The Greatest Commander in Antiquity

My choice in this poll went to the Roman general Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Elder.

While Julius Caesar fought against the barbarian rabble in Gaul and Alexander III of Macedon fought against the Asiatic horde of King Darius III of Persia, Scipio Africanus fought against first rate opponents such as the Carthaginians, Iberians and Celtiberians in Spain, and against Hannibal Barca himself in North Africa. Scipio Africanus seized the leading Carthaginian stronghold in Spain or the city of Cartagena in a combined land and sea assault, routed the Carthaginian forces at the battle of Baecula and destroyed the Carthaginian forces at the battle of Ilipa in 206 BCE. Ilipa was Scipio Africanus' greatest battle. Arguably, Scipio's victory at the battle of Ilipa rivaled that of Hannibal Barca's victory at the battle of Cannae in 216 BCE. Finally, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus decisively defeated Hannibal Barca himself at the battle of Zama in 202 BCE.

While Alexander III based his military success on the reforms of King Philip II of Macedon, Julius Caesar on the reforms of Gaius Marius and Hannibal Barca on the reforms of Hamilcar Barca, Scipio Africanus built on the disaster that the Romans suffered at Cannae. In my opinion, Scipio Africanus ranks above Alexander III of Macedon despite his vast Asiatic conquests due to my peculiar ranking system. While Alexander III subjugated the greatest amount of territory, Scipio Africanus was an innovator and a great tactician as demonstrated in the battles of Ilipa and Zama in which he possessed a keen insight into the numerous aspects of human warfare. Unlike Hannibal Barca who possessed a sound grasp of military strategy but a poor understanding of political affairs, Scipio Africanus understood that military action cannot be divorced or separated from political affairs. It was Scipio's plan to contain Hannibal Barca in southern Italy while Roman forces would capture strategic Carthaginian strongholds in Spain. As Scipio Africanus was aware, the military base of the Carthaginian forces was located in the Iberian Peninsula and with his capture of Cartagena or Nova Carthago and the decisive victory at Ilipa, the Romans were able to deprive the Carthaginians of the silver mines of Iberia as well as deny the Carthaginians of a means of recruiting Iberian and Celtiberian warriors for their auxiliary branch. In addition, with the invasion of North Africa Scipio Africanus was able to force Hannibal Barca to return from southern Italy to defend Carthage itself. At the plains of Zama, Scipio Africanus with his loyal ally King Masinissa of Numidia completely defeated the forces of Hannibal Barca.

One glaring weakness of the Carthaginian commander Hannibal Barca was his poor understanding of siege warfare. Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his "Hannibal" mentioned Hannibal's weakness at besieging fortified centers. On the other hand, Scipio Africanus was adept in siege warfare: upon entering the Iberian Peninsula Scipio Africanus captured the leading Carthaginian stronghold of Nova Carthago [Cartagena] with a combined land and sea assault. In the art of siege warfare [Poliorcetics], Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Elder was superior to Hannibal Barca. The main victories of Hannibal Barca during the Second Punic War were the battles of Ticinus, the Trebbia River, Lake Trasimene and Cannae. This quartet of victories demonstrated Hannibal's tactical genius. However, with the Fabian tactics utilized after Cannae and the brilliant Iberian campaign of Scipio Africanus [The capture of Cartagena and the victories at Baecula and Ilipa], the Barcids lost their military base in Spain and were deprived of the rich silver mines of Iberia as well as a means of recruiting mercenaries. With the loss of Iberia and the defeat of the Carthaginian relief force at the battle of the Metaurus River in 207 BCE, the Romans formed a stranglehold on Carthage and its possessions in North Africa. With the recalling of Hannibal Barca from southern Italy, the Carthaginian threat was removed from Italy. Finally, at Zama Scipio Africanus displayed his own genius in the art of war by defeating Hannibal Barca himself.

