The Best General of Antiquity (according to Myke Cole)

In the aftermath of our Thermopylae wargame against the guys at Mark's Game Room, we sit down with Myke Cole, author of "The Bronze Lie" and "Legion versus Phalanx," to ask who he would deem the best general of the ancient world. We know how Hannibal supposed once answered this question, so let's see what Myke has to say! We think his answer will surprise you, but Myke explains his rationale for the selection and makes an excellent case for a Spartan commander...just...not the famous Spartan commander you may have mind!

We want to thank Myke for sitting down and spending a full afternoon with us, chatting about ancient military history. His books are exceptionally engaging and fun to read. You can find "The Bronze Lie" direct from the publisher here (no, not an affiliate link! We just think you'll enjoy the read):

Also a big "thank you" to Ancient Warfare magazine for allowing us to republish some of their amazing illustrations in the video. You can find out what's coming up in the latest issue of the magazine here:

[greghall]

The highest regarded generals of antiquity all have three things in common: 1. They were given lots of high quality troops 2. They rolled good dice result. 3. Someone composed after action reports in Greek or Latin.

[StatsScott]

I love this answer! When I read Thucydides I was hugely impressed with Brasidas. He was an incredibly out of the box thinker who didn’t stick with the standard approach of using only Spartan hoplites to march over to Athenian land for a fixed battle. He used helots and other non-elites, and he avoided the fixed battle with Athens approach in favor of attacking them indirectly via threatening their grain supply, thus negating the Athenian’s strategy of sitting in their walled city and importing their grain. The Athenians didn’t march out to meet the Spartans on their land, but they did send ships up to engage with Brasidas, which to me says a lot about how worried they were with his methods.

[charlesleitz]

I like Brasidas, but... it's definitely Alexander, right?

[paradox]

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Sun Tzu

[lokkobold]

I love this answer, I didn't know of this Spartan before and hes got a very good point.
I gave it a think before I watched the video and my choice would have been Fabian. He didn't fight any super successful battles, he didn't break Hannibal's army. Yet he made sure Hannibal got nothing lasting done and projected Roman power and control through operational maneuvering rather than tactics

[thelegate]

If we stick to Myke Cole's definition of war, I would consider Epaminondas to be superior to Brasidas. He managed to break Spartan hegemony tactically, strategically, and politically and did all of this while having to deal with political enemies at home.

That said, I'm not sure if entirely agree with Myke's viewpoint of greatness. For example, Cineas was capable of everything that Brasidas was and yet we remember his boss, Pyrrhus, over him.

[prechabahnglai]

Would have suggested Lysander to be amongst the mix, but then he was an admiral.

[lek]

I suspect the true answer is to be found in Asia, but i like the idea of the nomination. Its sort of an alternative to the proverb 'Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics' Many generals are only able to look at a situation and imagine a pitched battle, the greatest need to be able to view all dimensions and be great at all of them.

[jonshreve]

In the spirit of this answer I would also put forth Philip II of Macedon. His brilliance on the battlefield was only surpassed by his brilliance in statecraft, military innovation, and diplomacy. He knew exactly when to strike hard and fast and also when to speak softly, flatter, and unite.

[gonatas]

Brasidas shines, no doubt; but smart competence only gets you so far. There is a reason few know of Brasidas but most everybody has heard of Caesar, Alexander, and Hannibal. Luck might be a real factor in this too. Napoleon only wanted “lucky” officers…and all of the above certainly knew something of fortune’s favor when it came to the chaos of combat. Possibly the best commanders make the best use of their hot dice.

[BazKami]

I have always respected Phillip of Macedon more then I did his son Alexander. He took a backward state and turned it into a powerhouse within his life time using a mixture of internal policies, diplomacy and military power. If anyone deserved to be named "Great" it was Phillip.

[chappyhall]

Great video! I love hearing from knowledgable and passionatie historians to compliment the wargmaing.

[phill]

Myke Cole should really start a podcast, or make a youtube channel. I'd listen to anything he'd talk about.

[MRFlackAttack]

Thucydides had a bias in favour of Brasidas. Constantly extolling the abilities of the man that defeated him, to essentially explain why he lost. I think you need to pick Phillip II of a Macedon of you going by the definition of policy by other means. He reformed the military, radically changed its tactics, but also he was able to use diplomacy to advance his position.

[davidkeithjohnson]

Everybody get out your Liddel-Hart and see a full explication of the gentleman’s point. Indirect approach. Strategic barrage. Breaking the enemy’s will to resist through maneuver. Never heard of the fellow he cites, but the ideas brought L-H to mind.

[kingfisher]

This is a quirky answer but it really ignores what is really meant be the question.
I’m going for the 20 year old who got on Bucephalus and smashed the Persian empire. Winning dozens of huge battles, sieges and orchestrating campaigns of ridiculous scale. Facing not just one enemy but a variety and most importantly, he never lost.

Colin Farrell.

[magnuslauglo]

Which ancient general was the best at logistics? That's arguably more important for winning wars than tactics.

[MichaelCorryFilms]

Cornelius Sulla. Fought against an insurgency in North Africa, a massive Rebellion in Italy, Germanic invaders in the North and the most Powerful King in the east against incredible odds without losing a battle. Oh, and that's before the big civil war against Roman armies. Caesar took Rome and was assassinated. Sulla took Rome twice and died in his sleep. #1!

[liberalhyena]

As is usually the case, the correct answer is the most obvious: Asterix.

[theandf]

I don't know about Brasidas, but I really like this answer. I think it's true battle is a game of dice; good tactics tilt the field in your favor, but it's still luck in the end. And warfare is not an end, it's a means to an end; if that end can be achieved with little bloodshed, that's true mastery. War is wasteful anyway, if you can achieve something without mass violence you're also avoiding waste.