"Scipio Africanus - Greater Than Napoleon?" Topic

B.H. Liddell Hart so titled his 1926 book – do you agree?

Greater at what?

Let's put it this way.
Hannibal, when asked to name the greatest generals of all time, named Alexander, Pyrrhus, himself and Scipio Africanus. Not a peep about Napoleon.
QED.
Hannibal knew his business.

Finally, Scipio won. That's like counting Super Bowl rings to determine greatest quarterbacks.

Not a chance, not even close.

He didn't end up defeated and exiled to a tiny island in the South Atlantic, he also knew better than to mess with the British and Russians. So by that reckoning, yes he was.

Isn't that like comparing aurantia with pommes de terre?

Yes, but some people take this nonsense so seriously.

"Greater at what?"

At being Scipio Africanus, of course. Napoleon was rubbish at being Scipio Africanus. On the other hand, Scipio Africanus wasn't very convincing as being Napoleon. He couldn't even manage being born in the right millenium.

In next week's question, who was better? Henry V or Rommel?

Henry V of course. Rommel had to have people drive his armour around, Henry wore his own!

Rommel never got his own play written by Shakespeare, either.

Sure he did, The similarities between Romeo and Juliet and Rommel's life are scary.

On the original question, Napoleon was a lot better at wiping out his "own" people the Scipio.

Napoleon went to North Africa, came home with like almost nothing of his army.

Scipio went to North Africa and came back with a bigger army then he started.

Cupcakes are definitely greater than sixteen penny nails.

I think the topic is "as a general." I think Liddel Hart is correct. Africanus was undefeated in battle, defeated the greatest opponent of all time and was a master strategist. In some ways I see Africanus as similar to Wellington in style and approach. He also shared Wellington's political limitations and ended life in relative obscurity.

They aren't called the Scipio Africanus Wars, so 'nuff said.

I must check out the Scorpio Africanus range by the Perry's …..
Ooops there is none just acres of Napoleonics
Move along nothing to see here!

"They aren't called the Scipio Africanus Wars, so 'nuff said."

That guy Punic must have been pretty good, though…

Nothing points to your greatness more than history naming something after you … Quisling, Boycott, Molotov, Dahmer, Stalin, Manson, Dracula, Judas, Bathory, Guillotin, Chauvin (one of Napoleon's soliders), Ponzi, McCarthy, de Sade, Draco …

Publius Cornelius Scipio was nicknamed "Africanus" because he conquered Africa.

Get back to me when you dig up that Napoleon Bonaparte gloried in the name Napoleon Russiacanus. Or Napoleon Brittanicus.

At the risk of causing utter chaos and upsetting the Napoleon worshippers. He wasn't even the best at being Napoleon -unless of course he intended to squander lives, pick the wrong friends and wives and leave the balance of power in Europe a mess for the best part of the 19th century

Ever hear of the Napoleonic Code? It still forms the basis of legal systems used by many countries around the world.

I am very much an amateur and rather doubt anyone really cares what I think, much less be persuaded by it, but nonetheless here goes.
1) I never thought "he won" was all that convincing about who is best general. To use an American sports analogy, Dan Marino and Jim Kelley never won a suoerbowl, but are far better quarterbacks than many who did.
To use a history example, the Russians beat the Finns in World War II – but does anyone seriously think they had better generals than Mannerheim, Talvela or Siilasvuo?
2) Scipio spent most of his career fighting the "B-team"
Yes he won at Zama, but I think that had as much to do with getting most of the Numidians over to his side as any brilliant tactics on his part.
Hannibal's army wasn't what it had been. Could Scipio have beaten the army of Cannae? Who knows – I sure don't.
3) To me, a good general wins battles he should, but great ones win battles they aren't expected to.

Napoleon wasn't perfect, and to quote my pops, "he let his eyes get bigger than his stomach" but prior to about 1809 – he was the best ever.

Dahmer?

There is no question that Napoleon dominated his era more than Scipio Africanus dominated his. That doesn't make Napoleon the superior general which is what Liddell Hart is arguing for. When it comes to both strategic concepts and tactical execution Africanus is probably the greatest general of all time. That is not taking anything away from Napoleon. But remember Napoleon was head of state and head of government which allowed him a latitude that Scipio did not enjoy.

Scipio had a continent named after him %~D

Other way around, but still…

Scipio had a droid named after him.

And a sport.

Liddel Hart should be taken with a very large salt pill.

Liddell Hart is actually one of the most insightful historians and military thinkers of the 20th century. Doesn't make him necessarily right on this one but he deserves a fair hearing. Having read the book I think he makes a strong case.

Has anyone ever watched the Intelligence Squared debate on "Napoleon the Great?" Try a search for it on You Tube. It's well worth watching.

Editor in Chief Bill for the win!

Well, at ability to conquer and pacify Spain they're about equals.

Scipop had a make of potato starch snacks named after him

Napoleon's troops had more colourful uniforms, so that makes him better in my eyes.

Parzival – You Creep! :o)

Scipop had a make of potato starch snacks named after him

Scipio Pringilius?

No