations and tactics, and the events during the campaign, not the nature, or the outcome of war. If a general cannot win, he cannot blantenly be called a failure -- more over, if a general engages in war without the proper support, logistics, and resources needed, yet comes close to sucess, he is obviously pretty skilled, regardless of victory or defeat. He lost in the end simply because Rome had more to offer the world than Carthage.

Here, suppose my name is Stupidius. I have fought hundreds of engagements, each time with an army of 100,000. In each battle my opponent, Grievous Unluckiness, and his army of 1,000 defeated me soundly due to my utter ineptitude. After hundreds of battles, aliens randomly decided to obliterate Grievous Unluckiness, his army, and his country. Since I am the victorious general (having accomplished all my objectives) I can now be considered one of the greatest generals of all time. Unfortunately for the supremely skilled Grievous Unluckiness, he did not achieve his objectives and so he is a pathetic excuse for a general and should have been sacked long ago. He is a loser. If this senario makes sense to you, then your definition of greatness is dumb luck.
 
BOTP said:
Of course, but this isn't relevent. We are arguing the skill of generals, the innovations and tactics, and the events during the campaign, not the nature, or the outcome of war.
ypur right- and we're not arguing the put coem fo the war- but the out coem fo the campign, and it effec ton the war- and hannibal lost both- he acheived none fo the objectives he set out to do, other then loose Roman blood, and that harldey somthign to be very rpoud of, for anyone- he did not get rome to captiulate, he did not drian romes resoruces ot make them ineffectual in war, and he did not capture Rome tiself, nor even any cities that were of value to Romes cause.

If a general cannot win, he cannot blantenly be called a failure -- more over, if a general engages in war without the proper support, logistics, and resources needed, yet comes close to sucess, he is obviously pretty skilled, regardless of victory or defeat. He lost in the end simply because Rome had more to offer the world than Carthage.
thats right- but thats not case with hannibal- he never came close to acheiveing his goals, for whiel he was out on the prowl, looking for a roman army to smash intot he ground, Rome learned to wage gueilla warfare, and more over had Roman parents mockign him daily by using him as boogie man to keep thier children in line- he didnt even make roman allies budge, even the still fueming Samnites- all he got wasa portion fo the souther greek colonies to join him, and nothign else- he came never close to acheiveing any of the goals that he needed to win his campaign.

Here, suppose my name is Stupidius. I have fought hundreds of engagements, each time with an army of 100,000. In each battle my opponent, Grievous Unluckiness, and his army of 1,000 defeated me soundly due to my utter ineptitude. After hundreds of battles, aliens randomly decided to obliterate Grievous Unluckiness, his army, and his country. Since I am the victorious general (having accomplished all my objectives) I can now be considered one of the greatest generals of all time. Unfortunately for the supremely skilled Grievous Unluckiness, he did not achieve his objectives and so he is a pathetic excuse for a general and should have been sacked long ago. He is a loser. If this senario makes sense to you, then your definition of greatness is dumb luck.

it dosent make any sense- and it harldey means anythign givent the fact that it can tbe applied ot the Punic wars, or infact, any real campaign.
Scipio Africans simply waged a better war then hannibal- hannibal was the maste rof the battlefeild, but of the grand strategy, he was not- simple diplomacy may have gotten him all he ndded from other cities in souther Italy, yet he wa snto even successful in that- nor, apperntlly, tried very much of it- Scipio on the other hand takes the carthaginain firmest spanish - and then numdian (!) allies, and turns them agiastn carthage, all on the back dronp of takign away the cities Carthage needed to supply its war effort.
 
Provolution said:
Too US Centric, but good reads , great job BOPT, but too US centric.

For the top 15 contending campaigns, we should have quotas.
2 for North America, 2 for South America, 2 for Australasia
3 for Africa, 3 for Europe, 3 for Asia

Utter nonsense. The location of especially brilliant military campaigns is not decided by quotas.
 
Xen said:
it dosent make any sense- and it harldey means anythign givent the fact that it can tbe applied ot the Punic wars, or infact, any real campaign. Scipio Africans simply waged a better war then hannibal- hannibal was the maste rof the battlefeild, but of the grand strategy, he was not- simple diplomacy may have gotten him all he ndded from other cities in souther Italy, yet he wa snto even successful in that- nor, apperntlly, tried very much of it- Scipio on the other hand takes the carthaginain firmest spanish - and then numdian (!) allies, and turns them agiastn carthage, all on the back dronp of takign away the cities Carthage needed to supply its war effort.

