Greatest General after Alexander the Great of Macedon?

[muy_thaiguy]

This thread died a while ago I see. I was hoping it would still be a hot topic or at least one that is discussed... Well, in response to Scipio one need only look at the history. Scipio beat Hannibal because he had more troops, better troops, and the mighty power of Roman industry behind him. Saying that Scipio is the greatest General is like saying one of the modern American Generals is the greatest. They're good for their time but with such a large production power and national pride behind you it's difficult to not win. I still like Hannibal. Even if he did lose to Scipio he tore up Rome in it's most expansive period during the days of the Republic. The production capacity of Carthage was terrible when compared to the opposition, and many of the Carthaginians were foreigners. Hannibal even managed to rally the Gallic troops of Northern Italy (obviously they didn't like Rome but to incorporate them into one's army is quite a feat). Hannibal did not have a SUCCESSFUL strategy but he DID have a strategy. That was to enlist the aid of Roman allies by convincing them that Rome was an oppressive master and her weakness was only compensated by the aid of such allies. Hannibal did take the second city of Italy, Capua, but could not get aid from other cities and so could not win. His well known tactics showed that armies can win battles but not wars.
Everyone is entitled to argue (if anyone still reads this thread but I hope this argument can compel those who are 'just visiting' to beleive that Hannibal is the best General of all time behind Alexander.

Actually, at Zama, they had roughly the same amount of troops, and Hannibal even had elephants. Only problem was, they were not the veterans from his Italian expeditions.

[Iliad]

This thread died a while ago I see. I was hoping it would still be a hot topic or at least one that is discussed... Well, in response to Scipio one need only look at the history. Scipio beat Hannibal because he had more troops, better troops, and the mighty power of Roman industry behind him. Saying that Scipio is the greatest General is like saying one of the modern American Generals is the greatest. They're good for their time but with such a large production power and national pride behind you it's difficult to not win. I still like Hannibal. Even if he did lose to Scipio he tore up Rome in it's most expansive period during the days of the Republic. The production capacity of Carthage was terrible when compared to the opposition, and many of the Carthaginians were foreigners. Hannibal even managed to rally the Gallic troops of Northern Italy (obviously they didn't like Rome but to incorporate them into one's army is quite a feat). Hannibal did not have a SUCCESSFUL strategy but he DID have a strategy. That was to enlist the aid of Roman allies by convincing them that Rome was an oppressive master and her weakness was only compensated by the aid of such allies. Hannibal did take the second city of Italy, Capua, but could not get aid from other cities and so could not win. His well known tactics showed that armies can win battles but not wars.
Everyone is entitled to argue (if anyone still reads this thread but I hope this argument can compel those who are 'just visiting' to beleive that Hannibal is the best General of all time behind Alexander.

Actually no. Without scipio even with all their armies rome was getting owned by hannibal.

However when scipio fought him after the first battle which he lost I think, he started using good strategies and beat hannibal at his game; when the elephants charged the troops just parted and the unmaneuvarble elephants charged right past the troops.

Scipio was a good general.

[muy_thaiguy]

Scipio wasn't in command during "their" first battle, he was an under officer.

[Hologram]

Chingis Khan was by far the best general of the medieval period, as he was centuries ahead of his time compared to the feuding European lords.

Hannibal is tied with Napolean in tactics and choosing when and where to engage.

Napolean was the greatest tactician, and a damn good political manipulator.

Otto von Bismark, while not truly a general, allowed the Prussian army to be the most professional and effective fighting force in the world in the mid-19th century through his organization skills and practice of realpolitik.

Caesar, Washington and others are highly overrated. Washington got lucky, and Caesar had bravado and bravado only.

And of course, there's Lt. Gen. Chesty Puller, the most decorated Marine ever. So decorated that he's the only Marine ever to have been authorized to wear medals on both his right breast as they wouldn't've fit on his left breast alone.

Semper Fi.

[borox0]

Hannibal even though Scipio beat him, Scipio used some of Hannibal's previous strategys against him.

[sd031091]

This thread died a while ago I see. I was hoping it would still be a hot topic or at least one that is discussed... Well, in response to Scipio one need only look at the history. Scipio beat Hannibal because he had more troops, better troops, and the mighty power of Roman industry behind him. Saying that Scipio is the greatest General is like saying one of the modern American Generals is the greatest. They're good for their time but with such a large production power and national pride behind you it's difficult to not win. I still like Hannibal. Even if he did lose to Scipio he tore up Rome in it's most expansive period during the days of the Republic. The production capacity of Carthage was terrible when compared to the opposition, and many of the Carthaginians were foreigners. Hannibal even managed to rally the Gallic troops of Northern Italy (obviously they didn't like Rome but to incorporate them into one's army is quite a feat). Hannibal did not have a SUCCESSFUL strategy but he DID have a strategy. That was to enlist the aid of Roman allies by convincing them that Rome was an oppressive master and her weakness was only compensated by the aid of such allies. Hannibal did take the second city of Italy, Capua, but could not get aid from other cities and so could not win. His well known tactics showed that armies can win battles but not wars.
Everyone is entitled to argue (if anyone still reads this thread but I hope this argument can compel those who are 'just visiting' to beleive that Hannibal is the best General of all time behind Alexander.

Actually no. Without scipio even with all their armies rome was getting owned by hannibal.

However when scipio fought him after the first battle which he lost I think, he started using good strategies and beat hannibal at his game; when the elephants charged the troops just parted and the unmaneuvarble elephants charged right past the troops.

Scipio was a good general.

During their "first" battle Scipio the elder was the consul... If I'm not mistaken he was saved by his son, Scipio the younger, and I don't think he died (although I could be wrong there so if someone knows about the battle of the Trebia river please respond). Actually, I've checked and it seems Scipio the elder was hurt at the battle of the Ticinus River, and was not killed.
Scipio the Younger (who is the Scipio we've referred to) won the battle of Zama. He was a good general but certainly not equal to Hannibal. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Romans were actually able to enlist many Numidians to their side, strengthening their own army while weakening Carthage. Hannibal did not have a fair fight against Scipio. He commanded weak troops, not his loyal, battle hardened italian campaign troops as MuyThaiGuy has already pointed out. If we're trying to pick out Roman Commanders there's one who fought against Hannibal, I believe by the name of Marcellus, who used the Fabian strategy more efficiently than the "cunctator" himself. He seems to me like a better General than Scipio, for a combination of tactics and strategy. He effectively stopped Hannibal's campaign in Southern Italy after Paullus' and Varro's shortmindedness at Cannae.