Nice to see someone other than Caesar, ALexander or HAnnibal suggested from the ancient world. Naturally this is a difficult one to judge. I've always felt Caesar was the best Rome produced; he too had to adapt to a variety of adversaries (Gauls, Germans, Britons, Romans and Macedoninans in Egypt). I'd suggest that in a 'best of 10' neither Scipio nor Caesar would achieve 10 straight victories. Both Scipio and Caesar stand out above Hannibal and Alexander. For starters, Hannibal could win field battles against numerically superior armies, but he failed to thoroughly assess the political situation in Italy, and did not establish supply lines with Carthaginian territory (though admittedly the latter would've delayed the invasion of Italy for years). Alexander I think is rather overrated. Apart from reconfirming hegemony over the exhausted Greek citystates, he really only beat the mainly militia armies of Persia. Anyway, I would say Scipio rates as one of Rome's greatest generals, alongside Marius, Julius Caesar, Trajan, Julian II and Belisarius. Genghis Khan deserves to also rate as one the world's greatest of all time.

At the risk of diminishing Africanus' accomplishment in defeating Hannibal at Zama, I really wonder about Hannibal's overall abilities as a general. Hannibal seems to have been more accomplished at how to select ground to fight on and how to employ his forces on a battlefield than how to make the most use of a battlefield victory once gotten. Perhaps one of his chiefest abilities was in boldly negotiating natural obstacles to achieve a movement of his army which would catch the enemy off balance. A significant advantage resided in the veteran army Hannibal had inherited and maintained. But Hannibal failed to fully exploit his Cannae victory by immediately marching on Rome when the people of Rome were still in shock. I think Hannibal's ability as a general had recognizable limits.

'I think Hannibal's ability as a general had recognizable limits' I couldn't agree more. The consuls he fought against at his 3 principal victories were very mediocre, and Scipio certainly 'showed him up' at Zama. Is it true though that Hannibal had mainly 'green' troops at Zama? I remember reading this, but as Carthage was principally a merc army, i find it hard to believe. Well it seems we agree Hannibal is simply not in the running. BUt as to whether Scipio was the 'greatest'- that is a much harder question to answer. What are your thought s on the generals i mentioned previously?

Yes, the other generals you mentioned. Well, I don’t know enough about Genghis Khan to comment. I know little about Trajan’s or Julian’s exploits. I have read Plutarch’s life of Marius. I have read Caesar’s war commentaries (in Latin class originally), Plutarch’s life and Fuller’s “Julius Caesar”. All I know about Julian is Gibbon’s description of Julian’s rapid departure from Paris and his descent of the Danube to catch his opponent (Constans?) off guard and that he died during a successful (I keep thinking Parthian for some reason but their empire ended by the 3rd century) Persian campaign. Of Gaius Marius, I know of his military reforms and that he defeated the Cimbri and Teutones at Aquae Sextiae. I don’t remember much about the campaigns in North Africa, etc. Julius Caesar, I believe, was probably a much more remarkable Roman than Africanus but probably not as good a general as Africanus (or Pompey). I believe his strength lay in well developed sense of futurity as well as being able to understand and motivate people. I think of Caesar as more of a champion politician than champion general. The army he won the civil war with he cultivated during the years of the campaigns in Gaul and I think his foresight and ambition led him to fashion this army as his personal instrument. I would say Caesar’s real forte was in the realm of grand strategy rather than generalship. Belisarius must have been a top tier general. At least, what I read about him in Liddell Hart’s “Strategy” really impressed me. One thing was the combination of a mild, un-bellicose personality with real military ability. Another was how disadvantageous numerical odds seemed to mean nothing when he was in command. Another was how he successfully effected a strategic offensive on the basis of a tactical defensive. Belisarius would be my choice for either number one or number two.

