Greatest General after Alexander the Great of Macedon?

[sd031091]

Dinobot you were compelling at first but now I can see how ridiculously immature, conceded, and unintelligent you are. I cannot see at all how you can count Alexander out without so much as a second thought. He inherited a large army... ok. Persia was in a state of instability... ok. These things happen, all great leaders are products of circumstance. But if one wants to compare all the great leaders Alexander far surpasses the rest. His 'inherited army' was still ridiculously small compared to the mighty power of the Persians, regardless of how unstable their empire was at the time. And Tyre may not have been a move contrived by a genius, but he won the city which Nebuchadnezzar could not. He was an absolutely brilliant tactician, and used his cavalry well, no matter what name you attribute to the technique. He led at the front on more than one occasion and marched a spectacular land campaign stretching thousands of miles.
On a separate note... I'm throwing the name Marcellus into the ring, not to contest for the greatest general, but just to see what people know and think about him.

[Phil1580]

Patton.....Montgomery....Eisenhower....

[muy_thaiguy]

You obviously don't know your history and aren't that smart. How can you say that The Siege of Tyre was nothing? The Hammer and Anvil tactic is not just something off of a video game, it is probably on a video game about Alexander because he used it.

1. Tyre was a coastal city in the Mediterranean, situated on a fortified island. Instead of using Greece's superior navy to cut off supplies to the island, he decided to waste his time building a bridge to the island (and it wasn't close to the shore either). Besides being an inefficient retard tactic, it wasn't even original; the Persians did the same thing a hundred years earlier when crossing from (what is now) Turkey, into Europe.

2. That's some pretty ridiculous bullshit you're trying to pull on me. Try searching 'Hammer and Anvil Tactic' on google, the first 5 pages are literally only links to Rome: Total War and Warhammer websites. And the link that guy gave only crashed my browser.

Now, I went to another forum that actually knows what the f*ck they're talking about and apparently the Hammer and Anvil Tactic is just a fancy word for flanking. There is no fucking way Alexander invented such a simple maneuver, and even if he did it would hardly be worth any merit.

Fail more you guys, you're basing your argument on a video game and stuff you know jack shit about. The more you refuse to acknowledge what a shittily mediocre general Alexander was, the harder my 10 inch cock gets.

Let's get a few things straightened out here,

1. The Siege of Tyre was done without the "powerful" Greek fleet because the Persian Fleet was much stronger and MUCH larger. If Alexander could capture Tyre, this would hurt the Perisian Fleet, while strenghtening his own by adding an important and strategic port loaded with ships.

2. RTW based their Hammer and Anvil off of Alexander's. Alexander used this tactic in most of his battles, except Guagamela, where he had to improvise quite a bit in order to keep from being outflanked.

Another word for flanking? You are in idiot and apparently so are the people in that other forum. The hammer and anvil is where the phalanx marches straight into the the enemy formation, while the cavalry heads the the enemy's rear, and charges, often in a wedge formation, into the rear and pushes the enemy formation into the long spears and pikes of the phalanx.

And don't tell me I'm "basing all of dis on teh games" because I'm not. I have actually done research on this, you need to get actual sources and learn how the hell to use google.

[dinobot]

Dinobot you were compelling at first but now I can see how ridiculously immature, conceded, and unintelligent you are. I cannot see at all how you can count Alexander out without so much as a second thought. He inherited a large army... ok. Persia was in a state of instability... ok. These things happen, all great leaders are products of circumstance. But if one wants to compare all the great leaders Alexander far surpasses the rest. His 'inherited army' was still ridiculously small compared to the mighty power of the Persians, regardless of how unstable their empire was at the time. And Tyre may not have been a move contrived by a genius, but he won the city which Nebuchadnezzar could not. He was an absolutely brilliant tactician, and used his cavalry well, no matter what name you attribute to the technique. He led at the front on more than one occasion and marched a spectacular land campaign stretching thousands of miles.
On a separate note... I'm throwing the name Marcellus into the ring, not to contest for the greatest general, but just to see what people know and think about him.

All you're saying is he fought a successful campaign against large disorganized peasant armies. Still nothing noteworthy. I'm not saying he was a bad general (he did lead through example, which takes guts), but he's certainly not one of the best.

Let's get a few things straightened out here,

1. The Siege of Tyre was done without the "powerful" Greek fleet because the Persian Fleet was much stronger and MUCH larger. If Alexander could capture Tyre, this would hurt the Perisian Fleet, while strenghtening his own by adding an important and strategic port loaded with ships.

