Best BCE General

[Monopolist]

Admittedly stolen from from other threads...

The object is to rank generals similarly to the aforementioned threads, but this time only for generals that lived before the common era.

I'd rank as follows:

Gold - Alexander the Great
Silver - Hannibal Barca
Bronze - Phillip II of Macedonia

Honorable Mentions: Cyrus the Great, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Julius Caesar, Scipio, Epaminandos, Qin Shi Huangdi, and Chandragupta Maurya.

[DirtyCommie]

Alex would never, in any world, deserve the gold. All he did was win one or two battles against the Persians, and thusly gain all of Persia. As well, his grasp of tactics and strategy was shoddy.

Gold--Scipio Africanus
Silver--Hannibal Barca
Bronze--Themistocles of Athens

Scipio Africanus gets the gold for conducting brilliant campaigns throughout the Carthaginian empire. Hannibal gets the silver for...well, being Hannibal. Themistocles gets the bronze for conducting brilliant fighting retreats during the Persian Wars and decisively defeating the Persians at Salamis.

[imperialaquila]

Gold: Hannibal. He managed to keep the Romans occupied in Italy for 17 years despite losing a significant chunk of his forces crossing the Alps. He pulled off several brilliant tactical victories, notably Cannae, that are still studied today as examples to be followed. The crossing of the Alps itself was a brilliant move.

Silver: Julius Caesar. He managed to conquer a large, complex civilization in nine years. Nuff said.

Bronze: Themistocles. See above.

Honorable Mention: Alexander the Great. Sure, he used his father's army but he conquered a huge amount of territory and left a lasting impact on the region.

[metehan]

gold: Alexander the Great,
silver: Hannibal Barca,
bronze: Julius Caesar,



but this is before modern age list. in modern history gold medal goes to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[Antipater]

Skipping the obvious top candidates (Hannibal, Caesar, Scipio and Philip II) who have already been mentioned.

Gold: Sargon the Great. He created one of the world's first empires, and he did so by overcoming the most advanced civilizations on Earth at the times.

Silver: Sulla. He defeated Mithradates of Pontus's armies despite a great numerical inferiority. On the home front he defeated Marius, a formidable general in his own right.

Bronze: Epaminodas. He forged Thebes into a great power and defeated the Spartans at the height of their power. He died a bit prematurely, but his military innovations allowed Thebes to dominate mainland Greece for years after his death.

Honorable Mention: Cyrus the Great, Nebuchadnezzar, Qui Shi Huang, Ramses II.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Alex would never, in any world, deserve the gold... As well, his grasp of tactics and strategy was shoddy.

I'll grant you the Gold would be too much, but Alex had a tactical brilliance all his own -- this comes to mind

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by imperialaquila

Gold: Hannibal. He managed to keep the Romans occupied in Italy for 17 years despite losing a significant chunk of his forces crossing the Alps. He pulled off several brilliant tactical victories, notably Cannae, that are still studied today as examples to be followed. The crossing of the Alps itself was a brilliant move.

Hannibal came up with a plan to defeat Rome. When that plan didn't work, Hannibal kept trying the same plan for 17 years until Carthage was destroyed.

I don't think brilliant tactical victories while getting your civilization destroyed counts for a gold.

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Originally Posted by Fiver

Hannibal came up with a plan to defeat Rome. When that plan didn't work, Hannibal kept trying the same plan for 17 years until Carthage was destroyed.

I don't think brilliant tactical victories while getting your civilization destroyed counts for a gold.

Rofl.
Anyway I believe Cyrus should get an honorable mention also honorable mentions should go to Suppililumas of the Hittites, this dude reverted the crumbling Hittite empire winning stunning victories vassalizng and siezing most of Anatolia and Cannan leading to a major 4th power in the east known as the Hittites. Also created the deadly three man chariot IMO give him some credit. Also who can't forget Ramses or Mithridates. So many people to choose from it is mind boggling.
Otherwise I frankly think Marcus Aurelius should deserve some mention this man reformed Rome and left it stable, beating back the Germans, while expanding Rome to the height of it's power and was a good emperor who was brilliant in all fields IMO.

[wcv215]

Gold: Sargon-created the world's first Empire by defeating large numbers of powerful states.

