"Hannibal & Napoleon why do the losers get all the attention?" Topic

This has always puzzled me. Why do Hannibal and Napoleon get all the glory while their respective nemses get run down? Both Scipio and Wellington had good records as generals in their own right, but with the added advantage of when it came to the big one they kept their nerve and won the day. There seems to be plenty of people willing to excuse the poor performances on Hannibal and Napoleon – sickness, unreliable subordinates, army not as good as it had been etc.

Dash, I suppose. It clearly isn't because of an understanding of the big picture, neither Hannibal nor Napoleon really seemed to understand that.

What puzzles me is that you would refer to either Hannibal or Napoleon losers.
Hannibal a loser? What about Trebia, Cannae, the Alpine crossing, and all the other astounding victories. The guy lost one battle- ONE- and that does not make him a loser by any stretch of the imagination.
And Napoleon a loser, forsooth. Tell that to the allies at Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, etc etc. They might disagree. Everybody loses battles. Napoleon lasted 20 years with virtually the whole of Europe arrayed against him.Megalomaniac tyrant, yes. Loser, no.

This crap about only-the-last-game-matters is pernicious. I blame the NFL. How you play the rest of the season matters, too.

Hi

There is a "romance" in many gamers with "lost causes". Not sure why.

But with nappy in particular, I suspect part of it is the way we read history in English. The English often describe their own wars as "We didn't have a chance, they were overwhelming and amazing, but by dint of our native pluck, we won anyway"… Which is pretty much the Nappy story. First he is presented as magic, then…..

Or hitler and his genererals……..

Rocky

What puzzles me is that you would refer to either Hannibal or Napoleon losers.

Well in both cases it was the end of their respective empires. So quite a lot riding on both those battles. One could also say that the first time they came up against quality opposition they got their butts kicked! :-)

How you play the rest of the season matters, too.

Both Scipio and Wellington had pretty good seasons too of course!

But with nappy in particular, I suspect part of it is the way we read history in English.<q/>

But that doesn't apply to Hannibal/Scipio though and it gets a similar press. I'm not sure it applies to Wellington either as he was fighting Frenchmen other than Napoleon most of the time.

Dash, I suppose.<q/>

That may have something to do with it. Both the british Napoleonic army and the Republican Roman are not seen as very dashing. having a solid infantry force is probably not as romantic as elephants, lots of cavalry etc.

You could put WWII Germany in this category also, and with much more justification.

Nikator says

This crap about only-the-last-game-matters is pernicious. I blame the NFL. How you play the rest of the season matters, too.

I won't comment on Napoleon, but Hannibal was not the all around great general he was cracked up to be. Maharbal said it best when he rebuked Hannibal

"You know how to win victory, Hannibal, you do not how to use it"

Hannibal did not grasp that he needed to cut out the heart of Rome to end the war and all his victories, brilliant as they were, were for nothing.

Scipio managed to accomplish his goal.

Defeated every Carthaginian army sent against him.
Turned the tide of the Punic Wars
Defeated Hannibal twice.
Conquered Carthage and preserved his homeland.

It's all about the end game Nikator. Having a good season is fine but you get nothing if you choke in the playoffs or at Zama for that matter :)

Fred Cartwright says

Well in both cases it was the end of their respective empires. So quite a lot riding on both those battles. One could also say that the first time they came up against quality opposition they got their butts kicked! :-)

to add to this statement, Hannibal provoked the war & risked the safety of his nation on his gamble. He failed to win. If he had never tried who knows what would've happened?

Matt

I think it is a case of:

"If you hype your oppoent as being the best and you win then it makes your victory all the sweeter.:

Have you ever noticed that the so called "elite armies" of all time were ultimatly the loser --The Romans, napoleonic French, army of Northern Virgina , and the Nazis. all are imortalized as superior everything --but in the end the mob won.

"You know how to win victory, Hannibal, you do not how to use it"

Well… that's what Roman (literary) sources said that Maharbal said… But we actually don't know what reasons Hannibal had not to attack the City.

You could toss Robert E. Lee in on this one as well, Rommel too.

I would think that there's a certain safety in admiring the generals that won lots of battles, but lost the war. There is a certain level of distaste in touting the guy that ended up conquering someone. Presumably anyone who feels sympathy for the losing side looks at the winning general as a right b*st*rd. The *losing* general though is pretty safe. The losing side loves the heck out of him, and the winning side has the knowledge that it won to give them emotional distance when analyzing the guy on the other side. It's a "loveable loser" kind of thing.