This is a very debatable and intelligent discussion between the two of you. I agree Alexander is possibly a little overrated, but he is still the forerunner as history's greatest overral commander. His army was a 'smart bomb' of antiquity, but he was outnumbered by Darius III at Guagamela by 5 or 6 to 1! 6 to 1 in cavalry. Alexander's swift and calculated cavalryt dashes and his defensive oblique lines was a superb display of generalship. Alexander marched one army, replete with cavalry and infantry, some 15,000 miles. The army never lost it sustenance. Scipio is underappreciated. However, I think Hannibal faced a much tougher task in Italy than Scipio did in Spain. Scipio was impeded by political rivals, such as Fabius and Cato, but Hannibal couldn't possibly extrapolate every impediment that he was to face. His ruses, tactics and personal leadership were remarkable. Hannibal faced the elder Scipio at the Ticinus, Sempronius at the Trebia, Gaius Flaminius at Trasimene, and crossed swords with Marcellus and Nero, the Metaurus victor, in southern Italy once Rome gained the initiative. He either mildly beat them or the skirmishes were indecisive. These were not mediocre generals at all. Hannibal defeated Roman armies, no longer inexperienced or off-guard, between 215 - 208 B.C. The records of these battles, such as Numistro and Salerus, are scanty. He never could gain any headway. Rome's victory was due to her manpower and incredible resolve. Philip V and Carthage did not attempt to help him substantially after Cannae, which he expected. Sicily was under Carthaginian control with the death of King Hiero, a Roman ally. Scipio's victory at Zama was wrought more by the fact his army was too strong than any outgeneraling over Hannibal. Hannibal's first two lines were indeed 'green', and too indifferent for him match Scipio's legions, who had been, for the most part, together the previous 8 years. Hannibal's 'Old Guard' was perhaps the first reserve unit used in a pitched battle, and Scipio was in trouble until the cavalry, much superior to Hannibal's, returned upon Hannibal's rear. Both captains were excellent at Zama, and it is no surprise that the better army one. A clash between two masters of war will never be a tactical masterpiece, like Cannae or Ilipa. B.H. Liddell Hart was very reputable, but he tells it one-sided, which is fine; nobody is without bias. Hannibal's biographers are certainly favorable towards the great Carthaginian. Hannibal not marching on Rome showed how poised and smart he was. Sacking was but a means to an end; it was never his intent. His political startegy was a sagacious attempt. He has been criticized for underestimating the Roman alliance, but their greatness fostered during the war against him. The western Mediterranean simply preferred a Roman to a Carthaginian master. Caesar's fame might supercede what he merits, but he might be history's greatest overral soldier/politician. His prowess was incredible, but his X Legion was quite a benefit to command.Pompey di thwart cCaesar at Dyrrachium, before his defeat by Caesar at Pharsalus. There's much more to discuss.

In choosing the ground to fight on, Hannibal shows great military strength, not weakness, however that and his ability to drive his men and maintain morale are really his only two great strengths. He was unable to come up with new strategies to win battles. Once the elephant factor was countered, Hannibal had no tricks left up his sleeves. Scipio Africanus knew what it took to win the war, not just the battle. He took the same supply chance as Hannibal, if I remember correctly, but instead of aiming for a military to defeat, Scipio went for the jugular of Carthage. He was also able to develope new tactics to counter those of Hannibal. Julius Caesar was an excellent general as well by all accounts. He either defeated or won over nearly all of Gaul, much of Briton and parts of German territory. He also defeated Roman armies, equal in design to his own. These were not forces to be scoffed at. It's difficult to compare the accomplishments of the armies of Julius to the armies of Scipio though, because tactics changed dramatically, although much, I believe, by the mind of Julius himself. I don't know enough about Belisarius or Marius to fairly rate them, but I agree that Alexander was mostly over-rated. Most of his victories appear to be over much weaker opponents, and in those few that are not, it appears to me to have more to do with luck and the inabilities of the opposing generals than to Alexander's abilities. As far as Classical generals go, I have to say that either Scipio Africanus or Julius Caesar is the greatest, with the other coming in a very close second. In a contest of all-time greatest general, Ghengis Khan would win in a landslide. He led an army from eastern Asia to Europe, defeating the Chinese, Russians and everyone else in his way without the aid of a supply line. His men ate the roots of grass and the carcasses of horses when no other food was available. They pressed on through the heat of the summer in the Steppes and the cold of winter in Northern Russia. (It should be added that he is the only person ever to defeat the Russians in Russia in a war when other Russians were not the opposing force.) They lived off the land for years, won victory after victory, never lost morale, and didn't stop until the great Khan died, otherwise in all likelihood, they could have pressed on well into Europe.

