Best Tactical Commander

[skel]

taking ONLY tactics and use of strategies into account, no terrain, no army size, no equipment, etc., who in your opinion is the greatest commander of the anceint world? and please explain why it can be roman, barbian, greek, chinese, whatever... just tell me who and why

[Fafnir]

taking ONLY tactics and use of strategies into account, no terrain...

 

 

But Skel, using your terrain to your advantage is tactics and strategy. If all the terrain was the same, then most commanders would be identical...

 

But if i could take terrain into account, i would choose Napoleon Bonaparte. Yes hes not Roman, but he obviously studied up on his "Arts of War" and used his terrain to his advantage in many great battles.

[skel]

ok ok.. what i was trying to do with terrain was keep this from turning into another han vs rome kinda thing... but yes you are right. using terrain is part of being tactical...

[Guest spartacus]

Fafnir is right, its terrain that was vital to tactical advantage but that said I do admire the tactics of Scipio Africanus and Alexander the great showed particular brilliance

[skel]

sparticus, the only actual battle i know much about with alexander was the great battle with the persians, and how he used his cavalry to punchthrough. do you kow of any other of his tactics that he used in other battles?

[roman wargamer]

taking ONLY tactics and use of strategies into account,

 

(for clarification of definition only for clearer limit

"same" terrain, "same" army size, "same" equipment,

taking ONLY tactics and use of strategies into account,

 

(for clarification of definition only for clearer limit

"same" terrain, "same" army size, "same" equipment,

 

Julius Caeser in the Battle of Munda, he rely on the 10th Legion for the Opening to Push through, to be Flank by Cavalry.

Unluckyl for the enemy they commited some Blunder, it is now that mistake history highlighted. when they withdraw the cavalry

to protect there own Camp which is under attack, it is presume by the Infantry as a withdrawal, the moral sunk, and the fighting

Spirit is gone. The rest is history.

 

Julius Caeser say's in this Battle e fight for his Life.

 

Hannibal is wothy of mentioned in the battle of Cannae.

[Marcus Regulus]

Hannibal is wothy of mentioned in the battle of Cannae.

 

 

Boy that's an understatement. The Cannae is still to this day a classified military manuever that all generals dream of executing. It is very rare for it to actually take place. Hannibal was the first and might I say still the greatest to do so. My only problem with Hannibal was not his tactical brilliance, but his stategic thinking. He did so great things, but the fact is Carthage disbanded a huge chunk of their navy and it lead to their downfall. I don't know how much Hannibal had to do with it, but it was decisive. Otherwise this site would be dedicated to Carthaginian History. It would be like a major power today disbanding a large chunk of its Air Force.

[Primus Pilus]

Well Hannibal had little to do with the lack of a Punic navy really. The Carthaginian defeat in the First War led to the shift in naval power. I wonder though, had Carthage maintained a stronger fleet, would they have issued more supplies to his army in Italy? Or would they haveacted exactly as they had done anyway. I think the politics of the situation caused more problems than the lack of navy. Though both probably go hand in hand.. with naval strength, perhaps they don't worry about Hannibal putting them into an untenable situation.

[Guest spartacus]

I wonder M R if a portion of Hannibals downfall could be attributed to Carthages neglect of Hannibals requests, and he felt bitter towards them, coupled with losing his brothers!

His state of mind therefore is questionable!

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Hannibal, IMO, got lucky when he got branded with the title "genius" at Cannea. In reality there was not much to the strategy. For some apparent reason the Roman's thought it was to just meet up with hannibals cavalry head to head, when Carthagenian cavalry was way stronger. The ROman coavalry was decimated, obviously, and the Carthagenian, or should I say Iberian because he did not use Carthagenian cavalry at Cannea, cavalry headed back to the Romans. Once again I must say it was more of a Roman folly. A big mistake made by a dumb general who was going up against a a general with 100x his knowledge of warfare. Everything played out as Hannibal planned. He predicted that the Roman's would just head in and try to smash Hannibal with force. The strategy was great. But there are many variables and it makes me wonder "what if". Like what if the ROman's didn't fall in? What if the ROmans combined their cavalry with infantry and managed to destroy Hannibal's cavalry. What if the ROmans extended their lines to eclipse that of the Hannibal's. If a good general was leading the Roman's, I assure you that battle would not have haooened the way it did.