2. RTW based their Hammer and Anvil off of Alexander's. Alexander used this tactic in most of his battles, except Guagamela, where he had to improvise quite a bit in order to keep from being outflanked.

Another word for flanking? You are in idiot and apparently so are the people in that other forum. The hammer and anvil is where the phalanx marches straight into the the enemy formation, while the cavalry heads the the enemy's rear, and charges, often in a wedge formation, into the rear and pushes the enemy formation into the long spears and pikes of the phalanx.

1. He still didn't use much ingenuity in the siege. It had been done before and he took the obvious steps.

2. Up until now no one had explained what it was, and the only links for it either crashed my browser or were TL;DR civil war sites. And it's still just a fancy way of flanking. It's not hard to flank faggot peasant armies.

[muy_thaiguy]

How did he NOT use ingenuity?! Seriously! How many other seiges can compare with that? I can you tell you this, very few have EVER been on that scale. Building siege towers that doubled as defensive turrets for the workers while weakening the defenses up for the main attack was ingenius enough as it is!

Considering at the battle of Gaugamela, Alexander was outnumbered at least 5 to 1, and even though at the end of the battle, he hadn't been out flanked, his left flank nearly collapsed if he hadn't have turned his cavalry back and saved it, he would have lost. Those "faggoty peasants" seemed to have worked quite the number on Al's left flank.

[InkL0sed]

The main point of showing you that civil war site was that it was the first result when googling the hammer and anvil.

Basically the fact that it existed.

[Gypsys Kiss]

dinobot, so i dont have to re read all the posts remind who you nominate for the title

[dinobot]

How did he NOT use ingenuity?! Seriously! How many other seiges can compare with that? I can you tell you this, very few have EVER been on that scale. Building siege towers that doubled as defensive turrets for the workers while weakening the defenses up for the main attack was ingenius enough as it is!

Considering at the battle of Gaugamela, Alexander was outnumbered at least 5 to 1, and even though at the end of the battle, he hadn't been out

flanked, his left flank nearly collapsed if he hadn't have turned his cavalry back and saved it, he would have lost. Those "faggoty peasants" seemed to have worked quite the number on Al's left 'flank.

That's not ingenious at all, you have to put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself what you would have done. Also, when you have to pick out specific things like that, it shows that he's not a great general. It's like saying Napoleon was a great general because he used his cavalry to flank the British infantry at the battle of so and so; I'm not debating whether or not Napoleon was a great general, but picking one or two things he did doesn't prove anything.

Also, there is no way he was outnumbered that badly at the battle of Guagemala. Modern estimates put the figure at 2:1 at best and about 1:1 at worst. Go look for yourself on wikipedia (and I'd trust wikipedia more then I'd trust any circle jerk site you'll turn up).

dinobot, so i dont have to re read all the posts remind who you nominate for the title

'Hannibal is probably the greatest general. He walked into Italy with a small force of poorly equipped and trained men, yet he managed to defeat army after army of well trained Roman troops, without receiving any aid from his own country. That deserves far more merit then anyone on your list.'

Hannibal fought uphill his entire career, Alexander didn't. Hannibal>Alexander.

[sd031091]

There is no doubt Hannibal does deserve merit. He fought a brilliant campaign with a relatively small force and brought, at least for a time, the Roman Republic to its knees. But Wikipedia? C'mon, I don't want to turn this forum into a pro- and anti- wikipedia forum but you have to understand that wikipedia is hardly ever fullly right. And why does your browser keep crashing every time someone comes up with a good site? You keep describing the Persians as a bunch of Peasant armies. There were some trained troops in the Persian army, probably just as many troops as Alexander had. And in EVERY battle Alexander was outnumbered, excepting Tyre in which he was in a strategically terrible position. Not to mention his campaign was SUCCESSFUL. Had he not died in Babylon who knows how the world might have changed. He had traveled thousands of miles in 10 years, taking one of the largest empirical claims the world had known then or now. One must also consider his ablility to accept the culture of the people he conquered. How many Generals give two ****s about who they're conquering? Alexander adopted the Persian lifestyle, almost too much. By his conquest and acceptance he was able to spread the Helenistic society that would prevail for hundreds of years. And after his victory there's no doubt that some of the Persian nobles would gladly have offered him military and financial aid, if only to keep a high rank in society. His campaign was only picking up speed, and not even the powerful Romans could have stopped him, as Hannibal's conquest shortly thereafter demonstrates.