These comparisons are always problematic; most of the greats faced different adversaries, different situations in different times. Re Alexander... would he have really been as successful 300yrs later against the Parthians? From what i know the Achaemenids didn't really utilise the horse archers the way the PArthians and Sassanians did. A basic analysis suggests his phlanx would've been virtually useless, and his companion cavalry unable to come to grips with mobile missile troops. Caesar planned on using masses of Gallic and German cavalry combined with artillery to deal with the Parthian tactics, but then he had Crassus' mistakes to learn from. Caesar was also great for the same reason as Scipio, Sertorius, Trajan etc. The Roman military. NO matter how much you like the phalanx, the roman war machine was on a level of sophistication beyond any civ of the time. The Caesar/Pompey war was fascinating for the extreme use of fortifications along a front (almost like an ancient version of the WWI western front). I know it wasn't unique to this conflict; but it's a well known example. The numerous advantages granted by this would've given Caesar/Scipio victory over Hannibal and his mercs, Alexander and his Macedonians, and prolly even against Belisarius and his Hunnic/Germanic/Byzantine army. The Mongol army under Geneghis would've presented an interesting challenge for a Caesarean roman army- would've been like facing a very well orgainised Parthian force.

I did thrust forward Scipio's candidacy largely because I had been impressed with the ideas expressed by Captain Hart in his "Strategy, The Indirect Approach" Hart being so high on Scipio. However, I must say that my impression is that Scipio was more or less thrown without much experience of command into a fight with a cohesive, experienced foe whereas Caesar used his proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul office to gradually build up experience as well as to forge a loyal army and a reputation for success in the field against semi civilzed Gaullic and Germanic tribes. Scipio didn't have any leeway to learn from mistakes and he seems to have had an unbroken run of success from New Carthage to Zama. I am not that aware of any reverses he may have experienced that were not solely to do with the Senate or the units under his command. One legion in Spain mutinied on a report of his death. Scipio wound up settling the matter by inticing the legion to New Carthage and executing the ring leaders instead of resorting to decimation. There was the violent incident in that south Italy town which the Senate may have sent a commission to investigate. I guess the thing that gets me about Scipio is that he seemed to be quite in control of matters right through perhaps the most serious war Rome had been in. He delivered the goods reliably. Of course, Julius Caesar probably would never have allowed any fellow Roman to force him into exile over trumped up charges as was the case with Scipio. If it is true as is my impression that Scipio took a very strong Roman cavalry arm with him to Africa that would distinguish him from other Roman commanders. A Roman legion of Polybius' time (200-118 BC) had a nominal strength of 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry. I'm guessing a Roman consular army had about 20,000 infantry and 1,800 cavalry. I have read J.C. Fuller book on Caesar where Fuller maintained that a rough parity between infantry and cavalry was best. Does this not apply to Alexander's army? I'm wondering why the Romans stayed with the heavy infantry dominated army model instead of switching to half infantry and half cavalry particularly after Cannae and having known about Alexander(in a way, they did change after 378 AD). They prided themselves on adopting the best from other peoples. The thing that impresses me about Belisarius was how he delivered successful campaigns reliably on demand. These days he would get an industry award for quality.

Also of note, Alfred Thayer Mahan in his famous book on sea power gave the Hannabalic War as an example of the critical advantage control of the sea gives to a combatant. So was the control of the Mediterranean by the Roman navy the single most important factor in the outcome of the war?

I think he is a good general and politician. The reason that he defeated Hannibal because the Romans were better than the Carthaginian force. Hannibal is a good general through out his campaign not one mutiny took place. Armys that were commanded by Caesar and Alexander experienced a mutiny. It is also a fact that Hannibal was beaten by the same tactics he used against his enemies. Hannibal's tactics is being studied by the Russian army and by the Great Napoleon. Scipio Africanus' greatest aspect is that he is a humanatarian and that might have helped in his conquest.