Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Roman Republic Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Was Scipio Africanus the Greatest General?
CJH    12/28/2004 8:47:54 PM
In the preface of "SCIPIO AFRICANUS" (an unabridged republication by Da Capo Press 1994), Captain Basil Henry Liddell Hart writes "...his military work has a greater value to modern students of war than any other great captain of the past". I have read this book as well as Livy's history of the Hannibalic War and Polybius' account of that war. What impresses me about Africanus is how he seemed to be able to work out ways to overcome imposing obstacles to military success. He seems to have had incredible self confidence too. After the betrayal of Rome by the Celtiberians in Spain had led to the deaths of Africaus' father and uncle along with the destruction of their two armies in Spain, it does not seem that there were any experienced commanders wanting the job. Being something like 24 and not having commanded an army before Africanus was an unlikely candidate. Still, he offered himself and the Popular Assembly in Rome voted him the Spanish command. Once in Spain he proceeded to progressively deprive the Carthaginians of their presence there. Was Africanus the greatest general of all time?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
Malleus    RE:Was Scipio Africanus the Greatest General?   4/14/2006 2:38:30 PM
scipio africanus was certainly a good general but his defeat of hannibal at zamma (i think) was because HE had superior troops i have not read liddell hrt's account of the battle but am lead to believe it's slightly biased towards scipio hannibal did just about everything he could have to prevent defeat. Alexanders macedonion army was the most effective at the time but if any other general could have had the success he did why has nobody repeated his conquests? You could claim that any one of the generals listed here had the superior forces of the day at their disposal and so should all be as successful as Alexander [apart from maybe the mongol hordes] even the roman legions most definatley the pinnicle of ancient soldiers were all conqering.
 
Quote    Reply

eloquin       8/5/2007 4:36:52 PM
Re: Was Scipio Africanus the Greatest General?
 
Has no-one outside of Uzbekistan ever heard of Tamerlane, also known as Temur or Timur?  He ruled over an empire that extends in modern times from southeastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, through Central Asia encompassing part of Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, India, and even approaching Kashgar in China. He took Delhi, which was something neither Genghiz Khan nor Alexander the Great managed to do. One of his greatest victories was the defeat of Tokhtamysh, khan of the Golden Horde & descendant of Genghis Khan's eldest grandson, Orda Khan. In other words Tamerlane defeated every great army in the known world at that time, he fought in winter & well as (the more traditional) spring/summer time, his armies lived off the land as Ghengiz Khan's armies had done before them & they were never defeated. Even when faced with an Indian army containing 120 war elephants (beasts which were seen as indestructible by Tamerlane's men), Tamerlane devised a strategy which not only enabled him to destroy the opposing army & take Delhi but he marched home with 100 of these elephants as his own! Forget the Romans, forget Alexander & Ghengiz, Tamerlane's the man for the title.

 
Quote    Reply

brocolli       8/12/2007 5:05:08 PM
why do people go on about hannibal being the best 'captain', and say that it shows he had no understnading of politics when he passed over the chance to march on rome? well the simple answer is he didnt have sufficent siege weaponry.. i believe that his true ability is shown in the fact that he experienced no mutinies at all, he never lost a battle in italy, despite his supply lines being broken and being surrounded on many occasions by roman forces superior in number and managing to beat them, break out and replenish his stocks or simply keeping them at bay by his presence alone.. he raised an army and trained it himself despite what other people herer have claimed, that his father 'taught' him what to do to some extent. in his father's day, an ad hoc collecction of militia and some mercenaries, with elephants being the core of the carthaginian army was in reality all that they had before: ... hannibal changed all that and built a proffessional army, overcoming the barriers of differences of culture, opinion and language on every occasion. in my opinion hannibal certainly counts as a top general, as he never had anyone to learn from, he didnt have an army style already made for him (unlike alexander and caesar, and mostof the roman generals, who also had artillery, which he didnt) and he devised tactics that were unknown to anyone in his time (doubling back [excuse bad miltary terminology] and forms of early biological warfare). imo, the top two generals would have to be hannibal barca and genghis khan.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       9/5/2007 4:16:55 PM

In a contest of all-time greatest general, Ghengis Khan would win in a landslide. He led an army from eastern Asia to Europe, defeating the Chinese, Russians and everyone else in his way without the aid of a supply line. His men ate the roots of grass and the carcasses of horses when no other food was available. They pressed on through the heat of the summer in the Steppes and the cold of winter in Northern Russia. (It should be added that he is the only person ever to defeat the Russians in Russia in a war when other Russians were not the opposing force.) They lived off the land for years, won victory after victory, never lost morale, and didn't stop until the great Khan died, otherwise in all likelihood, they could have pressed on well into Europe.

