Great Commanders in History [Archive] - Page 2

adsH

June 5th, 2005, 01:25 PM

MUGHAL MONARCHS
An Introduction to the Mughal Dynasty and Mughal Agra

The Mughal Dynasty is a line of Muslim emperors who reigned in India from 1526 to 1858. Babur, the first mughal emperor, was a descendant of the Turkish conqueror Timur on his father's side and of the Mongol (in Persian, mughal) conqueror Genghis Khan on his mother's side, Invaded India from Afghanistan and founded the Mughal Empire on the ruin of the Delhi Sultanate. From 1526, when Babur defeated Sultan Ibrahim Lodi, the ruler of Delhi and established himself in neighbouring Agra, until 1638, when his great-great-grandson Shah Jehan built a new capital city in Delhi again, Agra was a repository for all the wealth and talent of one of the most extensive empires in the medieval world.
The many elements that led to the creation of the Taj Mahal had their roots in the reigns of earlier monarchs : 1) Babur, 2) Humayun, 3) Akbar, 4) Jehangir, 5) Shah Jehan, 6) Aurangzeb, each of whom contributed his particular aesthetic interests and endeavours to the establishment of what we have subsequently called the Mughal Style, a style which blended the Persian patterns brought by the Mughals with the indigenous genius for fine craftsmanship.

The amazing achievements in the Mughal architectural tradition owe much to the great talent of Indian artisans and the wealth of material found in India, including the abundance of stone. Each emperor used local materials and indigenous forms and craftsmanship to nurture and bring to fruition a unique enduringly beautiful architectural tradition. The Mughal style found triumphant fulfilment in the building of the Taj Mahal, the most splendid expression of the centuries of Mughal rule in India. The Taj Mahal was the last and greatest architectural flowering of the Mughal period in Agra, before its builder, Shah Jehan (1592-1658) shifted the imperial centre of power and administration to what is now called Delhi.

Babur
Although Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire, ruled only for four brief years, he left his impress on all that was to follow. His love for nature led him to create gardens of great beauty on the formal charbagh (four quarters) plan. His Arambagh in Agra set the pattern for the gardens which became an intrinsic part of every Mughal fort, palace and tomb in the centuries that followed.

Goto : Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb

Home Page

Humayun
Babur's son Humayun succeeded him in 1530, but was defeated by Sher Shah, an Afghan who ruled north India for 15 years, in 1540. Humayun only just managed to regain his father's territories before his death and the accession of his 13 year old son, Akbar, whose 49 year reign laid the foundation of empire, and the development of a new style of architecture.

Babur, Akbar, Jehangir, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb

Home Page

Akbar
Humayun's son Akbar, who reigned from 1556 to 1605, decisively defeated the Afghans and firmly established Mughal supremacy in northern India. One of India's greatest rulers, he extended a sound administrative system, and won the loyalty of his Hindu subjects by abolishing the personal tax on them and by appointing them to high civil and military posts. Akbar was receptive to all creeds and doctrines, and he tried to found an eclectic religion.

Nine years after he became emperor, Akbar, ordered the construction of a fort beside the river Yamuna in what is now called Agra. The construction proceeded at a hectic pace and within eight years, most of the five hundred buildings within the fort were complete.

By the time he was 26 years old, Akbar had power, prestige and great wealth, but despite a large number of wives, he had no heir. A mystic, by the name of Salim Chisti prophesised that the emperor would have not one but three sons. When the prophesy came true, Akbar decided to build a new capital city (Fatehpur Sikri) on the rocky ridge outside Agra upon which Salim Chisti had his hermitage, using the red sandstone of the ridge itself. Fatehpur Sikri consists of a number of highly individual structures united by the unvarying use of red sandstone and the intricate ornamentation that characterises them. Akbar employed local masons and craftsmen and allowed them the freedom to use their traditional skills to create a style which has been called Akbari.

At the summit of the ridge, Emperor Akbar built an enormous congregational mosque, the Jami Masjid. Later, he added a massive triumphal gate, called the Buland Darwaza at the southern entrance to the mosque. The dominant, aggressive dimensions of the Buland Darwaza provide a perfect foil to the other addition to the mosque; the single storeyed, daintily decorated tomb built for Salim Chisti.

Akbar's own palace was a double storeyed structure located behind a pool of water. Spectacular accompanying buildings include the Turkish Sultana Begum's palace, the Diwan-i-khas, the Panch Mahal, the Hawa Mahal, Mariam's palace and Birbal's house. The entire palace complex is adorned with exquisite carvings, lattice and pierced stone screens, wall paintings, canopied roofs, carved brackets and pilasters.

Akbar chose the site for his own tomb himself, at a place called Sikandra, near Agra. Sikandra, in a sense, marks the transition between the strong, square, earthbound buildings that characterise the Akbari style and the delicate airy marble structures that Shah Jehan built two generations later. The beginning of inlay work that was so much a part of Shah Jehan's buildings are visible at Sikandra in the bold patterns that decorate the gateway.

Babur, Humayun, Jehangir, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb

Home Page

Jehangir
Thanks to Akbar's organising genius, the Mughal administration functioned well under his son Jehangir from 1605 to 1627. There was not a great deal of architectural activity during Jehangir's reign, with one exception. This was the tomb Jehangir and his wife Nur Jahan built for Nur Jahan's father, Itimad-ud-Daulah, who was Jehangir's most important courtier. While the structure itself is fairly simple, the manner in which it has been carved and inlaid with semi-precious stones demonstrates the mastery over this craft which was to find such perfect expression in the Taj Mahal. Lapis lazuli, onyx, jasper, topaz, and carnelian have been combined with marble of various hues to create designs of unsurpassed elegance, interspread with finely carved screens.

Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb

Home Page

Shah Jehan
Jehangir's son and successor, Shah Jehan ruled from 1628 to 1658. He was a great patrons of the arts, and Mughal painting and architecture, blending Persian and Indian traditions, reached their zenith at this time.

With the accession of Shah Jehan to the throne, came a flowering of architecture both in Agra and Delhi. The profusion of white marble buildings raised during the period of Shah Jehan, led one scholar to characterise it as the reign of marble. Red sandstone and brick remained major building materials, but the use of marble is expressive of the very high standards of elegance and luxury that governed all aspects of an architectural project throughout Shah Jehan's reign. The innovations seen in the buildings created during Shah Jehan's reign are striking demonstrations of the effect of particular aesthetic and political concerns. In addition to a greater use of marble, which was a textural quality quite distinct from the red sandstone favoured by his predecessors, there was refinement of the architectural vocabulary. Among specific changes were the introduction of cusped arches and of pillars with tapering shafts and baluster detailing. Many developments can be directly related to a desire to articulate more forcefully paradisiacal and imperial theme, drawing on sources that included European motifs.

Shah Jehan had many earlier structures in the Agra Fort dismantled in order to make room for his own marble pavilions. It seems that immediately upon his accession in 1628, Shah Jehan ordered palace additions to the existing forts at Agra and Lahore. The most notable complex of white marble palace structures is situated on the eastern edge of the fortified walls built by Akbar bordering the Yamuna river. Among these is Muthamman Burg (Jasmine Tower), built at a point where the main north-south wall of the fort takes a turn towards the east. The octagonal room, which offers an exceptional view of the Taj Mahal, is supposed to be the place where Shah Jehan died in 1666. The Muthamman Burg is connected with a series of other marble pavilions forming the east side of a large courtyard that once contained a garden. Only the structure and not the flora survives today. To the north of the palace quarters bordering the garden are additional rooms including the Hall of Private Audience, which is a marble pillared hall decorated with profuse inlay. The Shish mahal which is located close to the royal apartments, has hundreds of small mirrors embedded in stucco decorations, in intricate floral and geometrical designs. Some distance away is the magnificent Moti Masjid, the Pearl Mosque built at an elevation so that its ethereal domes and kiosks are visible above the walls of the fort.

Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir, Aurangzeb

Home Page

Aurangzeb
Shah Jehan's son Aurangzeb was the last Great Mughal. Reigning from 1658 to 1707, he was a stern puritan and a religious bigot who sought to impose orthodox Islam on all of India. He dismissed Hindus from public service, reimposed tax on them, and destroyed their temples. Aurangzeb spent the latter half of the reign trying to conquer southern India. Although he brought the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent, his wars helped weld the Marathas into a powerful enemy and exhausted imperial resources.

Although patronage declined after the reign of Shah Jehan, elaborate architectural projects were undertaken for later Mughal rulers. The Badshahi Mosque in Lahore and the Pearl Mosque in the Delhi fort are but two examples built for Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb chose to be buried in a simple open-air grave, but the tomb of his wife (Bibi-ka-Maqbara) at Aurangabad, is quite elaborate. Although small, the Pearl Mosque in particular, represents a continuation not only of the architectural vocabulary established during the reign of Shah Jehan but also of the use of expensive building materials such as white marble, though the elongated shape of domes and arches signals a change in taste.

Soon after Aurangzeb's death the empire broke up. The 19th. and last Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah II was deposed by the British in 1858.

Mughals were impressive too, Coming back to one of them Babur the First Mughal.

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects/tajmahal/mughal.html

Sparapet

June 6th, 2005, 03:14 PM

Impressive list Spartan, yet I do see some omissions.

1) Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov, 1802-1855 - Russian admiral, distinguished during the Crimean War, having defeated the Ottoman navy at Sinope, and as the commander of land and naval forces during the Siege of Sebastopol.

2) Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov, 1729-1800 - Russian Field Marshall, never defeated, was victorious agains the ottomans in both Russo-Turkish wars, and at the age of 70, led the Russian and Austrian armies against Napoleon, defeating the french at Cassano, Trebia and Novi.

3) Finally, I realize that the discussion so far has centered on sucessful conquerors and commanders, however I would like to add to the list those commanders who displayed courage, skill and foresight in the mountains and valleys of Artsakh (aka Nagorno-Karabakh). I would like to add those like Arkady Ter-Tadevossian, Shahen Meghryan, Hemayag Haroyan, Monte Melkonyan, Ashod Ghoulian, who stood their ground, fought and defeated an enemy who was better equipped, better financed and had numerous mercenaries in addition to its own troops. Here is how "Combat and Survival" put it: "How a mountain-based guerilla army of 40,000 men - and a few women - with hunting rifles, supplemented by captured weapons, defeated forces armed with MIG fighters, attack helicopters and Grad rocket batteries is an extraordinary story of tactics and courage." (Vol 11 Iss 5). (Full article can be found at http://www.geocities.com/master8885/Forces/combat.html)

Joseph

June 7th, 2005, 12:55 AM

Does FM Sam Manekshaw come anywhere near?

Spartan JKM

June 7th, 2005, 01:32 AM

Umar ibn Al-Khatteb was a great man, but maybe you could convince me more so that he was a military commander as well as a brilliant reformer who undertook many administrative changes. He oversaw public policy, establishing a very viable administration for newly conquered lands etc. Again, a brilliant man, but the great battle victories at Ajnadain, Pella, Damascus, Yarmuk, Kadisiyah, Aleppo, and Nihawand (all during his reign) for example, he was not in direct command. They were his armies, as Elizabeth had authoritarian control over the English fleet in 1588, but I do not merit her a battle victory. I'm sure he was indeed a soldier in his younger days, and I have no right to lay down parameters as to whom gets to be a 'commander'. He was the boss.

Thanks Sparapet. Suvorov was one of the greatest; he's on TIER 2. Nakhimov should have been on TIER 3, but got 'lost in translation' from my notes to the keyboard.

Thanks for the additions of the Armenian heroes. I added them. Men such as these do not possess any less courage or zeal than the more prominent ones. The great patriots Andranik and Gevork Chavoush are on TIER 3.
I couldn't find any infomation about Haroyen and Melkonyan. Was Bekor Ghoulian the same man as Ashod Ghoulian? The leader who was killed while storming into Shoushi?

Joseph, I believe Manekshaw was the architect of India's heroic victory in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. I don't know much about him.

Thanks, Spartan JKM :)

adsH

June 7th, 2005, 07:30 AM

Umar ibn Al-Khatteb was a great man, but maybe you could convince me more so that he was a military commander as well as a brilliant reformer who undertook many administrative changes. He oversaw public policy, establishing a very viable administration for newly conquered lands etc. Again, a brilliant man, but the great battle victories at Ajnadain, Pella, Damascus, Yarmuk, Kadisiyah, Aleppo, and Nihawand (all during his reign) for example, he was not in direct command. They were his armies,

Haha !! I know its confusing. But Omer bin Khatab Was a Leader, his Powers not purely administrative or Symbolic in any nature. His First Job was to lead the Muslims. He Was always at the Battle field in direct command. Traditionally in those Days Leader used to be out in the battle Feild (Believe it or not). Taking inn the whole Feeling of battle first hand. Thats probably why there aren't many Commanders listed from that era.
Its a weird concept But worth researching, If you read up on the Roles of Calif they have changed dramatically After the First Four. Corruption had Swept inn spoiling the whole concept of worthy Califs. Frankly the Whole Concept has been Traditionally shakey !!

mysterious

June 7th, 2005, 01:54 PM

What Spartan should research is the conquests and battles in which Umer did personally take part. I'm sure that will give him some idea of the might of Umer as a warrior and mind as a commander on the field.

Sparapet

June 7th, 2005, 05:46 PM

Thanks Sparapet. Suvorov was one of the greatest; he's on TIER 2. Nakhimov should have been on TIER 3, but got 'lost in translation' from my notes to the keyboard.

Thanks for the additions of the Armenian heroes. I added them. Men such as these do not possess any less courage or zeal than the more prominent ones. The great patriots Andranik and Gevork Chavoush are on TIER 3.
I couldn't find any infomation about Haroyen and Melkonyan. Was Bekor Ghoulian the same man as Ashod Ghoulian? The leader who was killed while storming into Shoushi?

Thanks, Spartan JKM :)

Zoravar Andranik and Gevork Chavoush did make their mark in history defending their people from the Turkish butchers. One more name that must be mentioned in the same breath is Garegin Nzhdeh. His troops were among the finest of his time, disciplined and fierce. They defended Zangezur from the Turks for over a year, and succeeded.