Silver: Scipio Africanus- invaded Spain to achieve the first real victory of the Second Punic War for Rome.

Bronze: Gaius Duilius- technically an admiral not a general. He won the first Roman Naval victory of the First Punic War.

Honorable mentions: Julius Caesar, Seleucus I, Alexander the Great, Philip II, Rameses II, Thutmose III, and Cyrus the Great.

Happen to agree with Fiver on his statement, military victory counts for absolutely nothing if it destroys your nation afterward.

[Monopolist]

Originally Posted by DirtyCommie

Alex would never, in any world, deserve the gold. All he did was win one or two battles against the Persians, and thusly gain all of Persia. As well, his grasp of tactics and strategy was shoddy.

I've always been a bit kind to generals like Alex and Napoleon that are often considered to have "dominated" the time that they were in... Alex wasn't the best tactician or strategist, but he was, IMVHO, a very good one, and there's something to be said for never losing a battle out of sixty-odd (not your exagerrated two) battles, most with the odds stacked against him (in numbers, I mean - in the individual skills of the soldiers, obviously no), and for conquering the largest empire yet seen in the world - even if it wasn't at the height of its power.

Alex as a general is one of those guys that you either love or hate, and apparently we're in different camps there... I'm not saying he's the best of all time, but I do think he was the best back then. He was better than Hannibal, because Hannibal ultimately lost; and his achievements, while partly due to his father (although, one could argue that Hannibal's achievements and his army's abilities were aided a lot by Hamilcar Barca too), fairly or unfairly, were greater then Philip's. But I think we can agree to disagree here.

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by Fiver

Hannibal came up with a plan to defeat Rome. When that plan didn't work, Hannibal kept trying the same plan for 17 years until Carthage was destroyed.

I don't think brilliant tactical victories while getting your civilization destroyed counts for a gold.

I was thinking tactically. You seem to be thinking strategically. two different categories, two different criteria. I agree that he was not the greatest strategically, but his tactical achievements put him above everyone else.

[Yelnoc]

I cannot decide on how to rank them but Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Sargon the Great, Philip II, Thermistocles, and Cyrus the Great would all make my short list.

[Nassirisimo]

Gold - Cyrus the Great. He first defeated the Medians (who had helped destroy the mighty Assyrian empire within 4 years). Then the Lydians. Then even Babylon fell to his armies. The sheer scale of his conquests, and the odds that this leader of a backwards, dusty state in southern Iran faced make him deserve a gold.

Silver - Hannibal Barca. Achieved prehaps some of the greatest tactical victories of all time. Almost defeated Rome, even with almost no support from Carthage itself (and having lost part of his army crossing the alps). Also later proved himself as a good statesmen, but that doesn't really count as being a good general. The only reasons I did not give the gold to Hannibal is his refusal to give up his orginal plan for beating Rome, and his preformance at Zama (though apparently this may have been due to the inexperiance of his army compared to the roman one, and his inferior cavalry, which he relied upon during his early battles).

Bronze - Julius Caesar. Destroyed the thriving Gallic civilization in 9 years, and defeated his enemies within the Roman republic, even agaisnt tremendous odds. However, im still not sure about how he would have fared against the Parthians, though my gut feeling says that he would fair much better then Crassus.

[hexicus]

Originally Posted by imperialaquila

I was thinking tactically. You seem to be thinking strategically. two different categories, two different criteria.

Excellent point. Strategic genius and tactical genius in generals are entirely different things.

Though Caesar had both (probably superior in the strategy department).

[Bee]

Epaminondas ranks highly. He was innovative and was able to defeat the Spartans who were ably commanded and had previously been thought the most elite army in Europe. The magic went out of the Theban armies as soon as he was killed.

Alexander was excellent. There was more to his leadership than Issus and Gaugamela. The campaigns in what's now Afghanistan and the siege of Tyre were extremely difficult. He won both, and in fact was never faced with a military problem that he didn't find a way to overcome.

[MNP]

I'd have to put Chandragupta Maurya in the Gold Rank and Seleucus Nicator in the Silver perhaps gold himself.

I think Qin Shi Haungdi should also be considered. Certainly he did more than administration, and he did a lot to devise the plans which his armies used to unify China. I think he'd have to share a bronze with Cyrus II. So I guess I am on the same wavelength as the OP.