Who is the Greatest Military leader of the Ancient period?

The most strategic is definitly Ghengis Khan or Kublai khan, or Atilla. As for first, and most influential, it is Cyrus and Dariush.

Originally posted by Khashayarshah The most strategic is definitly Ghengis Khan or Kublai khan, or Atilla. As for first, and most influential, it is Cyrus and Dariush.

firstly Genghis Khan and Kublai khan are from the middle ages and hence invalid. Secondly I't doesn't mater how influential they were just how skilled. Finally Attila the Hun's military abilities and that of the Huns in general is highly overrated, just to sum it all up for Attila: Attila, his Huns and many other "tribes" that formed part of his coalition attacked a Roman empire divided in two and in a steady state of decline for over 200 years from among many other factors Dozens of Barbarian invasions before it. They then preceded to attack the weaker half of this decaying empire and LOST! True they werent conquered but Attilas Hunnic Empire didn't even outlast the Rotting corpse that was the western Roman empire.

Originally posted by Xshayathiya Good Point. This is essentially what Khashayarshah is saying about Alexander.

To some extent yes, there are a few key differences however as Alexander though attacking a weakened empire, was fighting a united one and most importantly he won.....unlike Attila (Alexander also faced far greater odds than Attila). In Khashayarshah analysis Alexander's achievements in his short life time are compared to the conquests of the entire persian state (admittedly a great deal of this took place under one man:Cyrus). Alexander's other conquests are ignored in the analysis also. Finaly I would like to say that I voted for Hannibal not Alexander and would be more than willing to justify it if you or anyone else asks.

Whoa!!

Alexander the Great!!!

Originally posted by Balian d'Ibelin For Other which are not mentioned are:                       -Antiochus III (Seleucid Empire)                       -Augustus caesar (Roman Empire)                       -Vincingetorix (Gaul)                       -Hamlicar Barca (Carthage)

Augustus Caesar rarely took the field personally the majority of his victories in the civil wars were the result of his general Agrippa's ability, and those of his later years were won by Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus.

Antiochus The Great of the Seleucid Empire, the 6th Seleucid ruler, should be on that list, becuase he "walked in the footsteps Alexander The Great left". The defeat he recieved at the hand of Pharoah Ptolemy IV of Egypt, in 217 BC, was a defeat that should have completely destroyed/ended the Seleucid Empire as a whole, but it didnt. He held the Empire together.

For reasons already mentioned, I will go with Alexander.

The problem with Alexander is we don't actually know what he personally managed and what his generals achieved which he was given credit before. The sources are all from when the cult of personality was in full swing and many of the generals practically need Alexander to tell them how to walk.

Alexander the Great and Hannibal Barca. I can see strengths in boths: