Why are rommel, napolean, and Hannible considered great generals.

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Uhhhhh...Italian troops were under Rommel's command in North Africa. He didn't capture his own troops. The Axis was Germany, Italy & Japan.

He's talking about Rommel during the First World War, where Germany and Italy were at war.

 

[Maimonides]

He's talking about Rommel during the First World War, where Germany and Italy were at war.

Oops! I missed that. How embarrasing. Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[DNK]

As someone who knows very little about these things, but would like to learn, where do you find all this out? History books? The ones I've read never went into much detail on such subjects, but then again they weren't overly specific classes that dealt with warfare.

Online (preferably because I have 0 money - I need to cottage spam my apartment ASAP).

 

[Antilogic]

I can point you to some excellent texts I have read in the last year, but since you have no money, you may be a little limited. However, I'm mostly an amateur historian with some extra college classes to form a framework that I have expanded by personal study. The best way is to get a general idea of what is going on from an overview of history, and then (perhaps in your case) use a local library to find more specific books on the subject.

Many bookstores in my area do not have a specific military history section, but the libraries typically do. Just look around on the shelves...it's there, you just have to find it.

On a side note, I read Frederick Kagan's Napoleon and Europe: The End of the Old Order 1801-1805. It is a fantastic 700-page or so book that details the diplomacy leading up to the War of the Third Coalition and all the major battles (Ulm and Austerlitz for example) with excellent maps. I can't agree with that neocon's politics, but what he has to say about Napoleon is very true: he says Napoleon was not an infalliable god of war that he has been painted by some historians, but rather was a very opportunistic commander that always had about a dozen contingency plans on hand. He wasn't an expert in communication, and he managed to confuse his generals and marshals quite often (the book points out an excellent example when the French are rushing to Vienna and chasing Kutuzov's army, and then Kutuzov's army breaks northwards--his vanguard commander didn't know which objective Napoleon valued more because he never clearly said which!). This touches on what Verbose mentioned earlier.

A book my friend has on military history marks Rommel as one of the most overrated commanders of all time. I'll have to borrow it at some point to see what it has to say about him...

 

[onejayhawk]

"shalst"...?

Didn't Carthage also control much of Spain?

I must say that I don't know much about the administration of Carthage, but I think that to be an empire, you really need an emperor.

A rose by another name? It seems to ne the definition of an empire has to do with the willingness to aquire, and govern, nonorganic territories. It could get you into an argument, since it implies that US expansion into the mountain west was imperial, but that would be the closest call I can think of off the top of the head.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Here's my take:

I'm glad you're mentioning Scipio. Hannibal lost, not because he wasn't one of the great captains of all time, he was, but because he was faced by another of the great captains of all time.

Napoleon had a huge number of faults and made massive mistakes, but not being one of the great captains of all time wasn't one of them. Napoleon lost in the end, not because he wasn't a great captain, he most definately was, but because he couldn't seperate being general from being emperor. The fact that he had another of the great captains of all time, the duke of Wellington, facing him, didn't help him any either. Anybody claiming in any way that Napoleon wasn't one of the great captains...words fail me.

Rommel after africa I know less about. Von Mannstein is generally considered the greatest of the german generals of WWII. But nobody kicks major British ass all over the length of africa with a shoestring army defeating general after general unless they're pretty good at what they do. The force that doomed Rommel in africa was supply. No captain, no matter how great, could have overcome the german hurdles there. Rommel came close, though, and for that amazing feat alone is deservedly held in hight regard.

I would not go so far as to call Scipio or the Iron Duke great generals. They wer however both very good ones, and they had the solid backing of their respective nations, which in turn were greater nations than the ones behind Hannibal and Napoleon.

J

 

[Clausewitzian]

I would not go so far as to call Scipio or the Iron Duke great generals.

Pray do tell in what manner these two fail the test of greatness. You've made me curious. Most especially regarding the Iron Duke, whom I know more of than Scipio.

Also, I'm curious about your claim that Great Britain was a greater nation than France at the time of Napoleon.

 

[MadScotsMan]

It was wealthy, but when it was most wealthy it was not fully united. I don't really understand what you mean by a super power of its time, but ok, and about oversea possessions: they were settlements inhabited by them, and administrated, but never formed an empire! They were nothing as developed as many neighbors of them, IMO. They controlled Cyprus, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Islands, as well as minor possessions in Crete and Sicily. How is that an empire?

that was a large amount of territory back them.

 

[onejayhawk]

Pray do tell in what manner these two fail the test of greatness. You've made me curious. Most especially regarding the Iron Duke, whom I know more of than Scipio.

Also, I'm curious about your claim that Great Britain was a greater nation than France at the time of Napoleon.

This is a timeless question. What is the difference between the great and the merely excellent? How often does greatness go unnoticed, because it fails under the weight of the imbalance of men and material? How do you remove the general from his army, so as to examine him in issolation?

Certainly Scipio demonstrated some of the things that made Hannibal a great general: disciplined forces, knowledge and use of terrain, a knowledge of when to attack and when to refrain. On the other hand, his supply situation was enormously simpler than Hannibal's. His army had the advantage of homogeniaity, formal training grounds, tradition and the backing of the Roman state.

However, this is not sufficient, because it was also true at Cannae. Scipio was clearly better than Pallus and Verro. His handling of the elephant cavalry was certainly ingenious. The discipline and foresight needed was substantial. But SCipio had the best that Rome could offer. Hannibal had a thrown together army of inexperienced troops, a far cry from the veterans of Cannae. In the end it was close, and afterward, the war was over. Scipio had only a short campaign, with exceptional troops, and engaged only one major battle. This is not sufficient to proclaim Scipio as a great general. As I said, a very good one.

