Conquer Club

I have to say it's General Poo.

dinobot wrote:

Chris7He wrote:Besides, Phillip developed the Macedonian Phalanx, not Alex. I think Alexander as a little creepy fucker who killed his father, stole his ideas, and became "great".

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeee yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

Also, when Napoleon gave orders, he gave them in a really fucked up way. For most of his career, he had a secretary who was able to figure out what his actual plan was, before relaying his orders to his subordinates. At Waterloo he didn't have this secretary and thus gave retarded orders that no one could understand.

And he also had extremely bad stomach ulcers and was vomiting everywhere.

That might have impaired his judgement a little.

dinobot wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Chris7He wrote:Alex sucks balls. The phalanx is weak when fighting against more flexible legionaires. The phalanx is even more weak when fighting in broken terrain. Had Alexander survived, he would've turned west only to be humiliated by the barbarians and the developing empires.

In most battles between them, the phalanx either won, or it went down to a draw. Only 3 battles did the cohort system actually beat the phalanx. Not to mention the Romans were having to resort to phalanx like tactics near the end to try and fight the Barbarian hordes, much more effective then what the cohort could do.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Although the phalanx formation was formidable and nearly indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable because it was relatively slow-moving, and once engaged it could not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. In short, it was an all or nothing tactic: it either pushed the enemy off the field or was outflanked and destroyed. This was shown at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, where Roman legionaries defeated one wing of a Macedonian army and then detached several cohorts from the victorious wing to strike the flank of the other Macedonian wing.

The Macedonian phalanx could also be disordered while moving through broken terrain and so had to be supported by light infantry to plug gaps in the line as they appeared. When these light troops were absent or failed to do their duty, as in the battle of Pydna, the phalanx became extremely vulnerable to attack by more flexible troops such as Roman legions.

Another weakness of the phalanx was light missile troops such as archers or slingers, which stayed a safe distance away while subjecting it to missile fire, thus forcing it to surrender, retreat, or wait for the foe to run out of ammunition. Skirmishers and effective armour were often used to counter this.

It was also very weak against siege weapons such as the catapult and ballista. These weapons could fire into the densely packed ranks, easily taking out the soldiers and breaking up the lines.

Thus, the phalanx was weakest when the enemy had many lighter and more flexible troops while it had no such supporting troops. An example is the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian army led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.

Due to the two weaknesses mentioned above, after the Peloponnesian War the phalanx did not perform well unless it was used together with cavalry or light infantry. Otherwise, it could not cope with the greater tactical flexibility of the Roman legion. It lost its prestigious position among ancient tactical formations after the Battle of Pydna (168 BC), after which Macedonia and Hellas became Roman provinces. Some legends, however (with little supporting historical evidence) state that a Spartan phalanx drove off marauding Visigoths after the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

Also, you do realise that the Romans lost against the barbarians, right?

Note how many battles are mentioned where the phalanx went against the cohort and lost.

And yes, I know the weakness of the phalanx, but one part of the battle of Cynoscephalae, though the left flank of the phalanx was being destroyed, the Roman Left Flank (that was facing the Macedonian Right Flank) was suffering many causalties themselves. If the Macedonian Left Flank had been able to organize sooner, the battle would have been different. The Macedonian Left Flank had not had time to get into proper organization, thus why it was beaten.

Also, I know that the Romans lost to the Barbarians, in many instances. They were reverting back to the phalanx formations to little to late.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

dinobot wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Chris7He wrote:Alex sucks balls. The phalanx is weak when fighting against more flexible legionaires. The phalanx is even more weak when fighting in broken terrain. Had Alexander survived, he would've turned west only to be humiliated by the barbarians and the developing empires.

In most battles between them, the phalanx either won, or it went down to a draw. Only 3 battles did the cohort system actually beat the phalanx. Not to mention the Romans were having to resort to phalanx like tactics near the end to try and fight the Barbarian hordes, much more effective then what the cohort could do.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Although the phalanx formation was formidable and nearly indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable because it was relatively slow-moving, and once engaged it could not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. In short, it was an all or nothing tactic: it either pushed the enemy off the field or was outflanked and destroyed. This was shown at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, where Roman legionaries defeated one wing of a Macedonian army and then detached several cohorts from the victorious wing to strike the flank of the other Macedonian wing.

The Macedonian phalanx could also be disordered while moving through broken terrain and so had to be supported by light infantry to plug gaps in the line as they appeared. When these light troops were absent or failed to do their duty, as in the battle of Pydna, the phalanx became extremely vulnerable to attack by more flexible troops such as Roman legions.