I've still not managed to understand why people were so enamored with Ghengis Khan. Most certainly his conquests were impressive as hell, but let's face it, his army was markedly superior both tactically and logistically to everything he faces. His army was a shark among minnows. Of course he managed to beat everyone in his path. You will note that your description of Khan's superiority focuses on the greatness of his army without even one comment about his actualy skill in leadership. OK, the point about keeping up morale reflects on him, but I see nothing beyond that which reflects on him. He may have been an inspiring leader, but I give more credit to his troops than Khan himself for the success.

buzzard
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       9/9/2007 12:00:20 PM

Re: Was Scipio Africanus the Greatest General?
 

Has no-one outside of Uzbekistan ever heard of Tamerlane, also known as Temur or Timur?  He ruled over an empire that extends in modern times from southeastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, through Central Asia encompassing part of Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, India, and even approaching Kashgar in China. He took Delhi, which was something neither Genghiz Khan nor Alexander the Great managed to do. One of his greatest victories was the defeat of Tokhtamysh, khan of the Golden Horde & descendant of Genghis Khan's eldest grandson, Orda Khan. In other words Tamerlane defeated every great army in the known world at that time, he fought in winter & well as (the more traditional) spring/summer time, his armies lived off the land as Ghengiz Khan's armies had done before them & they were never defeated. Even when faced with an Indian army containing 120 war elephants (beasts which were seen as indestructible by Tamerlane's men), Tamerlane devised a strategy which not only enabled him to destroy the opposing army & take Delhi but he marched home with 100 of these elephants as his own! Forget the Romans, forget Alexander & Ghengiz, Tamerlane's the man for the title.




Robert E. Lee was a good general. But the rank and file of the Army of Northern Virginia were very highly motivated and they had great unit cohesion. A good army can make a good general look great.
 
Scipio's first command was made up of dispirited and defeated troops in Spain. After he took over, they never saw a major defeat again under his command.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Idofgrahf       11/7/2007 12:25:15 PM
The term greatest General is relative to which time and how people think. In Roman times, Scipio is above Hanniable for one simple reason. He won Zama and Hanniable lost. In other words, Hannible won or fought to a draw every single battle but lost the single battle that really counted in the second punic war. Rome won the war instead of Punic. Scipio conquered both Iberia and later on Nothern Africa for Rome while Hanniable while sucessful, gained Carthage nothing in terms of Land or provience. Yes Capua and a few cities rebeled against Rome but thoese where short lived. Hence to sum it up, the greatest general is relative on how you define them. If its pure fighting prowess, than, in the ancient west, neither Hannible or Scipio or Caesar even comes close and that honor will go to Marcus Claudius Marcellus of the Claudii gen. He is after all, the third and the only non legendary man in Rome to ever win the Spolia Opima at the Battle of Clastidium. (Spolia Opima meaning the richest spoiles, and requires the Consul to kill the head of the enemy army whose rank is equal to that of the consuls, usually a king, in single close range mortal combat). If greatest general in both military and politics, than Scipio, he knows how to captialize on his gains/victories, Casear did too, but the difference between the two being, Scipio was not assissainted for his political polices (he wasn't assassinated at all for that matter) Casear on the other hand, misjudged his political enemies and friends, and was eventaully killed. Scipio on the other hand, was able to retire and live a peacful life until he died. There were a few attempts to prosecute him, but they were either thwarted by himself, his popularity or his future son in law, Tiberious Gracchus the elder. My personal opinion being, a great general should be able to fight his wars, win battles for his country, win the war for his country and finally be able to retire after all is said and done without fear of prosecution and or assassination.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       11/10/2007 9:32:51 PM
Maybe Marcellus was the inspiration for "Gladiator".
 
I think that the prevailing definition of general is one who can lead an army accomplish its goals, mainly victory.
 
Actually, I have seen Gaius Julius Caesar as a politician who picked up generalship to aid his poltical career.
 
IIRC, Africanus wound up an exile from Rome to avoid a conviction for accepting a bribe from King Antiochus (the Great?).
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Idofgrahf       11/11/2007 6:09:49 PM
He self exiled himself, no one kicked him out of Rome the same reason he was never convicted on anything, he was way too popular. two tribunes tried to prosecute him but all other tribunes opposed as did the senate. Later accounts say that Scipio Africanus demanded that his body be burried away from his ungratful city which may or may not have been true what is true is that Scipio was never fined, jailed or exiled his is self exile vs Hannibles who was forced out of Carthage by the government, both died in 183 BCE.
 
Quote    Reply

Red Rooster       11/1/2010 10:52:57 AM
I think you misunderstand what Hannibal was about, Killing the Romans was not just a JOB, but more a passion to do it on the field of battle was key, Scipio was probably a more rounded general, one who knew how fight a battle and to end the war
 
Quote    Reply

Larsporsenna       6/26/2012 4:18:29 PM

I think you misunderstand what Hannibal was about, Killing the Romans was not just a JOB, but more a passion to do it on the field of battle was key, Scipio was probably a more rounded general, one who knew how fight a battle and to end the war


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics