Greatest Warrior and Greatest Military Genius before 1900

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.

Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.

Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.

That's a very interesting comment.

While I enjoyed reading Robert Grave's "I, Claudius" I found it very hard to get into his "Belisarius". Perhaps I should revisit it ...

[svalbard]

[QUOTE=Bowler1;1617882][QUOTE]
That said, I do agree with you on Hannibal. Plus, unlike Caesar (who did it on a whim to half a million Germanic tribesmen) and Alexander (who did it in perhaps justified retaliation to the Bactrian-Sogdianian rebellion) I don't think he ever committed a massacre of civilians.

The above is a modern revisionist view of history. Killing anyone left alive after a battle was normal until more or less modern history. The only POW's taken were those that could later be ransomed and for the poor serfs pressed into action it was usually a swift end. Very much a case of the spoils went to the victor. Hannibal was like anyother commander at the time, all were put to the sword. I ask you what are civilians and if you were Caesar deep into the Gaul lands, just who were civilians. Caesar would have looked upon that question in complete confusion I would imagine. For Caesar, he had to crush all of modern France under the Roman sandal, he had to ensure his victory beyond doubt. Anything else so far from the safety of Rome would have been sheer folly. Kill or be killed, life was short and cheap, those were the times Ceasar lived through - there were no civilians......

Well...he didn't kill them all. He made a fortune out of selling on the defeated Gauls as slaves. But your point on Hannibal and generals of that period is sound. Hannibal was no shrinking violet when it came to a bit of butchery

[thaddeus6th]

I think Caesar was speaking with the tribe's leaders under a flag of truce at the time.

[Bowler1]

So he lied! Naughty, Caesar, put those slaves back!

Sorry mate, I could not resist!

[thaddeus6th]

Don't make me unleash my cwack legion upon you.

[Bowler1]

Make sure they fight well or my mate Caesar will have them on the slave block. Gambling debts, loans and all that, Caesar likes to borrow, I'm sure your cwack legion would understand, to the victor!

I wonder what Caesar would have made of Visa cards?

[Nerds_feather]

i think what Alexander achieved, militarily speaking, was nothing short of stunning. but it had a lot to do with technological advances and new tactics in the organization of infantry made by his father, and the weakness of the Persian Empire at that time.

Caesar, I think, is a bit overrated as a military leader. Good, but not really different from or better than the Republican armies that conquered Carthage and Macedonia.

[thaddeus6th]

I agree with you, Nerds feather. I think Alexander's earliest victories over those around Macedon and the latest ones over the Indians are more impressive than his triumphs over Persia.

Think you're right about Alexander too. Scipio Africanus was better, and maybe Marius was too.

[Boaz]

Bear with me, I'll get to the point.

I've always felt that the very qualities that make a person lovable are the very same qualities that can make them detestable. When character traits are put to positive use, people are blessed, but when they are put to malicious use, people are hurt.

Intellect, noble birth, education, charsima, opportunism, and ambition were qualities of Julius Caesar. When he used these qualities for the benefit of the Republic, Rome was blessed. The Gauls, not so much... but wealth, glory, and border security gave the Romans cause to rejoice. But those very traits that made Caesar the conqueror of Gaul, the darling of the masses, a terror to non-Romans, a wealthy man, a mentor to future leaders, and a rock of strength to his legions were the very traits that made him feared by the Senate, hated by the rich, a renegade generalissimo, a tyrant in the making, and the destroyer of the Republic.

Many Romans were better battlefield commanders than Caesar. If Caesar had been able to plot a course of reconciliation with Pompey... If Caesar had been able to lay down his sword and retire... If Caesar had renounced Sulla's occupation of Rome... If he'd made his troops loyal to Rome instead of himself...

He campaigned for roughly fourteen straight years, if I recall correctly, from Britannia to Egypt and he never commanded over a debacle. He came close, but he somehow managed to come through in good order. I know our best source about Caesar is Caesar himself and so we take it with a grain of salt, but his escapes at Gergovia and Dyrrhachium, his siegeworks from many campaigns, and his gamble at Pharsalus made him a commander to feared... even if he was a despicable human being.

[thaddeus6th]

Hmm.

I think he was lucky after Dyrrachium. With a demoralised army and dwindling supplies, Pompey should've just let him wander off. Even in Pharsalus, Caesar faced a commander so predictable he knew a massed cavalry charge on a particular flank would happen and was able to plan accordingly.

[Boaz]

thad, I cannot disagree that he faced debacles and destruction in the face on a number of occassions. But somehow he avoided disastrous defeat in the field time after time. Call it luck. Call it fate. Chalk it up to inept enemies. Mark it down as intelligence. Call it whatever... Somehow he was either victorious or escaped in every battle.

Maybe it was the literary heritage of Rome that allowed Caesar to win. He learned the lessons of war from written history. Did the Gauls, Britons, or Germans have books of military history? No. But Caesar had read of Horatio at the Sublican Bridge and knew that you can retreat to fight another day. He'd read about Fabian and he knew how defeat saps national will. He'd also read about Marius and he knew the value of siegeworks. He knew about Cincinnatus and seizing the initiative. Scipio Africanus. Sulla. He'd also read the military histories of Macedonia, Carthage, Sparta, Thebes, Athens, the Persian Empire and more.

In the end, I'd say Caesar's greatest quality was that he commited himself to his craft. He hardly went halfway, if ever.

[paranoid marvin]

Napoleon was a great man for quotes. Here is a favourite:

Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them

Also, one thing that has been mentioned littled in this topic is LUCK. This more than anything, is the difference between the good and the great.

[Mirannan]

Originally Posted by Connavar

Im not saying he didnt. Alexander was great thats for sure.


Im just saying you should judge in this thread Alexander and all the others by what they did military wise. Not how great their empire was when they took power.

Think more like scholars.

There are many great generals that arent populary known to us cause their greatness couldnt do anything cause of the time they lived in. For example this guy


Flavius Belisarius was one of the greatest generals of the Byzantine Empire and one of the most acclaimed generals in history. He was instrumental to Emperor Justinian I's ambitious project of reconquering much of the Western Roman Empire, which had been lost just under a century previous.

Although comparatively less well-known than other famed military leaders such as Hannibal, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, his skills and accomplishments were matched by very few other military commanders in history.

He was also the last Roman general to be granted a Roman Triumph.

I was going to mention him. Might also be worth mentioning (this is an SF forum after all) the alt-hist series with him as the protagonist.

[Gramm838]

Lets not forget we English have had only one King with the epithet 'Great' - Alfred; and look what he did through his lifetime to deal with the problem of the Norse invasions, and the job was completed by his Grandson Aethalstan.

However, if you look at who changed the world forever through military prowess (something no other military leader has ever done), it would have to be William the Conqueror - imagine how different today's world would be if England had stayed Anglo-Saxon in 1066...