Great General of the Ancient World

[queenie]

It would have to be Hannibal... He managed to battle his way around the rim of the Med and through the Alps winning every battle along the way only to lose the war when Carthage was sacked during his absence... thus ending the Punic War.

Although Alexander did manage to conquer the "known" world before he was 30 so that's not too bad either...

I would still say that Hannibal was the better strategist...!

FYI - I read all this on a cereal box ;)

[Johnny W]

I would say Scipio Africanus, because to be the man, you have to beat the man, and he did. Alexander never really faced any competition of the level that Scipio did at Zama.

[Guest]

I would say Scipio Africanus, because to be the man, you have to beat the man, and he did. Alexander never really faced any competition of the level that Scipio did at Zama.

Zama can't be considered a testament of Scipio's talent, Scipio had a highly trained army under him, and he also had the numidian cavalry. Cavalry has been one of Hannibal's huge advantage in previous battles. Besides after seeing so many disastrous battles, it was obvious that Scipio learned a lot about Hannibal. Also Hannibal would have felt demoralized as his intention from the beginning was to fight and win the war at the enemy homeland, that objective was already lost.

[chankya]

Zama can't be considered a testament of Scipio's talent, Scipio had a highly trained army under him, and he also had the numidian cavalry. Cavalry has been one of Hannibal's huge advantage in previous battles. Besides after seeing so many disastrous battles, it was obvious that Scipio learned a lot about Hannibal. Also Hannibal would have felt demoralized as his intention from the beginning was to fight and win the war at the enemy homeland, that objective was already lost.

Battle of Ilipa then? Although I'd say that the level of training of the army( both at Zama and in Hispania) also reflects favourably upon the commander. Zama was possibly one of those few instances when an ancient army dealt so well with the use of war elephants by the enemy.

[Freeloader]

Leonidas. Yes I base this off the movie 300 and the stuff I've read after.

Alexander's conquests were the stuff of legends though.

[Le_Scientifique]

Guan Yu.

He was such a great general that he was deified.
He eventually received the posthumous title of : "Saintly Emperor Guan the Great God Who Subdues Demons of the Three Worlds and Whose Awe Spreads Far and Moves Heaven"

[Ironduke]

Leonidas. Yes I base this off the movie 300 and the stuff I've read after.

Alexander's conquests were the stuff of legends though.

Thermopylae was a delaying action... and there were alot more than 300 Greeks fighting, rather, somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 present fighting on the first couple days of battle and probably around 2,000 when they were finally defeated.

[Le_Scientifique]

Thermopylae was a delaying action... and there were alot more than 300 Greeks fighting, rather, somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 present fighting on the first couple days of battle and probably around 2,000 when they were finally defeated.

What I hate about movies like 300 is that it disrupt historical events into some hollywood-fantastic perceptions.

[TexasAggression]

This thread can't be taken seriously without some Hannibal love in here, but my vote isn't for him. I'm voting for Phillip, father of Alexander. He MADE the Macedonian military machine that Alexander inherited, and did some impressive soldiering of his own.He conquered all of Greece and became "Hegemon of the Hellens".
Alexander might of used the hammer and anvil to great effect, but Phillip invented it. So, there's my case for Phillip. Flame if you wish. :)

[Monk]

Surely Prophet Mohammed deserves a place. Atleast for all the blood and gore..

[Guest]

The top 5 is missing something

1) Hannibal should be and is "in" the top 5 captains of the ancient world--despite his exclusion on your field pole.
Not sure why his name is omitted?! He is considered the father of strategy. He held school in Italy for 15 years. Many Roman generals learned from his strategy. It is unlikely that any other foreign general of that time could exist for that long, with at least 3 or 4 consular armies continually watching him, but giving him respectable space. He was never defeated on Italian soil.
2) Alexander the Great
3) Julius Caesar
4) Scipio Africanus---Mainly because Marcus Claudius Nero defeated Hasdrubal Barca at the Metaurus, which changed the direction of the 2nd Punic War for good. Zama was just the final battle, but not the decisive battle.
5) Pyrrhus of Epirus

[1979]

Marcus Agrippa.

[1980s]

I dont share any awe or admiration for Alexander given his numerous acts of savagery and vandalism in Iran, altho from this selection id give the vote to him. His military accomplishments were phenomenal that is undisputable.

Curiously, Xerxes' name appears on this poll. A more appropriate choice from the Achaemenids would have been either Cyrus the Great, or Darius the Great. Actually i cant understand at all why somebody would put Xerxes' name ahead of theirs.

[Prof]

Resurrected from the dead, huh? I go with Flavius(?) Belisarius. Greek or Thracian Byzantine Emperial general of the 6th century primarily associated with Justinian I. Kept being sent off on expeditions to subdue Ostrogoths & Vandals & critters like that with what in anybody else's hands would be totally totally inadequate force. Kept being called out of retirement by Justinian, who was a monstrous ingrate & who may have ultimately blinded the old feller out of jealousy. Always won. B.H. Liddell-Hart considers him the greatest general in history, & that's good enough for me.

The Prof