There's probably a certain amount of "the system won" kind of thing too. There is an assumption that the great general on the losing side overcame the flaws of his side to achieve greatness before ultimately succumbing to those flaws. The winning general though carries around the assumption that his side had no (or fewer) flaws, and that any old 5 year old could have won with *those* advantages. I see it a lot in baseball. That guy with the awesome power numbers on a lousy team should be *incredible* on a good team. It rarely works that way.

The Roman army as the "loser???"

Only the Late Roman armies could be considered the losers and they are rarely rated very good. The armies of the Late Republic and Early Empire conquered the Med. Hardly a bunch of losers.

Unless, that is, you buy into the notion that the Roman Army of 200 BC was the same as that of 400 AD.

Rob

War isn't a football season. The object isn't to win battles, it's to win the war. Tactical brilliance is commendable, but in the end, it's the strategic slog that makes the difference and should be praised the most.

In some cases, it happens. (Case in point, George Washington v. Lord Cornwallis. Washington was a great general while Cornwallis was merely competent. Cornwallis won more battles (and Washington lost many), but Washington was able to keep his force in the fight and eventually secure victory, while Cornwallis utterly failed to translate his battle victories into any sort of long term success. History has rightly lauded Washington as great, but left Cornwallis in the class of "also rans," despite much real success.)

In other cases, history gets befuddled, indeed led astray by "dash," as well as romance, nostalgia, "Lost Cause" myths, and even spectacle (Hannibal's elephants, which proved to be essentially useless).

War is not a sport, agreed. As such, it's not fair game as in the NFL. Napoleon was up against the whole of Europe; one country vs Europe, and he held his ground for more than 15 years, I think it's pretty impressive. When you gangtackle someone 4 to 1, should you really be that pround of winning?

"Have you ever noticed that the so called "elite armies" of all time were ultimatly the loser --The Romans"

I suppose if one considers the period of Roman power from the 5th century BC to the 15th century AD…
2000 years from now tell me who else had that staying power.

I'm surprised you didn't bring in Bobby Lee. Look at Scott Bowden's "Last Chance of Victory" – that book is has been misrperesented as history not the true classification hagiography – since it's the story of St. Robert of Virginia done down by lesser men.

Napoleon and Hannibul both had a long run successes but lost in the end.

Scipio does tend to get forgotton even if he did get the biograph "Greater than Napoleon". I think the problem is by a general decline in study of the classics at school.

As to Wellington does gets lots of press, mostly positive.
True there is a lot of whining here about British authors being too pro-British in their interprentation but that has been discussed elsewhere on the Napoleonic Boards.

I'm just amazed how mere mortals (like us on TMP) are often so ready to criticise true immortals like Hannibal and Napoleon. To remain compulsory reading for contemporary military students hundreds or even thousands of years after your death seems a strange definition of the word 'loser' to me.

"Hannibal a loser? What about Trebia, Cannae, the Alpine crossing, and all the other astounding victories. The guy lost one battle- ONE- and that does not make him a loser by any stretch of the imagination."

You're only as good as your last battle. In the end, Zama was his most important conflict.

I think, in most of these examples (Napoleon, The Third Reich, Hannibal and Robert Lee), it is incredible how far they did get and what they did accomplish militarily, before their eventual defeat. That's what creates the mystique and interest: how much they did win against superior odds.

Anyone who makes a call on Hannibal being overrated as a General has failed utterly in uderstanding the economic background that gave Scipio all the cards to play with and left hannibal with so very few.
Even Hannibals own support in Carthage were not as organised or as helpful as they could have been.
Scipio had all the cards but cleverly he played them correctly.
Scipio will always be remembered as a great General but he said himself he would never have been that good had he not been able to study the great Hannibal himself.

Hannibal fought his campaigns on a shoe string compared to the wealth available to the Romans who just kept raising Legion after legion against him.
It was always going to be a matter of time and when Maharbal said
"You know how to win victory, Hannibal, you do not how to use it"

Maharbal failed to understand that Hannibal was in no position to assault the might of the city of Rome.
The key was when Philip failed to move quickly to join with hannibal in moving against Rome, from that point on there was only going to be one winner because Rome had greater economic resources.
Hannibal still managed to keep Rome busy for 10 years lurking about in southern italy keeping a standing army together, thats pretty awesome.
Cannae was the biggest carnage in a single day until the First World War.

The real reason Hannibal is so highly regarded is because he did everything from a position of lesser strength.
His daring and charisma set Hannibal aside from almost all other generals in history.