In regards to the modern heroes, you are correct, Ashods full name is Ashod Bekor Ghoulian, and more info on fim, his men and the liberation of Shushi can be found at http://www.panarmenian.net/library/eng/?id=63.

There isnt much out there on the net about Monte Melkonyan, but he was an American Armenian, who was involved with ASALA in the Middle East, and after serving some time in a French prison, went to Karabakh to fight for Armenia. He quickly rose in rank and became the commander of the Martuni district forces. This is the best article I could find in English http://www.hetq.am/eng/society/h-0603-monte.html.

Spartan JKM

June 7th, 2005, 08:38 PM

Thanks you everybody; I indeed stand corrected regarding Umar ibn Al-Khattab.

I did dig up some information at the library, among other things, and found he began to bring the Umma, the Muslim tribes who seemed to think their allegiance no longer existed with the death of Muhammed, under better control, and he started to organize the Ghazu raids and conducted attacks against non-Muslims in the surrounding areas. The Umma were willing to recognize Umar ibn al-Khattab as a military leader and followed his orders during military campaigns. Under the ideal of Islam, Arab tribes who longed maintained their independence were now uniting with one another under one ruler. Thanks for your help adsH and Mysterious - this is how one learns great material.

However, I found a chatroom discussing the greatest Muslim military leaders, and Umar doesn't seem to be very prevalent. But our discussion wasn't labeling him as the greatest of the Muslim leaders. Again, thanks for your apprising.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-36860.html

Thank you as well, Sparapet for the information.

Spartan JKM :)

adsH

June 7th, 2005, 09:44 PM

However, I found a chatroom discussing the greatest Muslim military leaders, and Umar doesn't seem to be very prevalent. But our discussion wasn't labeling him as the greatest of the Muslim leaders. Again, thanks for your apprising.

Anytime !! Thanks for bringing up the Topic !!.

Umar may not be Prevalent simply because Most of his Conquest was based on a Tiny Population of Muslims. Muslims Became well Known after the Ummayed Periods . the Time of Damascus !! the And then Eventually Baghdad the Scientific era !! House of Widome (Bait-al Hikma) World Libraries The Spanish and Baghdad Courts. the Spanish Medical treatments. Etc

I did some digging up!!! found these lying the History

In 900, Rhazes, chief physician of a Baghdad hospital, makes the first distinction between measles and smallpox, establishing criteria to diagnose smallpox that will be used until the 18th century.

Arbaic Numerals as Many would know who Are into Maths!!

In 975, Arabs introduce modern arithmetical notation to Europeans, making calculations much easier than they had been with Roman numerals. (has any one seen the Movie the 13th Warrior).

1000-1009
The Umayyad caliphate begins to decline under Hisham II.

the Fatimid caliph of Egypt, al-Hakim,

In 1402, at the Battle of Angora, Tamerlane's army defeats the forces of the Ottoman sultan Bayazid I.

In 1405,Emperor Yung Lo launches the first Chinese sea expedition. It is led by a Muslim eunuch, Ma, who calls himself Cheng Ho.

In 1408, the Chinese explorer Cheng Ho begins a second sea expedition, during which he captures the King of Ceylon and the Sinhalese royal family.

The timeLine of the Jerusalem conquests, Omer bin Khatab is apart of it, i think he continued his Battle with the benetzine Empire. During Muhammad The Muslims never took control of the Jerusalem even tho they had the capability. It was simply an understanding, I suppose so the Bentizines weren't Ready to Battle Muhammad i think the First war costed Muslims 40 thousand Men and the Bentizines about 100,000 and clearly No one had achieved an upper hand. so in the next war Muhammad Had 100,000 men and Bentizine wern't prepared for that so they never showed Up. Muhammad ordered settlements Outside the Walls of Jerusalem.

THE FIRST COMMONWEALTH (ca. 1004 - 586 BCE)
ca. 1004 King David captures Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Makes Jerusalem the capital.
(As some scholars point out, King David did not found Jerusalem, but conquered an already-inhabited city that had been in existence for 2,000 years.)
1010 - 970 Reign of King David.
ca. 960 King Solomon begins to build the First Temple.
928 Division of Kingdom into Israel (north) and Judah (south).
722 Assyrians conquer northern Kingdom of Israel.
701 Hezekiah successfully withstands Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem.
597 Babylonians capture Jerusalem.
586 Nebuchadnezzar destroys city and First Temple and exiles Jews to Babylon.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD (539 BCE - 332 BCE)
539 Fall of Babylon.
538-37 Cyrus allows Jews (about 50,000) to return to Jerusalem from Babylon
520 Works begins on the building of the Second Temple under Zerubbabel.
515 Completion and rededication of the Second Temple.
445 Nehemiah appointed governor of Judea by Artaxerxes and rebuilds city walls.
397 Ezra the Scribe initiates religious reforms.
THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD (167 BCE - CE 63)
332 Alexander the Great conquers Palestine.
323 Death of Alexander in Babylon - Wars of Succession begin.
320 Ptolemy I captures Jerusalem.
320 - 198 Rule of Egyptian Ptolemies.
198 - 167 Rule of the Syrian Seleucids.
167 Antiochus IV of Syria outlaws Juda and desecrates the Second Temple.
THE HASMONEAN PERIOD (167 BCE - CE 63)
167 - 141 Maccabean War of Liberation.
164 Judah Maccabee recaptures Jerusalem and restores Temple.
166 - 160 Rule of Judah the Maccabee.
160 - 143 Rule of Jonathan.
143 - 135 Rule of Simon Maccabeus.
ROMAN PERIOD (63 BCE - 324 CE)
63 General Pompey and his Roman legions conquer Jerusalem.
63 - 37 Hasmonean rules continue but under protection of Rome.
40 Rome appoints Herod King of Judea.
40 - CE 4 Reign of Herod the Great.
37 King Herod captures Jerusalem.
18 Herod commences rebuilding of Temple.
ca. 7 BCE - ca. 31 CE Life of Jesus of Nazareth
4 BCE Jerusalem is governed from Caesarea by Roman procurators.
Herod dies.
New Testament Period under Roman Rule (First Century CE)

26 - 36 Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator of Judea.
27 - 31 The ministry of Jesus.
31 Crucifixion of Jesus.
63 Temple completed.
66 Jews revolt against the Romans.
70 Jerusalem is demolished by Titus; survivors are exiled or sold into slavery.
132 Bar Kochba leads a doomed revolt against Rome.
135 Emperor Hadrian rebuilds Jerusalem; builds new walls and renames the city Aelia
Capitolina and country Palestine; bans Jews from Jerusalem.
BYZANTINE PERIOD (324 - 638)
313 Emperor Constantine legalizes Christianity.
324 Constantine becomes sole ruler of the empire.
326 Queen Helena discovers Gologotha and other holy sites; her son, Constantine, builds the Anastasis (Church of the Holy Sepulchre).
438 Empress Eudocia allows Jews to live in Jersualem.
614 Persian conquest of Jerusalem.
628 Emperor Heraculis recaptures the city.
EARLY MUSLIM PERIOD (639 - 1099)
638 Six years after the Mohammed's death, Caliph Omar captures Jerusalem; Jews readmitted.
691 Dome of the Rock is built by Caliph Abd al-Malik.
715 Al-Aqsa Mosque is completed by al-Walid al-Malik.
750 Power shifts from the Umayyards of Damascus to the Abbasids of Baghdad; Abbasids continue to enhance Jerusalem.
969 Fatimid conquest is soon followed by destruction of churches and synagogues.
1071 Seljuks devastate Jerusalem.

CRUSADER PERIOD (1099 - 1187)
1099 Crusaders led by Godfrey de Bouillon, capture Jerusalem; Baldwin I declared king; Jews and Muslims are slaughtered.
1187 Kurdish general Saladin captures Jerusalem from Crusaders; permits Jews and Muslims to return and settle in the city.

WATCH "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN" The FILM, this is the PArt of the history the Film Presents.

AYYUBID and MAMLUK PERIOD (1187-1517)
1229 Treaty returns Jerusalem to the Crusaders.
1244 Mamluk Sultans defeat the Ayyubids and rule Jerusalem; city again in Muslim hands.
1260 Mamluks of Egypt rule Jerusalem from Cairo.
1267 Rabbi Moshe Ben Nahman arrives from Spain, revives Jewish congregation.
1275 Marco Polo stops in Jerusalem on his way to China.
1291 Acre, the last Crusader stronghold in the Holy Land, is captured by the Mamluks.
1348 Black Death Plague hits Jerusalem.
1492 Jews arrive following Spanish Exile.
OTTOMAN PERIOD (1517 - 1917)
1517 Palestine and Jerusalem become part of the Ottoman Empire.
1537 - 1541 Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilds the city walls.
1799 Napoleon invades Palestine but does not try to conquer Jerusalem.
1831 Mohammed Ali of Egypt rules the country for nine years.
1838 First consulate (British) opens in Jerusalem.
1849 Consecration of Christ Church, first Protestant church in the Near East.
1860 First Jewish settlement outside walls of the city.
1892 Railroad connects the city to the coast.
1898 Visit by Dr. Theodor Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization.
THE BRITISH MANDATE PERIOD (1917 - 1948)
1917 British conquest and General Allenby's entry into Jerusalem.
1920 The Mandate for Palestine is conferred on Britain.
1921-29 Arab-Jewish disturbances.
1936-39 Arab-Jewish disturbances.
1925 Hebrew University buildings are inaugurated.
1947 United Nations Resolution to create a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine.
1948 British withdraw from Palestine; the country is invaded by armies from neighboring states; the State of Israel is declared on May 14.
THE ISRAELI PERIOD (1948 - )
1948 - 49 Israel War of Liberation (also known as the "1948-1949 War").
1949 Israel-TransJordan Armistice Agreement signed; Jerusalem divided between two countries.
Jerusalem proclaimed capital of Israel; East Jerusalem is ruled by Jordan.
1967 Israelis capture Old City during Six-Day War.
1973 The Yom Kippur War.
1979 Egypt and Israel sign peace treaty.
1987 Beginning of Intifada.
1993 Israel and the PLO sign the Declaration of Principles.
1995 Israel and Jordan sign peace treaty.

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/jerusalem/jerutime.html

Sparton !! If you want more i can dig up more details about Omer Bin-Khatab and his conquest i have detailed Records of that era, this stuf won't be available on the net since most of it is recored by Muslim Scholars and you have to read there extensive text to read into the history. I'll compile something and Put it up. the History Channel is more Comprehensive but doesn't reach deep enough.

mysterious

June 7th, 2005, 09:58 PM

No problem Spartan. Great information digging up by you and amazing contribution by adsh over here. Btw adsh, when you mention "Bentizines", are you referring to the Byzantines?

adsH

June 7th, 2005, 11:48 PM

No problem Spartan. Great information digging up by you and amazing contribution by adsh over here. Btw adsh, when you mention "Bentizines", are you referring to the Byzantines?

yeup!! :) you KNow how i am with spelling. i do try to Proof read stuff to make sure its not too Hard for People to read but sometimes Spelling gets out of hand !!!

mysterious

June 8th, 2005, 12:47 AM

Thats alrite pal, was just making sure. Didnt think this new faction (Bentizines) came out of nowhere! :P

adsH

June 13th, 2005, 08:34 PM

On the civil war, yes the country was torn by rife. Pakistan was pumping
up the force to crush the rebellion. There were talk of mass murders and
such. But it is not the rebellion that done in the Pakistan army. It is
the war ... those 90,000 strong force had the capability to give a fight
to the invaders. 90,000 strong force would not lay down arms in 13 days
because of the rebellion. However as happened in Iraq, they already saw
the cause is lost and gave up.

I'll let you inn on a secret Larf!. It wasn't the Pak or indian Army that led to the Creation of Bangladesh it was the Political incompetence of the Politicians in Islamabad. They treated Bangladesh as a piece of territory. The 90,000 troops you talk off were held in conflict long before those 13 days you talk about. they were there to Stop a rebellion they were under-equipped had to deal with east Pakistani members of the forces defecting. there Food water arms supply Blocked. There is no way A modern Task force can hold up against two Larger numbered well equipped well supplied strategically in a better position forces. If they went onn further it was suicide for them. They had lost the battle when they had begun suppressing the uprising!! frankly India took too much credit for the war. Even tho PAF was still brining down better equipped and better supplied IAF Assets. Even tho East PAF at the end was annihilated to Nothing since they had not much to start with. All the credit for the war should go to the two political Parties ruling on the two sides one the West Pakistani and the other the Indian Political party.

gf0012-aust

June 23rd, 2005, 04:42 AM

Someone rapidly needs to identify a relevant Great Commander out of this little imbroglio or the thread risks getting locked.

WebMaster

June 23rd, 2005, 01:11 PM

Since, people can't stay on the topic.

Locking.

If you need to discuss any further, the thread is open here:
http://www.globaltalknetworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12770

Also, when you QUOTE someone, please make sure you leave their name in the "quote" so we know who you are quoting.

Like this:

text

Enjoy!

Bordo-Bereli

June 24th, 2005, 06:51 AM

The bests are M.Kemal Atatürk,Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Khan.They have changed the history.

driftder

July 5th, 2005, 01:21 PM

gf0012-aust

July 5th, 2005, 10:08 PM

ahem I came across this character while researching the Napoleonic Wars - Sir John Moore. It seems his most epic moment was at the Battle of Corunna. Any comments on him? Preferably non-political that is.

What I have dug out is quite astonishing. He joined the army at 15 years old! Wonder what I was doing when I was his age? Definitely not learning how to stand parade or bear muskets. Here's some snippets on him at this link: http://www.napoleonguide.com/moore.htm. What strikes my attention was the reference to light infantry - the forerunner of the commandoes I believe. BTW just to cure my curiousity, just who is the foremost commander during the Napoleonic Wars era? Desaix, Soult or Wellington?

