Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumasiotes | Hacker News Reader

> Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him.

Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not obviously wrong to see what the victors think.

Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors, even though the victors despised him.

View on HN

Another example is Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant. Even though Grant was the winner, often Lee is perceived as the better general. Though I think if you ask historians now who was the better general, I think many will say Grant as he had a deeper understanding of overall strategy (including logistics, manpower, etc) which is more important than whatever tactical brilliance Lee may have had.

I read a very interesting account of how poorly Lee in particular and the Confederacy in general prosecuted the Civil War. They misunderstood their political goals absolutely and instead of simply fighting a war of defense - holding out long enough to appear a legitimate nation in their own right, (essentially running down the clock), they fought to take and hold territory that they didn't need. Tactical brilliance is nothing without sound strategy.

Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!

Politics again. Grant was a lousy president afterwards, and the south needed a hero. Thus their storylines diverge.

In fact, given the political needs in ensuing decades, there's really no need for the "story" to reflect the record at all.

Hannibal gets more credit as a result.

Note, I'm not necessarily saying Caesar was bad. He did win, as you say. But he had significant materiel and troop advantages against the Gauls and against Pompey. Maybe we should credit him more as a politician and less as a general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com