Another weakness of the phalanx was light missile troops such as archers or slingers, which stayed a safe distance away while subjecting it to missile fire, thus forcing it to surrender, retreat, or wait for the foe to run out of ammunition. Skirmishers and effective armour were often used to counter this.

It was also very weak against siege weapons such as the catapult and ballista. These weapons could fire into the densely packed ranks, easily taking out the soldiers and breaking up the lines.

Thus, the phalanx was weakest when the enemy had many lighter and more flexible troops while it had no such supporting troops. An example is the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian army led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.

Due to the two weaknesses mentioned above, after the Peloponnesian War the phalanx did not perform well unless it was used together with cavalry or light infantry. Otherwise, it could not cope with the greater tactical flexibility of the Roman legion. It lost its prestigious position among ancient tactical formations after the Battle of Pydna (168 BC), after which Macedonia and Hellas became Roman provinces. Some legends, however (with little supporting historical evidence) state that a Spartan phalanx drove off marauding Visigoths after the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

Also, you do realise that the Romans lost against the barbarians, right?

Note how many battles are mentioned where the phalanx went against the cohort and lost.

And yes, I know the weakness of the phalanx, but one part of the battle of Cynoscephalae, though the left flank of the phalanx was being destroyed, the Roman Left Flank (that was facing the Macedonian Right Flank) was suffering many causalties themselves. If the Macedonian Left Flank had been able to organize sooner, the battle would have been different. The Macedonian Left Flank had not had time to get into proper organization, thus why it was beaten.

Also, I know that the Romans lost to the Barbarians, in many instances. They were reverting back to the phalanx formations to little to late.

The Romans lost to the barbarians due to multiple reasons. They were incorporating barbarians into their army. Rome had grown weak and lazy. People were no longer appointed, but inherited their parents' jobs. The barbarians understood Roman military tactics and hungered for more land and began invading the Roman Empire which was corrupt.

The Carthiginians used the phalanx. Why did they lose? The phalanx sucks. The Romans had too much reverence for the stupid Greeks. Alexander the Great should have knelt and sucked Roman balls.

I nominate the much superior general, Belisarius, as greatest general in history. He came close to restoring the glory of Rome, until Justinian grew jealous and stripped him of his command.

The battle of Pydna revealed the weak Macedonian phalanx, which was extremely vulnerable in broken terrain. In the battle, the Romans were able to advance through the gaps in the line and defeat the Phalangites. Of course, the Macedonians would have won the battle if they could have reorganized (every two minutes).

George Bush.

Pft Nixon for the win

Chris7He wrote:The Romans lost to the barbarians due to multiple reasons. They were incorporating barbarians into their army. Rome had grown weak and lazy. People were no longer appointed, but inherited their parents' jobs. The barbarians understood Roman military tactics and hungered for more land and began invading the Roman Empire which was corrupt.

The Carthiginians used the phalanx. Why did they lose? The phalanx sucks. The Romans had too much reverence for the stupid Greeks. Alexander the Great should have knelt and sucked Roman balls.

I nominate the much superior general, Belisarius, as greatest general in history. He came close to restoring the glory of Rome, until Justinian grew jealous and stripped him of his command.

The battle of Pydna revealed the weak Macedonian phalanx, which was extremely vulnerable in broken terrain. In the battle, the Romans were able to advance through the gaps in the line and defeat the Phalangites. Of course, the Macedonians would have won the battle if they could have reorganized (every two minutes).

May I add that when Alexander was alive, Rome wasn't much more then a village? Not to mention the Roman Cohort is based off of the Greek Phalanx. That is how it evolved.

For the Carthiginians, the odds were stacked against them when Scipio came and attacked Carthage. Yet before that, the Romans had suffered disasterous defeats, especially at Cannae, where nearly 60,000 troops were slaughtered out of 80,000. Hannibal had half that number and used phalanxes.

And I know that the Barbarians came, many were also fleeing from the ever advancing Huns to the East. Not to mention disease was also rampant throughout the Western Empire, thus weakening it that much more.

Chris7He wrote:

Gypsys Kiss wrote:I think Wellington was better than Napoleon. He knew when to cut his loses and when to attack. Napoleon didnt and that was his weak spot.

Napolean knew when to attack. That's how he won Austerlitz. Waterloo was a result of poor communications. If both sides had infinite numbers, Napolean would win.

If I'm not mistaken Wellington never lost a battle, and he fought a lot of battles. Napoleon got his arse kicked twice. He was also far more willing to expend the lives of his troops. At Waterloo Wellington was commanding an allied army so surely this makes his task more difficult.