I didn't think that Sir John was responsible for the creation of the tactics of the 95th. The 95th is regarded as the forerunner of modern infantry. I was under the clear view that it was Wellingtons initiative and mainly Beckwiths innovations. Moore developed tactics for the 43rd and 52nd, some of which were utilised by the 95th. But it was Beckwith who was the main tactician.

A good history reference on the 95th and its history is Mark Urbans "Rifles"

adsH

July 8th, 2005, 09:39 PM

Admiral Lord Nelson

Admiral Lord Nelson, Someone I am reading about these Days, Ahem, it will give me something to talk about during the Admiralty Interview Board, when i'm asked about HIstory.

Every year on October 21, England commemorates Trafalgar Day. One cannot use the term "celebrates," for although this holiday does commemorate one of the greatest victories at sea, it also memorializes the death of England's most beloved admiral. In the years that have passed since the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 his reputation has not been surpassed, but rather has grown as the admirals of other navies have looked to his life for inspiration and tactical instruction. Although many admirals have been compared to him, none has ever been set above him. Even Raymond Ames Spruance, who won an overwhelming victory over a superior Japanese force at Midway and went on to win many other great battles of World War II in the Pacific, can never take better than second place to this extraordinary man.

Horatio Nelson was born on September 29, 1758, to Catherine (Suckling) Nelson, the wife of Edmund Nelson, rector of Burnham Thorpe, in the county of Norfolk. He was a sickly child from the start and grew up small and slender. His mother died on Boxing Day in 1767, when young Horatio was only nine years old.When the Falklands Crisis of 1770 arose, young Horatio saw this as an opportunity to contribute his effort to the problem and asked his older brother William to write a letter to their father asking him to have their uncle Maurice Suckling take him to sea.

Captain Suckling was dubious about this idea, but he agreed and Horatio entered the Navy on January 1, 1771. At the time he was only twelve years old, but this was common. Horatio's introduction to the Navy was singularly unpromising, for when he arrived at Chatham he was unable to find his ship and no one would direct him to it. The slender young boy wandered about the docks until someone finally took pity on him and delivered him to the Raisonnable, but his uncle (who was the ship's captain) was not aboard and would not arrive for days. Thus he spent several nights alone before his uncle finally arrived and welcomed him to the service.

In spite of this less than promising beginning, the young Nelson stuck it out and worked his way up the ranks. At the age of twenty he "made post," achieving the rank of captain. Always a romantic, the young Nelson was quick to fall in love with pretty young women, although his friends were able to warn him off the more unsuitable ones. But near the end of his duty as captain of HMS Boreas , he met a young widow by the name of Fanny Nisbet. Still trying to get over his hopeless passion for the beautiful Mary Montray and captivated by Fanny's little boy Josiah, he failed to notice that this woman was a total mismatch for his personality. However his marriage to her seemed to be happy enough for the next several years, mostly because he had nothing else to compare his marriage to, and because he was unhappily beached.

Only after the French Revolution did his efforts to gain a new sea command finally pay off, and he entered the phase of his life that would make him famous. However it also cost him dearly. While doing joint operations with the army ashore at Calvi he was wounded in the face, costing him the sight of his right eye (although the eye itself was not disfigured, contrary to popular belief). Shortly after his dramatic success at the Battle of St. Vincent he undertook an ambitious plan to capture a treasure ship supposedly anchored at Santa Cruz de Teneriffe in the Canary Islands. This ill-conceived and tactically meaningless campaign concluded with him badly wounded while storming the mole of Santa Cruz, his right arm so badly mangled that it could not be saved.

Any other admiral might well have hauled down his flag for good and retired ashore. However Nelson only took long enough to recover from his wounds before he got himself assigned a new flagship, H. M. S. Vanguard and was back to the Med. Here he chased the French fleet to Egypt and crushed them in the Battle of the Nile. Although it was a far larger victory than had ever been won before, he was not the area CinC, so the government saw fit to give him only the lowest title of nobility and he became Baron Nelson of the Nile.

In the course of the battle he was wounded in the head, which apparently caused him some minimal brain damage. Certainly his personality was unsettled and he was uniquely vulnerable to the temptations that he would find as he put in at Naples. There he would meet the beautiful Emma, Lady Hamilton. Recognizing the limitations of a one-armed admiral, she made herself indispensable to him through dozens of small assistances. She quickly discovered how susceptable he was to flattery and fed that. Soon he was hopelessly her captive, to the point that he came to actively detest his lawful wife.

All his Neapolitan campaigns went disastrously wrong and in time he was relieved of command. Instead of going straight home to England, he accompanied the Hamiltons through Germany, thus growing constantly closer and closer to his new mistress. By the time he got home, scandal had preceeded him. After a few disgusting scenes, the Admiralty decided that the only thing to do was to get him off to sea and away from Lady Hamilton.

His new command, in the Baltic and under the command of the utterly imagination-free Sir Hyde Parker, was not exactly his idea of an ideal posting. But he dutifully raised his flag and set himself to work planning to deal with the problem of the Northern Alliance. This was the Battle of Copenhagen, in which he created naval history. Midway through the battle Sir Hyde lost his nerve and sent out the recall signal. Nelson, knowing that this was no time to flee, put his blind eye to good use by putting his telescope to it and saying, "I really don't see the signal." Sticking out the fight, he crushed the Danish fleet. Subsequently he was made a viscount, the title he would take with him to his death.

After a brief stint of duty patrolling the English Channel, Nelson was permitted to go into a pleasant retirement which he fully believed to be permanent. He then joined Lady Hamilton, purchasing for her an estate at Merton, just outside of London. Together with elderly Sir William Hamilton, he and Emma enjoyed two of the happiest years in their lives, marred only by the fact that they could not make their relationship legitimate and thus provide for their daughter Horatia. Even when old Sir William died, there remained the matter of Fanny, and all of Emma's behind-the-scenes manipulations could not drive her to her grave.

Not long after Sir William's death, the political climate changed. Lord Nelson received orders to hoist his flag aboard H. M. S. Victory and patrol the Medeteranian, containing the French fleet at Tulon. He would remain aboard that ship for all but a month of the rest of his life. For the next two years he did not once stir himself from his flagship, although it wandered many nautical miles in its patrols. In a day before modern accomodation ladders it was simply too much work for a one- armed admiral to come and go, so he let everyone else come to him.

In August of 1805, sick with weariness after a fruitless chase to the West Indes and back, Nelson applied for and received a leave of absense. Immediately he went to Merton to join his beloved Lady Hamilton. But that leave would be cut short after problems in the fleet led the Admiralty to call him back. Although he misliked going to sea so quickly, duty was too much a part of his personality for him to refuse.

There is something of the cosmic in the unfolding of that last month as he proceeded toward the final battle. Even almost two hundred years after the fact, a well-written account of how Lord Nelson went into the Battle of Trafalgar can bring tears to a reader's eyes. Even as he was winning his greatest victory ever, he was struck down by a sniper's bullet. He lingered on in great agony for several hours, long enough to know that he had won a victory grander than he'd ever won before. However he would not live to reap its glory, which would go to his unworthy brother William. The true line, represented by his daughter Horatia, would be tormented by privation and obscurity while others would bask in the radiance of his legacy.

Links to Lord Nelson Sites

Visit The Nelson Room for books on Nelson and the Napoleonic Wars. There is both fiction and non-fiction here. Find out which of CS Forester's Hornblower books features a cameo appearance by Captain Hardy. Learn where Jack Aubrey of Patrick O'Brian's wildly popular Aubrey/Maturin series met Nelson, and what the admiral told him about maneuvers.

A number of the surrounding counties of England have also gone together with Norfolk to put together a very large and impressive site, England Expects -- Nelson.

Another excellent site is maintained by a commercial CD-Rom producer, Anglia Multimedia. This is actually a Web sampler of one of their CD-Roms, Admiral Horatio Nelson

The navy yard at Portsmouth has a page dedicated to HMS Victory, his final flagship, which is permanently berthed there and now serves as the flagship of the base commandant.

Broadside is a site dedicated to the Royal Navy in the time of the Napoleonic Wars. It includes a sizeable amount of information on Nelson.

The Historical Maritime Society has more information on Nelson's navy.

There is also a site on The Battle of St. Vincent, where Nelson had his first brush with fame.

The Topsail Group is a site for young people dedicated to Lord Nelson. The Topsail Group is a junior branch of The Nelson Society.

The Maritime History and Naval Heritage Homepage has a section of essays on Nelson.

You may also want to take a look at my own academic paper, Lord Nelson and Sea Power.

I also found a nice set of essays about his historical significance, written by a modern admirer.

Perhaps you have heard the sailors' expression of "tapping the admiral" for getting an unauthorized drink. According to legend, when Lord Nelson's body was brought back to England in a cask of spirits of wine, the liquid was found to be low. Supposedly the sailors were sneaking in to raid it, hence the expression. However this writer argues that the legend is completely misunderstood and that the story was conceived not out of spite, but out of love that transforms the whole legend into a strange parallel with the Eucharist . However one wonders why the writer failed to notice an even more powerful parallel -- the slang term "Nelson's blood" for rum would come not from a mistaken idea that his body was preserved in rum, but that the sailors' daily ration was a way of communing with their beloved admiral.

In his own lifetime Lord Nelson was the butt of vicious political cartoons attacking his relationship with Lady Hamilton. And here's a modern jokester who decides that the admiral still needs to be cut down a notch or two, with "Lord Nelson(Off. to prudes, and perhaps Nelson)."

There are also many more tidbits at sites not specifically dedicated to Nelson himself. At a military history site I found a small collection of his letters. Of course these are but a tiny sampling of the vast number of letters he wrote in his lifetime. Those that were saved fill eight volumes, and doubtless many more were thrown away by their recipients or otherwise lost. But even the few examples I found online illuminate some part of his character. As a historian, I recognize the importance of primary source materials such as these.

American Memory has a picture of him contemplating his plans just before the Battle of Trafalgar. Although this portrait wasn't done from life, the artist clearly knew his subject well enough to portray him properly. Like all the other contemporanous portraits, it puts to rest the false notion of his wearing a patch to hide his blind eye. (Anyone who'd studied his letters would have known how relieved he was at Calvi because his appearance would not be marred). Because it cannot be linked directly, use their search system to ask for "Horatio Nelson"

The Royal Naval Museum Trading Company has a wide selection of Nelson memorabilia available for purchase.

Here is a site dedicated to Nelson's opposite number on land, The Duke of Wellington
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3682/lord_nelson.html

driftder

July 9th, 2005, 10:17 AM

I didn't think that Sir John was responsible for the creation of the tactics of the 95th. The 95th is regarded as the forerunner of modern infantry. I was under the clear view that it was Wellingtons initiative and mainly Beckwiths innovations. Moore developed tactics for the 43rd and 52nd, some of which were utilised by the 95th. But it was Beckwith who was the main tactician.

A good history reference on the 95th and its history is Mark Urbans "Rifles"

I tried to google up (Sydney) Beckwith but not much. What gives the idea that Beckwith is the better light infantry commander of his time? I found lots of references to the 95th and the Light Division. Incidentally for their time, its rather bold of them to raise a body of infanteers who's primary role is to skirmish.

gf0012-aust

July 9th, 2005, 07:20 PM

I tried to google up (Sydney) Beckwith but not much. What gives the idea that Beckwith is the better light infantry commander of his time? I found lots of references to the 95th and the Light Division. Incidentally for their time, its rather bold of them to raise a body of infanteers who's primary role is to skirmish.

A few reasons as to why.

Sir John Moore wasn't with the 95th all the time - plus his career in comparison with Beckwith esp with the 95th was shorter.

Beckwith was responsible for more on ground tactics in actual engagements than Sir John.

It might be worth your while trying to get a copy of the book at your "state" or "national" library. It is regarded as the definitive history of the 95th and according to some I know is now included as required reading for some staff courses.

The 95th is regarded as the precursor to modern light infantry - well ahead of their time.

ajay_ijn

July 10th, 2005, 01:31 AM

Anybody here likes the Desert Fox, with his lethal 88mm Flak,he could threaten an Force.

I am talking abput the great ww2 Commder Erwin Rommel.

Pendekar

July 12th, 2005, 07:03 AM

i'm not sure which of the german units was the best, Afrikakorps or SS division totenkopf, leibstandarte and das reich.

pasukangeraktjepat

July 12th, 2005, 07:27 AM

I'm not know too much about other german unit in WW2, but i think Rommel Afrikakorps has a remarkable achievement, their lossess is mainly because their logistic problem.

driftder

July 12th, 2005, 01:37 PM

A few reasons as to why.

Sir John Moore wasn't with the 95th all the time - plus his career in comparison with Beckwith esp with the 95th was shorter.

Beckwith was responsible for more on ground tactics in actual engagements than Sir John.

It might be worth your while trying to get a copy of the book at your "state" or "national" library. It is regarded as the definitive history of the 95th and according to some I know is now included as required reading for some staff courses.

The 95th is regarded as the precursor to modern light infantry - well ahead of their time.

Interesting...I believe I shall take up your advice on getting a copy of Mark Urban's though its not available to public here - though I hear there's a copy in Safti. Worse to worse, I might cross some silver with Amazon and get them to ship me one :D.

Back to topic, I came across a reference of Light Bobs and grenadiers which got integrated in light infantry work - apologies for the bad post, I will try to dig up the link and reference again and post it later. But if I am not wrong, Beckwith was a Colonel of one of the 95th battalions then. I doubt he would have much to do with planning campaigns as compared with Sir John Moore. Point I am trying to make is the difference in command level between the two. After all, its about Great Commanders :)

driftder

July 12th, 2005, 01:43 PM

Anybody here likes the Desert Fox, with his lethal 88mm Flak,he could threaten an Force.

I am talking abput the great ww2 Commder Erwin Rommel.

