(only counting western history and pre modern era. - before WWI and WWII.)
Napoleon
Caesar
Hannibal
Alexander the Great
Scipio Africanus
I believe these 5 generals are often mentioned when discussing the greatest general in western history. Who do you think, among those and others, the greatest general?
My 2 cents:
Hannibal > Napoleon > Alexander the great > Scipio > Caesar
Among those 5, Caesar is obviously the worst if we evaluate based on tactical abiliteis. He had a great ability to improvise and had a deep strategical knowledge, but his tactical ability lacked as he often put his armies in danger and lost several battles despite his advantages. I highly doubt if he can even be among the top 5 generals of western history, but I put him in the list because he is famous.
Alexander the great, while the greatest conqueror of all time, relied too much on his personal bravery. Both in the battle of Issus and Gaugamela, he would have lost if Darius III didn't flee the field or if Alexander was killed as he always fought at the front line which could be extremely dangerous. His use of tactics was impressive for sure, but that is why(the fact that Darius III being a coward greatly having contributed to Alexander's victories) I don't rank him the top general.
Napoleon was nearly invincible during his prime. No contemporary generals could come even close to his brilliance, though in his later days he shows a huge decline in tactical abilities. (in waterloo)
However, even at his prime, Napoleon made a huge mistake in the battle of Marengo. Also, in the first Italian campaign, he ordered Charles Pierre Francois Augereau to hold 25k Autrian army moving north with 10k army for 2 days without specific instructions while he destroyed the Autrian main army; which could have ruined his campaign if it didn't work. Napoleon's victories, while brilliant, sometimes relied on reluctance of enemy generals and luck. That's why I rank him #2 rather than #1.
Hannibal's 'strategic ability' can be arguable. One can argue there was no need to cross Alfs, and that Hannibal should have stayed in southern France, waiting for Roman advance in the region. Or he could have secured Sicily after the victory in Cannae to secure a good supply route rather than wasting time in soutern Italy. However, I think his tactical ability to lead armies in battle was unarguably the best before the battle of Zama. Hannibal was undefeated in pitched battles(excluding skirmishes), and even though there were some occasions where he failed to route Roman army such as in the siege of Capua, he remained alive for 16 years in Italin penninsula without properly receiving supplies from Carthage mainland.
Although he failed to utilized war elephants properly in the battle of Zama and was eventually defeated by Scipio, I believe Hannibal to be the greatest general of western history as he was pioneer of his refined anvil and hammer tactics and Scipio only imitated him and he remained invincible before the battle of Zama.
Napoleon
Caesar
Hannibal
Alexander the Great
Scipio Africanus
I believe these 5 generals are often mentioned when discussing the greatest general in western history. Who do you think, among those and others, the greatest general?
My 2 cents:
Hannibal > Napoleon > Alexander the great > Scipio > Caesar
Among those 5, Caesar is obviously the worst if we evaluate based on tactical abiliteis. He had a great ability to improvise and had a deep strategical knowledge, but his tactical ability lacked as he often put his armies in danger and lost several battles despite his advantages. I highly doubt if he can even be among the top 5 generals of western history, but I put him in the list because he is famous.
Alexander the great, while the greatest conqueror of all time, relied too much on his personal bravery. Both in the battle of Issus and Gaugamela, he would have lost if Darius III didn't flee the field or if Alexander was killed as he always fought at the front line which could be extremely dangerous. His use of tactics was impressive for sure, but that is why(the fact that Darius III being a coward greatly having contributed to Alexander's victories) I don't rank him the top general.
Napoleon was nearly invincible during his prime. No contemporary generals could come even close to his brilliance, though in his later days he shows a huge decline in tactical abilities. (in waterloo)
However, even at his prime, Napoleon made a huge mistake in the battle of Marengo. Also, in the first Italian campaign, he ordered Charles Pierre Francois Augereau to hold 25k Autrian army moving north with 10k army for 2 days without specific instructions while he destroyed the Autrian main army; which could have ruined his campaign if it didn't work. Napoleon's victories, while brilliant, sometimes relied on reluctance of enemy generals and luck. That's why I rank him #2 rather than #1.
Hannibal's 'strategic ability' can be arguable. One can argue there was no need to cross Alfs, and that Hannibal should have stayed in southern France, waiting for Roman advance in the region. Or he could have secured Sicily after the victory in Cannae to secure a good supply route rather than wasting time in soutern Italy. However, I think his tactical ability to lead armies in battle was unarguably the best before the battle of Zama. Hannibal was undefeated in pitched battles(excluding skirmishes), and even though there were some occasions where he failed to route Roman army such as in the siege of Capua, he remained alive for 16 years in Italin penninsula without properly receiving supplies from Carthage mainland.
Although he failed to utilized war elephants properly in the battle of Zama and was eventually defeated by Scipio, I believe Hannibal to be the greatest general of western history as he was pioneer of his refined anvil and hammer tactics and Scipio only imitated him and he remained invincible before the battle of Zama.
.