RocketToad here above has it right – Hannibal's strategy was to break up the league of latin allied states which provided much of Rome's strength, not to put Rome itself to siege and burn it to the ground – he had neither the manpower or the equipment for such an undertaking and it would have meant the end of his army. Hannibal understood this which is the reason for his immortality and Maharbal's obscurity.

Wars are not won or lost on individual battles but on a grand strategical and economical level. Some very good generals have the economical prerequisites available to turn won battles into won wars and some don't.

It's not that they lost, it's that they won so much against the odds. Hannibal's Carthaginian army was small compared to any army from Rome. He had to rely on mercenaries, often unreliable mercenaries like the Gauls. As mentioned before, Hannibal could win battles but could not win a conquest.

Napoleon was probably even greater than Hannibal. He was defeated rarely and lost at Waterloo against 2 armies. Even so, he almost pulled it off. Did I mention he was layed up with a bad ulcer attack for a significant portion of the battle? Quite literally, he was the greatest general of his time.

Both these guys definitely deserve the props they get.

frederick says

RocketToad here above has it right – Hannibal's strategy was to break up the league of latin allied states which provided much of Rome's strength,

This is where I think Hannibal failed. Rome's strength was in single minded determination. Either the enemy dies or Rome dies. There was no room for surrender or terms.

not to put Rome itself to siege and burn it to the ground – he had neither the manpower or the equipment for such an undertaking and it would have meant the end of his army. Hannibal understood this which is the reason for his immortality and Maharbal's obscurity.

Perhaps Hannibal could not have besieged Rome. Perhaps he could have. But he underestimated Rome's position and the loyalty of Rome's allies. His inability to lay siege to a city does not excuse him of the fact that he failed in his objective and cost his country dearly.

Perhaps Maharbal's quote is false. But the sentiment is true. For all his victories Hannibal failed to subdue Rome and in so doing he doomed his homeland to destruction.

In any of the cases mentioned – Hannibal, Napoleon, Lee, or the Germans in WWII – if they had LOST their first battle – we would barely give them a foot note in a history book. The fact that they did win, much of the time with lesser resources, supply problems, manpower shortages, materiel shortages, etc., shows how well they knew what they had to do to win battles.

How many generals who commanded armies one time and lost get mentioned in the history books in more than a foot note? Not many, and those that do usually lose in such spectacular fashion that they are noted for their inability to command the army they were in charge of in the first place. Harold rarely gets mentioned in history as being other than a "loser" because he loses at Hastings in 1066. Despite the fact that his army was hotly engaged just a few short days earlier in another battle, which he won. He lost the big one and got killed – turning power over to William. William's success is pumped up into some mythic thing because some poor sot got lucky with a bowshot and struck Harold dead with an arrow.

So, let's look at the commanders in turn:

Scipio Africanus would NOT have defeated Hannibal at Zama without having the backing of the entire Roman Empire and the invaluable aid of being able to study his nemesis through the defeats of other Roman commanders. The ability to study your opponent, your opponents army, and his tactical doctrines gives you a huge advantage. Scipio had this in spades and he had the advantage of more resources to wear down Hannibal. It is hard to keep an army in the field for any protracted period of time – and Hannibal's army was on the way to collapse after being on campaign for such a long time.

Wellington would NOT have defeated Napoleon at Waterloo if it weren't for the Prussians. Blucher saved the British bacon again for without their timely arrival, the British were collapsing and did not have the manpower to defeat the French that day. Further, the statements that the French army was not the same as than of earlier times is also true. Had Napoleon had some of his better generals around that day I am sure things would have been different. If Napoleon had the same force that he had at Austerlitz, things would have gone differently. To say that Wellington, who was a good general, was better than Napoleon – is simply not true. Wellington succeeded because he got lucky and he had good press over his success. If he had been defeated – he would have been relegated to a foot note on the Napoleonic wars in a history text while another Allied commander was put in charge of trying to contain Napoleon or defeat him.

Robert E. Lee is another example of a great general who managed to do much with little – over and over and over. Much of it had to do with his excellent view of the over-all perspective of the war. The two capitols within a few days march of each other, with nothing separating them but a wall of men and will-power. Lee managed to defeat armies numerically superior time and time again. Grant gets the credit (and Lincoln too.) because he defeats Lee. Grant doesn't do anything spectacular during his campaigns – he does not have the tactical brilliance on the battlefields that Lee demonstrates, but he does what others did which was historically sound. Grant acted like Rome did during the Punic Wars – he pounded the South into submission by throwing more and more and more troops at them and wearing down the enemy army to the point it could no longer fight.