Hmm nothing against him, he got elan and flair. But he met his Waterloo ala El Alamien when he ran into Monty:D. A proposal? Let you take up cudgels for Rommel and I do the like for ole Monty - be interesting, provided it not get out of hand and degrade into a flaming debacle :rolleyes:

gf0012-aust

July 12th, 2005, 09:09 PM

Back to topic, I came across a reference of Light Bobs and grenadiers which got integrated in light infantry work - apologies for the bad post, I will try to dig up the link and reference again and post it later. But if I am not wrong, Beckwith was a Colonel of one of the 95th battalions then. I doubt he would have much to do with planning campaigns as compared with Sir John Moore. Point I am trying to make is the difference in command level between the two. After all, its about Great Commanders :)

I guess my view is that the 95th was very different from other units. It had relative freedom of movement with its commanders - a lot of the decisions to move it around were made by wellington - not by moore. at the contact level it was local commanders like Beckworth et al who made fire and movement decisions, and in fact at one point the unit made a critical engagement sans any instruction from their ranking officer - they were that "good" at reading the battleground.

I think Moore is a good commander, but I don't see that (eg) his stewardship of the 95th during the Peninsular Wars qualifies him as "great" :)

nz enthusiast

July 13th, 2005, 05:23 AM

I nominate Freyberg, hes probably been the closest thing NZ has had to a proper general, even though i think he was actually British. I think his name has actually been reserved for the name of a future combat vehicle (in case NZ ever makes one). You guys know what he did in Gallipoli?

Freyberg of Wellington and of Munstead, Bernard Cyril Freyberg, 1st Baron (1889-1963), commander-in-chief of the New Zealand forces in World War II and Governor-General of New Zealand (1946-1952). Born on March 21, 1889 in Richmond, Surrey, in England, Freyberg emigrated with his parents to New Zealand in 1891, where he studied at Wellington College. He served in the territorial army in New Zealand (1911-1912). Freyberg served in World War I, taking part in the retreat from Antwerp and in the Gallipoli campaign (1915), before being posted to the Western Front, where he fought with legendary bravery. Wounded nine times, he was awarded three Distinguished Service Orders and won the Victoria Cross at Beaumont Hamel in December 1917. Then, at the age of 27, Freyberg was promoted to brigadier general (the youngest of his rank in the British Army) and commanded the 29th Division (1917-1918). Between the wars he held senior staff appointments in the War Office.

At the outbreak of World War II, Freyberg was selected by Michael Savage to command the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force. He sought and was granted a charter that gave him the right to disregard such orders from the Imperial General Staff as seemed to endanger the lives of his soldiers unnecessarily. Now a major general, Freyberg fought with the Second Division in the Mediterranean: in 1941 he was sent to Greece but was forced to evacuate to Crete where he took control of the Allied forces. Freyberg fought in almost all of the Western Desert operations up to the German capitulation in Tunisia. He also led the assault on Monte Cassino in Italy (February 1944) and has been blamed by some for the bombing of the monastery there. In 1946 Freyberg was made Governor-General of New Zealand and on his return to England was appointed Deputy Constable and Lieutenant-Governor of Windsor Castle (1953). He was knighted in 1942, and raised to the peerage in 1951. He died at Windsor on July 4, 1963.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Daelin

September 2nd, 2005, 04:26 PM

I have to put a vote in for Napoleon Bonaparte. Not saying I applaud his morality or support his goals, but it does stand out, when a man builds an army, outwits a rabid bureaucracy in the process, loses it all and flat-out rebuilds another army all over again.

Can't say as I know of anyone else who managed the feat.

veronius

September 24th, 2005, 10:55 PM

driftder

September 27th, 2005, 09:32 AM

I don't know if this name has been mentioned here before, but didn't Liddell Hart, or Fuller perhaps, write a book titled "Scipio Africanus: A Greater Than Napoleon"? This is a man who defeated Hannibal, after all, despite being outnumbered.

Just a thought.

Scipio? Fighting outnumbered? I would like to read up on that - in which engagements was he faced by a numerically superior force? Hannibal though was facing more than one Roman army when he was frolicking up and down the boot of Italy and held his forces together regardless.

veronius

September 27th, 2005, 10:22 PM

General_Conway

September 30th, 2005, 03:16 PM

I don't know if this name has been mentioned here before, but didn't Liddell Hart, or Fuller perhaps, write a book titled "Scipio Africanus: A Greater Than Napoleon"? This is a man who defeated Hannibal, after all, despite being outnumbered.

Just a thought.

Now, I do not know who wrote your book, but I have read two books by BH Liddell Hart: HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR and STRATEGY. I find him a very knowledgeable strategist and a well balanced writter- by that for example he did not take either side during WWII, he just laid out what happened.

driftder

October 2nd, 2005, 12:25 AM

He was outnumbered at Zama apparently. In infantry anyway. He did have the edge in cavalry and while that edge still didn't bring him to parity overall, it was what proved decisive according to the accounts I've read.

No slight on Hannibal's greatness intended, by the way. Still, facing down more than one army isn't quite the feat it first appears to be when you allow for the fact that the defending, multiple-army side has to cover as much territory as possible and have forces in position ready to counter (or at least shadow and harass, if you're contending with a general of Hannibal's stature) any possible move the invader might make.

No slight indeed eh? You must have forgotten how Hannibal get his supplies - by living off the country since his nearest supply base is in Spain. The distance and travel between Spain and Italy during Hannibal's time is measured differently from ours today - no Airbus then. No forgetting too that Hannibal's army has soldiers from different races - Gauls, Spaniards, Nubians etc and he has to hold them together. Not only that but he has to learn how to use them effectively, as proven by his success in many battles in the Italian boot. Resupply and reinforcements also don't come easy - the Romans cut off the passes and supply lines of Hannibal and used a containment strategy after finding their heads handed to them by Hannibal, best example being Cannae.

Now lets look at old Scipio. He don't have a problem with supplies as he is getting them from Sicily and Rome via the Med. which can be considered a Roman lake at that time, since no contenders. He also did not have to live off the land, wondering where his next meals coming from. His army is more easily controlled - mostly Romans with some auxillary levies.

Back at Zama - well lets get some feedback from the others but Zama is not as one-sided as you would make it out to be for old Scipio. :p:

veronius

October 4th, 2005, 10:03 PM

stephen weist

October 5th, 2005, 01:53 PM

veronius

October 5th, 2005, 08:45 PM

winning battles is nice but being a great commander also means knowing when not to fight. Admiral BYNG, Royal Navy should be included here. He was sent on a task, assembled his fleet and upon arrival sent recon out to scout his adversary. When he learned he was hopelessly out numbered and wcould not win without a larger force he wisely withdrew. He was subsequently found guilty of whatever trumped up charge the admiralty could think of at court marshal, and shot. nice thanks for saving thousands of lives dont you think.

Very good point. I'll go read up on Byng!

By the way I think Ulysses Grant probably rates in here somehwre, in terms of knowing when and when not. In the reading I've done on his military career, the point that seems to come up above all is that generals capable of prompt, decisive action when it is required are very rare indeed.

driftder

October 6th, 2005, 01:05 PM

So now all of a sudden we're talking logistics and supplies instead of Zama... hmmm, okay then! I certainly don't recall ever saying Hannibal had a walk in the park feeding his troops and keeping them together in Italy, but if you say I did, I guess I must have. I can be so silly sometimes! (By the way, I love that "via the Med" - sounds so darn easy! Y'know, I bet I could supply about 30,000 men that way myself!)

Anyway, back to Zama, which I think is what we were talking about in the first place. I think I might be repeating myself, but... Scipio was outnumbered. Hannibal may have been bottled up in Carthage, facing an uncertain supply situation, missing a good number of the veterans he'd had in Italy etc. etc. but I still wouldn't want to face him with inferior numbers, not nohow. Not even with an Airbus on my side.

In response to another post (General Conway), I've checked and it was Liddell Hart who wrote the book - Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon. Can't claim to have read it myself, but the title says it all. And this quote from LH himself:

"Scipio's battles are richer in stratagems and ruses--many still feasible today--than those of any other commander in history."

Not that that means we have to agree, of course...

Well logistics is part of war. Check out any war that don't rely on logistics. As for what you said or implied to say, all I did was point out the different situations both Scipio and Hannibal were facing. As for the "via the Med." part, well which is easier - fighting a convoy through hostile territory be it land or water, or travelling on ground which is controlled and swept safe? During the 1st Punic War, the Romans wrest control of the Med. away from Carthage. If its still Carthage who controls the Med., why the heck should Hannibal go via the Alps? Definitely not for the scenery.

As for Zama, Scipio wasn't that outnumbered - both sides had roughly equal numbers of infantry, with Scipio having a edge in cavalry due to his alliance with the Nubians under Masinissa. And when they met at Zama, Scipio have the better trained troops as compared to Hannibal's 15000 veterans (reference to http://www.roman-empire.net/army/zama.html) (http://www.roman-empire.net/army/zama.html).

Then again, based on another reference, Hannibal had the upper hand - reference to http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/zama.htm. As you said, still that doesn't mean we have to agree.

veronius

October 6th, 2005, 09:44 PM

Well logistics is part of war. Check out any war that don't rely on logistics. As for what you said or implied to say, all I did was point out the different situations both Scipio and Hannibal were facing. As for the "via the Med." part, well which is easier - fighting a convoy through hostile territory be it land or water, or travelling on ground which is controlled and swept safe? During the 1st Punic War, the Romans wrest control of the Med. away from Carthage. If its still Carthage who controls the Med., why the heck should Hannibal go via the Alps? Definitely not for the scenery.

As for Zama, Scipio wasn't that outnumbered - both sides had roughly equal numbers of infantry, with Scipio having a edge in cavalry due to his alliance with the Nubians under Masinissa. And when they met at Zama, Scipio have the better trained troops as compared to Hannibal's 15000 veterans (reference to http://www.roman-empire.net/army/zama.html) (http://www.roman-empire.net/army/zama.html).

Then again, based on another reference, Hannibal had the upper hand - reference to http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/zama.htm. As you said, still that doesn't mean we have to agree.

Whoa - so I said logistics has nothing to do with success in war? Man, I can't believe the stupid stuff I say sometimes! Once I finish this post I'm getting a checkup.

If Roman domination of the seas was so total, how did Hannibal get what was left of his army back to Africa before the battle of Zama? (No references to Airbus will be accepted.) Rome may have had 'command of the sea' but no ancient navy was capable of anything like a total blockade of an entire nation's coastline over open waters. Hannibal spent much of his time in Italy trying to capture a port so he could be resupplied by sea, which suggests that it was indeed possible.

But whether or not Hannibal got supplies through by sea, don't forget the many regions and cities that defected to him on his way to Italy and during his time there. In some respects Hannibal was in what might be considered friendly territory for much of his Italian campaign. The Gauls in northern Italy alone supplied several thousand soldiers and who knows what in the way of supplies when he passed through. Large parts of southern Italy went over to Hannibal and I'm sure the people there did more than just wave flags for him.

The barca source you sent (I've seen it before) seems a bit inconsistent. In listing the opposing forces for Zama they give Scipio 43,000 men and then say 30,000 men - in the same paragraph! So I don't know that it's much help to either of us.

Finally, it is true that Hannibal had a high proportion of fairly raw, inexperienced troops, but his classic encirclement strategy depended for its success on the presence of large bodies of relatively weak troops in the centre, who would at best be able to just hold their own against the Romans, if not giving way slightly, while the flanks closed in.

driftder

October 7th, 2005, 01:03 PM

Whoa - so I said logistics has nothing to do with success in war? Man, I can't believe the stupid stuff I say sometimes! Once I finish this post I'm getting a checkup.

If I wasn't chuckling away, I be reaching for a trusty Browning right now. Alright you did not said specifically that logistics has nothing to do with success in war, so you can save yourself a trip to the shrink. Lets pass up on the logistics angle and assume that we both agree that without proper logistics, it be like wearing 2 left boots at the same time.

If Roman domination of the seas was so total, how did Hannibal get what was left of his army back to Africa before the battle of Zama? (No references to Airbus will be accepted.) Rome may have had 'command of the sea' but no ancient navy was capable of anything like a total blockade of an entire nation's coastline over open waters. Hannibal spent much of his time in Italy trying to capture a port so he could be resupplied by sea, which suggests that it was indeed possible.

I can't find any reference as to how Hannibal and his forces from Italy manage to get to Carthage, so no comments on that. He might have got in by submarine for all I know. As for "command of the sea" and a "total blockade", there is a great difference. Perhaps I should be visiting my shrink since all I said was Rome "wrested control of the Med." - as in the Roman navy manage to kick Carthage's navy ass.

But whether or not Hannibal got supplies through by sea, don't forget the many regions and cities that defected to him on his way to Italy and during his time there. In some respects Hannibal was in what might be considered friendly territory for much of his Italian campaign. The Gauls in northern Italy alone supplied several thousand soldiers and who knows what in the way of supplies when he passed through. Large parts of southern Italy went over to Hannibal and I'm sure the people there did more than just wave flags for him.

Hannibal was not as successful at causing a mass defection, unlike what Scipio did with Massinissa and his Nubians. Southern Italy merely switch sides when Hannibal was threatening them but did not supply any troops. With Rome still undefeated and recent memory of how punitive she can get, most southern Italy cities just swear dubious loyalty.

Most of his supplies were via Spain and the Northern Alps or by looting. Some of it might have been via sea but then again without confirmation, that's just conjecture. What was known was through his campaign, Hannibal did not get a permanent sea port for resupply but somehow he manage to remain in contact - via the sea?

The barca source you sent (I've seen it before) seems a bit inconsistent. In listing the opposing forces for Zama they give Scipio 43,000 men and then say 30,000 men - in the same paragraph! So I don't know that it's much help to either of us.

Only after you pointed it out - perhaps the 13000 simply melted away in the face of Rome's might? If I can find a more reliable source I will post it when I come across any. Strange but the old book sources are more in-depth then the internet types and less full of personal skews.

Finally, it is true that Hannibal had a high proportion of fairly raw, inexperienced troops, but his classic encirclement strategy depended for its success on the presence of large bodies of relatively weak troops in the centre, who would at best be able to just hold their own against the Romans, if not giving way slightly, while the flanks closed in.

