Which general impresses you most: Alexander the Great,, Hannibal, or Julius Caesar?

Radrook

Radrook

Senior Member
Location
USA
Or do you consider the three equally skilled?
 

Radrook said:
Thanks for the feedback! Why do you consider him a superior general to those other two? Just curious.
Click to expand...
simply because he was a much better Strategist IMO..Hannibal was a great leader of men into Battle.. but not a warrior Per Se... altho; that might have been different if he's had the backing of his governments.. but Alexander was superb at working out exactly what was needed, where and when...
 
hollydolly said:
simply because he was a much better Strategist IMO..Hannibal was a great leader of men into Battle.. but not a warrior Per Se... altho; that might have been different if he's had the backing of his governments.. but Alexander was superb at working out exactly what was needed, where and when...
Click to expand...
Alexander's skills were indeed impressive.

BTW Amazing how Hannibal had to struggle against his own people under those difficult circumstances. Then they had the audacity to call on him to defend them when Rome threatened Carthage directly!
 
Radrook said:
Alexander's skills were indeed impressive.

BTW Amazing how Hannibal had to struggle against his own people under those difficult circumstances. Then they had the audacity to call on him to defend them when Rome threatened Carthage directly!
Click to expand...
Precisely that. if he'd had the support of his people.. he would have been unstoppable , I believe !
 
hollydolly said:
Precisely that. if he'd had the support of his people.. he would have been unstoppable , I believe !
Click to expand...
Materialistic priorities. They had no trouble sending reinforcements to Iberia in order to protect their silver mines. There was also envy.

This kind of selfish behavior should have come as no surprise to the general since the Carthaginian government had responded in the same way to his father, Hamilcar Barca (l. 275-228 BCE) during the First Punic War (264-241 BCE). Hamilcar had also repeatedly sent word that he required greater support and these pleas were ignored by the elite of the city who preferred to spend the peoples' tax money on their own luxuries instead of the good of the populace who supported their way of life.
Click to expand...
 
One way to compare generals is to consider the quality of their opposition. For example, were the armies that Caesar defeated equal to the armies that Alexander defeated? Did Hannibal face stronger opposition than both of them did?
 
I am impressed by Alexander the Great’s military achievements and strategic genius. He conquered a vast portion of the known world, creating one of the largest empires in history, in just 13 years. His tactics, such as the use of phalanx formations and lightning-fast marches, were innovative and effective. He also demonstrated exceptional leadership skills, inspiring loyalty and devotion in his troops.

Alexander’s ability to adapt to different environments and enemies, from the Persian Empire’s massive armies to the Indian and Bactrian kingdoms, is impressive. His willingness to experiment and innovate, as seen in his use of elephants and other unconventional tactics, showcases his creative genius.

While Hannibal and Julius Caesar were both skilled generals, Alexander’s sheer scope of conquests and strategic brilliance set him apart. Hannibal’s achievements in Italy were remarkable, but his campaigns were largely limited to a specific region and timeframe. Julius Caesar’s military successes were significant, but he often relied on his political influence and logistical advantages to achieve victory.

Alexander the Great’s impressive record of conquests, innovative tactics, and exceptional leadership make him the general who impresses me most among the three.
 
Last edited:
If we are voting for C20 generals, my vote goes to John Monash of Australia.

Yes, I know that few people other than Aussies have ever heard of him.

General Sir John Monash was a civil engineer and soldier. He is famous for his role as commander of the Australian army corps in France during World War I. Monash displayed great military skills, intellect, and inspiring leadership qualities, leading his Australians through a series of victorious actions until the end of the war2.

In 1915 Colonel John Monash (a civil engineer) was appointed commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade in WW1. He commanded 200,000 troops including soldiers from Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States. The Gallipoli campaign was a failed mission that lasted eight months and saw thousands of troops die. It was the very first battle that Australia (and New Zealand) had taken part in as sovereign nations. Monash was tasked with the operation of withdrawing troops from Gallipoli, which he described to be every bit as critical and dangerous an enterprise as the first landing at ANZAC cove. Despite the odds, he succeeded in withdrawing 45,000 men without a single casualty.
From here, Monash went on to command several of the first World War’s most famous battles, most notably that at Hamel, which led to victories in France and Belgium.
 
squatting dog said:
Myself... I'll take General Douglas MacArthur :)

"Whoever said the pen is mightier than
the sword obviously has never encountered
automatic weapons"
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response Squatting Dog. However, please note that the question is in reference to Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander the Great. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top