The "VS" Thread

[Shen Ai]

Caesar for me. I think too many see Cao Cao as a military genius who can't be bested by most other political leaders/military generals. Caesar was one of the greats, much better than his peers Crassus and Pompey, especially Pompey.
Politically Cao Cao created a kingdom after the collapse of a major dynasty with rivals everywhere. He did very well, but I wouldn't discount Caesar. The political situation was difficult to say in the least and thus his assassination could be attributed to his greed rather than poor governing.

As for Napoleon. Now he's very good, and charismatic as well. He was prone to making foolish decisions however, and picked fights with the wrong people at the wrong time. Rommel is a great general, not sure about greatest modern, but certainly great. Since the war he fought was rather difficult I don't know how to compare so easily, but i would give it to Rommel, whose advice might have changed the world we live in forever, while Napoleon lost because he acted on impulse.

[Aygor]

Caesar for me. I think too many see Cao Cao as a military genius who can't be bested by most other political leaders/military generals. Caesar was one of the greats, much better than his peers Crassus and Pompey, especially Pompey.
Politically Cao Cao created a kingdom after the collapse of a major dynasty with rivals everywhere. He did very well, but I wouldn't discount Caesar. The political situation was difficult to say in the least and thus his assassination could be attributed to his greed rather than poor governing.

As for Napoleon. Now he's very good, and charismatic as well. He was prone to making foolish decisions however, and picked fights with the wrong people at the wrong time. Rommel is a great general, not sure about greatest modern, but certainly great. Since the war he fought was rather difficult I don't know how to compare so easily, but i would give it to Rommel, whose advice might have changed the world we live in forever, while Napoleon lost because he acted on impulse.

In my opinion, Cao Cao is worth being listed among the top of the military men becouse of his feats, but we agree that Caesar is on a whole other level.
On a political level, don't get me wrong: Caesar was a really good ruler. Just i think that his lack of judgement about people around me (the 2 Brutus thing is astounding to me) and of caution are a fault, becouse he didn't correctly recognize the political situation to act accordingly.
Cao Cao on that side was much more cautious, even though political situation was easier.

Napoleone wins in the end for me, Rommel might be a slighty better commander, but Napoleone was an overall greater military/political figure.

About Pompeius.. i wouldn't really underestimate him; he had a great fame and was a famed general whom never met defeat before the Civil Wars: he quelled Marian revolt in Sicily, Spain and Africa, quelled pirates from the Mediterranean sea, won war against Mitridate VI conquered Syria and Judea and he was as close as a trick from Caesar from ending the Civil Wars with his victory at Durazzo. His most famous quote was:"Quit quoting laws, we have weapons".
He also was a man of reforms and most of his military feats is followed by political reforms and laws proposed by him.
In my opinion on a military and political level, he is by far superior to Crassus who was a political and influent man rather then a commander as his only militar feat was ending Spartacus gladiators revolt. To gain fame he asked for and received an army to subdue Partia, failed and died.
I say by far Pompeius is better then Crassus, and Caesar bests Pompeus with a little edge.

[TooMuchBaijiu]

How about John Williams vs. Ennio Morricone?

Or Akbar the Great vs. Emperor Wu?

I'd choose Rommel over Napoleon and Caesar over Cao Cao, btw. Rommel was more practical than Napoleon, and while Cao Cao was a better "all-round" leader, Caesar was a better general. Wish I could provide a better analysis, but unfortunately there's this bottle of Tanqueray within my grasp, so I can't do much thinkin' about nothin'.

And hey, who feels strong enough to go back and answer all the unanswered matchups in this thread? I hate leaving anything abandoned.

[Shen Ai]

Eh, Pompey pretty much robbed Crassus of his great victory. I would say that's the act of a smart man, but not a skilled military general in the field.

John Williams for me. Though I like Joe Hisaishi and Hans Zimmer are better.

I am not at all a fan of Akbar at all. You could say I despise him, but credit is due to him, I would probably say he was just a tad bit better than Emperor Wu for me.

[Tigger of Kai]

There seem to be quite a few similarites between Caesar and Cao Cao, even in the little things -- both famous lovers of women, both great writers, both suffered from seizures. I think what really separates Caesar though are his legislative reforms. His liberalization of requirements for official positions (even allowing some Gauls to be appointed to the Senate), his vast program of public works, his introduction of a new calendar, and his reform of the mercantile and agricultural industries profoundly remodeled the Roman state. His reforms were so well-received that the very senators who killed him continued them after his death!

