Would you say that Scipio Africanus is the greatest general of antiquity?

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
No.

I think he comes in at maybe second place behind Julius Caesar, for Rome's greatest general. Caesar faced a greater variety of foes, and more formidable ones. Also I'm not convinced that Scipio was the greatest general of his day. I might rank Hannibal higher. Hannibal just had the misfortune of being from Carthage rather than Rome.
 
Dec 2013
365
Nowhere
Hannibal was the greatest General and Scipio his greatest Student;
(read that somewhere);
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
I'm assuming you only want the Graeco-Roman world here, since the Chinese had plenty of really really great generals.

But Scipio isn't seriously better than the likes of Alexander, Caesar or Cyrus surely.
 

constantine

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
8,545
I'd go a step further and say that he was the greatest general of all time. He demonstrated a mastery at ALL levels of warfare, the tactical, the operational, the strategic, and, perhaps more importantly than any of those others, the grand strategic level; his diplomacy alone, independent of his achievements on the battlefield, would be enough to label him as a great general. But his skills went far beyond these characteristics of command, he also understood logistics and morale as a young man as well as any old quartermaster, this is the heart and soul of generalship and he excelled at it. Many great generals excelled at two or three of these characteristics, but it is rare to find all of them in one man.
 
Mar 2013
3,909
Texas, USA
I'd go a step further and say that he was the greatest general of all time. He demonstrated a mastery at ALL levels of warfare, the tactical, the operational, the strategic, and, perhaps more importantly than any of those others, the grand strategic level; his diplomacy alone, independent of his achievements on the battlefield, would be enough to label him as a great general. But his skills went far beyond these characteristics of command, he also understood logistics and morale as a young man as well as any old quartermaster, this is the heart and soul of generalship and he excelled at it. Many great generals excelled at two or three of these characteristics, but it is rare to find all of them in one man.
Please cite examples.
 
Jul 2013
1,003
America
I'd go a step further and say that he was the greatest general of all time. He demonstrated a mastery at ALL levels of warfare, the tactical, the operational, the strategic, and, perhaps more importantly than any of those others, the grand strategic level; his diplomacy alone, independent of his achievements on the battlefield, would be enough to label him as a great general. But his skills went far beyond these characteristics of command, he also understood logistics and morale as a young man as well as any old quartermaster, this is the heart and soul of generalship and he excelled at it. Many great generals excelled at two or three of these characteristics, but it is rare to find all of them in one man.
Great post.
 

markdienekes

Ad Honorem
Apr 2010
4,875
Oxford
No, I don't think he was, I think Hannibal was slightly better, but not the greatest either. He had all the qualities of a great general, and is certainly one of the best of the period.
 
Jul 2013
1,003
America
No, I don't think he was, I think Hannibal was slightly better, but not the greatest either. He had all the qualities of a great general, and is certainly one of the best of the period.
So where do you think those two rank respectively? Hannibal at no. 1 and Africanus at no. 2?