Study the campaign before you make up your mind and dismiss it. The fact that an inferior army managed to urvived for half a generation in the enemy's homeland should place this campaign above any other. Do you think Scipio, placed in Hannibal's position would have lasted nearly as long in Italy. When he descended from the Alps and recruited Gauls to his side, he had around 50,000 troops. Rome at same time could produce 750,000 troops if she had to. There is no way to explain how he was not crushed within the first year, except to say that he was the greatest of all generals. He routinely marched throughout Italy whenever he wished, always able to elude the numerous armies placed in his way. Look at the battles Hannibal was involved in while in Italy. They are all masterpieces. After those three crushing victories (Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae) he was finally faced with very capable if not great generals. Yet he was still able to march wherever he wished, was always able to feed his troops and never had a major defeat, just a few minor losses in skirmishes. How do expect him to win against such odds? He only had himself, and yet he lasted for so long. No general in history accomplished so much with so little in any such a campaign. To dismiss it entirely soley because of its outcome is nothing more than a showcase of arrogance.
 
BOTP said:
Study the campaign before you make up your mind and dismiss it. The fact that an inferior army managed to urvived for half a generation in the enemy's homeland should place this campaign above any other. Do you think Scipio, placed in Hannibal's position would have lasted nearly as long in Italy. When he descended from the Alps and recruited Gauls to his side, he had around 50,000 troops. Rome at same time could produce 750,000 troops if she had to. There is no way to explain how he was not crushed within the first year, except to say that he was the greatest of all generals. He routinely marched throughout Italy whenever he wished, always able to elude the numerous armies placed in his way. Look at the battles Hannibal was involved in while in Italy. They are all masterpieces. After those three crushing victories (Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae) he was finally faced with very capable if not great generals. Yet he was still able to march wherever he wished, was always able to feed his troops and never had a major defeat, just a few minor losses in skirmishes. How do expect him to win against such odds? He only had himself, and yet he lasted for so long. No general in history accomplished so much with so little in any such a campaign. To dismiss it entirely soley because of its outcome is nothing more than a showcase of arrogance.


Inferior army!? what have you been smokeing! hannibal had the best army as his disposal until the Marian reforms!

-Spanish Scutarii- are perhaps the single best infantry soldire in teh med sea until the roman legioadopted thier exact weaponry whole sale, and then styleized it by adding thier own helmet a combiantion of Greek and celtic influnces, and chainmail to make it a heavy infantryman- the SPanish were essentially usinf Roman auxillary trooper sof the imperial era, but had been bron and raised ot the do the job as a life style, rather then trianed to do it as a job

-and then his cavalry advatage paired with this cave hannibal the edge- the roma army as it was then never stood a chance- only after it was seasond it takign on Spanish warriors- and finally coudl engage carthage at least equal cavalry footing did they win.
 
Xen said:
Inferior army!? what have you been smokeing! hannibal had the best army as his disposal until the Marian reforms!

The legions of the Second Punic War were head and shoulders above ones of the Marian reforms. In fact, the legions of the Second Punic War were the greatest legions after only Caesar's. And the reason why the Post-Marian were better was because of Marius himself. The legions that opposed Hannibal were made up of citizens who were defending their own land and interest. The Roman armies of the Second Punic War were mixed in professionalism. When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, its safe to assume that the Roman forces were properly trained and semi professional. By the time of the late Republic, the legions were made up of soldiers who were only in it for the money and land that would be given to them following their term of service. Its a fact that the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms. Hannibal's army was markedly less quality then the sturdy Roman legions, who by organization alone, were superior.
 
BOTP said:
The legions of the Second Punic War were head and shoulders above ones of the Marian reforms. In fact, the legions of the Second Punic War were the greatest legions after only Caesar's.
Caesars legions were the first test of the marian reforms in virtually every seeting due tot he gallis wars, and the civli wars- the marian reforms then became the backbone for the augstian reforms, which mainlly concerned themselves with auxilliary troops, and tehcniclaties, not an actual reorginzation, or re-equippeing fo the legioanries themselves

And the reason why the Post-Marian were better was because of Marius himself. The legions that opposed Hannibal were made up of citizens who were defending their own land and interest.
the legions after the marian reforms were men fightign for thier lives and livelly hood- for they rarelyl had anythign els ein the world- which is why they became so endreare dot thie rocmmanders- the people who gave them thie rpensions, thire land grants, thier leadership

By the time of the late Republic, the legions were made up of soldiers who were only in it for the money and land that would be given to them following their term of service.
whats wrong with that?

Its a fact that the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms.
that absurd- Roman armies after the marian reforms were voluterr armies- only men who wante dto particpate were in, and this made for a superior quality soldire- they knew what they were in for, they knew how they woudl be treated, and they knew what they woudl end up with- they accepted it, and became superior to anythign Rome had seen before, or after that system was dropped by constantine- its the same different that seperates the US army from an army like North Koreas

Hannibal's army was markedly less quality then the sturdy Roman legions.

in structure, yes- hannibal was markedlly less orginzed, and had far worse moral and motivation- only hannibal, and th eother carthaginains were any real motivation tot he troops- however, the troosp themselves were superior to what Rome was using at the time- that why Rome woudl eventually adopt those styles of fighting by the time of augustus, except made them all fit more withing the Roman tactical structure- the grafting of the two prooved far superior to either single option
 
Back
Top Bottom