Who is the greatest military leader of all-time?

[Ethelred]

The worlds oldest parliment is the Icelandic Allthing that met in 999AD. It was a representitive democratic gathering where each Allthing representitive chosen at local Things.

[Tingkai]

I define modern democracy as a political system where the leader is elected by the people. So the Brits have yet to achieve full modern democracy.

[bigvic]

Alexander was just so phenomenal. Undestood tactics, strategy and politics. Imagine what he could have done given more time.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I define modern democracy as a political system where the leader is elected by the people. So the Brits have yet to achieve full modern democracy.

A rather eccentric definition by most standards.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Well they both were associated with peasant revolts. These usually generate a lot of fanaticism in their early stage which disguises any weaknesses in tactics and strategy. You usually find a couple of wins, even astonishing ones, against the odds and then a rapid decline as the followers lose their fervour or get killed off, or simply return home for the harvest.

Not easy to think of any that went on to win. George Washington might be an example but my knowledge of US history is hazy. I seem to recall though that at some point he had to transform the militia into a real army and train it up. That puts him several classes above Wallace and Spartacus.

Both Spartacus and Wallace seem to me to be Hollywood creations.

I believe that Spartacus marched up and down Italy twice in a campaign that lasted two years. He defeated the Romans, IIRC, at least seven times. He was blockaded with a wall across the toe of Italy, and still broke out. He was defeated only because his German allies wanted to march by themselves, got cut off and were massacred.

[Alexander's Horse]

But did he take Rome? Nope.

As I said, peasant revolt leader - probably very charismatic.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


A rather eccentric definition by most standards.

Hardly. Democracy is government elected by the people. The British system still relies on people having power by birthright.

[Alexander's Horse]

Ned, this is an interesting site on Roman slave revolts which bears out what I am saying:

http://departments.vassar.edu/~jolott/republic1998/spartacus/slaverevolt.html

The story of Spartacus is disputed, and Hollywood probably has the most to do with his modern rep, but it does fit the peasant revolt pattern. Getting soundly trounced by Crassus, who later lost his head to the Parthians in leading one of Rome's greatest military disasters, hardly speaks highly of Spartacus's military skills, though he does seem to have been an able leader of the revolt whilst it lasted.

The Story of Spartacus' Revolt


One of the great frustrations of studying Roman slave revolts is the dearth of historical records on the matter. The rebellion of Spartacus is unfortunately no different in these regards. Our best source from antiquity is Appian, a Greek aristocrat writing forty or so years after Spartacus and his men took the field against the Roman army in 72 AD. Appian provides us with some tantalizing bits of information, though, and on their foundation we must fit our incorporating theories about the revolt.

Apian tells us that Spartacus was a Thracian and a veteran of the Roman army, who "had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator" (215). The mechanics of how Spartacus was taken as a prisoner--while he was in the Roman army, we assume--and then sold to a Roman gladiator school is difficult to understand. Appian does not elaborate, and we are left to our own devices. If indeed Spartacus was taken prisoner while he was in the Roman army and then sold into slavery in the Roman world, we have an excellent indication of slavery's encompassing nature in antiquity. Spartacus' veteran status did not prevent him from being enslaved after he was taken prisoner. Of course, a more likely scenario would seem to be that the Romans (Appian's sources) merely claimed that Spartacus was a veteran in order to explain his success.

Rebelling, Spartacus and some comrades fled to Mount Vesuvius, gathering more men as they went. Varinius Glaber and Publius Valerius were sent with small forces to subjugate the uprising, which was evidently thought to be quite small at this time. Spartacus and his men defeated them (215).

Following this victory we get our first sense of the size of Spartacus' army: "70,000 men" (215). Truly, this seems a large number. How could his numbers have swelled so quickly from when he revolted from the gladiator school? If this is true, then we must believe that the numbers of runaway slaves in the countryside was very great.

Facing two legions of Roman forces, Spartacus and his second-in-command, Crixus, apparently divided forces. Crixus was defeated and killed by one legion. However, individually Spartacus smashed both legions. Following this victory the forces of Spartacus now numbered 120,000. In another battle with the legions at Picenum Spartacus was triumphant (218-219).

Some details given to us by Appian here, bear mentioning: Spartacus "sacrificed 300 Roman prisoners to the shade of Crixus... burned all his useless material... buthered his pack-animals in order to expedite his movement. Many deserters offered themselves to him, but he would not accept them" (219). Clearly, Spartacus was a savvy military commander, choosing to make his army as fast as possible in an attempt to even the discrepancy in discipline between his own forces and those of the Romans. He was also intelligent enough not to add deserters to his own army, probably considering them likely only to desert again in the face of danger.

After this matters move more quickly. (It is surprising to note that three years had now passed since the beginning of the rebellion, according to Appian (219).) The Romans sent out six legions, plus the previous two, under the command of Licinius Crassus to put down Spartacus once and for all. In a series of smaller battles, Crassus trounced the slave army at every turn. Spartacus seems to have attempted to turn the war into more of guerilla fight, but Crassus kept him closed in. When Spartacus tried to make it to the sea and Siclily, Crassus threw him back again. Closed in, Spartacus finally engaged Crassus head-on, and was defeated. Appian says that he was killed, but his body was not afterwards discovered (220-221).

The holes in this story are obviously large enough to drive a monster truck through, but it gives us a place to start from. Perhaps, the most vital piece of information, is the sense of shock which Appian conveys; the Roman aristocracy was stunned by the success of the slave uprising. If nothing else it seems, Spartacus may have taught the Romans some humility.

[Ned]

There was a recent history channel story on Spartacus that gave a lot of detail in the campaign. The bit about Spartacus being held close by Spartacus is not exactly accuarate. Sparatcus did try to get to Sicily, but the ships never came. So, he had to fight his way back up the pennisula to Germania. He didn't make it. Three Roman armies surrounded him Again, the german continigent got cut off was was defeated. Spartacus was then inferior in numbers to the Romans. He lost.

But the fact that he held out so long and defeated so many Roman armies is really something.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned


But the fact that he held out so long and defeated so many Roman armies is really something.

Oh to be sure Thanks for bringing him up.

Here's another interesting factoid about Alexander who btw, inherited the Macedonian throne at the age of 20 and invaded Persia at the age of 22 after putting down a revolt by the Greek states. He died at the age of 33 probably from malaria but possibly from old wounds.

In 11 years, from 335 B.C. to 324 B.C., Alexander and his army battled their way across 22,000 miles.

For perspective on that distance, think about traveling across America eight times.

For most of Alexander's army these miles were travelled on foot.

And he did all this before Rome was much more than a blip on the the historical map.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Hardly. Democracy is government elected by the people. The British system still relies on people having power by birthright.

No it doesn't.

Although i don't think we sshould have a monarchy, it doesn't have any power anyway.

[Alexander's Horse]

Cool - Stinger is a golden lurker

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Cool - Stinger is a golden lurker

Is that a compliment?

I aonly just got to work and logged on hence my reply, pure coincidence

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by TheStinger


No it doesn't.

Although i don't think we sshould have a monarchy, it doesn't have any power anyway.

I thought the House of Lords still had hereditary members.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I define modern democracy as a political system where the leader is elected by the people. So the Brits have yet to achieve full modern democracy.

They have far more than the Canucks have. At least their guys can toss out a tyrant.

Something about the MPs representing their constituents first. Something we haven't quite got right yet on this side of the British Atlantic.