He did not have his cavalry at that time, his own supplies and allies were shaky and Scipio had spent time since his first encounter with Hannibal training his troops to counter Hannibal's tactics. If both had been equally match, my money would have been on Hannibal.

veronius

October 7th, 2005, 01:44 PM

Here's one I like:

"The amateurs discuss tactics. The professionals discuss logistics." Napoleon.

FYI I'm going with tactics.

More to come, once the boss stops looking over my shoulder.

gf0012-aust

October 7th, 2005, 06:31 PM

Here's one I like:

"The amateurs discuss tactics. The professionals discuss logistics." Napoleon.

FYI I'm going with tactics.

More to come, once the boss stops looking over my shoulder.

But any discussion about military history that doesn't look at logistics is almost bordering on disingenuine.

You cannot do it - the most significant of all analysis includes it as it is the singular most important issue. Countries have been wiped off maps due to poor logistics, commanders have made and broken their reputations based on it.

The above mantra is very true, "amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics". Thats why on any given military forum you can work out who the kids are straight away as they are focussed on technological issues, eg the biggest calibre, the fastest jet, the fastest missile, million man armies, the "biggest" tank etc..... They invariably talk about those things as they have almost no comprehension of the fact that its logistics that determines the outcome.

It's a bit like discussing a racing cars engine and ignoring the fact that it's missing the fuel tank. it may be the fastest car on the track, but if you forget to make the fuel tank big enough, or you forget to bring fuel it will also be the fastest one to stop.

The other military and management maxim is: PPPPPP. In short: Prior Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance. Logistics is very much part of that process to prevent the last 3 words in the statement happening. ;)

veronius

October 7th, 2005, 09:13 PM

But any discussion about military history that doesn't look at logistics is almost bordering on disingenuine.

You cannot do it - the most significant of all analysis includes it as it is the singular most important issue. Countries have been wiped off maps due to poor logistics, commanders have made and broken their reputations based on it.

The above mantra is very true, "amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics". Thats why on any given military forum you can work out who the kids are straight away as they are focussed on technological issues, eg the biggest calibre, the fastest jet, the fastest missile, million man armies, the "biggest" tank etc..... They invariably talk about those things as they have almost no comprehension of the fact that its logistics that determines the outcome.

It's a bit like discussing a racing cars engine and ignoring the fact that it's missing the fuel tank. it may be the fastest car on the track, but if you forget to make the fuel tank big enough, or you forget to bring fuel it will also be the fastest one to stop.

The other military and management maxim is: PPPPPP. In short: Prior Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance. Logistics is very much part of that process to prevent the last 3 words in the statement happening. ;)

My intent in writing the line "FYI I'm going with tactics" was simply lighthearted self-deprecation, i.e. "I'm an amateur." In fact, I totally agree with your assessment of the overriding importance of logistics, and I find the subject completely fascinating.

My particular interest is Roman military history, in case you hadn't guessed, but my chief regret and constant source of frustration is that so little is known of the logistical arrangements of the legions - or that of any ancient armies, for that matter. (What about Alexander, for example? Who were his supply wonks and how the h*** did they do it?) And what I'd give to have been a fly on the wall when those now-forgotten men who kept the Roman army going into Britain fed, armed and clothed were told to draw up their plans!

I also enjoy playing wargames but again am frustrated by their complete emphasis on the strategic or tactical at the expense of logistics. Every time I move a formation from one front or one flank to another, nagging in the back of my mind are questions such as "yeah, but who's getting them their food and ammunition?", "how many troops do they have to split away to guard the supply columns?"

Or "where are they going to put the latrines?" and (hopefully an unrelated question) "where are they getting their fresh water?"

Don't get me wrong: I love the strategy and tactics as much as anyone. But I wish someone would come out with a simulation that puts you in the position of chief logistician, or at least elevates the question of logistics to the point that it affects play even one-half as seriously as it does in real life.

veronius

October 7th, 2005, 09:28 PM

I can't find any reference as to how Hannibal and his forces from Italy manage to get to Carthage, so no comments on that. He might have got in by submarine for all I know. As for "command of the sea" and a "total blockade", there is a great difference. Perhaps I should be visiting my shrink since all I said was Rome "wrested control of the Med." - as in the Roman navy manage to kick Carthage's navy ass.

He got back to Carthage by sea. Your barca source has it. Also, he apparently was resupplied by sea at least once during the campaign. And Carthage got an army into Sicily at one point after Rome "wrested control of the Mediterranean" (p***ing Hannibal off mightily, as he had been squawking for reinforcements to no avail).

Hannibal was not as successful at causing a mass defection, unlike what Scipio did with Massinissa and his Nubians. Southern Italy merely switch sides when Hannibal was threatening them but did not supply any troops. With Rome still undefeated and recent memory of how punitive she can get, most southern Italy cities just swear dubious loyalty.

Whatever their motivation may have been, not even the most cynical southern Italian town council, having 'switched' to Hannibal's side, would then have been in any position to refuse a request/demand for supplies. At least until a Roman army was nearby. If Hannibal had any difficulty in securing supplies, he would have looked first to even the shakiest of his southern Italian 'allies.'

BTW, it's Numidians, not Nubians.

Most of his supplies were via Spain and the Northern Alps or by looting. Some of it might have been via sea but then again without confirmation, that's just conjecture. What was known was through his campaign, Hannibal did not get a permanent sea port for resupply but somehow he manage to remain in contact - via the sea?

He didn't get a permanent port? What about Tarentum? And I'm sure there must have been others, at least sporadically. Further research required.

Strange but the old book sources are more in-depth then the internet types and less full of personal skews.

Agreed. Books are always better. Wish I could find my Livy!

If both had been equally match, my money would have been on Hannibal.

And if Hannibal had outnumbered Scipio, even more so, right? See above, ad nauseam...

veronius

October 7th, 2005, 09:36 PM

BTW, are we getting massively off-topic here or what??

gf0012-aust

October 7th, 2005, 10:21 PM

My intent in writing the line "FYI I'm going with tactics" was simply lighthearted self-deprecation, i.e. "I'm an amateur." In fact, I totally agree with your assessment of the overriding importance of logistics, and I find the subject completely fascinating..

My apols - I misread the attempt at self deprecation.. ;) There's nothing wrong woth being an amateur - my frustration kicks in when the "technological fundamentalists" get fixated on platforms and without any comprehension of what is required to get the whole thing to work. A good example being the thread on the PLAN Aircraft Carrier.

A good micro example of how logistics can fail and dramatically contribute to collapse is "Rorkes Drift". - from there on it just gets bigger and uglier...

driftder

October 8th, 2005, 08:51 AM

BTW, are we getting massively off-topic here or what??

oh most assuredly but what the heck, as we are enjoying it:). If, big if unless some one verify it (any takers?)Tarentum was under Hannibal's control, how long did he kept it and why did he lost it? Interesting eh? Guess I will need to re-read that particular bit.

And don't go hankering to be a army logistician - trust me, your head will go bald from the hair pulling :D and not to mention the form filling. That's in peace time and if the balloon goes up, as the Brits call it - well good luck matey and I will be waiting for my bullets and beans, thank you :p:.

Until then, let's call it quits while we are ahead - won't want to get a shut n lock down from the mods :D.

driftder

October 8th, 2005, 09:00 AM

veronius

October 8th, 2005, 11:16 AM

Weapons talk is always more "sexy" then dull, plain old logistics. It's something like wearing the red beret on a night out to impress the ladies, and no please don't knife me for that - just making a comparison that's all. Until they been on the sharp end, and experience how a warm meal, good socks and clothing affects morale e.g. try walking for a whole in damp socks and boots that don't have a chance to dry out urgh!! - until then, guess weapons talk and brag will take centre stage.

At some Roman outpost in Britain - Vindolanda I think - a few years back they discovered some letters written by members of the garrison. One was from a soldier to his parents in Egypt, thanking them for the socks they'd sent him.

I'm sure being an army logistician would be a permanent headache, but I still hanker for a computer game that would at least emphasize the more satisfying aspects.

veronius

October 8th, 2005, 08:54 PM

My apols - I misread the attempt at self deprecation.. ;)

No need whatsoever to apologize, by the way - it didn't even occur to me to be bothered. I recognize when I make these little remarks that they're often capable of being read more than one way.

veronius

October 8th, 2005, 08:59 PM

If, big if unless some one verify it (any takers?)Tarentum was under Hannibal's control, how long did he kept it and why did he lost it? Interesting eh? Guess I will need to re-read that particular bit.

Again I'm going with the barca source - they say he took everything but the citadel in Tarentum. And according to the map they provide, when he finally left for Africa he left from somewhere in the same vicinity, suggesting that once he took the place he never did actually lose it until he quit Italy for good.

This is great stuff - I'm learning more about the 2nd Punic than I've ever known before.

Pursuit Curve

October 9th, 2005, 01:24 PM

gf0012-aust

October 10th, 2005, 12:32 AM

In my books it would Sir Julian Byng, and his ever capable Deputy Sir Arthur Currie and their masterful taking of Vimy Ridge, April 1917. In fact the template for planning and rehersal made the Canadian Corps the best. most feared and repsected Commonwealth shock troops that the germans faced. In fact, their reputation was so great that before the Battle of Amiens in 1918, the canadians sent a wireless section and 3 battalions to the Ypres sector to confuse the Germans as to the sector of attack.

Rommel was a tactician, not a strategist, One can see the weakness he had when he forward positioned what ever assets he had on D-Day, totally discounting Allied Naval Bombardment and Air Superiority.

I suppose this is where parochialism can blur objectivity if not used in context. ;)

Monash (australian) was the first general to implement combined arms (air, tanks, troops and arty) at Hamel. He was also part of the planning group for Amiens. Ther Germans used to refer to the Australian Divisions as englands "shock troops" and even tried to create a propoganda leaflet based around the fact that Australians were used as shock troops and cannon fodder to protect their (Gt Britain) own.

Rommel said that he could have taken Nth Africa if he'd had the Australian 9th Div on his side.

be that as it may, the Canadians were magnificent at Vimy Ridge.

Pursuit Curve

October 10th, 2005, 12:49 AM

I suppose this is where parochialism can blur objectivity if not used in context. ;)

Monash (australian) was the first general to implement combined arms (air, tanks, troops and arty) at Hamel. He was also part of the planning group for Amiens. Ther Germans used to refer to the Australian Divisions as englands "shock troops" and even tried to create a propoganda leaflet based around the fact that Australians were used as shock troops and cannon fodder to protect their (Gt Britain) own.

Rommel said that he could have taken Nth Africa if he'd had the Australian 9th Div on his side.

be that as it may, the Canadians were magnificent at Vimy Ridge.

GF, Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels:)
In all honesty the Canaidains would always have an easier time of things because you Aussies would soften up the germans ( The Somme, Passchendaele) If the Australians had not taken Pozieres, and the Australians had not pushed so hard at the Passch, then the CEF would not have had a snowballs chance in hell. As a Canadian, I sometimes have to fight for the recognition that we were always lumped together with the British when history, either The Great War, or the Second World War histories are discussed. I do apologise, MOnash was a great innovator, and the victories on the western front owe alot to his genius and drive. I do think though that the historical fact was that in late 1917 and 1918, the last troops worth a damn on the Allied side were the Australians and canucks, even the AEF was no where near ready to make a significant contribution to the war on a grand scale, it was up to the Commonwealth Corps to make victory possible.

Cheers, and you made some good points in your response:)

gf0012-aust

October 10th, 2005, 01:38 AM

I do think though that the historical fact was that in late 1917 and 1918, the last troops worth a damn on the Allied side were the Australians and canucks, even the AEF was no where near ready to make a significant contribution to the war on a grand scale, it was up to the Commonwealth Corps to make victory possible.

I take great delight in reminding my american friends that:

1) The Americans were trained by the Australians at Haigs and Plummers insistence.

2) That Pershing was told that he either put his troops under Australian command - or he would be sent home.

3) That the July 4 attack date was Monash's use of psychological warfare - he knew that the Americans would be all fired up if they attacked on Independance Day.

4) That the Americans only got to play significantly at Amien after they demonstrated capability at Hamel. I don't think I've ever seen any reference to Australian command in any of the American reference works on the AEF. ;)

The poor old Kiwis tend to get swallowed up in history as well. Although we did get to fight together as an ANZAC division in the end. Another group who didn't get proper accolades were the Indians at Tobruk and also under Wingate (and he gets treated very shabbily) .

The ANZACs and the Canucks have always had to fight for recognition. In some history books on the Great War you even wonder if we were there sometimes....

Pursuit Curve

October 10th, 2005, 01:55 PM

I take great delight in reminding my american friends that:

1) The Americans were trained by the Australians at Haigs and Plummers insistence.

2) That Pershing was told that he either put his troops under Australian command - or he would be sent home.

3) That the July 4 attack date was Monash's use of psychological warfare - he knew that the Americans would be all fired up if they attacked on Independance Day.

4) That the Americans only got to play significantly at Amien after they demonstrated capability at Hamel. I don't think I've ever seen any reference to Australian command in any of the American reference works on the AEF. ;)

The poor old Kiwis tend to get swallowed up in history as well. Although we did get to fight together as an ANZAC division in the end. Another group who didn;t get proper accolades were the Indians at Tobruk and also under Wingate (and he gets treated veryu shabbily) .

The ANZACs and the Canucks have always had to fight for recognition. In some history books on the Great War you even wonder if we were there sometimes....

Thank you for your reply, Sir Arthur Currie also had to fight with Haig, At the
Hieght of the Third Battle of Ypres ( Passchendaele) Currie was aked by Haig to take the Field.

On Nov. 6, 1917 Canadian troops captured Belgium’s Passchendaele ridge, ending a gruelling offensive that had begun on July 31, 1917. The Battle of Passchendaele is remembered for its atrocious conditions, heavy casualties and Canadian valour. Canadians, instrumental in securing victory, earned a total of nine Victoria Crosses for their courage. In this CBC Radio documentary marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele, survivors describe feeling a sense of pride at having succeeded where those before them had failed.

