10-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Quote:As far as I can tell, the single most important quality of these 'great generals' is a whole lot of good fortune. Some guy and his friends go on a criminal rampage, and when he isn't killed immediately we call him 'great'. What exactly did Alexander do to improve civilization? Become the new Xerxes?
Take Hannibal for example. Everything he did was extremely rash. Very often taking his troops to battle in inferior numbers with no supplies. That's not what a great general does. He stumbled into a series of unlikely victories so we assume there was something special about him other than his willingness to take huge risks and hope for devine favor. Well, guess what, his luck ran out and his culture was snuffed out for all eternity. All because of his hubris! Great commander? Not in my mind.
He was fighting the Romans. When fighting Romans, you will never, ever have greater numbers (because the Roman military machine churns out soldiers until the last plebian and slave is dead), nor will you ever have adequate supplies (because they will generally hide away from battle). Thus you have to win by being daring, bold and decisive, something Roman commanders generally are not. There was no way on Earth the Carthaginians could have won a protracted, long-term engagement with the Romans - the Romans were simply too bloody-minded and too good at fighting protracted, long-term battles of attrition.
Alexander Hunt, Mercenary Economist-for-hire, modeller, amateur historian, debater and amateur wargames designer. May have been involved in the conquest of Baktria.
