Who was the best Roman general?

[anubis88]

I know I know... stupid question (at least that's what some of you will think)... But i was thinking, i saw many threads about who was the best general of a certain era, a certain area etc... And it always seems to me, that the Roman generals do not get the recognition they should. It's always about Hannibal, Alexander, and sometimes Pyrrhos, but the Romans had some really awesome generals.

Myself, i'm an "expert" on Rome during EB's time period, and don't know much about the Imperial generals of Rome, so i want to know if someone could point out an exeptional one. I know about guys like Drussus, Germanicus and even Stilicho and they were great generals, but i don't know much about them, so i dunno how great they were.

Anyways, in my opinion there are 2 candidates; Sulla and Scipio Africanus.

Why?
- Both were undefeted in battle
- Both were great politicians ( extremly important for being a roman general )
- They both fought one of the great enemies of Rome
- They both won of course :)
- They had guts.

Scipio assumed command of the Roman army in Hispania, while everyone alse thought this to be a death sentence. He dared to attack Hannibal, who had proven his might in battle, and he managed to brake the back of the Carthaginian Empire, the oldes empire in the Western Mediteranean.

Sulla marched on Rome, a deed thought unthinkable before him, and managed to became a dictator. He fought Mithridates VI, who seemed to have created an Empire that would be a thorn in the heel of Roma. Greece and Asia Minor fell under the Pontic king, and most have seen him as a liberator and not conqueror, so they were mostly reluctant to assist Rome. He did this with his enemies conspirating against him in Rome, and he destroyed 2 huge armies of Mithridates, and made his rise end.

So what do you think? Who was the best Roman General? the list is limitless ( Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Augustus, Trajanus, Theodosius, Aemilius Paulus, Marcus Antonius, Scipio Asiaticus....)

But please elaborate on your post. Don't give answer like : Caesar hands down. And not because i wouldn't like this, but because i'm really intereseted about the possible generals

Thanks for playing :)

[Finn MacCumhail]

I suggest that really good general should experience both victories and defeats.
For me Gaius Marius is an example of one of the best generals. He fought Jugurtha, defeated Cimbri and Teutoni, protected Rome in Social War (91–88 BC). And one of the best his deeds - he reformed the army.

[LDC]

Ceaser.
\thread.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The tragic figure of Quintus Sertorius (rebel Roman general) deserves a mention. Leading Roman rebels and Spanish allies, he defeated a Roman army far larger than his own - led by Pompey, no less!

See: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romans/a/sertorius.htm

In EB, he would be an Elutheroi rebel general rather than a 'Romanoi' one.....

[fraoula]

Well it really is a hard question. Rome as a whole is overhyped , especially the late republican generals. I agree that Caesar , Pompey , Sulla , Marius , Publius Crassus (NOT Marcus) were good generals but the thing is that Rome was really advanced both in technology and manpower against their enemies ( well maybe not Sulla in manpower) at this time. For me Scipio Africanus was one of the best, given that he fought against the greatest general of antiquity IMHO, and won but also he recognised and more importantly showed to the rest of the roman generals that victory does not lie solely in numbers and that in order for your troops to be disciplined you must treat them as equals. Due to his reforms in the ways of thinking and acting in the roman army and of course Fabius Maximus strategy in Italy was Rome able to emerge victorious from the second punic war.

[Macilrille]

First you have to define what a good general is; is it the German WWII general-type who wins all battles but looses the war? The Ones who never let their army go without supply because they are logistical geniuses? The ones who wins batles but throw lives away? The ones with political ambition?

I would say Sertorius, Marius, Pompey, Caesar and Scipio Afr, but it is a too subjective matter to arrive at a conclusion, I might throw Sulla in as well if I did not dislike his proscriptions..

BTW, P. Crassus was never really a general as such, his campaigns and resources as well as areas of operations were always limited. So though he performed stellarly in those, we can hardly say much about his ability as a general. Much the same goes for the brilliant Publius Ventidius Bassus, who did show some political acumen though and who worked his way up from the absolute bottom.

Anyway, too diffuse and subjective subject for me to actually say much on without using hours of RL time that I sadly do not have right now.

Edited to add, Imperial ones? Good question, I have forgotten all but Agrippa, Flavius Aëtius and Flavius Belisarius, but there were doubtless some. Were Julian not said to be quite competent?