[Marcus Regulus]

What if... What if... Yipes. Doesn't change what happened and it take more that the Battle of Cannae to judge Hannibal. The fact is the Roman Republic was quaking in their boots about Hannibal and justifiably so. He was kicking their butt and they knew it. Scipio Africanus was the first Roman commander to be as bold as some of the things Hannibal did. He remains me favorite strategic and tactical commander of Roman Republic. It was the same type of bold move strategically (invade Carthage) and then adjusting tactics (break the Roman lines to flank the elephants) that Hannibal had used in crossing the Alps and then at the battle of Cannae and others that the Romans lost to him. But such a Roman invasion would have been very difficult if the Carthaginian navy had been in better shape. Part of this was do to the losses in the previous wars, the other part due to the shortsightedness of the Senate in Carthage who did disband some of their navy. It was politics and I often wondered had Hannibal learned to play politics better, he might have got more support.

 

Listen what made Rome great was not that they took on some wimps and kicked them to the curb, what made them great was the fact that they took on one tough opponent after another and won over and over again. It is a testamony to their greateness to me that they took on a great opponent like Hannibal and won. Cannae was a product of Hannibal's greatness and Roman mistakes, but one of the greatnesses of any commander is to take full advantage of your enemy's mistakes -- this Hannibal did.

[Primus Pilus]

Sometimes I think we look at ancient battles with too much of a modern approach. Battles at that point in world history, especially for Rome, were almost always fought head on, center to center. Hannibal's brilliance is that he recognized and took full advantage of this Roman weakness. He exploited the inability of his enemy to adapt, and with far fewer men, destroyed one army after another. It might seem simple to us now... here come the Romans straight at us... lets flank them... even though its so obvious, but it is more than that. Hannibal had an uncanny ability to lead his enemies into perfectly laid traps. One can argue that he just kept outsmarting an overzealous enemy that kept coming at him, but isn't Robert E. Lee considered just as brilliant for doing that very same thing in the American Civil War.

 

Because of Hannibal, Scipio reformed the way the legions worked. While there was still considerable time before they would become the professional armies after Marius, no longer were they left to be part time citizen soldiers who weren't well trained or experienced enough to perform more complex maneuvers than marching straight at the enemy. Because of Hannibal, Rome had to shift its military approach and become more adaptable in the field. In so doing, the legions evolved into the most formidable infantry the world has ever seen.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I agree. but I'm just saying a better commander would not let Hannibal do what he did. Especially considering how much larger the Roman army was. The general that led them was no general. He was some rich guy who wanted fame. Other great generals went against opponents who were much more capable. Even Vercingetorix had more comman sense then that. He was pretty capable. I believe people put too much emphasis on Hannibal. He was quite a general. But what he did do was almost handed to him. He did not need to struggle much for it. Personally, Rome had many generals who were superior to Hannibal.

 

In my opinion, he was a good general with flahses of military genius. Can people tell me about the battles he had with Marcellus and Nero? What don't Hannibal fans ever know about them or Hannibal's time in Italy after Cannea.

[P.Clodius]

Skenderbeg, I'm right with you. Hannibal is overated. He was clever in that he used his opponents strength/tactics against them. But once the romans finaly started to take him and the situation seriously he was stumped at every turn. He didn't have an alternative plan and he was checked everywhere he turned.

[Guest spartacus]

Skenderberg

 

P. Clodius

 

Before you sit in judgement of Hannibal, pause for a moment and THINK how did he manage to stay in Italy for so long?

 

If you think long and hard enough the answer should appear obvious !