[dinobot]

There is no doubt Hannibal does deserve merit. He fought a brilliant campaign with a relatively small force and brought, at least for a time, the Roman Republic to its knees. But Wikipedia? C'mon, I don't want to turn this forum into a pro- and anti- wikipedia forum but you have to understand that wikipedia is hardly ever fullly right. And why does your browser keep crashing every time someone comes up with a good site? You keep describing the Persians as a bunch of Peasant armies. There were some trained troops in the Persian army, probably just as many troops as Alexander had. And in EVERY battle Alexander was outnumbered, excepting Tyre in which he was in a strategically terrible position. Not to mention his campaign was SUCCESSFUL. Had he not died in Babylon who knows how the world might have changed. He had traveled thousands of miles in 10 years, taking one of the largest empirical claims the world had known then or now. One must also consider his ablility to accept the culture of the people he conquered. How many Generals give two ****s about who they're conquering? Alexander adopted the Persian lifestyle, almost too much. By his conquest and acceptance he was able to spread the Helenistic society that would prevail for hundreds of years. And after his victory there's no doubt that some of the Persian nobles would gladly have offered him military and financial aid, if only to keep a high rank in society. His campaign was only picking up speed, and not even the powerful Romans could have stopped him, as Hannibal's conquest shortly thereafter demonstrates.

Wikipedia's fine for things like this, it's only political stuff wikipedia would be wrong on. Also, I only got one link that wouldn't work and considering the address was something like "www.alexandertheworldsgreatestgeneral.com', I doubt it was very unbiased.

Yes I know the Persians had some trained troops, but Darrius had only just been crowned and he didn't have a large trained force built up like Alexander did, instead he had to rely on drafting large peasant armies with a few elite forces.

The Persians almost always accepted the cultures of those they conquered, it's nothing special when Alexander does it.

His campaign wasn't picking up speed when he died, in fact, he was promptly stopped at India after his conquest of Persia (strange, when he fights something other then retarded Persian peasants, he loses...). Also, after his death, his empire immediately split up.

[sd031091]

Can you name any other civilizations that accept the cultures of those they conquer? The Romans maybe but they were also very harsh, and the Arabians only toward those of the Christian and Hebrew faiths. I don't see how anyone could think his conquest was slowing down. He had certainly run into a bout of bad luck in India. It was not a good time of year to attack, his men were tired, and people wanted compensation for helping Alexander throughout his campaign. He had to return and regroup. Most generals would have long before then. Had he not died (at such a young age too) many things would have changed. The Persian Empire certainly would not have split so long as Alexander was in charge, only he had the power to command the respect of his generals and many Persian nobles. His conquests would have continued, where is a matter of opinion as he had much room to expand, but there was no quenching his thirst for conquest. He may have even produced an heir to his thrown (after all 31 is certainly an acceptable time for having a child). It is very unfortunate that Alexander was not able to continue his conquests, because of all Generals in history he had the most potential to cause change.

[dinobot]

Can you name any other civilizations that accept the cultures of those they conquer? The Romans maybe but they were also very harsh, and the Arabians only toward those of the Christian and Hebrew faiths. I don't see how anyone could think his conquest was slowing down. He had certainly run into a bout of bad luck in India. It was not a good time of year to attack, his men were tired, and people wanted compensation for helping Alexander throughout his campaign. He had to return and regroup. Most generals would have long before then. Had he not died (at such a young age too) many things would have changed. The Persian Empire certainly would not have split so long as Alexander was in charge, only he had the power to command the respect of his generals and many Persian nobles. His conquests would have continued, where is a matter of opinion as he had much room to expand, but there was no quenching his thirst for conquest. He may have even produced an heir to his thrown (after all 31 is certainly an acceptable time for having a child). It is very unfortunate that Alexander was not able to continue his conquests, because of all Generals in history he had the most potential to cause change.

This is almost all speculation. The parts that aren't are just wrong.

When he reached India, his entire army mutinied.

Lots of civilisations allowed cultural and religous freedom amongst those they conquered.

[Blastshot]

Can you name any other civilizations that accept the cultures of those they conquer? The Romans maybe but they were also very harsh, and the Arabians only toward those of the Christian and Hebrew faiths. I don't see how anyone could think his conquest was slowing down. He had certainly run into a bout of bad luck in India. It was not a good time of year to attack, his men were tired, and people wanted compensation for helping Alexander throughout his campaign. He had to return and regroup. Most generals would have long before then. Had he not died (at such a young age too) many things would have changed. The Persian Empire certainly would not have split so long as Alexander was in charge, only he had the power to command the respect of his generals and many Persian nobles. His conquests would have continued, where is a matter of opinion as he had much room to expand, but there was no quenching his thirst for conquest. He may have even produced an heir to his thrown (after all 31 is certainly an acceptable time for having a child). It is very unfortunate that Alexander was not able to continue his conquests, because of all Generals in history he had the most potential to cause change.