Wellington has perhaps the better argument. While he is remembered primarily for Waterloo, the Spanish campaign is no small fete. Suffice to say, again, that Wellington was a very good, perhaps exceptional general, but his accomplishments were much more in line with his means than Napoleon.

Far be it from me to argue that a general is less because he has an advantage. Especially against an opponent that has proven the ability to make ham out of tripe. Grant is unfairly denegrated for not being as audacious as Lee. Similarly Zhukov. One fights with what one has.

J

 

[Clausewitzian]

Fair enough.

It is my recall, that Scipio showed foresight and strategic genius in undoing Carthage's power through the conquest of Spain. The fall of Carthage and lack of reinforcements for Hannibal did not come out of the blue. Conversely, great tactician though Hannibal was, his invasion of Italy eventually turned out to be nothing more than a large scale raid. But my grasp of the punic wars is not enough for me to state this with absolute certainty, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge here.

As for Wellington, I'm more impressed than you with what he managed to accomplish with his meagre means in Spain. But we seem to be close enough as to make little difference.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Ya know,when I think about it, I find it sorta funny that both Napoleon;s and Hannibal's undoing all started in Spain.

Hannibal wasn't able to be reinforced through Spain because of Scipio.

Napoleon had a thorn in his side due to the Spainish Guerilla's and Wellington. Ultimately, much needed French Veterans were bogged down in Spain while they were needed in the Invasion of Russia. (Though, you could have augued that that wouldn't have made a diffrence, but I feel that had Napoleon brought along most of the Veterans left in Spain he could have done so much, especially if he would have just taken those veterans and left behind those other 600,000 men he took which just ate him out of an army.)

 

[Antilogic]

Scipio had only a short campaign, with exceptional troops, and engaged only one major battle. This is not sufficient to proclaim Scipio as a great general. As I said, a very good one.

Wellington has perhaps the better argument. While he is remembered primarily for Waterloo, the Spanish campaign is no small fete. Suffice to say, again, that Wellington was a very good, perhaps exceptional general, but his accomplishments were much more in line with his means than Napoleon.

I agree whole-heartedly. The distinction between "great" and "good" is a fine one, but everybody tends to draw their own lines. You can't simply be successful once, but you don't have to have a perfect record. It's not only a matter of how often a general succeeds, but also how close that general came to succeeding (how well the general does) when there is no possible chance of victory. The problem with history is this: sometimes, a general can make no mistakes, be a brilliant tactician, and still lose. I respect a general that puts up a fantastic fight with a daring and brilliant plan, but loses in the face of a skilled enemy that is superior in numbers/training/etc. more than a general who simply dominates an incompetent moron and sweeps him off the field.

 

[shortguy]

Scipio had only a short campaign, with exceptional troops, and engaged only one major battle. This is not sufficient to proclaim Scipio as a great general. As I said, a very good one.

Though that was Scipio's piece de resistance, he also won multiple victories in Spain earlier in the war and was instrumental in Rome's victories in the east against Antiochus the Great.

 

[Dachs]

Though that was Scipio's piece de resistance, he also won multiple victories in Spain earlier in the war and was instrumental in Rome's victories in the east against Antiochus the Great.

Indeed. Starting with the Nova Carthago campaign in 209 BC and continuing for five years, Scipio consistently defeated Punic armies, sometimes much larger than his own, and turned the Celtiberian tribes from Carthaginian allegiance to Roman, proving he could act as well diplomatically as militarily. At Bagbrades, he basically did what Wellington did in Spain, but much earlier and with much more pizazz, emerging from his coastal Lines in a daring night attack that dismembered Syphax's army and switched the Numidians from the enemy side to that of Rome. His campaign of Zama alone, were it his only one, would put him into the rank of Great Captains, as he played Hannibal like a fiddle during the whole campaign and won one of the most decisive tactical victories in history. Even then, he wasn't done; he played a critical role in the campaign of Magnesia, which saw the defeat of the greatest of the Seleukid rulers, Antiokhos III, and the beginning of Roman influence in Asia Minor.

One could say (which doesn't mean that one must say) that he was even greater than Hannibal; he, after all, won the war.

 

[Antilogic]

I would still rate Hannibal higher due to the incredible constraints he had to operate under--Roman troops were far better supplied than Hannibal could even dream of, and the fact that Hannibal had to deal with troops and mercenaries hired from all over the Mediterranean does speak to his credit as a military commander for effectively using such a disparate force against the Romans with such great effect.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I would still rate Hannibal higher due to the incredible constraints he had to operate under--Roman troops were far better supplied than Hannibal could even dream of, and the fact that Hannibal had to deal with troops and mercenaries hired from all over the Mediterranean does speak to his credit as a military commander for effectively using such a disparate force against the Romans with such great effect.

Personally, I cant even start to comprehend how hard it must have been to motivate his troops.

I mean, generals give speeches to their men. but like you said, these were troops and mercenaries from all over, must have been hard to communicate at times, especially with the Guals and such.

 

[Antilogic]

Not to mention some of his mercenaries did not have standardized weapons and armor like the Romans. The Carthaginian troops were organized and uniformed, but they composed a small portion of his forces. The Gauls typically had an erratic assortment of weapons and far less armor than you would like for a combat unit in that era. His Numidian cavalry had virtually no armor at all, but were still quite effective with harrassment and encirclement tactics.