Another important factor for assessing the military and political abilities of each individual commander is to consider their moral composition or strength of character. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Elder was a benevolent figure who treated his defeated opponents with dignity and respect while a commander such as Alexander III of Macedon was a megalomaniac who at the end of his life became nothing more than a drunkard and an Oriental despot or an Asiatic tyrant. Alexander III's growing paranoia and hubris hinted at his vulgarity and baseness. On the opposite side, Scipio Africanus possessed a rare greatness of the mind and a magnanimity of the soul that allowed him to refuse the appellation of perpetual dictator of Rome. In addition, while Caesar waged war for personal gain, Scipio Africanus fought for the Roman Republic. It is said that while Scipio's victory at Zama gave the Mediterranean to the Roman Republic, the battle of Pharsalus gave the Mediterranean to Caesar. Due to the combination of military innovation, tactical skill, political acumen and overall benevolence, I rank Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Elder as the greatest commander of Antiquity.

I've found from running polls in other parts of the forums that it's fun to first run a nominations thread so that people other than the OP get to decide on the options. I suggest that as an idea for next time because in those threads I see a high level of engagement and argument. :)

(Edited out.Personal.)


I very much agree with you in that human greatness does exist, and examples of it in human history should be pointed out and put forward, if only to remind us all that it does exist.

But it can only exist within a human context. A context in which Scipio lived. As well as any other.

(Edited out. Personal.)

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory. He did not know how to use it." ~ Loosely translated from Marhabal.

My vote would have to go to Publicus Scipio Africanus the Elder.
While Roman Commander he remained unbeaten. Further more, he managed to not only train the Roman Punic Army of the Mid to Late Republic to greater heights, he also came up with ingenus stratigies to use to counter one of the Carthagian's most renouned and feared threats; the elephants brought with them. What he invisioned, and then put into practice (executed), was that the maniciples of hastati, principie, and triarii alike, would split apart when the elephants charged. The newly created lanes would then be staffed with velites (Roman Skirmishers of the period) who would break apart, allowing the elephants to harmlessly charge through (though a few casualties were suffered by the velites), while being bombarded with misiles from the hastati, principies, and velites, to be delt with at the rear of the formation.

This was unrivaled in terms of coordination for the Roman army of the period. Former commanders most often chose to simply allow the crushing frontal impacting weight of the Roman soldiers to simply break through the problem (as at the battle of Cannae, where despite the majority of Roman soldiers being defeated, about 1,000 or so managed to break through, and continue in good formation to Roman held forts in the region). However, Scipio decided to use more advanced tactics with his armies.

What is also of note is that he turned down the position as dictator for life, when he was offered that position by the Roman Senate.

Hannibal himself even was said to have placed Scipio has higher then himself interms of Generalship.

So, for all these reasons, I vote Publius Scipio Africanus as the best general of Ancient/ Classical Military history Commander.

~John

I want to vote for Subutai, but I doubt that's antiquated enough for this thread.

Although Scipio did defeat Hannibal, he only won because he used Hannibal's tactics. You must also remember that Hannibal ruled a empire ruined from the previous war and rose above Rome. Rome had wealth and well trained soldiers and Hannibal didn't. Yet the Romans lost many battles again and again. Scipio won because he copied other ideas.

Conrad, if I had a point to make about your scholarship, a hopefully constructive criticism, would you prefer I posted it in this thread or sent you a PM? I think you would appreciate the validity of my point, but I think that to the casual reader of this thread it would seem as though I was dragging it off topic. Let me know. :)

It took a few months for Hannibal to seize the minor town of Saguntum in Spain while Scipio quickly seized the strongest Carthaginian stronghold in the Iberian Peninsula: Nova Carthago. In the art of siege warfare [Poliorcetics], Scipio Africanus was far superior to Hannibal Barca. In addition, Hannibal based his success on the military reforms of his father Hamilcar Barca while Scipio had to build from disaster. Without any command experience and in his twenties, Scipio Africanus captured the most fortified Carthaginian city in Spain [Nova Carthago] and defeated the Carthaginians and their Celtiberian allies at the battles of Baecula and Ilipa. In addition, at the battle of Zama in which Hannibal Barca himself was completely defeated, the Romans possessed only 30,000 soldiers while the Carthaginians possessed 50,000 soldiers and 80 war elephants. In my opinion, Scipio Africanus' generalship far surpassed the abilities of Hannibal Barca.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Dylan

