"Where do you rank these five?" Topic

So this is only meant to provoke interesting debate. Where would you rank these five BCE generals: Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Scipio and Julius Caesar?

If I have overlooked a worthy contender, go ahead and throw their name(s) in the ring.

Hopefully, just a bit of fun.

Al
Hanny
Jules
Scippy
Py

Alexander
Scipio
Hannibal
Julius Caesar
Pyrrhus

With apologies to Pyrrhus because he didn't come up against the very best, and to Hannibal (who may have been the bet general of all time but lost to Scipio because Rome played a better 'long game').

But what do I know

Phil

Alexander, if for no other reason the size of the territory he conquered. Not sure where the rest fall in behind.

What Yesthaphil said!

A
S
H
JC
P

Did Alexander ever lose a battle? I don't think he did, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Hannibal was beaten by Scipio. Some of the generals that Hannibal beat in Italy were not great. What was the rest of Scipio's record like?

I believe Caesar did lose a battle, but he won a lot of battles in his time and was in some sticky situations. Is the problem with Caesar that we hear how great he was from….Caesar?

Generals are only as good as the opposition they beat, to me…
so Alexander, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Hannibal Barca and Pyrrhus IMHO

Cyrus – might also be worthy of being on the list – though not his successors

Alex
Scipio
Hannibal
JC
Pyrrhus

It is called a Pyrrhic victory for a reason….

Alexander
Scipio
Hannibal
Caesar
Phyrrhus

A highly subjective list

Scipio asked this question to Hannibal after the war, to which Hannibal rank his top 3 as 1. Alexander, 2. Pyrrhus, and 3. Himself.

When Scipio asked him what if he would have defeated him at Zama, Hannibal replied: "Then I would rank myself number one".

Kim

Kim, yes but he couldn't take Caesar's body of work into account!

Disaster wargamer, I'll have to read up on Cyrus. I'm not knowledgeable enough right now, thanks

I think the five you picked out are outstanding. The two Roman commanders in the list have triggered a guilt twitch for some reason.
( a metal mountain of shame consisting of a Wargames foundry Roman Horde May be the cause)
1 Alexander
2 Hannibal
3 Julius Caesar
4 Scipio

Gonna throw a 5 in here.

5 Cyrus of Persia . I hear great things about this guy . History a bit vague but achievements were immense.

IIRC Hannibal himself was quoted as rating things:

Alex
Pyrrhus
Himself

David F Brown

Alexander — master of all situations
Hannibal — intimidates the Roman in Italy for 15 years
Scipio/Caesar both used a far superior instrument against inferior opponents in Spain and Gaul
Pyrrhus —your basic Successor professional

Winning battles is only the start winning the peace (and what you won) after the battle is in the end more important.

Caesar – what he won stayed in the Roman empire for hundreds of years.

Scipio – Faced off against Hannibal who was beating Roman armies on a regular basis figured out his weakness and exploited it saving Rome.

Alexander – won battles and campaigns but couldn't stop to consolidate his empire. As soon as he died it fell apart

Pyrrhus – was your basic successor to Alexander and couldn't put the empire back together. Ended setting things up for the new guy on the block (Rome) to defeat one piece at a time.

Hannibal – Won battles till he lost. Didn't have an end game so ended up being defeated by someone who recognized his weakness.

Scipio
Alexander
Hannibal
Julius Caesar
Pyrrhus

Scipio
Hannibal
Julius Caesar
Alexander
Pyrrhus

Tell me who did Alexander ever beat than the Persians at the end of their run and Greek city states also near their end? What great commander did he face? It was his father that created the instrument that he used. Alexander is certainly to be placed among the great commanders but he is constantly overrated in these kinds of conversations.

Hannibal nearly brought down the Roman Republic on his own and maintained his army in Italy for 15+ years. Hannibal created his army from various disjunct elements and made it into a fearsome entity. Scipio won every battle including Zama against his near great rival. It was Scipio that turned the Roman army into the killing machine the dominated the Mediterranean Sea over the next 150 years.

Scipio's reputation is inflated by the fact that Polybius was part of his circle. Tell me, if you're a hostage, are you really going to badmouth the family responsible for your care?

It's impossible that everyone agrees with a 1 to 5 ranking. I'm not an expert, by any means, but it does seem (to me at least), that Caesar has been underrated by some. Not being critical, lots of good opinions and valid ones at that. And if someone believes something, that's all good.
Caesar had the advantage of commanding a more evolved legion than Scipio. I think he had more and perhaps better cavalry than earlier Roman generals. But he did well wherever he fought, be it North Africa, Greece, Iberia or among the Gauls and Germanic tribes. And he fought and won a lot of battles. Was he as good as he says he was? Obviously, I don't know, but suspect that if he had lost more battles, we may have heard about them from other sources.