Germany in WWII – same issues, more politically charged that should be discuss here – but the army and the mainline commanders did an exceptional job of keeping a field army in the field and defeating numerically superior forces over and over again. When forced to fight on even terms like Kursk – the Germans lost. When faced with Roman style tactics of throwing more men and materiel at your opponent that he can handle, the German army folded. Russia out-produced Germany, out-manpowered Germany, and the US, UK, and other allied forces were the icing on the cake.

I think that Rockettoad has hit in very nearly on the head – all of these generals are lauded by gamers because they did what they did from an inferior position, with inferior resources, and they did it for so long and did it so well that they forced their enemies to mobilize virtually everything they had just to stop them.

If any of them HAD won – the would be even more lauded, heralded and studied. It surprises me that George Washington is not studied more from that perspective – he did the virtually impossible with his army by keeping it in the field. However, like Wellington – it is unlikely that Washington would have succeeded if not for the timely intervention of the French.

People root for the underdog – because "what if" is always fun to explore and there is no correct answer!

This crap about only-the-last-game-matters is pernicious. I blame the NFL. How you play the rest of the season matters, too.

That is just plain nonsense. You are talking about war as if it were game. The purpose of fighting battles is to defeat the enemy, not to win style points.

What is the result of Hannibal, Lee and Napoleon losing their last battle? The occupation and subjugation of their nation.
What is the result of the Patriots losing the last Super Bowl? Tom Brady goes home to sleep with a supermodel. BIG DIFFERENCE.

shootmenow says

I'm just amazed how mere mortals (like us on TMP) are often so ready to criticise true immortals like Hannibal and Napoleon. To remain compulsory reading for contemporary military students hundreds or even thousands of years after your death seems a strange definition of the word 'loser' to me.

I think you are missing the point here. No one is saying Hannibal or Napoleon were not brilliant generals (at least I am not) They were deserving of their praise. Hannibal's tactical know how and ability to motivate a disparate band of soldiers was amazing. They are not "losers" in the sense that they dropped out of high school and got a job scrubbing toilets at McDonalds.

They both are losers in the sense that their grand schemes were thwarted and they were bested by other generals.

The original concern of the thread was "Why don't Scipio and Wellington get more press?"

Scipio definitely should. Anyone interested should read B.H Liddel Hart's book "Scipio Africanus"

link

Those of you whining about Hannibal's lack of support should really understand how Scipio was left to his own devices to raise an army and invade Italy. he received no help from the senate. In fact the senate debated whether or not he should be allowed to go.

In the end it doesn't matter how many battles you win, it's about winning the war. Battles are not fought in isolation, they are fought within the context of a war and its political ends.

Wellington gets a LOT of press for someone who faced Napoleon once, and spent most of the era in a secondary campaign. I don't see an issue with him.

I must agree however Scipio is pretty much unknown in the general public.

Jovian says

Scipio Africanus would NOT have defeated Hannibal at Zama without having the backing of the entire Roman Empire

Perhaps you should read your history of the Punic Wars a bit more carefully. . . :)

Jovians says

and the invaluable aid of being able to study his nemesis through the defeats of other Roman commanders. The ability to study your opponent, your opponents army, and his tactical doctrines gives you a huge advantage. Scipio had this in spades

It's not like Scipio could watch game films of Hannibal. But he did realize he needed to always play to his strength and negate Hannibal's damn cavalry and elephants (which he did) It could be said that most Roman generals (Varro) Hannibal faced, marched blindly forward in true Roman fashion and had no real grasp of tactics. Scipio realized to continue to fight in that style was to invite defeat. he used every resource to his greatest advantage. Was never taken by suprise and seized the initiative for the first time in the 2nd Punic war

and he had the advantage of more resources to wear down Hannibal.

Check your sources. Scipio was given NOTHING except permission to invade Africa. He raised his own army from volunteers and drilled them into an army to beat the best general in the world.

Scipio was truly a great man

Wellington gets a lot of press in the English speaking world. Sometimes he is overshadowed by Nelson. Scipio is truly one of the Greatest Generals ever. just look at his record. I guess people are fascinated by Hannibals march from spain to rome, crossing the ALps with Elephants and being a thorn in the side of Rome. Another great leader that is overlooked is Epaminondas,he beat probably the best army of his time Sparta and even captured Sparta.

This crap about only-the-last-game-matters is pernicious. I blame the NFL. How you play the rest of the season matters, too.