Greateast Amercian generals -

Stonewall Jackson but he was betrayed and murdered

Patton but he was murdered after realizing the identity of the real enemy.

gannable wrote:Greateast Amercian generals -

Stonewall Jackson but he was betrayed and murdered

Patton but he was murdered after realizing the identity of the real enemy.

Andrew Jackson too.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Chris7He wrote:The Romans lost to the barbarians due to multiple reasons. They were incorporating barbarians into their army. Rome had grown weak and lazy. People were no longer appointed, but inherited their parents' jobs. The barbarians understood Roman military tactics and hungered for more land and began invading the Roman Empire which was corrupt.

The Carthiginians used the phalanx. Why did they lose? The phalanx sucks. The Romans had too much reverence for the stupid Greeks. Alexander the Great should have knelt and sucked Roman balls.

I nominate the much superior general, Belisarius, as greatest general in history. He came close to restoring the glory of Rome, until Justinian grew jealous and stripped him of his command.

The battle of Pydna revealed the weak Macedonian phalanx, which was extremely vulnerable in broken terrain. In the battle, the Romans were able to advance through the gaps in the line and defeat the Phalangites. Of course, the Macedonians would have won the battle if they could have reorganized (every two minutes).

May I add that when Alexander was alive, Rome wasn't much more then a village? Not to mention the Roman Cohort is based off of the Greek Phalanx. That is how it evolved.

For the Carthiginians, the odds were stacked against them when Scipio came and attacked Carthage. Yet before that, the Romans had suffered disasterous defeats, especially at Cannae, where nearly 60,000 troops were slaughtered out of 80,000. Hannibal had half that number and used phalanxes.

And I know that the Barbarians came, many were also fleeing from the ever advancing Huns to the East. Not to mention disease was also rampant throughout the Western Empire, thus weakening it that much more.

I know the Romans were weak at the time (I'm saying the Carthiginians, Etruscans, and barbarians against Alex), but why couldn't Hanniballs beat Scipio? The Romans didn't lose to the fucking phalanx. They lost to the Goddamn war elephants. I don't see how someone could fight those huge monstrosities. They cheated. If the Romans had war elephants, they would kick ass.

The Huns fell apart easily after Attila died. They didn't use the phalanx, they used horde tactics. The Romans fell apart due to increased corruption and a series of incompetent Emperors. I do have to admit that the phalanx saved the Byzantines for a while, because cohorts beat phalanx, phalanx beat horde, and horde beat cohorts.

Chris7He wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Chris7He wrote:The Romans lost to the barbarians due to multiple reasons. They were incorporating barbarians into their army. Rome had grown weak and lazy. People were no longer appointed, but inherited their parents' jobs. The barbarians understood Roman military tactics and hungered for more land and began invading the Roman Empire which was corrupt.

The Carthiginians used the phalanx. Why did they lose? The phalanx sucks. The Romans had too much reverence for the stupid Greeks. Alexander the Great should have knelt and sucked Roman balls.

I nominate the much superior general, Belisarius, as greatest general in history. He came close to restoring the glory of Rome, until Justinian grew jealous and stripped him of his command.

The battle of Pydna revealed the weak Macedonian phalanx, which was extremely vulnerable in broken terrain. In the battle, the Romans were able to advance through the gaps in the line and defeat the Phalangites. Of course, the Macedonians would have won the battle if they could have reorganized (every two minutes).

May I add that when Alexander was alive, Rome wasn't much more then a village? Not to mention the Roman Cohort is based off of the Greek Phalanx. That is how it evolved.

For the Carthiginians, the odds were stacked against them when Scipio came and attacked Carthage. Yet before that, the Romans had suffered disasterous defeats, especially at Cannae, where nearly 60,000 troops were slaughtered out of 80,000. Hannibal had half that number and used phalanxes.

And I know that the Barbarians came, many were also fleeing from the ever advancing Huns to the East. Not to mention disease was also rampant throughout the Western Empire, thus weakening it that much more.

I know the Romans were weak at the time (I'm saying the Carthiginians, Etruscans, and barbarians against Alex), but why couldn't Hanniballs beat Scipio? The Romans didn't lose to the fucking phalanx. They lost to the Goddamn war elephants. I don't see how someone could fight those huge monstrosities. They cheated. If the Romans had war elephants, they would kick ass.

The Huns fell apart easily after Attila died. They didn't use the phalanx, they used horde tactics. The Romans fell apart due to increased corruption and a series of incompetent Emperors. I do have to admit that the phalanx saved the Byzantines for a while, because cohorts beat phalanx, phalanx beat horde, and horde beat cohorts.

You need to brush up on the military tactics of the ancients.

