who do you think was the greastest general?

Question

Hannibal of Carthage

Julius Ceasor of Rome

Alexander of Macedonia

Answer 1

1) Patton how far could he have gone given a free hand in france during 1944?

2) Rommel what could he have done had he more than 25% of the force required to win in africa plus his defense of france and the conquest of france.

3) zhukov the defender of russia and did well in the east prior to facing the germans

4) Paul Hausser for his tactical leadership of the II SS Panzer Corps, he restored the sagging front after Stalingrad and Kursk, beating Soviet Armies 7 times his size.

5) napolean master of land and sea warfare egypt and russian were his for a while. He was left chomping on the bit along the English Coast the same as Hitler tho.

6) thomas jackson, for his tactical victories in the Shenandoah Valley and Chancellorsville. He made bobby lee look good and if he was alive, could've won at Gettysburg too.

7) macarthur same as napolean but not the size of scale of conquest. A free hand could've won the Korean Conflict, either that or a direct confrontation with China...who knows?

8)Moltke first used the practice of mobility with railroads and the use of commanders to figure out the best way to take an objective

9)Sherman author the first demonstation of total warfare with march through the south to atlanta

10)genghis khan able to go from mongolia to europe a large undertaking considering his time. His empire was larger than Hitlers, Alexanders, and the Roman Empire combined.

11) charlemagne last big empire of europe until napolean. Without him, Europe would've been overrun by the Moors/Saracens (You'd be praying to Mecca each day).

12)Gauis Julius Caesar, especially for his exploits in Gaul and Britainnia...

Answer 2

You cannot judge successful generals on their battles alone but have to look at their overall success and what they were able to leave behind.

Hannibal won a lot of battles but once the Romans figured out how to beat him he lost. A hundred years after his death Carthage was no more - so his long term effect was negligible.

Alexander won a number of battles but it can be argued that any competent Macedonian general could have done the same.His army was his strength and he knew best how to use it. He had the advantage of being a prince and taking over the army his father Phillip had trained and equipped for his own Persian invasion. He was an inspirational leader and certainly adventurous and intelligent but his empire broke up after his death.

Ceasar was a self made man coming from an old family rich in name but poor in power. He cetainly won a number of battles but again it could be argued that his army was the ones winning the battle. He was a superb politician and gained absolute power in Rome at the time of his assassination. He used his military success as the basis to gain that absolute power. The Republic he helped to overthrow never came back and his heir Augustus was the first of the Emperors or Ceasars. The German Kaiser and Russian Scar also claim their name from him.

Alexander and Hannibal while excellent generals were not in the same league as Caesar when it came to lasting effects. Caesar founded a system that lasted for hundred years in the West till 1453 in the East and was the basis for many other empires lasting into the 20th century.

Answer 3

The question can be looked at in a couple of different ways: which one had the most impact on history, which one won the most battles, which was the smartest (in terms of keeping his own casualties to a minimum), and so on.
Hannibal, despite his tactical genius, was left on his own in Italy and lost the support of the powerful people in Carthage. Thus he couldn't get reinforcements. Nor could he detach Rome's allies in Italy, so after a dozen years or so he was driven out, and not long after Carthage was completely destroyed both as an empire and as a city.
Caesar was very ambitious but he was also very clever, steady, and politically savvy. His conquest of Gaul was a textbook operation. He was of course cut off in the prime of life, but even so he invented the Julian calendar, which became the standard European calendar for the next 1500 years. Alexander the Great wouldn't have even thought of this.
Of the generals you mention, Alexander took the most territory with the fewest casualties. However, Genghis Khan took a far larger territory. And for good measure, the 18th century Russian general Suvorov never lost a battle.

Answer 4

I'd choose Julius Caesar, as far as that goes.

But I think there are actually some better generals, historically.
I have been reading a book about Napoleone Buonoparte, and have found a fascinating sub-story of the life of a certain French general named Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte.

General Bernadotte worked his way up through the French army before and during the time of Napoleon's conquests. A man of wisdom, integrity and exemplary character, he was actually chosen later by the people of Sweden to be their own crown-prince, and became their king.

Answer 5

Alexander of Macedonia

Answer 6

From this list, I would say Alexander the Great. He once defeated a Persian Army more than 3x the size of his own.
There were many great Generals that have gone down in history, Robert E Lee, U. Grant, Eisenhower, Montgomery, Napoleon Bonaparte, Washington, Irwin Rommel, and Alexander was one of them.

Answer 7

Alexander of Macedonia

Answer 8

Hannibal of Carthage. He defeated the far superior Romans.

Answer 9

Those would be the three unbeatable Russian generals:

1. General Winter

2. General Snow

3. General Mud

Answer 10

Definitly Alexander...he conquered almost the entire known world, and all by the age of 32 or 33...somewhere around that age when he died.

If he wasn't so determined and in a hurry for glory, he may have made his kingdom even bigger.