Who are the great generals?

[tequila]

Hannibal Huh? Hannibal the idiot? This was a man who could not stop Rome generating armies and, like Napoleon, lost because he did not understand the political nature of his endeavour.

Idiot's a bit strong.

Hannibal had to conduct an economy of force mission inside Italy. He never had enough forces to secure his local Latin allies against Rome's superior manpower. The Latin cities, chiefly Tarentum and Capua, that he did split off could not survive without Hannibal to protect them.

If Carthage had managed to reinforce Hannibal with enough forces (say, if Hasdrubal had won at Metaurus) to either besiege Rome and force a battle or secure enough Latin allies to create a bulwark in Italy against Rome, he very likely could have forced Rome to a peace.

[William F. Owen]

Idiot's a bit strong.

Yes it is, but I get really sick of folks saying how Hannibal was a great general. That belief shows we do no teach strategy. The history channel recently had a whole bunch of old soldiers saying how great Hannibal was... - and does no one read books anymore?
Yes he could win battles, but he never put those wins to a coherent purpose. He never connected tactical victory with strategic aim.

Hannibal had to conduct an economy of force mission inside Italy. He never had enough forces to secure his local Latin allies against Rome's superior manpower. The Latin cities, chiefly Tarentum and Capua, that he did split off could not survive without Hannibal to protect them.

If Carthage had managed to reinforce Hannibal with enough forces (say, if Hasdrubal had won at Metaurus) to either besiege Rome and force a battle or secure enough Latin allies to create a bulwark in Italy against Rome, he very likely could have forced Rome to a peace.

Rome and the Senate was what allowed the Romans to raise armies. If you don't take Rome, you cannot win. I would further suggest that merely besieging Rome might have got him what he wanted, but he never seems to have even tried.

[MikeF]

Yes it is, but I get really sick of folks saying how Hannibal was a great general. That belief shows we do no teach strategy. The history channel recently had a whole bunch of old soldiers saying how great Hannibal was... - and does no one read books anymore?
Yes he could win battles, but he never put those wins to a coherent purpose. He never connected tactical victory with strategic aim.


Rome and the Senate was what allowed the Romans to raise armies. If you don't take Rome, you cannot win. I would further suggest that merely besieging Rome might have got him what he wanted, but he never seems to have even tried.

Wilf,

Your comments on the previous generals is interesting. Rereading through your reasoning, should one expand the definition of a great general to include:

1. Good tactical prowess.
2. Understanding strategy.
3. Understanding the Enemy's Center of Gravity.
4. Political influence to raise the people, guns, and money needed to accomplish one's campaign.

Mike

[tequila]

I would further suggest that merely besieging Rome might have got him what he wanted, but he never seems to have even tried.

He laid siege to Rome in 211 BC as part of an attempt to relieve the Roman attack on Capua. The Romans knew, however, that his forces were not sufficient to launch an assault on the city defenses nor to launch a blockade, and they didn't panic nor did they withdraw from Capua.

[William F. Owen]

He laid siege to Rome in 211 BC as part of an attempt to relieve the Roman attack on Capua. The Romans knew, however, that his forces were not sufficient to launch an assault on the city defenses nor to launch a blockade, and they didn't panic nor did they withdraw from Capua.

OK news to me. I thought he only ever marched towards Rome in a fairly desperate attempt to draw the Romans of Capua - and why didn't he do it before??

[William F. Owen]

1. Good tactical prowess.
2. Understanding strategy.
3. Understanding the Enemy's Center of Gravity.
4. Political influence to raise the people, guns, and money needed to accomplish one's campaign.

Ideally, but it should really be an overall understanding of what he is being asked to do and how he is going to do it.
So some of my favourites are,

• Wellington
• Bill Slim
• William T. Sherman
• John Monash
• Edmund Allenby

...guys who quietly and methodically did what they were told to do.

[tequila]

Well, it wasn't much of a siege, more like a forlorn hope that the Romans would panic and withdraw from the Capuan siege to offer open battle. The Romans knew that Hannibal didn't have the forces for a genuine siege that would inflict pain on the city, much less an assault, so they just proceeded to take Capua.

Likely the reason he didn't do it before was he knew it wouldn't work, but he had to try something to save his Capuan allies. Depending on blind Roman aggression had worked for him before, after all. But he'd taught these Romans caution too well, which is a lot more than you can say for most Roman enemies.

[Fuchs]

Logistics-wise Hannibal was an invader who turned into an insurgency leader.
He was quite adept at politics, in a tough environment.

I am ready to believe that he didn't have the means to come to a victory.

His campaign costed little if anything to his country, though - so it would have been imprudent to accept defeat and suffer the consequences earlier.

My focus when judging him was that his great battle successes depended on careless enemy leadership, which de-values those successes. Many generals in history would have achieved as much if not more against equally careless opposition.
A similar argument can be made about the German successes in WW2.

[Rifleman]

...guys who quietly and methodically did what they were told to do.

Thomas Jonathan Jackson?

[j earl]

Top five for me:


Marius

Caesar

Puller

Lee

Patraeus

[William F. Owen]

Patraeus

Care to offer evidence? How does Patraeus make a list devoid of Patton and Zukhov - or even Templer?

[Fuchs]

Top five for me:


Marius

Caesar

Puller

Lee

Patraeus

Three Americans (USA: less than a quarter century in existence) in an all-time global top five list? This sounds biased.

In fact I doubt four on your list very much; only G.J. Caesar is a top 20 candidate.

[Rifleman]

(USA: less than a quarter century in existence)

Did you mean to say less than a quarter millenium?

[Fuchs]

Yes, of course. #### happens...

[MikeF]

Lee

Lee lost and his land was turned into a cemetary. What would Giap or Mao think about Lee?

[John T. Fishel]

can't tell a Southroner nuthin bad bout Marse Robert!

cheers

JohnT

[MikeF]

Y'allcan't tell a Southroner nuthin bad bout Marse Robert!

cheers

JohnT

I'm very glad that none of my family visits this site. They already think that I was brainwashed from being out in California too long. Maybe I shouldn't have told them that I disavowed the Republican party, the Southern Baptist Convention, and I no longer like watching cars go around in circles. If they find out what I just said about Robert, an intervention will definitely be happening soon.

[Firn]

• Wellington
• Bill Slim
• William T. Sherman
• John Monash
• Edmund Allenby

Every single one of them spoke English, and three out five from the UK and Ireland. Four out of five served in the last century. This list seems to be rather biased

All in all I do rate Hannibal still highly. Knowing well the context and the circumstances it is difficult to lay much blame at his doorstep.


Firn

[marct]

In fact I doubt four on your list very much; only G.J. Caesar is a top 20 candidate.

Oh, I would put Marius as a contender for the top 20 .

[j earl]

Defense:

Marius: reformed Roman army, elected Consul 7 times, defeated Teutones and Cimbri, saved Rome.

Lee: I have to mention him or I will be struck by lightning: D. He did happen, with limited resources, to win a series of battles against superior forces and in the end he was smart enough to reconcile. Not sure I understand the reference to Giap. Giap, to my knowledge, never decisively defeated the Americans in a single battle. Dien Bien Phu was a French blunder more so than a brilliant victory by Giap.

Petraeus: Petraeus inherited a lost cause in what has to be one of the most complex civil wars in history and implemented COIN operations that drastically reduced casualties and violence. All this while public support was on the decline and in the face of a hostile government.