Although Scipio did defeat Hannibal, he only won because he used Hannibal's tactics. You must also remember that Hannibal ruled a empire ruined from the previous war and rose above Rome. Rome had wealth and well trained soldiers and Hannibal didn't. Yet the Romans lost many battles again and again. Scipio won because he copied other ideas.

---

Rome could count on every man woman and child to stand in defence of her. That was true (atleast for the Early, Mid, and arguably, Late republic). However, this was useless if a commander was not present who was able to command.
Seige weapons could have been crafted, however, Hannibal chose not to do so. Reasons for this are best left to speculation. However, prior defeats of Hannibal while seigeing points to the fact that his seiging abilites were... poor at best. I would suggest you read about Nola, and Hannibals failed attempts for two years (on and off) to take the city.

As to being rich.

I will not deny that Carthage, prior to the first Punic war, held a rivaling, if not dominating, strangle-hold on much of the Mediterainian sea. However, that control was refuted or rebuffed following the first Punic War. While no where near gone until the close of the Second Punic War (and then the complete and utter removal/ destruction of it) where it was removed following the Third Punic War.

However, Rome was not exactly poor. You have completely left out Romes' system of alliances in your writings above. Rome never became as destitute, or as poor as you make it seem. Rather, for much of the war they kept atleast one army fighting in and around Macedonia; confident that even as things turned sour in mainland Italy, they would beable to eventually pull through.

Hannibal for his part also was expecting that at some point Rome would copitulate to his demands; that they would seeing that they have/ had irreparably lost the war, agree to standing down, and surrendering him. However, like King Pyrrus of Epirus before him, he was shocked as Rome did the unthinkable (for the time), and refused to surrender. On numerous occassions, even after Hannibal won numerous victories against them, Rome continued to (sometimes vilently) send away Carthagianian envoys that saught to talk peace with them.

As to their recovery (which you made note of with Hannibals ruleing).

They "recovered" by extending the tyrannical subjectation of countries that they counquered or subjegated, as well as those that allied with them (unfortunately, for the allies) -- such as what they did the Spain (the parts they conqurered), or Iberia as it was better known at the time. As well as increasing the tax rates for said countries.
While silver mines of Carthage (which were also present in Macedonia and other countries) did contribute some wealth. I believe you have over-assumed the wealth contributed by them.

While I would agree on your middle- final part, or point of the view that Carthage was partially to be blaimed for his loss in Italy, it is due to the thinking of Scipio Afficanus the Elder, who saught to take the war with Carthage from Roman soil, and place it on Italian soil. He did not "copy" anything.

Certainly the inability of his (Hanibals)army to speak with eachother (by and large) in his major defeat; the battle of Zama, played a large part (the new Galiic recruits were unable to understand the Carthagianian commanders, instead relying on their own commanders, who likewise could not understand -- by and large--, the Spanish, the Carthagianians themselves -- including the Sacredband infantry and calvery --, etc.). However, Hannibal also had a contingent of his own infantry, his Italian vetrans with him.

Hannibal was defeated because, despite numerous other things, Scipio Africanus The Elder was the better commander.

~John

Genghis Khan takes the cake


you are too focused on classical greek and roman commanders, you need to turn your short sighted spectacles towards the splendors of Asia

Cao Cao rivaled your Caesar in every since of the word

Themistocles had a nice victory during the Spartan-Persian War and all...
and Hannibal was uber (although he was defeated by Scipio Africanus)...
but, from the options, the obvious winner is definitely Alexander the Great.
He singlehandedly created one of the best empires in history, mastered propaganda (he didn't resemble in any way those statues which depict him), and tamed Bucephalus. The numerous "Alexandria"s in the world are a reminder of his epicness.

