Hannibal had less knowledge of the field, definition less modern weaponry, less chain of command and less supplies.

So did his foes, it was 2000 years before, what d'you think?

i have to agree with genghis, hannibal took an army, did the unthinkable by crossing the pyrennees and the alps and then defeated huge army after huge army that the romans sent at him. in one part of his campaign the romans had his army trapped so he set fire to the wool of rams and sent them towards the enemy camp to create panic, once all the romans were in a panic his men slaughtered them

He may not be the best, but I think it was pretty remarkable that Harold of England did when fighting off two armies twice the size of him; and nearly won.

Freddy II had none of these drawbacks, and talked/fought his way out of his wars with every possible combatant.

He often got himself into ludicrous situations, and made many strategic blunders. It was only his tactical genius that got him out of it.

Every Brit will say different, but I do not think Britain played a big role fighting France. It only really fought at Iberia (taking Madeira for itself for a few years, even, though it wasn't really threatened), and did it really do more than the Spanish and Portuguese, who lived there?

I disagree. The naval blockade was the number one reason Napoleon lost. In Iberia, it is true the Spanish guerrillas did more fore the coalition cause, but the Portuguese regulars were less important than the German/British troops. Then there is Waterloo, ofc.

Edited 5/3/2016 15:24:30

It did take a bigger role in the last few years, in the Low countries, but naval blockade? What supplies did France need that it needed that was outside its influence?

He often got himself into ludicrous situations, and made many strategic blunders. It was only his tactical genius that got him out of it.

Because his strategy was constantly shifting in response to the chaos, he did often find himself in ludicrous positions, positions few else in history could have resolved. He was aided, of course, by fighting on inside lines, so he could shift things quickly. The final judgment though, might be a look at the map 100 years later...

The naval blockade was the number one reason Napoleon lost.

Agreed. It left an imbalance-of-power, like London wanted. And after Waterloo? Same thing.

Edited 5/3/2016 21:55:13

Who would you say is the best Tactician or military leader of their time?

I suppose "military leader" could be taken as 'commander of a military force,' or as 'commander/leader.' Many men have gone on impressive conquering sprees. But you have to hooold it...

Sun Tzu