That is just plain nonsense. You are talking about war as if it were game. The purpose of fighting battles is to defeat the enemy, not to win style points.

What is the result of Hannibal, Lee and Napoleon losing their last battle? The occupation and subjugation of their nation.
What is the result of the Patriots losing the last Super Bowl? Tom Brady goes home to sleep with a supermodel. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Hoo, boy. I must have done a really poor job of phrasing my reply. If even the OFM missed the point, I clearly blew it.

My point exactly, OFM. Warfare is not a sport. It is IDIOTIC to say that how good a general you are depends on the result of your last battle; as if it were a character issue or something. We cannot judge the generalship of Hannibal based on the result of Zama and ignore the preceding 20 years of victory. The man did far more with far less than Scipio dreamed of, and Scipio was a very, very good general. Without Hannibal, does Carthage have any chance of holding off Rome for even a year? Any chance at all? Why was it that the Cartheginian army almost never beat the ROmans without Hannibal and almost always won wioth him-do you suppose Hannibal had anything to do with that?

OFM, I am an admirer of yoursd, but this time you are far off base. Woody Hayes and Vince Lombardi-style thinking have no place in history; winning is not the only thing when we judge generals.

Was it superior generalship that allowed Norman Schwartzkopf to kick Saddam's butt? Don't make me laugh; me and 3 of my wargaming buddies coulda won that war against Alexander the Great. The fact that Stormin' Norman was damn good and Saddam damn bad made it go more smoothly, but had zero impact on the ultimate result.

Rockettoad, you are dead on. Napoleon and Hannibal losers? Ridiculous!!! Both were great generals who accomplished more with less than almost anyone else.

"We cannot judge the generalship of Hannibal based on the result of Zama and ignore the preceding 20 years of victory."

Maybe we can't- but you better believe the citizens of Carthage did.

Dave

First, I don't think much of the premise. With Hannibal and Napoleon we are talking about men whose actions had a huge impact on their times and our history. Ditto Hitler. It isn't so much about winning and losing, it is all about setting in motion events that are world changing, and sustaining that effort over some period of time. In Scipio and Wellington, we have great men who are forever linked to their famed adversaries. Invoking the name Hannibal will inevitably bring Scipio to mind. The tablesetters drive the story, but all the significant actors in the story get their due.

Quadratus

I appreciate your interpretation of Hannibal and Napoleon as 'losers', but in respect of the comments posted by the original poster, I don't think I am missing the point at all. Please reread his comments for yourself and see what I mean as his definition of 'losers' is clearly much more basic than yours. As I think he has failed to understand the impact these men have had on military affairs, I happily stand by my comments.

I would like those who so happily indulge in throwaway comments about great men (be they Hannibal, Napoleon, Scipio or Wellington) to offer their qualifications for making these remarks, though that would probably empty the forum!

It isn't so much about winning and losing, it is all about setting in motion events that are world changing, and sustaining that effort over some period of time.
And ultimately losing, which is the whole point. In fact, in all the cases mentioned, their aims in war were in fact unachievable from the onset, and not one of them realized it until the end.* As a result, their nations suffered horribly for their mistakes.

Tactical brilliance does not absolve one from grave strategic error.

But, admittedly, we are all talking from the perfection of hindsight. Could the eventual defeats be truly foreseen as inevitable? Were those defeats truly inevitable? Did some chance throw defeat their way, which, "for the want of a nail," might have instead brought victory? If so, can they be blamed for not preparing against that chance? Hard to say.

* Save, perhaps, Hannibal. I suspect he knew it was all up when he left Italy. Lee, too, probably knew defeat was coming, but stuck to obeying an authority (Davis) who had no clue.

Napoleon was neither tyrant nor megalomaniac. That idea is a leftover from the allied propaganda of the period.

Even though Napoleon's career did end in defeat and exile, his contributions to the art of war are enduring and his campaigns have been studied by professional soldiers since 1815. He was also admired by his enemies and his campaigns have seldom been equaled, nor has his rise to Emperor of the French from very humble beginnings.

It should also be remembered that the French of the period defeated every other major European power, and a good portion of the smaller ones between 1792 and 1815.

Napoleon as head of state of France was, because of the circumstances that he inherited in 1799, fated to win every campaign that he fought. Further, most of the wars he fought were defensive in nature. Great Britain was at least as much at fault for the Treaty of Amiens being broken as France was, and Austria and Russia were the aggressors in 1805, backed up by 'English gold.' Prussia started hostilities in 1806, again backed up by Russia. that war extended into mid-1807.