But I think it was a mistake to leave off Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, and all the other great Asian commanders.
The early American and African ones should also have been included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesterus

Genghis Khan takes the cake


you are too focused on classical greek and roman commanders, you need to turn your short sighted spectacles towards the splendors of Asia

Cao Cao rivaled your Caesar in every since of the word

---

We've already had this discussion over and over. Genghis Khan was no doubt a good tactian, but not the best.

EDIT: The thread says Antiquity, not early American history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Dylan

We've already had this discussion over and over. Genghis Khan was no doubt a good tactian, but not the best.

EDIT: The thread says Antiquity, not early American history.

---

Ghengis Khan and Cao Cao are part of Asian history, not American history. I'm assuming that was just an honest slip of the fingers though.
(EDIT: I've been told the American history line was directed towards Baltezar, not Nesterus. In that case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.)

Though yes, I would agree that Antiquity, although alternatively meaning ancientness in general, was intended by Conrad to mean specifically Classical Mediterranean civilizations.
EDIT: Perhaps someone else could create a thread for commanders of any ancient (definition of ancient variable) civilization or period.

Let's rescue the term 'antiquity' instead. My vote goes for Sun Tzu, a man much more obviously connected to good generalship than the bulk of the provided names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

Let's rescue the term 'antiquity' instead. My vote goes for Sun Tzu, a man much more obviously connected to good generalship than the bulk of the provided names.

---

... By what definition do you provide this answer?

Perhaps the English I have chosen in this context is... Inaccurate, so I appologize if the meaning is not what I intend it to be.

Sun Tzu is commonly accredited in the average mans' mind as writing the piece The Art of War. I say commonly accredited because it is a matter of accademic debate whether or not the man either existed, or wrote the book.

If you wish to deviate from the list, I would submit Zhuge Liang as being a more accomplished stratigist then Sun Tzu.

Not only his his existance not of doubt to the accademic community. His accomplishments are well known in the majority of China. Infact, to many, his name surname in addtion, has become synonymous with tactics or strategy (depending upon the word).

~John

I wasn't aware we had to post birth certificates to be able to provide opinions. Can you prove he didn't exist? Also, Conrad's favorite, Napoleon, was a huge Sun Tzu fan, are you suggesting Napoleon was an average man making an error of association? Are you suggesting we need to remove Sun Tzu from Conrad's custom user title? Surely not! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

I wasn't aware we had to post birth certificates to be able to provide opinions. Can you prove he didn't exist? Also, Conrad's favorite, Napoleon, was a huge Sun Tzu fan, are you suggesting Napoleon was an average man making an error of association?

---

There is difference between providing birth certificates and providing factual information that a person existed. To a degree of course.

One can provide the opinion that the Earth is Flat, or that all humans have an invisible third head/ or a third hand invisible to all but themselves. However, to add weight or credence to an opinion, one should beable to provide atleast one accademic source in support.

My point was not to debate the merit of his exhistance; that is best debated between parties in a different thread, or through private messages, so as to not derail this thread. Merely to point out the debate surrounding a candidate for best general.

He was a man in admiration of The Art of War, not necessarily Sun Tzu. It is true that he read a French Translation of The Art of War, I am not denying that.

~John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Adams

One can provide the opinion that the Earth is Flat, or that all humans have an invisible third head/ or a third hand invisible to all but themselves. However, to add weight or credence to an opinion, one should beable to provide atleast one accademic source in support.

My point was not to debate the merit of his exhistance; that is best debated between parties in a different thread, or through private messages, so as to not derail this thread. Merely to point out the debate surrounding a candidate for best general.

---

Your counterargument doesn't work. That's partly because most humans don't have two heads, and partly because there is a difference between a debate over something and a ludicrous assertion that something is true when it is not.

I am pleased that you acknowledge a lack of Asian generals in the voting selection however. It does seem that a few people posting in this thread looked to Asia when thinking of good generalship.

I never like to get involved in these things.