*
Heavy rain and prolonged shelling turned the entire battlefield into a quagmire. Trenches could not be dug and planes were often grounded as a result of the extreme conditions. British commander Sir Douglas Haig looked to the Canadians to bring his ill-fated campaign to some sort of conclusion. In October Allied forces were bolstered by the arrival of the Canadian Corps under the command of Gen. Arthur Currie.

• General Currie was reluctant to enter his troops into the Passchendaele offensive, predicting 16,000 casualties. He was overruled but insisted he be given time to reorganize before proceeding. This time was used to improve roads and drainage systems, build duckboards to traverse the mud and platforms for artillery.
• Hauntingly close to Currie’s prediction, 15,654 Canadians were killed or wounded.

Also Currie fought to keep the CEF together during the German Offensive in March 1918. Thank goodness he did, the germans did not attack the Canadians in their sector, because it was too toughly defended.

I have to admit that there is also one other formation that gets short shrift by the historians, namely the South Africans. I have read of the ANZAC Corps and admire the pluck and real fighting ability that the Australians and New Zealanders showed. Perhaps the similarity in Canadian and Australian Casualty returns for the War 60,000 dead is a testimanet to our respective countries. But the similiarity ends there. There is a distinct Bias, at least after the War by historians because they viewed the Canadians as "Fochs Pets" and did not appreciate that we were building our own identity as a seperate country, no longer being dependent on England for direction.

• Australia had a smaller population
• Australia did not execute Shell Shocked troops like we did
• Australia did not have conscription like Canada had to resort to in 1918

Other than that, Canadian and Australian troops both had contempt for the way the war was being run, and we also had a contempt for discipline behind the lines.

You are making good points, and I compliment you on your knowledge.

Cheers

driftder

December 21st, 2005, 10:15 AM

....
• Australia did not execute Shell Shocked troops like we did
..........

Other than that, Canadian and Australian troops both had contempt for the way the war was being run, and we also had a contempt for discipline behind the lines.

You are making good points, and I compliment you on your knowledge.

Cheers

surprise...shell-shocked troops were executed during battle? any instances that can be certified? and what are the consequences after? were the executioners ever punished?

I asked because I find it strange to execute/punish those who had gone where I dare not step.

veronius

December 21st, 2005, 03:09 PM

surprise...shell-shocked troops were executed during battle? any instances that can be certified? and what are the consequences after? were the executioners ever punished?

I asked because I find it strange to execute/punish those who had gone where I dare not step.

Just off the top of my head it certainly seems possible that shell-shocked soldiers could have been executed in the heat of battle on the orders of officers who simply thought they were cowards, refusing a direct order to advance, etc. At least in the days before "shell-shock" was understood as a legitimate reaction among some troops to the incredible stress of battle.

driftder

December 29th, 2005, 07:01 AM

Just off the top of my head it certainly seems possible that shell-shocked soldiers could have been executed in the heat of battle on the orders of officers who simply thought they were cowards, refusing a direct order to advance, etc. At least in the days before "shell-shock" was understood as a legitimate reaction among some troops to the incredible stress of battle.

really....I fail to understand how executing tired, combat weary soldiers help to boost morale or instill bravery to fight harder. perhaps those who order such executions should be given infantry gear and lead by example in the face of the enemy's fires? preferably leading a frontal assault at bayonet point against a hardened position?

pardon my sarcasm but sometimes such stupidity really get me going.

veronius

December 29th, 2005, 11:17 AM

really....I fail to understand how executing tired, combat weary soldiers help to boost morale or instill bravery to fight harder. perhaps those who order such executions should be given infantry gear and lead by example in the face of the enemy's fires? preferably leading a frontal assault at bayonet point against a hardened position?

pardon my sarcasm but sometimes such stupidity really get me going.

It's stupid, cruel and shortsighted - hardly the first time such things have happened in the military!

Berserk Fury

January 19th, 2006, 09:29 PM

It's stupid, cruel and shortsighted - hardly the first time such things have happened in the military!

really....I fail to understand how executing tired, combat weary soldiers help to boost morale or instill bravery to fight harder. perhaps those who order such executions should be given infantry gear and lead by example in the face of the enemy's fires? preferably leading a frontal assault at bayonet point against a hardened position?

pardon my sarcasm but sometimes such stupidity really get me going.

Personally, I think you've either got it all wrong or your choice of words is wrong. Executing soldiers doesn't boost moral or make them braver or fight harder. When your life is on the line, your ultimate potential is unleashed; though this may sound cruel, it's unfortunately true. If you want to be honorable, not be remembered as a traitor, and your superior is threatening to kill you, you have no choice but to engage the enemy with as much force as you can muster in hopes of NOT being executed. In other words, it forces them to fight hard.
If it's an emergency and you need to reach a short-term goal, this would be the way to go if you're cruel enough.
Long term wise, it's a stupid concept.
Officers most always look after their command, and, in this world, they don't kill their own soldiers unless the troops belong to a theocratic country etc.

correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read this whole post.

Temoor_A

January 27th, 2006, 10:08 AM

Alexander - The Great has been the best commander in the human history of warfare.

His accomplishments are un-believable!

- Crushing defeat to Asian Super-empire "Babylon".
- Forming an Empire that united EAST with the WEST.
- Capture of a City based on Mediterranean Sea (that was considered to be un-conquerable)
- One of the largest conquests achieved by a single man.

Apart from him some other great commanders include:

- Genghis Khan
- Saladin
- Rommel
- Patton
- Martial Zhukov
- Napolean

mysterious

January 27th, 2006, 01:31 PM

Berserk Fury

January 29th, 2006, 01:19 PM

Wasn't he gay?
anyhow...
I'd say Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun were probably the best of their times.

agni 2

March 5th, 2006, 05:20 AM

kostas-zochios

March 27th, 2006, 11:38 AM

I believe the most important commander of al time was alexander the great. In a few years he crushed and concured the largest empire in the world (persia). His conquest was described by many as an "armed exploration", because he wanted to get to the "great eastern sea" and he explored the coasts of the indian ocean. (He didnt know how far the pacific was from him :D ) Unfortunately, Alexender was only a military commander, because he didn't live long enough to govern his new lands.

Strategos

March 27th, 2006, 04:17 PM

Rommel. He was given a tiny force,and he very nearly won with it

rattmuff

June 6th, 2006, 08:55 AM

Big-E

June 6th, 2006, 08:59 AM

Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan B. Forrest.

long live usa

June 7th, 2006, 05:29 PM

Charles XII (12th)
Defeated Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland during the first years of the Great Nothern War (1700-1721) with brilliant tactics and excellent strategies.

General Zjukov
Succesfully defended Moscow and started a really succesfull campaign to crush the "wehrmacht".

Rommel, Montgomery, Wellington
zhukov?well....he did not really defend moscow autum rains and cold weather did,he then used this to his advantage launching winter counter atacks with troops that had cold weather gear then simply threw huge amounts of men at the germans along a broad front,i agree with you on rommel and wellington but montgomery?his plans for the western front were indeed bold and he wanted to end the war sooner but market garden was a big failure
manstein was a great military commander he was able to recapture kharkhov and prevented a collapse of the eastern front

adsH

June 7th, 2006, 05:37 PM

In 975, Arabs introduce modern arithmetical notation to Europeans, making calculations much easier than they had been with Roman numerals. (has any one seen the Movie the 13th Warrior).

excusme the modern arithemetical notions were developed by indian not arabs and even newton also agrees or is it einstein

I believe Indians developed the numeral Zero which stems from Brahmi Numeral, but Modern Numeral were developed by Arabs All Mathematicians agree with that. Arab Numerals are based on Brahmi.

This is side talk lets stick to topic!

India (Hind) is a great region, Arabia is a great region with an equally colorful past, we're Talking about who were the great commanders within these great regions or other regions.

PLease Keep your posts focussed, we can discuss Numerals and other Historical topics in another thread.

Thnx
adsH

adsH

June 7th, 2006, 05:51 PM

If you ask me Alexander was a great commander but I find it extremely hard to negotiate with this 'myth' of him being 'great' (there the suffix to his name). There was 'nothing' great about him. His personal character would cause many respectable and chivalric commanders like Saladin quite a bit of embarassment.

I'll be posting an article shortly as to why Alexander was just Alexander and not 'great'.

Salahudin Ayubee, is one of the finest and the Ethical ones within historym but i'de be cautios when discussing the greatest commander.

We should really develop a metric or a criteria to analyze and sum up the great personalities within history,

for instance Salhudin, may have been ethical and forgiving. however he did not command an army as diverse and as multi cultural as Alexander, Alexander had this rare trait that made him connect to every race he Ruled he knew what made people feel connected, He created bond without the suppport of region or religion. Salahudin was able to utilize the strong Religious bond amongst his soldiers and followers. Alexander had to deal with the Prejudges of his european subjects.

Alexander created something unusual and creating this sort of unity amongst multiple cultures is rare and has probably never been witnessed

long live usa

June 7th, 2006, 07:39 PM

adsH

June 9th, 2006, 07:01 AM

legend has it that when "Alexander the Great" lay dying in 323 B.C. one of his subordinates asked"who is to inherit your empire?"his responde was simply "the strongest" his only natural heir was an infant that along with its mother(roxanne) was soon killed,this created a power struggle between four rivals that lasted 29 years thus breaking up alexanders great empire he should have had the foresight to resolve this issue

Great leaders are not necesserily great men!

I Believe sometimes they forget the fact that that they're mere mortals. In Alexanders case wouldn't you suspect his own relation with his father Philip may have played a part in him subconsciously not wanting a child of his own a child who could of repeated what he had done. Been as competitive as him.

And then again there's always the the Delusion factor "That he was the son of God" he accomplished many things, things never thought (then) possible, this may have caused him to believe in immortality.

Comments please!

Further on to this discussion i was reading an article about the insecurities that all leaders have, they are really insecure about there positions. probably because Success is so easy for them, that they start feeling guilty about them reaching the top with little effort, They start to feel like frauds!

I guess if Alexandre didn't want a child it may have had something to do with the fact that he used his fathers position to influence himself into his role. I mean if Alexander had a child he would potentially be the next Alexander, something he wouldn't want!

long live usa

June 10th, 2006, 05:38 PM

this is all myth as well but one of the four rivals vying for power after alexanders death(ptolemy) was his govenor of eygypt and threw some trickery he had gotten alexanders body and buried it at the shrine of amon were alexander was supposedly named a god,things like this could have made him think he was immortal,and indeed he may not have wanted a son as great as he

Fuat

June 28th, 2006, 06:14 AM

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk!!!

robsta83

June 28th, 2006, 06:33 AM

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk!!!
Why? Who is he? What did he do?
I'm curious...

adsH

June 28th, 2006, 06:40 AM

Why? Who is he? What did he do?
I'm curious...

A nationalist, and the creator of Modern secular Turkey, from the Ottoman Empire!

adsH

June 28th, 2006, 06:48 AM

About Alexander

Further on to this discussion i was reading an article about the insecurities that all leaders have, they are really insecure about there positions. probably because Success is so easy for them, that they start feeling guilty about them reaching the top with little effort, They start to feel like frauds!

I guess if Alexandre didn't want a child it may have had something to do with the fact that he used his fathers position to influence himself into his role. I mean if Alexander had a child he would potentially be the next Alexander, something he wouldn't want!

Fuat

June 29th, 2006, 09:36 AM

Yes U say true adsH!!! Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,A nationalist, and the creator of Modern secular Turkey, from the Ottoman Empire!

He Wins Allied Commanders on World War One!

merocaine

June 30th, 2006, 11:02 AM

Nepoleon before 1807, outstanding leader of men, possessed with a terrific ability to read his opponents thoughts, but what an [Admin edit: Please refrain from using abusive language. Thank you].

Gerasimos

August 5th, 2006, 01:41 PM

Excuse me ,but you are very very very wrong.First of all Kemal didn't win all allies.During 1919-1922,Kemal manage to defeat Greeks and capture the Greek Minor Asia and Greek cities like Smyrni and Ephesos(Owned by Greece after ww1),because the political climate in Greece was very bad and because Italy helped Kemal by arming his soldiers,because they thought G.Britain was using Greece and they surely didn't want this to happen...

Lujan AusMUR

October 1st, 2006, 03:27 PM

So hard to say...

Alex for his efforts in his known world, Ceasars for their invisioned rome not as a point of time but as eternity the perfect unison, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hannibal, Philip, Kahn, Rommel, Kennedy, the AXIS & the allies, Nepoleon, cold war, communism, fascism, dictators, maoists, machiavelli(the prince), sun ztu(art of war), cao cao, three kindoms, liu bei, zhang fei, guan liu... even the latest Vlad sseppish who become vlad the impalar our as you may know him as Dracula count of Rommania!

so many men, that became soldiers, then leaders, then titans, then in some even the gods couldnt stop them, even became god themselves!!!!

All were great in there own time, in there own known world, own knowledge... all great amazing men! Titans! All i aspire to to be and become men among men and men of men and all that all i can be and more so all i want to be!

I and proud to be human even in all the blood! for better or for worst they were none the lest great that aspired and done amazing and great things. But of course the slaughter of men is never an aspiration or feat or in any way at all applaudable, BUT, is life. "We men are wretched things"

in the end i vote for all that support and are of use to me at the current time, always valueing the work of them all... for the knowledge they had given me and the use of it that i am able to get.

"Grieve not that such men died. Rather thank God that such men Lived!"

fylr71

October 12th, 2006, 04:51 PM

Nepoleon before 1807, outstanding leader of men, possessed with a terrific ability to read his opponents thoughts, but what an [Admin edit: Please refrain from using abusive language. Thank you].