Napoleon was the aggressor in Spain and Portugal, but on the other side of the coin the Emperor had found evidence that Spain, his ally, was prepared to turn on France had Prussia won in 1806. Austria was the aggressor in 1809.

Russia was at least as much at fault as France in 1812, and the campaigns of 1813-1814 were a continuation of that war. Napoleon didn't want war in 1815, but he was declared an international outlaw by the allies in Vienna.

That being the case, with France at war almost every year on the continent between 1805 and 1815, the Grande Armee bled veterans from year to year, while all of the continental powers, again backed by 'English gold' had a break from time to time to reorganize and regroup. Further, it should also be noted that the Waterloo campaign came very close to success and the issue was in doubt in 1814 after the string of French victories in February.

Sincerely,
Kevin

On a related note, although not a gaming one, I always wondered why Amelia Earhart is so dang famous. She didn't make it home!

Simply because they upset the balance of power of the region. When one power becomes too strong things begin to happen to unite others to break them back down and restore balance. Very simple explanation I know but thats how I see it, also the motives of the power(s) that fight them is not always for the greater good. But eventually these guys fall because they become too great a threat to all those around them.

Shane

Kevin Kiley

Napoleon was neither tyrant nor megalomaniac

TYRANT: In the ancient Greek sense of the word it was a leader who seized control of the government through illegal methods usually using military force for backing.

link

Sounds like Napoleon to me.

not sure about the clinical diagnosis of megalomania, but this is what I found " megalomania>>> 2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions."

Perhaps attempting to subjugate a good majority of the known world might fit that definition. :)

link

I have only a cursory idea of who Napoleon was but when I read tyrant & megalomaniac, my brain said "check" and "check"

:)

Matt

BTW, I do think that Wellington was a superb General…but he was no Napoleon. I think Scipio was an average General who made few mistakes.

Well, I have to say that Scipio Africanus was, in the words of B.H. Liddell Hart, "A Greater than Napoleon". Zama was one of the few classic battles in all history that pitted two of the finest generals of all time against one another.

Simply put, Scipio was greater than Hannibal. He reorganised the Roman army and set the very ground work that others would later claim credit for themselves.

I would have to put Scipio in the top 5 generals of all time.

My opinion gents.

- Greg

acarhj says

I think Scipio was an average General who made few mistakes.

Calling Scipio an "average" general is a pretty bold statement. If you have any evidence to back up your opinion feel free to share.

Matt

GRpitts says

I would have to put Scipio in the top 5 generals of all time. My opinion gents.

Glad to be on the same side on this one :)

There is ample evidence to support Scipio being an excellent tactical and strategic leader. I would guess someone is misremembering something they read a long time in the past and is making some generalizations.

Matt

Interestingly, if you ever visit Waterloo and wonder around the tourist area around the mound you'd be fogiven for asuming Napoleon had won.

Steve P

Quadratus,

Napoleon didn't rule in ancient Greece, and if you are using the definition as posted, you forgot to state that orignally the word or concept was not pejorative in nature.

According the the American Heritage Dictionary the term 'tyrant' is defined as

1-An absolute ruler who governs arbitrarily without constitutional or other restrictions, especially one in ancient Greece.

2-A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner; an oppressor.

3- Any tyrannical or despotic person.

Hitler was a tyrant, as was Stalin. Putin and Chavez can be put into that category. It doesn't fit Napoleon who governed by the rule of law and was a true lawgiver. There is a very good essay in The Mind of Napoleon by JC Herold, who cannot be said to be a Napoleon-supporter, about how Napoleon governed and one would find it hard to conclude after reading the essay that Napoleon was a tyrant.

'Perhaps attempting to subjugate a good majority of the known world might fit that definition'

I believe you'd find it very hard to prove that Napoleon attempted to do that.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Greg,

I'd take anything done historically by Liddell Hart (or JFC Fuller for that matter) with a very large dose of salt. The two of them had a lot to say, some very valuable, but historically they need to be cross-checked.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hannibal fought his campaigns on a shoe string compared to the wealth available to the Romans

If starting a war against an economically superior foe, winning some battles early, and succumbing in the end is the definition of a great general, then Tojo must have been the greatest general of the 20th Century.

the original question was why do these men that have been mentioned get all the press. Do you not think that its because win,lose ,or draw they acheived astounding success with the resources at there disposal. I think that this illustrates that it is possible that the best man does not always win? As I stated in my earlier post, the mob always wins. A lesson in history that might be wise for the united states to look at and ponder in this modern world?