Caracalla

This thread is, from this post on, for the use of Sargon of Akkad and Congo to argue over who is the better general between Nebuchadnesser II and Eumenes. Could other Historumites please refrain from posting in this thread. If you need to say something regarding this battle and it's contestants head on over to http://www.historum.com/ancient-history/19593-battle-ancient-generals-discussion-thread.html.



Thank you.

Congo

This battle is about one thing. And one thing only. RESPECT.

Nebuchadnezzar II was a king. This automatically should make him victorious over Eumenes, who was merely an inexperienced general who was, before he held the title of general, as a secretary.

Nebuchadnezzar II was so talented that his invasion of Egypt failed miserably and resulted in numerous rebellions in his own domain. Within 3 years it took him to stablish his own realm.

He decided to ignore Egypt, licking his wounds, and turned his attention to the simple city-state of Tyre. He laid siege to that city for thirteen years. After thirteen years of getting nowhere with Tyre,



So, let's recap:

1. He was successful in the East against the Cimmerians and Scythians early in his reign. Between 605-602 BC
NOTE: No details how tough his adversaries were. No noted battlefield achievements.


2. Botched his Egyptian campaign. Something happened there (of course, he left that out in his history) to have a half-dozen or more cities in your own domain to revolt against you. 601 BC

3. It doesn't take him a year to crush the rebellion. Nope. It takes him four years. Seriously? Does he know what he's doing? 600-597 BC

4. Another rebellion in Judea, which, by now, he's an expert at crushing army mobs carrying armed with sticks and throwing stones. 587 BC

5. He is so good by now, that he challenges the small city of Tyre. This siege lasted 13 years. Who the heck invests a city for thirteen years?!?! Alexander the Great conquered a realm that was perhaps almost 10 times the size of Nebuchadnezzar II's Babylonia in less than 10 years. Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 11 months. Come on. Seriously 13 years?!!?? 585-572 BC

6. Ok, so Nebuchadnezzar, having only 10 years left in his reign did find a way to conquer Egypt. However, there is little evidence of anything that he was there. What battles there were we do not know. Any formidable opponents? Looking at this guys history, I don't think so.



Influential Leader of the Ancient World, certainly yes. Great Ancient General? I seriously doubt it.


UPDATE: Nebuchadnezzar has a slight 3-2 lead

Sargon of Akkad

Nebuchadnezzar II, son of Nabopolassar, became king of Babylon in 605 BC. His father had begun the process of tearing down the mighty Assyrian Empire, which Nebuchadnezzar finished handily.

The fall of the Assyrian Empire was an extremely chaotic and violent period of Near Eastern history, as they had dominated all other powers for hundreds of years until that point.

Because of this, Nebuchadnezzar was presented with many opportunities for conquest, but also many peoples long-subjugated, who saw this as their best opportunity for freedom.

Around 29 when he took over his father's army, he decisively defeated the Assyrian and Egyptian armies at the , signalling the end of the Assyrian Empire and allowing Babylon to gain control of its Mesopotamian territory.

He marched into Syria and Phoenicia and defeated the remaining Egyptian army of Necho II at the , breaking Egyptian power until the Middle Ages and the Arab Conquests. After gaining control of Syria and Judea after the submission of Jerusalem, he returned to Babylon to solidify his reign, and brought back thousands of captives and great amounts of booty.

Nebuchadnezzar married a Median princess, securing his northern borders, and was able to focus his attention on the multiple rebellions that sprang up in his empire.

After crushing rebellions in Syria, Judea rebelled under Jehoiakim around 603 BC, and Nebuchadnezzar marched on them immediately. They had Egyptian aid, and while we don't know the full details, we know that it wasn't until 599 BC that Jerusalem was captured.

Only three months after Nebuchadnezzar had left Jerusalem, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim, initiated another rebellion which required Nebuchadnezzar to personally return, reconquer the city, and deport Jehoiakim and his family to Babylon, while placing his uncle Zedekiah as the new vassal king of Judea.

Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar in 590 BC (against the advice of the prophet Jeremiah), and Nebuchadnezzar brought his army to Jerusalem and laid down a siege. The current Egyptian Pharaoh Aphris attempted to raise the siege, but Nebuchadnezzar crushed him decisively and then once again conquered Jerusalem.

This was the last time, and in around 588 BC a period known as the Babylonian Exile began. Nebuchadnezzar was clearly sick and tired of dealing with this rebellious state, and he deported the educated Jewish elites en-mass to Babylon, sacked the city and destroyed the great temple of Jerusalem.

In 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar began the 13-year-long Siege of Tyre, which either ended in Tyre submitting to the Babylonian yoke willingly or the city being sacked (I've found multiple accounts of both, so either way, it came under his authority).

After conquering Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar turned his attention towards Egypt under Pharaoh Amasis, decisively defeating him and conquering Egypt for the Babylonian Empire in the 37th year of his kingship.

After making sure the entire Middle East and Mesopotamia acknowledged that he was their undisputed overlord, he returned to Babylon, and for the last ten years of his reign until his death, presided over the wealthiest and most powerful state in the region.

He did not waste his time here either, and seemed more proud of his great building accomplishments that turned a formerly run-down Babylon into the jewel of Mesopotamia, and an icon for wealth, prosperity and power.

Nebuchadnezzar was one of the greatest kings of the Near East. He never failed. Even when presented with setbacks, he was calm, calculated and meticulous, and managed his empire with efficiency, and eventually conquered all who opposed him.

So, who the hell was Eumenes anyway? Some lacklustre Hellenistic general who won a few indecisive victories just after Alexander's death, as far as I'm aware. Not even a fit match for competition!

