Caracalla

This thread is, from this post on, for the use of Toltec and Alcibiades to argue over who is the better general between Han Xin and Epaminondas. 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-hist...on-thread.html


Thank you.

Congo

Han Xin hands down is an outstanding commander. Top 20-30 material. Epaminondas is noted for his two victories against Sparta and his simply tactical maneuver. Han Xin had a much longer history in terms of military experience and his victories were astonishing.

Toltec

Epaminondas had a small career commanding forces of less than 10,000 men, against average commanders, attacking city states and his reputation is based upon one battle Leuctra.

Han Xin commanded combined armies of 600,000 men, conquered whole kingdoms, fought some of the greatest commanders that ever lived and his reputation spans dozens of battles.

However here I thought I would examine Epaminondas trump card, Leuctra.

Epaminondas: 8,500 Thebans
Enemy: 11,000 Spartans and Allies (mostly Helots and Allies)
Opponant: Spartans commanded by general of no note.
Result: 1000 dead Spartans, 350 of own men.
Rating: a good Victory


Against is I place just one of many of Han Xin's battles.

Battle of Jingxing

Han Xin: 30,000 men
Enemy: 200,000 men
Opponant: The legendary Zhao Xie, king of Zhao and conqueror of the Han Kingdom.
Result: Utter destruction of the Zhao army, unrecorded numbers of dead up to 100,000, survivors ran back to Zhao never reforming. Own losses fewer than 5,000.
Rating: Better than Cannae


This one battle of dozens similar tops any victory Epaminondas had in his dreams, let alone real life.

Publius Aelius Hadrianus

I vote Han Xin nevertheless, once again, take ancient numbers carefully especially large numbers. (That is certainly the prevailing opinion among historians)

Thessalonian

That battle happened in 204 BC. Those numbers are as accurate as those who suggest that the Persians had 1 million soldiers and were defeated by 40,000 Greeks. I don't buy that for a second.

It is not about who had more men to command, it is about who was BETTER.

Toltec

I continually questions battle numbers on this forum. But am alone, other forumites disgree.

http://www.historum.com/ancient-hist...h-reality.html

So I bow to these people's wisdom in this post.

Chinese documentation of this battle is contemporary and extensive so considerably more relaible than what we have on Cannae.

Of course if someone was to dispute both this battle's numbers, Cannae and most other Greek and Roman battles I would likely be the most sympathetic person on this forum to their views.

Thessalonian

Being contemporary does not equal being non-biased and accurate though... I seriously doubt propagandistic BS numbers which show a ratio of 1:10 for the opponents. It seems too fake...

Mandate of Heaven

Yean, ancient sources are really unreliable. I bet there were at most five people duking it out at Leuctra, and three of them underaged Spartan girls.

okamido

Only reason they lost, don't let anybody fool you.

Mandate of Heaven

They weren't playing hard-to-get?