Napoleon is joined only by Alexander and Hannibal as true great commanders. What sets these three apart is their ability to win the "stunning victory" the one that they weren't supposed to win. Napoleon finest victory was at Austerlitz but he also won spectacular victories at Dresden and Ulm, and many others. Napoleon's victories were stunning but Alexander and Hannibal's were even more impressive. Alexander routed the Persians at Granicus and Issus, but his greatest feat was Gaugamela. At Gaugamela Alexander was outnumbered 5 to 1 and he still won in spectacular fashon using brilliant tactics. Hannibal managed to cross the Alps then beat the Romans 4 times. He beat them in a skirmish at Ticinus, used brilliant tactics at Trebia, and managed to lure the Romans into an ambush at Trasimine. However, Cannae was where possibly the most impressive victory in history took place. Hannibal was outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 but managed to surround the Romans using brilliant tactics in the first double envelopment. At Cannae Hannibal's army killed 70,000 Romans including decimating the Roman nobility. He did this all within one day making it the bloodiest single day in history. Carthage's refusal to reinforce Hannibal cost them their existance. Had Hannibal recieved reinforcments and siege equipment following Cannae he could've taken Rome and western civilization may have been different. It is in my opinion that Hannibal was the greatest commander in history:)

merocaine

October 13th, 2006, 05:39 AM

It is in my opinion that Hannibal was the greatest commander in history

na your right, check out this book
Hannibal
by Ross Leckie

Its a fiction book not fact, but it brings the time to life like no other I've read.

Ozzy Blizzard

October 13th, 2006, 12:26 PM

Napoleon is joined only by Alexander and Hannibal as true great commanders. What sets these three apart is their ability to win the "stunning victory" the one that they weren't supposed to win. Napoleon finest victory was at Austerlitz but he also won spectacular victories at Dresden and Ulm, and many others. Napoleon's victories were stunning but Alexander and Hannibal's were even more impressive. Alexander routed the Persians at Granicus and Issus, but his greatest feat was Gaugamela. At Gaugamela Alexander was outnumbered 5 to 1 and he still won in spectacular fashon using brilliant tactics. Hannibal managed to cross the Alps then beat the Romans 4 times. He beat them in a skirmish at Ticinus, used brilliant tactics at Trebia, and managed to lure the Romans into an ambush at Trasimine. However, Cannae was where possibly the most impressive victory in history took place. Hannibal was outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 but managed to surround the Romans using brilliant tactics in the first double envelopment. At Cannae Hannibal's army killed 70,000 Romans including decimating the Roman nobility. He did this all within one day making it the bloodiest single day in history. Carthage's refusal to reinforce Hannibal cost them their existance. Had Hannibal recieved reinforcments and siege equipment following Cannae he could've taken Rome and western civilization may have been different. It is in my opinion that Hannibal was the greatest commander in history:)

What about Scipio Africanas? The tremendous skill he showed in defeating 3 armies each larger than his own (his was about 40 000, 2 consular armies of 4 legions and 4 ala), with fresh, green troops during the second punic war. His tactical brilliance during the seige of New Carthage, sacking a well fortified city with enemy reinforcements that outnumbered his own army only days march away. He took the walls within a week, an allmost unheard of feat in the ancient world. After defeating all of the Barca family in spain and their spanish allies, who constantly outnumbered Scipio by as many as 3 to 1, he secured the iberian peninsular, gaining manny spanish allies and cuting of any hope of reinforcements getting through to Hannibal due to roman domination of the Mediterrainian scine the first punic war. Scipio's great victories in spain were the second turning point of the war. After Cannae hannibal had been marching around southern Italy for years, as the war there became one of seige and maneuver and it was clear that nothing decicive could come of it. After the punic defeats in spain, Scipio (the only roman who had won a major victory, let alone victory's this impressive) was chosen to lead the invasion of africa. This drew Hannibal, and his battle hardened veterans of cannea and Trazimene, into the final battle at Zama, where through original tactics, like changing the Triplex Aces formation, negating the punic cavalry and a devestating blow to the center the 'greatest commander in history' was running for the hills while his battle hardned veterans where put to the sword.
In my mind Scipio has to be in the top 5 and i really cant say who's the greatest out of those 5.

To be honnest i have to question how good Hannibal really was. Ok, his two great victories at Lake Trazamine and Cannea showed brilliant tactics and planning on hanibals part, but also the truely oustanding army he led. To stay in cover while the whole roman collum marched by, without making a noise or breaking showed dicipline that was verry rare in before the professional roman army. The doulble envelopment that decemated the largest army rome had ever fielded was only possible due to the Lybian spearmen, the best single unit of infantry in the world IMHO. I guess a commander is only as good as his men are capable. But this highlights Scipio's victories, Hanibals troops had fought under him for years in spain long before they marched on Italy. Scipio won brilliant victories with a conscript army that he moulded into an awesome fighting force in a matter of months. Hanibals victories showed a true tactical genius, but his oponents were less than equal. The armys he faced at Trazimene and Cannea were conscript armies who had not seen action, and their commanders were not by any means tactical geniuses. For me the true test of a great commander is only against a worthy oponent. Many great commanders who won great victories like Romell or Pompe the Great won those victories by exploiting enemy weakness, even against larger armys. Romells victory at Gazala was a close run thing and his reckless advance allmost ended in catastrophy, it was only british incompetence that led to victory. After Montgomery took comand of the 8th army Romell never won another battle. Like Montgomery to Romell or Ceaser or Sertorious to Pompe, Hanibals limitations were shown clearly whan he faced Scipio. So personally i dont think he deserves the no 1 spot.

By the way i dont think hannibal ever had a chance of taking Rome, seige equipment or not. Rome was well fortified, had a poulation of over a million and would never have capitulated. If Hanibals army got over the walls it would have been cut to peices in day after day of street fighting. But he probably wouldnt have gotten over the walls for months untill someone defected and betrayed the romans (this was quite common) or starved the city out, but that sword cut both ways. Italian farmers were allready burning their crops and hannibal had to constantly move around southern italy to find fodder and feed. To invest a city like rome, with no supplies from carthage due to roman naval superiority, hanibals army would have been decimated by disease and hunger long before the city was. This is why hanibal decided that rome was more than he could chew.

merocaine

October 13th, 2006, 01:12 PM

robsta83

October 13th, 2006, 03:31 PM

Well if you think lack of support is influential in stopping great commanders from being truly awesome, how can you go past General George S. Patton, especially from accounts taken from himself he believed he was Hannibal, his chances at greatness were superceded by political motivations etc, all of his campaigns were fought in good fashion and remained undefeated.

merocaine

October 13th, 2006, 04:09 PM

Patton could have been great alright, if he'd been fighting for the Germans or Russians, The Brits and Americans lacked commanders with true imagination, Patton was one, but his style ment taking to many risks for a Commander in an allied army.

weasel1962

October 13th, 2006, 09:37 PM

Candidates?

Tactically, Napolean has got to be one. Winning a battle of Ulm without firing a shot. Too bad he lost the war.

Next closest is Nobunaga (guy who almost unified Japan). Vs Imagawa several times its size (just struck at the centre & killed the guy). Too bad he got assassinated before unification of Japan.

Strategically, Gandhi has got to be the ultimate. Winning a war of independence without even carrying a gun.

Ozzy Blizzard

October 14th, 2006, 01:26 AM

Ok I'm going to stick up for Hannibal here. Just a few points.

Hannibals army was a Mersenary army.
They fought for money, not glory or land or the Honour of Cartage. How he convinced them to cross the Alps is behond me, and to fight for all that time against army after army, as hope of relief dwindled, is to my mind a feat of Generalship that is unsurpassed.
Those Green troops(!) as you call the Legionaries in spain were part of the finest military machine of the ancient world. They were fighting the enemies that they routinely chewed up, lightly armed tribesmen for the most part, of negible devotion to the Cartagen cause.
This is not to disparage Scripio, an excellent commander, but his human material was far supierior to his enemies.

Rome could afford to lose Legion after Legion (and did) while Cartage could'ent afford to lose there main force, when they were beaten (Zama) there was no reserve.

Hannibal kept Cartage in the game, when he was beaten it was game over. Scripio could have been killed, the would have been a new Scripio in months,
at the head of a new Legion landing in Africa.

Your Rommel V Monty example is a bit disengenious. Look at the Comparison between troop figures during the major battles and there could have been only one winner. Its like saying Grant was a better General than Lee, because he had more supplys, troops, arti, and a larger economy backing him.

What Hannibal, Rommell, and Lee had in common (besides being on the losing side!) was they could'ent afford to lose once, there opponents could and did.

Hannibal has inspired commanders to the present day because of his tactics and i suppose, imagination. With Hannibal, his legacy is all the more impressive because who he was fighting.

One other thing, there were 12 different languages in Hanibals army, to command in battle must have been a nightmare!

I'll have to dissagree with you on the Romell v Montgommery. Aukinleck also had material superiority, but he still lost. Ok The allies had the advantage but it was by no means pre determined that Romell was going to loose. I've heard that argument before and i really dont agree.

But you're right it was a bad example of what i was trying to say. A better example is Pompe the Great. Pompe was reguarded as romes greatest general in the last half of the 1st century AD by his peers and was undoutably an outstanding commander. He had led troops on the field scine he was 20 in romes first civil war in 88bc. He was a verry skilled tactition and was equally skilled in logistics, was carismatic and cared for and inspired his men. He was a diciplened trainer and was used novell tactics. All the hallmarks of a truely great general. His operation against cillition pirates showed just how well he could command land and naval forces over a large area of operation with anchient comunications (ok he had massive rescources but a lesser man would not have been up to the task). His invasion and conquest of armenia and pontus was more impressive. His army of 6 legions (about 40 000 men including auxillaries) defeated a combined pontic and armeanian army of over 100 000. To be fair his legions were much better than those at cannae and the roman army had evolved much over the past century, and the lightly armed eastern troops were cut down by roman heavy infantry. But it was brilliant tactics that won the day. But theres a difference between a great commander and one of the greatest in history. However brilliant pompe was only twice was he confronted by a commander who was his equal. in the first civil war in 88bc, the young pompe marched an army to spain to confront Gius Marrius and his general Sertoroius who had set up annother sennate. the young pompe outnumbered Sertorious by 2 to 1 but was outmanuvered and out fought by, IMHO, one of the three best roman commanders ever. ok he was 20 and not verry experianced, understandable. But in the 2nd civil war in 44 bc he faced Julius Ceaser. When they met on the battlefield in Greece, Pompe had a a 2 to 1 superiority in infantry and more importantly 3 to 1 in cavalry (often the decicive arm in manny ancient battles). But again was outmanuvered by the better man. Pompe was truely a great general but he failed the final test. A battle against a worthy foe when he held the advantage.

Much of the same could be said about hannibal. I'm not disputing his tactical genius or his amazing ability to forge an army of over 20 different tribes into one of the greatest armies ever fielded. And to convince them to campain in italy for almost a decade. However brilliant and inspiring his victories at Cannae and Trazimene were, they were against an army, who might have been roman but was a long way from the professional cohort army that germanicus led. The legions at Cannea were orginized in the traditional tripplex aces with the hastati, pricipes and triarii and were all organized and equiped the in the same manner. But they were all millitia men. Peasants, farmers and land owners who had been hastily levied in the wake of the devistating defeat at Trazimene. They were in no way comperable to Hannibal's battle hardened veterans, especially in cavalry, most of whom had campaigned under hannibal for a decade. The only time Hannibal faced an army who was as good as his, under a commander who was as skilled was at Zama.

And the spanish tribesmen were no walk over, neither were the gauls, namibians or lybians. Its easy to blow them off as simple tribesmen but they were in fact formidable wariors, heavily armed, often armoured and almost a foot taller than the average roman. The roman's suffered some massive defeats at the hands of similar tribesmen in tranzalpine gaul between the 1st and 2nd punic wars loosing entire legions. So dont think Scipio's green, untiried army's victories in spain against three armies who each outnumbered his own was by any means a cakewalk. Scipio could have been anhialated at any time if he allowed his enemies to concentrate. But through outstanding generalship he took New Carthage, ran around sapin keeping his enemies dispersed and defeated them each in turn. The various tribes allegiances mostly lay on three things, the strength of a power which could only be judged by victories on the battlefield, the promise of loot, and the personal relationship between tribal leaders and either roman or punic aristocracy/commanders. The many tribal leaders in spain had verry strong personal loyalties to the Barca fafily. It was only after Scipio defeated two of the punic/allied armies in spain and took New Carthage that many of those tribal leaders saw the righting on the wall, and due to Scipio's outstanding diplomacy.

Sure carthage couldn't afford hannibal to loose, rome could afford Scipio to loose but were not comparing the war efforts of rome and carthage, or the union and confederacy, were comparing the comanders themselves and the way we all seem to be judging that is through there performance on the battlefield (we might compare strategic decisions, wich IMO is just as important but perhaps another time). Sure Carthage was allways going to loose, Scipio or not, because unlike any other anchient power, Rome saw war as a compleat contest were the looser was subjugated and therefore defeat was unaceptable at any cost. All the other mediterainian powers saw war as purely an extention of diplomacy, the objective was to get a favorable peace treaty. Nevertheless we can only judge Hannibal on his actions on the battlefield, not on the Punic war effort.

Just like Pompe, Hannibal won brilliant victories, especially at Cannea when he was outnumberd 2 to 1. These flashy and inspiring victories are well documented and everyone knows them and just like pompe, Hannibal has gained great fame (rightly deserved fame). However, just like pompe, his true test was only at Zama,(as pompe's was when he faces Ceaser) where he held the numerical advantage (just like pompe), had his battle hardened vetterans and local units, deployed elephants which were oftern devestating and was fighting on his own ground. He was defeated by the outnumbered Scipio who proved to be more than hannibals equal. hannibals victories are worthy of being studied and showed a tactical genius and a brilliant imagination. But IMHO he doesn't deserve the no 1 spot because of the simple fact that the only time he faced a commander of comperable ability, comanding an army that wasn't hastily mobilized, and was as battle hardned and trained as his, when he held several advantages (numerical superiority, elephants, fighting on his own ground, logistical advantage), he was unable to capitalise on his enemies incompetence and was soundly defeated.