Though at the battle of Zama (Hannibal vs Scipio), Hannibal had elephants, the elephants were rendered useless due to Scipio training his men to funnel the charging beasts through the lines. And using elephants isn't cheating, look at the battle of Haydepsus (spelling?), where Alexander fought over 200 War elephants and won, even though they rendered his powerful cavalry useless.

As for the battle of Cannae, Hannibal only had a single elephant left, which he rode upon. The rest was due to the combination of phalanx, cavalry, and other infantry troops that surrounded and destroyed the much larger Roman army.

As for the Huns, the reason why they became so weak, was because they had lost to many troops at the battle of Chalons against the Romans and Visigoths.

Also, in only a few battles out of hundereds did the cohort actually beat the phalanx, and even then, it was not as one sided as one might think. Not to mention the Romans DID incorperate war elephants into their ranks for a time, but the Romans preffered relying on infantry for the most part. So the elephants were short lived in the Roman armies.

I thought you said that Hannibal was the best General ever? Now you're changing because he used a similar tactic to Alexander? And it's been said, Alexander's Macedonian Phalanx, with thier 20ft. long sarissas instead of the 13(?) foot long Greek pikes was much better. Yet as is stated the Macedonians lost to the Romans (which may have turned out differently, may not have). They did not have a great leader, like Alexander, at that time. And it's important to note that Hannibal, on more than one occasion, asked the Macedonians for help. He used their tactics as well, as has already been stated. When I first saw this thread I thought it was Conquerors and immediately nominated Ghengis Khan. However I think Hannibal makes a good second (AFTER Alexander), in terms of greatest Generals. I don't have much modern war knowledge, beyond the basics, so I probably am not considering some of the greats like Napoleon and Wellington, but I'm pretty proficient in ancient warfare and see Alexander as the greatest general there.

Historians describe the Roman fear of war elephants the reason why they lost many of their battles against Hanniballs, not the phalanx. The phalanx is pathetic when put up against the cohort, especially on broken territory. Like I said, the Romans charged right through Macedonian gaps in the line and destroyed them. The Romans were able to overwhelm their enemies easily with the cohort. I repeat, I nominate Belisarius for greatest general.

Belisarius' tactics and conquests have been overlooked. I believe a general is not just defined by his tactics, but also by his victories and conquests. Any generals' tactics can win under the right conditions. You need to examine his victories. Alexander did win quite a few battles...

I would pay to argue alexander WAS NOT the greatest general of all time, i would argue Ghengis kahn was the greatest general of all time...

Manstein Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN_yw10OFEY&feature=related

Bavarian Raven wrote:I would pay to argue alexander WAS NOT the greatest general of all time, i would argue Ghengis kahn was the greatest general of all time...

Well go on then... make the arguments...

The greatest general of all time was probably General Grant of the Union Army because of the influence it has had on our modern times. His victory had a big influence on how we live today. The American civil war was a huge turning point in warfare, the Lee Enfield rifle changed the whole dynamics of war.

graeme89 wrote:The greatest general of all time was probably General Grant of the Union Army because of the influence it has had on our modern times. His victory had a big influence on how we live today. The American civil war was a huge turning point in warfare, the Lee Enfield rifle changed the whole dynamics of war.

What he did was great, but he certainly wasn't the greatest general of the time. A lot of the reason the US won the war was the brilliant political tactics of Lincoln...who kept foreign nations from entering the war. If they had...we would have been screwed.

Chris7He wrote:Historians describe the Roman fear of war elephants the reason why they lost many of their battles against Hanniballs, not the phalanx. The phalanx is pathetic when put up against the cohort, especially on broken territory. Like I said, the Romans charged right through Macedonian gaps in the line and destroyed them. The Romans were able to overwhelm their enemies easily with the cohort. I repeat, I nominate Belisarius for greatest general.

Belisarius' tactics and conquests have been overlooked. I believe a general is not just defined by his tactics, but also by his victories and conquests. Any generals' tactics can win under the right conditions. You need to examine his victories. Alexander did win quite a few battles...

Interestingly enough, it was the war elephants that stopped Alexander as well...over in India. Alexander created one of the largest empires ever territory wise (however...not very stable). And he was such a great general not just because of his tactics, but because of the impact he had on his troops. He was a man who would lead the charge and go into battle with his people. He realized that morale has a huge impact on the battle...which is one of the reasons he accomplished all that he did without hiring any mercenaries. That's was makes him such a great general.

its obvious, the mighty warlord george bush

I vote Jugurtha – for the best name ever.

InkL0sed wrote:I vote Jugurtha – for the best name ever.

Gotta love that Numidians...

Scipio, he defeated hannibal.

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.