[agga]

i always imagine Caesar as being utterly ruthless and impetuous, willing just to march in with his army and take control by force; Cao Cao was sneakier, but i think he would have needed more time to deal with Caesar. in the short run, i'd say Caesar, in the long run, Cao Cao.

if we're doing Rome vs China, what about Hannibal vs Xiang Yu? i'm surprised that one's never come up: they were contemporaries: the second Punic war was winding down just as the Chu-Han war was in full swing - the battle of Gaixia was the year after Hannibal left Italy.

Hannibal was known for his tactical genius, defeating the Romans over and over again in their own home territory, dealing with impossible circumstances; but in more than ten years of fighting he was never able to consolidate his local victories into a total conquest of Italy, and he returned to Carthage, exhausted.

Xiang Yu was also a great general - he was better able to consolidate his many victories (he was called the conqueror, after all!), in a much briefer time frame and larger geographical area than Hannibal; but, he was up against a collapsing Empire and a bunch of random rebels; eventually he was abandoned by all his allies because he was such a bloodthirsty bastard.

so, if they could have crossed the world and met somehow in Persia - Xiang Yu vs Hannibal, how would it work out?

[TooMuchBaijiu]

Money on Hannibal. He lost because he had no siege equipment, but was almost invincible in the field, and was one of the finest tacticians who ever lived. He just wasn't a great strategist.

But neither was Xiang Yu, who despite his leadership skills shot himself in the foot way too many times. And while Hannibal annihilated Roman armies over and over again, Rome won simply because of their absolute refusal to accept defeat. All it took was one great defeat to take out Xiang Yu for good.

Honestly, I think Bai Qi vs. Hannibal would be an even better matchup.

I am not at all a fan of Akbar at all. You could say I despise him, but credit is due to him, I would probably say he was just a tad bit better than Emperor Wu for me.

What's wrong with Akbar?

[Striga]

and was one of the finest tacticians who ever lived. He just wasn't a great strategist.

Wait, aren't those two the exact same thing? What's the difference in your view?

[Tigger of Kai]

What's the difference in your view?

Roughly, military tactics involves commanding men on the battlefield, while military strategy involves commanding armies. Mass Effect is a tactical game; Risk is a strategy game.


Re: Hannibal, in my view his most serious error was in believing that Rome's Italian allies would defect to him as soon as he dealt Rome a few defeats. In fact, Hannibal sealed their loyalty himself with his ill-advised decision to enlist the Gauls, whom Rome and all her confederates had never viewed with anything but terror and loathing.

Compare this to Caesar's handling of the Gallic question. Caesar understood that the Gauls were, first, a hated enemy that could be attacked without mercy and, once conquered, a matchless pool of talent and manpower that could revitalize the Roman state.

[Lord Yang Jiahua]

ON that Rommel vs Napoleon thing, yeah, i'd go with Rommel, ive anaylzed most of Napoleon'r Major victories, none of them are impressive to me, all of them were either with equal or more men, and all of the relied not on tactical planning, but sheer ineptitude of his opponents, firstly is Toulon, its not like the British fleet didnt try to hold the high ground above the port, but that fact that they didnt plan it to be taken caused their defeat. At Marengo 1800, the Austrian Commander had every advantage untill reinforcements arrived for Napoleon, and probably couldve still held his own after it, had he regrouped and recovered his troops, but he didnt. At Austerlitz where Napoleon was only minimally outnumbered, it was the fact that the Rulers of Austria and Russia decided to take command of the battle rather than heeding their own generals warnings that Napoleon had set a trap for them.
Rommel on the other hand, consistently dealt the allies costly defeats, or sacrificial victories with inferior tanks and resources, he anticipated the Normandy landing but was denied the resources that would've beaten the invasion, by Hitler, Churchill praised him, and the man had enough honor to take his own life rather than see his family suffer, despite the accusation being unproven that he was in the plot to assassinate Hitler, he was on the post-Hitler government list as President, but was not at all aware of it, his son Manfred even wanted to kill the men who had come to give him the suicide or trial ultimatum, but Erwin told him no, and took his own life as i had stated.