For me thats the true test of a great commander, not just brilliant exploitation of enemy mistakes but the defeat of a worthy foe on similar terms. Flashy tactics oftern gain the reputation of one of the 'greatest commanders in history' but we need to look at the context of these battles, and the commanders performance in battlles where the context was on more equal terms. If you look at things this way, Romell looses his magic, and so does Hannibal, yet Napoleon, Scipio and Julius Ceasar become more impressive.

merocaine

October 14th, 2006, 06:31 AM

Ozzy Blizzard,

I'd love to reply in detail but I'm heading away for the weekend, but I'd like to say that the above is a super post. Your knowadge of Roman warfare is pretty supurb. You have me convinced, maybe Hannibal doesent deserve the very top spot.
Still I think your being a little harsh with the Zuma battle, although I do agree in substance with what your saying. Every Commander loses a battle at some point, Hannibals crime was to loses the one he could least afford to.
Everyone makes mistakes in war, a great commander learns to exploit those mistakes and extract maximum advantage from them. Otherwise war becomes something like two computers playing x's and o's. At Zuma, Scripio seiced on Hannibals mistakes, his relyence on his heavy cavalry and war elephants. Until then no other Commander had the Imagination to see Hannibals great strenght as his weakness. Hannibal for his part under estimated his Roman opponent, and came at him exacltly as Scripio thought he would. I'll try to respond to your other points at a later date.

Anyway dude I'm going to read more about Scripio, you've piqued my couriosty!

Ozzy Blizzard

October 14th, 2006, 07:37 AM

Merocaine: Thanx man i've got a real fetish for anchient warfare, anything roman in particular!:cheers
Two of the best books i've ever read on roman military history are:

The Punic Wars & In the Name of Rome
By Adrian Goldsworthy.

I couldn't put these down (but i allmost c*m when ICEASAR's on so they may not be for everybody) i'm after his new one Cannae. So if you want a really factual read that isn't F**king painfull to read, jump on these.

You may be right dude I might be being to hard on Hannibal, i mean he haddent fought a major battle in allmost a decade and he may not have been the man he once was (like Napoleon at Waterloo). But the question of "who is the greatest comander' is a tough one to answer, and if we're comparing the men themselves, each of them exellent in there own way we have to be tough.

fylr71

October 16th, 2006, 03:34 AM

What about Scipio Africanas?
In my mind Scipio has to be in the top 5 and i really cant say who's the greatest out of those 5.

I agree with you there 100%. I believe it was Polybius who wrote that some time after Hannibal had fled from Carthage he met with Scipio Africanus. During their discussion Scipio asked Hannibal to rate the best commanders in history. Hannibal ranked Alexander first, followed by Pyrus of Ephisus (I don't know why) second, and then himself third. Supposedly at this point Scipio began to laugh and said something to the effect of "And where would you have ranked yourself had you beaten me?"

The doulble envelopment that decemated the largest army rome had ever fielded was only possible due to the Lybian spearmen, the best single unit of infantry in the world IMHO. I guess a commander is only as good as his men are capable. But this highlights Scipio's victories, Hanibals troops had fought under him for years in spain long before they marched on Italy.

Regarding the Lybian Spearmen, they were mercenaries just like the rest of Hannibal's army maybe they had better training or something but they were certainly inferior to the Roman Legionaires. I am however interested as to where you found out the information on the Lybian spearmen as information on the specifics of Hannibal's contingents are hard to come by.

Scipio won brilliant victories with a conscript army that he moulded into an awesome fighting force in a matter of months. Hanibals victories showed a true tactical genius, but his oponents were less than equal.

The Roman army of the time was not really a conscript army. People would sign on for the duration of the campaign. These people would recieve intensive training and man for man the Roman legonaire even before the reforms of Marius was the best infantry in the world with the possible exception of some the renowned ancient units. (Sacred Band??)

Hanibals limitations were shown clearly whan he faced Scipio. So personally i dont think he deserves the no 1 spot.

The army Hannibal had to face Scipio was militia form Carthage along with what was left of his veterans. The Carthaginian soldier on that day was far inferior to his Roman counterpart except for Hannibal's veterans which constitiuted less then one third of his troops. Hannibal's Numidian cavalry also defected to Scipio's side depriving him of one of his most potent weapons. There is also a belief that Hannibal was mentally exhausted at the time of Zama. I personally believe that the vigor and lust for vistory that he showed at Cannae had left him. He felt abandoned by Carthage. Very few men can endure 15 straight years of fighting without any support form their homeland.
Also, Hannibal was so good that the Roman's would not face him on the open battlefield. Very few commanders can say that the enemy would not face them. In addition, Hannibal gave us the tactic by which the the armies of today live by: The double envelopment. The most recent successful use was in desert storm

By the way i dont think hannibal ever had a chance of taking Rome, seige equipment or not. Rome was well fortified, had a poulation of over a million and would never have capitulated. If Hanibals army got over the walls it would have been cut to peices in day after day of street fighting. But he probably wouldnt have gotten over the walls for months untill someone defected and betrayed the romans (this was quite common) or starved the city out, but that sword cut both ways.

I agree Hannibal at that time probably couldn't have taken Rome. However if he recieved massive reinforcements and was able to lay siege to Rome for a long time, he might've been able to secure a peace favourable to Carthage.

Ozzy Blizzard

October 16th, 2006, 03:49 PM

flyr71:

I read that too. It was when they were both waiting to see the king of the Selucid empire. Everyone seemed to think the world of Phyrus. He obviosly showed some impressive generalship fighting the romans in southern Italy. Its just too bad that there are no accounts of his battles, it seems that before the first punic war there is virtually no roman writen history, from the time anyway. Apparantly Hannibal was talking to someone else when they asked him who he thought were the best generals. After Scipio asked him where he would have placed himself if he had beaten Scipio, hannibal replied "the greatest", rather diplomatically.

Re Lybian Spearmen. Let me clear something up, when i said they were the best in the world i meant at the time. And yes they were mecenaries, but as soon as people hear that word, images of some rag bag bunch of cuthroughts who would slit there commanders throught if someone paid them enough seem to appear, but that doesnt seem to be the case at all. Hannibals, and in fact most punic armies were multicultural, composed of african, spanish and gaulic allies and mersenaries, with few carthaginians (carthage's power lay in massive wealth from trade, not from manpower). And most of these armies performed admirably through two punic wars and the conquest of spain, often under extreem hardship, so just because their motives seemed to be different, doesnt mean that they were somehow beneath a roman legionary. And because they were "mercenaries" also ment that they were professional soldiers and undouptably had years of training and a wealth of experiance. In fact most legionaries of the time were motivated by the massive wealth that could come from victory, loot made many a peasant a wealthy land owner. So really calling them mercenaries is just semantics, since most allied troops and roman soldiers had the exact same motivation, wealth. Forget the "glory of rome" BS. Sure many of the aristocracy may have been verry patriotic (and the fact that sucsessfull millitary service was a pre requisite for any career in politics couldn't hurt either) but i'm not sure that the average Capuan cared enough about roman glory to spill his blood.

And i think you missunderstood me. In general terms the roman legionary may have been the best type of soldier, ie compared to hoplites, swordsman ect. Although legionary isn't really an acurate word to use. An average legion in the manipular roman army was comprised of units of hastati, pricipes, triarii, vrilites and cavalry, all equiped and trained in different ways. But if you look at pricipes for example, equiped with a large square shield, gladius, three pila and chainmail armour, this in itself was not unique. Several other mediterainian powers equiped their soldiers to a similar standared. Macedonian, Selucid and Ptolemaic Egyptian armies all equiped their units with armour, spears, round shields and short swords, (ok they all used a variation of the hoplite, but the point is that all thier main units were equiped to the same standard). And all of these nations gave their soldiers intencive training. In fact the Macedonian army that faced the legions in the third macedonian war in 168bc was a professional force, and undoubtably much better trained than the legions facing them. (they were cut to shreds however, since manny of the tribunes, centurians and generals facing them were veterens of the second punic war, and they were a shadow of their ansesters who conquered persia, especially in cavalry.)

I agree that the legion itself was the best unit in the world. Using the triplex aces formation gave them flexibility and increadible staying power, much more than the average hoplite line. However i wasnt talking about unit types but the individual units themselves. Like the 1st U.S. division, the hemon goering division or napolean's imperial guard. Roman training could not build unit cohesian, improve morall, grant experiance in campaigning, improve familiarity with commanders, build comradship, and immunise the average soldier to the awefull blood and gore of anchient battlefields (or blooding), that years of campaigning and manny victorious battles could. There was no single century, maniple, legion or army that compared to the lybian spearmen, or hannibal's army in general, roman training and equipment or not, maybe with the exeption of scipio's.

The reason i consider the lybian spearman the best single unit in the world in 216BC was the part they played in the battle of Cannea. Reading Adrian Goldsworthy's work he puts forward an interesting theory about Cannae. Instead of the story we all know: a convex formation with the gaulic units in the centre, his spanish and micelanious units on either side, the lybian spearman on the flanks and cavalry on the extreem flanks, numidian on one flank, gaulic on the other. So when the roman attack came in the center the convex line slowly bent arround the roman center into a concave formation, slowly eveloping the roman army while the cavalry attacked from behind. Goldsworthy's theory is that hannibles formation was not a convex line, but actually shaped like the letter U, with the bottom of the U facing the roman line. The same convex line with the gauls in the middle spanish and other units on the flanks a little further back. But the 11 000 odd Lybian spearman were deployed in two lines running at 90 degre angles from the flanks making up the sides of the U. So the gaullic units absorbed the brunt of the roman attack and were slowly pushed back. When they finaly broke, the roman line had degraded into an uncontrolable morass. As the legions persued the gauls, the lybians turned and marched toward the romans, closing the vice. This theory makes scence to me for several reasons. At terbia, hannibal used similar tactics to deal with the inevitable roman attack in the centre, pushing the roman flanks back unsing a double invelopment. However at terbia, 2 roman legions cut their way threw the center to safety. And at terbia Hanibal only faced 4 legions and 4 ala, not 8 legions and 8 ala, yet the centre held all day at Cannae??? Also it would be difficult for the punic line to bend around the roman line and fully envelope two sides while they were enguaged. the U formation seems to fit the facts better. So for the thin line of Lybian spearmen, who showed dicipline worthy of the grande arme, to hold as their comrades broke, turn and attack in line without charging and, hold and slowly slaughter a massive roman army was a feat that no other single infantry unit could have accomplished in 216BC IMHO.

RE Zama.
Your right Hanibals army was not the same one that took the field at Cannae. However he did have several advantages over scipio, outlined in my previous post (numerical advantage, logistical advantage, fighting on his own ground, advantage in cavalry and elephants). And Zama was the only time Hannibal faced an opponant when he did not have a massive advantage as a tactition, or in the quallity of his army. All the army's that faced Hannibal before Zama may have been roman, and therefore trained and equiped as romans, but they were no where near as capable. Every punic army was a hodge podge diferent tribal allies and mercenaries serving under punic aristocracy, and therefore every one was different. Hannibals was a freak of sorts. A truely outsanding commander rivaled only by the likes of Napoleon Bonapart, Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great, (and of corse Scipio) some individal units that were the best around, like the Gaulic swordsman, lybian spearman and numidian cavalry, exelent junior commanders and an incredible cohesian and skill that would only be surpassed by the professional roman army. The army's he faced in italy (your right they weren't conscrips, i guess i got a bit carried away) were not professional soldiers, they were citizens, farmers, peasants and land owners. They may have served in the legions, and therefore have all the mistique that goes with it. But that doesnt make them exellent soldiers. Their operational doctorine and equipment may have been exellent but they still didnt compare to Hannibals battle hardened veterans.

Sure hannibal may have not been the man he was in 216BC. No commander is perfect and they all make mistakes. But we are talking about the Greatest commander in history. And in my above post i was originally disputing the statement that Hannibal was number 1 on the list. There are several reasons behind this argument, manny have been stated above.

No1. The fact that most people base their admiration for Hannibal on his victories in the early part of the 2nd punic war such as Trazamine and Cannae, however the opponants he faced in these battles were not his equals, commanders or the armies themselves, even if they did numerical advantage. The only time he faced a commander with a tactical genius close to his, with an army that was as good as his was at Zama and he was soundly defeated, even when he had several advantages.

No2. Hannibals strategic decissions were truely tragic. He initiated the 2nd punic war when he attacked the city of Massila on the northen spanish mediterainian coast, with the intention of starting a war, to avenge the humiliating defeat in the 1st punic war. His plan was to take an agressive stratagy and invade Italy (the 1st punic war was fought over sicily and most battles occured there. There was an invasion of africa, which was defeated. and there was also several large naval battles). by taking the fight to the Romans hanibal intended to defeat rome on the battlefield and seperate Rome from her allies which was the source of roman power. This would force rome to come to peace terms, and without her allies she would become a local italian power again. He knew rome herself was too togh of a nut to crack. Hannibal however, missed the mark by a country mile. He missunderstood the roman and latin psychie. Rome would never capitulate, and not one of romes latin allies defected because their culture, security and prosperity were intertwined with romes. Hannibal virtually ensured the destruction of Carthage. After the second punic war all carthaginian assets and allies that were not in the city itself were ceeded or defected to rome, and carthage's security was entrusted to rome i.e. no armed forces. And it was the terrible memory of the price that rome payed in defeating Hannibal that allowed Roman hardliners to send an army under annother Scipio (a decendent of africanus) to invest the city in the 3rd Punic war from 149/146BC. Such was the hate that hannibal instilled in the romans that when carthage fell, the entire city was raised, its population sold into slavery, every building was demolished and the "earth was salted so nothing would ever grow their again". Hannibal may have been a tactical genius but he was a strategic moron.

Hannibal was undoubtably an outstanding commander and worthy being studied. But i think we need to look through the myths and examine his victories, defeats and decissions. After I add it all up, i still, really dont think he deserves the no1 spot.

Sorry about the length of this post, i hope you didn't fall asleep reading it!!!:sleepy2