This is almost all speculation. The parts that aren't are just wrong.

When he reached India, his entire army mutinied.

Lots of civilisations allowed cultural and religous freedom amongst those they conquered.

Whats the address for the rock you live under?

[muy_thaiguy]

How did he NOT use ingenuity?! Seriously! How many other seiges can compare with that? I can you tell you this, very few have EVER been on that scale. Building siege towers that doubled as defensive turrets for the workers while weakening the defenses up for the main attack was ingenius enough as it is!

Considering at the battle of Gaugamela, Alexander was outnumbered at least 5 to 1, and even though at the end of the battle, he hadn't been out flanked, his left flank nearly collapsed if he hadn't have turned his cavalry back and saved it, he would have lost. Those "faggoty peasants" seemed to have worked quite the number on Al's left 'flank.

That's not ingenious at all, you have to put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself what you would have done. Also, when you have to pick out specific things like that, it shows that he's not a great general. It's like saying Napoleon was a great general because he used his cavalry to flank the British infantry at the battle of so and so; I'm not debating whether or not Napoleon was a great general, but picking one or two things he did doesn't prove anything.

Also, there is no way he was outnumbered that badly at the battle of Guagemala. Modern estimates put the figure at 2:1 at best and about 1:1 at worst. Go look for yourself on wikipedia (and I'd trust wikipedia more then I'd trust any circle jerk site you'll turn up).

dinobot, so i dont have to re read all the posts remind who you nominate for the title

'Hannibal is probably the greatest general. He walked into Italy with a small force of poorly equipped and trained men, yet he managed to defeat army after army of well trained Roman troops, without receiving any aid from his own country. That deserves far more merit then anyone on your list.'

Hannibal fought uphill his entire career, Alexander didn't. Hannibal>Alexander.

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

[The1exile]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts

[citation needed]

[sd031091]

Two other good Reference books are Alexander by Arrian and Hannibal by Theodore Ayrault Dodge (the latter was a Civil War General).

[Heimdall]

I don't know about all time, but i do know that von Manstein was better than Rommel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein

[dinobot]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

[Blastshot]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

And you dont even have a source except 'that site I saw'

[dinobot]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

And you dont even have a source except 'that site I saw'

Wow, you're so retarded that you can't even use wikipedia. It's a wonder that you even managed to get to this site.

[Blastshot]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

And you dont even have a source except 'that site I saw'

Wow, you're so retarded that you can't even use wikipedia. It's a wonder that you even managed to get to this site.

Cute, anyway did you flunk history or somthing? This stuff is in textbooks, you know those things you were supposed to read in school

[muy_thaiguy]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

Read the second paragraph genius. Also, go to a little place called "amazon.com" and look for books about him. Or, go to a place known as a "library," that is where books are if you don't want to buy any.

[McGrr]

General Other is leading in your pool.

How about General Motors?

[dinobot]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

Read the second paragraph genius. Also, go to a little place called "amazon.com" and look for books about him. Or, go to a place known as a "library," that is where books are if you don't want to buy any.

Yeah wow, I'm going to go that far out of my way over an internet debate. It's not like books are guaranteed to be more accurate then websites either, in fact, just by googling that Adrian guys name and seeing his picture, I've concluded that he's a gigantic faggot and full of shit.

Also, his hobbies are 'hiking, tennis and reading', proving without a doubt that he's some prick who has no life and makes up fake non-committing hobbies. Reference someone who doesn't spend all his time alone, jacking off to his idol, Alexander, and writing shitty, inaccurate books about his loose Assburger induced grasp on reality.

Go to the library and pick up my book about Alexander eating his dick and then we'll talk. The book is called 'Websters Dictionary' and I don't recall what page its on, so you will have to read the whole thing to prove me wrong.

[sd031091]

you are so full of crap your eyes are turning brown. Pull your head out of your ass and actually look up some facts. And when you can show me a Dictionary (which, by the way, is in ALPHABETICAL ORDER) that gives a person's detailed life, never mind strange, false, facts, I'll start believing your BS. I think you were looking for the word ENCYCLOPEDIA. But I suppose it's no use telling you because you wouldn't know what one of those are.