The "VS" Thread

[Crazedmongoose]

The thing is, whilst Caesar's reforms were transformative for Rome, Cao Cao's reforms were transformative for China too, the only difference is that those reforms didn't last.

The idea of appointing via merit over virtue, and the weakening of the landed gentry clans in favour of individual men of talent, and the pseudo legalist philosophies in military management, would have all been great reforms had they actually stuck.


edit: Hannibal over Xiangyu. As far as battles are concerned I consider Hannibal close to peerless.

[agga]

edit: Hannibal over Xiangyu. As far as battles are concerned I consider Hannibal close to peerless.

i mean, i can see that hannibal would be more likely to win out in a battle against xiang yu - but in a war, i.e. a series of battles, i thought that xiang yu might be murderous enough to wear hannibal down - killing all prisoners, destroying his supporters. hannibal would be a great general, maybe the greatest, but xiang yu would also be great, and would also have mass murder on his side.

okay, what about han xin vs hannibal? is that a fairer match?

[Lord Yang Jiahua]

hannibal over Han Xin, hands down better commander, and at the almost same time period too.

Edit: I think i killed the History Section again....

[TooMuchBaijiu]

okay, what about han xin vs hannibal? is that a fairer match?

Yeah, that's pretty fair. I'd say that Hannibal would again win in a pitched battle, but Han Xin had a better grasp of the big picture, and would win the war. IIRC, Han never directly engaged Xiang Yu unless he had a clear advantage (like at Gaixia) and instead went after Xiang's subordinates. This can be compared to the Fabian strategy that played a factor in Hannibal's eventual defeat.

[Aygor]

While i am ignorant about Han Xing feats, i have to say Hannibal was an astounding commander, he was feraless and capable, he broke roman forces in an unstoppable streak of three wonderfully led battles, gained the upper hand and brought Rome within his grasp.
He though (as TooMuchBeijiu said) lacked a deep vision of the big picture, he had Rome in his hands, but he preferred to completely annihilate Roman forces in Italy rather then cutting his nemesis' head right away, coming to a stalemate and leading to his own demise in the long run.

[Cao Chao]

okay, what about han xin vs hannibal? is that a fairer match?

Yeah, that's pretty fair. I'd say that Hannibal would again win in a pitched battle, but Han Xin had a better grasp of the big picture, and would win the war. IIRC, Han never directly engaged Xiang Yu unless he had a clear advantage (like at Gaixia) and instead went after Xiang's subordinates. This can be compared to the Fabian strategy that played a factor in Hannibal's eventual defeat.

That's not Fabian tactics, that would be more like Scipio's tactics in attacking Hannibal's support in Iberia and later threatening Carthage directly. Fabian tactics are more akin to guerrilla warfare - the utilization of harassing tactics to wear down an enemy.

[XuSheng]

I'm always wondering wich Daimyos were the best during the Sengoku Period.

We all know that Nobunaga Oda, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Ieyasu Tokugawa, Uesugi Kenshin and Shingen Takeda were the best(Even do i hate Hideyoshi and Ieyasu), but after them who would you rate higher between :

-Chosokabe Motochika
-Mori Motonari
-Hojo Ujiyasu
-Shimazu Yoshihiro
-Date Masamune

[Xia Kyoto]

Alexander the Great Vs Caesar

Augustus Caesar Vs Alexander the Great

George Washington Vs Jiang Wei

[Aygor]

Alexander the Great Vs Caesar

Augustus Caesar Vs Alexander the Great

George Washington Vs Jiang Wei

Caesar: good old Alex never had the grasp for the bigger picture Caesar had and, politically and militarly speaking, Caesar had the opportunity to show much more insight and versatility.

Alexander: that was, to me, trickier. The aforementioned reasons advantage Augustus over Alexander, but the latter's prowess, feats and tactical ability seem to me to have exceeded, and by far, Caesar's heir.

I think that a comparison is impossible as warfare had changed just too much but here's my guess.
Militarly i really wouldn't know, Washington is usually overestimated and Jiang Wei is usually underestimated, who knows, Jiang Wei might have won. Washington should have an edge for how he managed to save his country whereas Jiang Wei failed, even if the situation was almost the opposite.
Politically it would be Washington hands down.

I'm always wondering wich Daimyos were the best during the Sengoku Period.

We all know that Nobunaga Oda, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Ieyasu Tokugawa, Uesugi Kenshin and Shingen Takeda were the best(Even do i hate Hideyoshi and Ieyasu), but after them who would you rate higher between :

-Chosokabe Motochika
-Mori Motonari
-Hojo Ujiyasu
-Shimazu Yoshihiro
-Date Masamune

Date Masamune, definitely.
Just curious, why did you list your top 5 name-surname and the other 5 surname-name?

[Xia Kyoto]

I think that a comparison is impossible as warfare had changed just too much but here's my guess.
Militarly i really wouldn't know, Washington is usually overestimated and Jiang Wei is usually underestimated, who knows, Jiang Wei might have won. Washington should have an edge for how he managed to save his country whereas Jiang Wei failed, even if the situation was almost the opposite.
Politically it would be Washington hands down.

I didn't take that into account, you're right. But basing this comparison off of military tact perhaps and leadership, or skill, what have you. I pitted these two against each other because you're correct, both men were faced with leading their country out of possible failure and doom, however, one did fail, while the other succeeded. Yet, might I add, I think Washington's victory should be accredited to some other force: for if it weren't for the French, this measly stalwart and what looked like to be a lost war, would have indeed been one. The French show up with the big ships and guns, Britain disperses, and of course the most popular man in America is handed a golden metal. Jiang on the other hand did not have I think, so much more morale being inspired in his men by his presence alone, I think that quality is more present in Sun Ce. And as we know, the other force going for Jiang was a defecting general who arguably was also impulsive, and both men died trying to start a flame nearly burned out to begin with.
Basically, Washington had help, and a great deal of it. It was a time of revolution and not an already established government that might have been failing fighting a war, like that of Shu's, : I do think the commander was incredibly overestimated, too.
Jiang had little to no help, had enormous shoes to fill, came to his position in a time of faltering hope, and is probably underestimated somewhat.