On the other hand... "Antiquity", defined classically, excludes most of Asia.

Sun Tzu's existence is demonstrated largely by anecdotal evidence, his employer's identity is indeterminate, and the most likely candidate for such was overrun at the end of the generally accepted dates Sun Tzu's perhaps mythic career. While the book attributed to him is excellent, even sublime, I would suggest that he ought not be on a list of great commanders with so little evidence to back up his existence.

Genghiz Khan is, of course, too late for antiquity in any sense. Great as a commander... meh; successful, certainly, but his success is (in my opinion) attributed to his followers rather than his ability.

But enough negatives. While normally I'd go with Alexander, his successes ended with his death; the same cannot be said of Africanus. Go Scipio!

Well, anything 'defined classically' where 'classically' means 'Greece and Rome' would exclude much of Asia. But antiquity is a noun of age, not of place.

Oh, I'd agree grammatically, Boleslav. In truth, the debate seems more one of the splitting of hairs than as a matter of substance; although several Asian military leaders might qualify for a similar date-oriented list (especially some from Siam), a rival for Africanus, Caesar, Alexander, or even Pompey would be difficult to find. It's more a matter of scope than even one of demonstrated ability, in my opinion; "excellence" and "greatness" are far different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

a rival for Africanus, Caesar, Alexander, or even Pompey would be difficult to find. It's more a matter of scope than even one of demonstrated ability, in my opinion; "excellence" and "greatness" are far different things.

---

Would you submit that at least one Asian commander could be on that list?

Mh... Were we to agree that "Antiquity" could be defined to include Asia during a similar period in history, then certainly. Sun Bin is one that comes immediately to mind, and he had a few rivals in fame and ability in that period of Chinese history (known as the "Warring States"). As well, Qin Shi Huangdi and Liu Bang were notable in the scope of their conquests and influence -- though not as much for their abilities.

There are a handful of Japanese, Korean, and Thai figures that might be argued as candidates for similar lists; however, most are either mythic figures (like Sun Tzu) or lived outside the time period established. Of course, that bracket when referring to Asia is arbitrary and virtually meaningless; the early leaders of the Sukhothai Kingdom, for instance, had technology not far advanced from that of Rome at its peak. That they fought a thousand years after Rome was ash and ruin is meaningless considering the distance involved.

There are some simple arguments that stand against this practice.

The first is that of the pure historian, who would argue that even the existence of Sun Bin is debatable given the lack of substantial historic evidence; in part, this can be traced to the Imperial tradition of eliminating all major works belonging to previous dynasties (and in some cases even preceding reigns) in the later Chinese empires.

As well, there's the argument that I presented earlier; even Sun Bin was a minor figure compared to Caesar, Alexander, or Africanus -- specifically, when discussing scope of influence, an essential aspect of "greatness". Chinese generals rarely became rulers.

One further item of note is the simple inapplicability of similar time divisions, as mentioned above. "Antiquity" in China could be said to have continued through to the Yuan conquest, though the An Shi Rebellion in the 8th Century is a more reasonable turning point, and the dissolution of the Han in 220AD might even be better... save that little reliable history survives from that time.

And that's just China; Asia is far larger than a single empire, no matter how large, powerful, or influential. In it can be found the majority of Alexander's empire, all of India and Japan, and the homes of many other peoples with long and glorious traditions.

Having said all this... no, none of these really belong on the list. Sun Bin was a lesser leader and not terribly successful; Qin, while influential in scope, was less effective even than Alexander; Liu Bang was less remarkable than Qin.

But then, I'd argue that Pyrrhus doesn't really belong here; neither does Epaminondas of Thebes or Miltiades. And where is Cincinnattus? But now I really am splitting hairs.

As with history in general, no poll is perfect. And with that, I think I can safely let the subject rest.


==================

EDIT: For the Pyrrhus Debate, please see the other thread on "Worst Generals". Conrad and Gnerphk wrestling this weighty question and not eschewing sesquipedalianism therein.