>>18661536
I vote for that one jew at Masada, who dodged mass suicide with the rest and turned coat and lived happily ever after.

File: Gaius Julius Caesar Augus(...).jpg (599 KB, 1254x1254)

599 KB JPG

Sima Yi

First of all, all 4 are absolutely based.
Alexander and Caesar are above the other two, but they have features that don't mean they're strictly (merely?) greatest military minds/generals
>Caesar was an impressive and cunning statesman
>Alexander truly fought his own wars, he was in the frontlines of battles

I will give it to my least favorite of the four though - Hannibal. He was in Italy, basically enemy territory, without getting support from Carthage, for 16 years. He crushed them in battles. He made proud Romans resort to Fabian strategy
In the end he does lose the war, and I feel bad for the elephants he led to northern Italy to freeze, but purely as a military commander on the battlefield, I'll give it to him

>>18661536
>Military strategy
Hannibal and Philip.
>Political strategy
Caesar.
>Battlefield tactics
Hannibal and Pyrrhos.
>Operational logistics and organization
Hannibal and Pyrrhos.
>Personal leadership and combat
Alexander.
>Military innovation and reform
Hannibal and Philip.
Imagine not including Pyrrhos, whom Hannibal studied a lot and borrowed from.

>>18661932
Maybe I should learn more about Pyrrhos. I know he was held in high regard back then, but nowadays most know him as the guy who lost to Rome despite a few costly victories

>>18662671
Hannibal copied a lot from Pyrrhos and admired him for his audacity, which the former believed was a necessary trait for any good general.
Pyrrhos is, without any irony, a battlefield tactician and operational commander of the highest order. The problem was as a war strategist, although good, he was too bold for his own good; opening too many fronts against different opponents while pushing the resources of his own state to their limits.
He was also highly successful against Rome, campaigning in Southern Italy and winning several major victories, but logistics for his own army and difficulty in political alliances with his allies (Syracuse and others) meant he couldn't stay indefinitely in Italy and had to retreat.

>>18661536
Alexander was the greatest, according to Hannibal. Alexander built an empire off of sheer big dick energy.

>>18663082
>Alexander was the greatest, according to Hannibal.
To be fair, Hannibal said that as an answer to Scipio asking of all people, after the Punic War, I think it was a pissing contest

>
Scipio is reported to have faced Hannibal- the boogeyman of his time- and asked him (amongst other things) who he thought to be the best general to have ever lived. Hannibal pondered this for some time before stating that there were three. First, as the supreme general, came Alexander the Great, for his ability to outmaneuver superior forces and for being the first to have travelled to and conquered such distant regions. After a long pause Hannibal conceded Pyrrhys must naturally be the second, due to the man’s ability to choose the ground on which he placed his troops. When Scipio pressed Hannibal to name who he thought deserved to be counted amongst such historical titans as the third, Hannibal instantly named himself.

A stunned Scipio reportedly laughed in disbelief, and asked “And what would you say if you had defeated me instead of the other way around?” To which Hannibal is said to have smiled and replied, “Then I would have placed myself before Alexander, Pyrrhus, and all generals yet to live.”

Historians have poured over this conversation, weighing implied slights and compliments in the exchange. Some say Scipio was embittered by Hannibal’s refusal to acknowledge him as the man’s superior. Others mock Hannibal for being a narcissist.