Top 5 generals of Greece

[Anonymous]

I think in the discussion of Greek Military aims people are forgeting that the real aim of the Athenians was domestic political prestige. wars and military campaigns were used to bolster public opinion and once being elected to the generalship you only had one year to make your mark to get re-elected for the next year. Alcibiades campaign was surpposed to be a swift crushing blow ( Lots of Prestige ) as opposed to an invasion of southern Italy ( not much prestige there). IMHO Good military plan stuffed up by Athenian domestic machinations. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

jhhoffman,<br>
<br>
You are right. Athenians didn’t want a long and hard war.<br>
But to think that political system with politicians elected for one year is unsuitable for long campaign is not right. The example is obvious – Rome.<br>
But on the other hand it is only success that defines a good plan. When Athenians attacked upon Epipolae it was just a matter of luck. Might it have ended with crushing victory of the Athenians? Yes, it might. It was kind of gambling. If they had won, I suppose the Athenian empire would have proudly stood among the mightiest empires of the world.<br>
What decides the fate of battles? Very often it is a matter of pure chance. What would have happened if Alexander had been killed by a stray arrow somewhere at Issus, Gaugamela or Haydaspes? Hm… I suppose, now we would have been discussing how stupid was this mad Macedonian.<br>
<br>
So, let be glorified the heroes who had taken the risks of war.<br>
<br>
That was a good try.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>I guess he is more of a politician, but he really was quite masterful at Salamis.<hr><br>
The Athenians made no distinction between a general and an admiral. IIRC, Themistocles commanded the Athenian fleet at both Artemisium (near Thermopylae) and at Salamis. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>My point is that it is extremely difficult to take a well-fortified city. Even for Romans it took a long time and much effort. And you never know what might happen during a long siege.<hr><br>
<br>
Actually the Romans were <em>very</em> good at it. The classic Greeks were way behind the contemporary Near East in terms of techniques for storming cities. The Athenians were probably the most successful at taking cities and they basically just built a wall around the target city and interdicted any shipping at sea with their fleet and waited. It took them something like 2 years to get Potidaea to capitulate, and it was an enormous drain on the Athenian treasury. You have only to look at the Spartan army, the best and most professional in Hellas, apparently not even <em>attempting</em> to breach the Long Walls to Piraeus in the 27 years of the Peloponnesian War. Philip, on the other hand, incorporated an engineer train into his army. That's a big part of why Alexander could take Tyre in the relatively short time of 11 months (previously Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had besieged it unsuccessfully for something like 13 years). <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

And this is what makes Nicias a bad general. He did not even follow the simplistic siege tactics of his native Athenians, but allowed the Syracusans to outflank his siege works.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Dan Diffendale]

I still think Alcibiades should be on the list. Sure, he "lost." But consider what he accomplished while on both sides, and imagine what he could have done had he been allowed to stick with one side for the duration. The poll says only "Best General", not 'best politician' or 'most skilled at not having political enemies'...<br>
<br>
I would not call Nicias a bad general, but simply the wrong man for the job. Considering that Alcibiades had masterminded the invasion, and how close the Athenians came to victory even without him, I think he could have made all the difference. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I find it odd that Phillip and Alexander aren't on the list. At first I thought that you were keeping it to pre-Hellenistic generals, but Pyrrhus is on the list. What was the thought in keeping them off the list?<br>
<br>
Aaron. <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>I would not call Nicias a bad general, but simply the wrong man for the job.<hr><br>
For the job of generalship, Danno? <p></p><i></i>

[Dan Diffendale]

Well, for the job of taking swift and decisive action to capitalize on the initial fears and internal divisions of the Syracusans... he had been successful elsewhere, like Tanagra and Minoa... <p></p><i></i>

[Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus]

How can anyone argue Leonidas. He was one of the bravest men in the history of man. He held back an army ten times his size by pure tactics and outsmarting the persians. Even though he lost his life along with the rest of his army, he gave the Athenian army time they needed to form a defense. This is one of the biggest military upsets of all time, even though it ended in a loss. <p></p><i></i>

[Hoplitesmores]

1)Alexander the Great
2)AlKiviades
3)Pyrros
....

[Arthes]

I find it odd that Phillip and Alexander aren't on the list. At first I thought that you were keeping it to pre-Hellenistic generals, but Pyrrhus is on the list. What was the thought in keeping them off the list?<br>
<br>
Aaron.

<p></p><i></i>

Exactly my own thoughts ......!!!
Pre Hellenistic.....Leonidas
Hellenistic....... Alexander
Philip

[Felix]

How can anyone argue Leonidas. He was one of the bravest men in the history of man. He held back an army ten times his size by pure tactics and outsmarting the persians. Even though he lost his life along with the rest of his army, he gave the Athenian army time they needed to form a defense. This is one of the biggest military upsets of all time, even though it ended in a loss.

<p></p><i></i>

Leonidas showed great determination, but that was about it. The fighting skills of the Greeks in general and the Spartans in particular were not his doing, and holding a pass with a force which is superior in head-to-head close combat is not rocket science. He didn't need great insight into the enemy commander, nor the relative strengths and weaknesses of either side. He also managed to lose his rearguard and himself in the process.

[conon394]

Actually the Romans were very good at it. The classic Greeks were way behind the contemporary Near East in terms of techniques for storming cities. The Athenians were probably the most successful at taking cities and they basically just built a wall around the target city and interdicted any shipping at sea with their fleet and waited. It took them something like 2 years to get Potidaea to capitulate, and it was an enormous drain on the Athenian treasury. You have only to look at the Spartan army, the best and most professional in Hellas, apparently not even attempting to breach the Long Walls to Piraeus in the 27 years of the Peloponnesian War. Philip, on the other hand, incorporated an engineer train into his army. That's a big part of why Alexander could take Tyre in the relatively short time of 11 months (previously Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had besieged it unsuccessfully for something like 13 years).

But Alexander still took 11 months, and only was successful after he got a navy. Nor was the Macedonian system fool proof it still produced costly failures like Byzantium and Rhodes. The Athenian system was not simple, rather it just efficiently maximize what Athens already invested in a navy and recognized that Athens unlike most Greek cities had capital to burn and eschewed costly assaults. Potidaea is a bit of a special case, Athens was hamstrung by the worst of the plauge and Pericles initial moderate policy helped Potidae to be in an unusually good situation starting the siege, one might note that Samos lasted only 9 month under Athenian siege for example. Even the Romans under Sulla took around 8 months to take Athens and the Piraeus when they had fortifications that were what 150 or 200 years past their last full refurbishment and they had even a more difficult time with Numantia.

What I find really interesting the number of votes a shifty weasel like Alcibiades can for Best General get with practically no significant military victories, nor tactical innovations or any successfully implemented political (or strategic) decisions.

[Zenodoros]

Leonidas was no great general. There's no arguing that he was very brave, but he made important mistakes, most particularly with the Phokian guard. If he had given both passages equal attention, the garrison could have lasted much longer.

Alexandros is almost definitely the greatest general of all time... so there's no contest there. I'm also very fond of Themistokles' achievements.