Sources

• Wikipedia
  Nebuchadnezzar_II

• Creation Wiki (don't shoot me on this, they have a magnificently detailed and sourced article, much better than I was expecting)

• Answers.com

Sargon of Akkad

Do you think you could put forward some arguments for why Eumenes was any good, seeing as you recommended him?

And a lot of your information is factually unsound, and does not take into consideration the great strife in the region at this time. Rather than make a case against Nebuchadnezzar, why not make one for Eumenes?

Tyre was an island fortress supplied by sea, it was an incredibly difficult conquest and was not taken with ease. That Alexander conquered it in less than a year is a testament to Alexander, not a case against Nebuchadnezzar, who did not possess a navy capable of blockading the city.

I couldn't actually find any information about the Cimmerians and Scythians and his battle against them other than he was victorious, but if Sargon II's campaign was anything to go by, they seem to have been like the Gauls to the Romans, and a threat to civilization itself.

Alexander conquered a great area of land because it was already subject to another power - here comes the new boss, the same as the old boss. Nebuchadnezzar had to subjugate them in the first place - that's a far harder task.

But the fact that we're making comparisons between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander, and we're not making comparisons between Eumenes and Alexander, seal this debate in my mind completely.

Congo

Now, I not just gonna sit here and bash ol' Neb.


Let me tell you about Eumenes...

...but let me tell you about Craterus first.


Do you know who Craterus is? Let me give you 8 bits of Info on him:


1. With Alexander the Great, fought lions... naked. A tough warrior.




2. He was a the son of a Macedonian Nobleman. So, you can say he instantly got respect. He eventually became a Macedonian General during the Persian Invasion.


3. A veteran of the Battle of Issus 333 BC and Battle of the Hydaspes River 326 BC. He also led a small expedition against the Tapurians. No sources on this result, but he obviously survived intact to continue command.


4. A veteran of the Lamian War against the Athenians. So, he's fought numerous enemies and is yet undefeated.


5. Defeated the Athenians at the Battle of Crannon 332 BC.


6. Marched into Cappadocia, Eumenes' realm.


7. Gained additional troops and support from the Armenian satrap, Neopolemus.



FINALLY: 8. Craterus. the warrior, the commander of many battles in many wars from many lands, victorious in every measure, and a reputation of instant success is decisively crushed by Eumenes.



Eumenes defeated Craterus.

A secretary, with no combat experience, defeated a general, a brave valiant warrior. A leader of many great campaigns in Persia.

NOTE: Neoptolemus was killed in battle; Craterus, later, of his wounds in battle. 321 BC



Who did Nebuchadnesser II fight that was noteworthy?


Nobody

Congo

He never failed? I would hardly call the Siege of Tyre, a 13-year investment, that turned out to be a mere agreement. He got them to sign, yes, but hardly worth mentioning as an achievement.

Was he calm? Meticulous? Do you have evidence of this? He was a great king, yes. Perhaps one of the best in Ancient Times...

but we are talking about battles here. Achievements. Though ol' Neb's campaigned was much more, he had the resources of a nation and most of his opposition was mere simple people in revolt.

Sargon of Akkad

That you have to try to apply a derogatory 'ol' Neb' nickname to Nebuchadnezzar does not strengthen your argument. He defeated the power of Egypt, which had just overthrown the Assyrian Empire, no mean feat, and clearly besieging Tyre was entirely worth his time, otherwise he wouldn't have done it.

We can deduce from his campaigns that he was clearly meticulous and determined, you might have been able to slow Nebuchadnezzar down, but you couldn't stop him.

Also, Babylon was virtually a wreck after the Assyrians had been done with it, so turning around this subjugated city-state and turning them into the preeminent power in the area is a very impressive feat.

Congo

We are not talking about who is replacing Bob the Builder. We are talking about armies that crush their opposition.

Ol' Neb was a great political leader and a great builder, but Eumenes' obvious performances against Craterus (and later Antigonus) is a tribute to his fast learning as a military leader.

His weakness was the fact that he was not a king. Or someone of nobility like Ol' Neb. He earned little respect from many people. They judged him too hard.

Congo

No, it doesn't. It merely quickens me from having to spell his name each time. ;-)

Defeating an exhausted nation is easier than it seems. There are obviously no details to what happened in Egypt so can only conclude that the acquisition was swift. Thus a weak nation with a great reputation was quickly conquered.


A year. Two years. Three years.. . sure. I'll do that. THIRTEEN FREAKIN' YEARS?!?! Bad decision, my opinion. It is quite obvious that Tyre relented to the compromise to see a thick-headed man he was and the inability that he could conquer them. And yet, his presence probably hampered trade to some serious extent.

The fact that 3,000 years later, we have evidence of a compromise and NOT a surrender is a great indication that it was a compromise and that Ol' Neb Fanboys like yourself want to erase this 13-year Bad Decision.


Again, the Assyrians did that to all the surrounding regions. So, he obvious fought weak opponents.

Sargon of Akkad

Sure.

Defeating the Assyrians was never going to be easy, and until he defeated the Egyptians, they weren't an exhausted nation.

How could it possibly be seen as a bad decision? It only strengthened his empire and prestige because Tyre was a walled island fortress. They submitted to him, he walks away with the glory. Obviously there were no more pressing matters because he'd damn well sorted them out beforehand!

Fanboy? When I start posting "Nebuchadnezzar is teh roxorz!" you can use such derogatory terms, but until then, leave them out. I'm being civil to you, so if you're going to talk about respect, show some.

No, these regions were desperate for their independence and fought hard for it. It just didn't happen because Nebuchadnezzar was an awesome general who defeated every opponent he had.