Of Pyrrhus, obviously Hannibal was a fan. And Alexander never lost, so he has to rank highly.

So I asked this question, I'll attempt my answer and go and put the tin helmet on at a safe distance!

1. Alexander
2. Julius Caesar
3. Hannibal
4. Scipio
5. Pyrrhus

Some folk have mentioned Cyrus. I've had a very brief read, not doing any justice to the subject. Much the earliest of our contenders. I'll omit him from my list for now. I do have the urge to say, "Can you dig it?" If anyone gets the movie reference!

A
P/S tied
H
J
While Caesar did did defeat the Gauls, he tended to be caught off guard at the beginning of some of the battles and had to rush about bolstering the line. Pyrrhus was the only one who defeated Roman armies with a pike phalanx until Mithridates. I am not sure whether he or Scipio would be the better of the two. Scipio's army was a veteran force instead of the citizen militia that Pyrrhus faced. This is only based on their military ability.

As far as political rating it would be
J
A
S
H
P

I don't think it is fair/valid to compare an absolute monarch like Alexander, with a general with no political power like Hannibal.
Alexander could require his country to provide him with basically anything he demanded, whereas Hannibal had to make do with whatever he could scrounge up.

Hannibal lasted for 15 years in a foreign country. One that refused to give up. Persians were not Romans. The Romans were afraid to face him for over 15 years. WHo else has accomplished that?

Scipio
Hannibal
Alexander
Caesar
Pyrrhus

Just my opinins.

Just a word of caution regarding Hannibal. Much of what we know is based on Roman writings after the fact. A victor tends to inflate their opponent's prowess in order to make their ultimate victory seem even greater. Livy wrote Ab Urbe Condita under the patronage of Augustus, and in the manner of his contemporaries, followed previous annalists, supplemented with other sources, anecdotes and mythology. Was Hannibal as good as Livy makes him out? Hard to say. Personally I believe the verdict is still out on Hannibal and Scipio.

Caesar was a politician first and a general second, but at least we have contemporary sources regarding his achievements besides his own writings. Alexander won battles, but he was handed a well-honed army from his father, and as others have said, he ultimately held onto nothing. In terms of lasting impact, I think Caesar is worth considering above Alexander.

My order is Caesar, Alexander, Scipio, Hannibal and Pyrrhus. Your view may vary :)

Hannibal – for maintaining an ad hoc army in Italy for 15 years against a superior opponent while still winning numerous fights.

Alexander – for defeating a huge empire that ruled many people. The only European I can think of that ever marched an army across the meddle east and into India.

Caesar – For the scope of his conquests. He not only faced all of Gaul, but also Pompey with a mirror army. He was able to recover several times after being caught off guard.

Pyrrhus – for turning Epirus into an international actor solely because of his abilities as a general.

Scipio – Used a veteran army to chip away at Hannibal's support before facing his weakened army. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if he faced Hannibal's army at its prime.

What veteran army for Scipio? When he took over command of the Cannae legions stationed in Sicily and brought some volunteers with him from Italy I would hardly call this motley assortment a veteran army (his veteran army was still in Spain.) Scipio opponents in the Senate intentionally tried to hamstrung him by this arrangement. Scipio did what he did in Spain; he trained this army with his new ideas to a new level of discipline. Then deployed it to Africa.

Another aspect that puts Scipio above the other commanders is that he was operating within a much more restricted constitutional framework. He was not a monarch like Alexander or Pyrrhus nor was he a defacto dictator like Caesar or Hannibal (Caesar had essentially unlimited authority in Gaul with his pro consular imperium and eventually did become a constitutional dictator later on.) Scipio was a soldier who had to both work against Carthaginian interests in Spain and Africa while at the same time work politically against his opposition in Rome. He did not have unlimited authority to determine strategic priorities. He was essentially a cog in the wheel of Roman statecraft and yet he still managed to accomplish so much.

Scipio was hardly just 'a soldier.' He was a member of one of the six major patrician families; his father was consul and Scipio's early military experience was at his father's side. He also took command in Spain as a proconsul. Was he a good general? Yes. But hardly just a cog in the wheel of Roman statecraft.

MRC, Scipio was a "cog" he the sense he didn't determine Roman military or foreign policy. Scipio did not enjoy the liberty of a monarch to direct policy. He conformed to the directives of the Senate. That is especially true with his appointment as Pro Consul in 211 BC to Spain. Even with his return to Rome after his election to Consul in 205 Scipio did not direct Roman policy towards Hannibal or Carthage.