[SwissBarbar]

fraoula, that's why Caesar is such a great general. He not only defeated underpowered Barbarians but also equally equipped Roman armies, led by quite able generals (Pompey)

[anubis88]

I agree that this is a very broad subject, that's one of the reasons i posted it... It will be really interesting what people think...

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Aulus Caecina Severus, of course.
The best roman general under Augustus.
He defeated Arminius, the hero of Germani.
Roman revenge after Teutoburg.

[fraoula]

fraoula, that's why Caesar is such a great general. He not only defeated underpowered Barbarians but also equally equipped Roman armies, led by quite able generals (Pompey)

Well I agree that he was trully outsanding. He conducted many succesful campaings against very complex forces.
It really is difficult to narrow it down to just one. Still I'll stick with Scipio.

[Cambyses]

Well, in terms of pure tactical ability, I would have to say Sertorius, given he was able to hold off and defeat a vastly superior opponent. However, truly great generals IMO are often best defined by who they fought against - and I never rated money-bags Pompey.

So, for me its between Caesar, Scipio Africanus and Marius. Caesar defeated Celts, Greeks and Romans while creating a group of veterans that could defeat anyone. In fact that's the point, for him it almost seemed too easy once he had finished preparing his troops. Marius beat Germano-Celts, Africans and most importantly he was so decisive in Italy itself, beating all comers. And he had the nous to reform the army. But in the end Scipio Africanus beat Hasdrubal, conquered Spain and defeated Hanibal when the best that Rome could muster previously had been utterly destroyed by him - and were too afraid to even look him in the eye again. So, for me its Scipio. Maybe thats not "fair" on the others as they didnt have a Hannibal to fight, but that's my view.

[Macilrille]

Aulus Caecina Severus, of course.
The best roman general under Augustus.
He defeated Arminius, the hero of Germani.
Roman revenge after Teutoburg.

I protest!!!

Arminus beat Caecina mightily and convincingly using quite innovative tactics to turn the terrain and his own troops' advantages/disadvantages against the Romans. Meanwhile Caecina had to struggle to merely survive. Until the other German chiefs chose Uncle Inguiomerus' plan of direct assault instead of Arminus' cunning one of continued guerrila. Caecina and his army would have faced an even worse defeat than Varus suffered if the Germans did not use the AI tactic of charging mindless against the enemy. Now Caecina was no Varus and was a grizzled and wise campaigner who used all the resources available to him to win. But that one was the Germans' loosing the battle that enabled him and his four legions to survive.

En Varus eodemque iterum fato vinctae legiones!. And, with the word, he cut through the column at the head of a picked band...

Now that is cunning and heroic German warlord at their best :-)

Oh I am tempted to post all Tacitus' account of that battle, if nothing else, old Cornelius was a good writer.

[vartan]

I vote ACS the best general. He has silver manus o_O

[gollum]

Fabius Maximus - the only Roman that used brain and not brawn in his time.

[L.C. SVLLA]

Sulla or Caesar just because I'm a sulla/caesar fan.

[Mulceber]

Sulla or Caesar just because I'm a sulla/caesar fan.

Gotta say, that's an unusual combo. Like saying you're a fan of both Nixon and Kennedy.

I'd say Caesar. He demonstrated an ability to fight against enemies at very different ends of the spectrum, fighting-style-wise. -M

[XSamatan]

Flavius Heraclius Augustus

Made out of nothing one of the effective military operations in Roman history, also the contact between Antique and Middle Ages.

XSamatan

[antisocialmunky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

:-D

[SlickNicaG69]

He was a little known general by the name of Caesar. Look him up... good luck though... he's mighty hard to find!!!

[L.C. SVLLA]

Gotta say, that's an unusual combo. Like saying you're a fan of both Nixon and Kennedy.

I'd say Caesar. He demonstrated an ability to fight against enemies at very different ends of the spectrum, fighting-style-wise. -M

i know. they were different politically, but i admire what they did nonetheless.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Aulus Caecina Severus, of course.
The best roman general under Augustus.
He defeated Arminius, the hero of Germani.
Roman revenge after Teutoburg.
*cough*Agrippa*cough*

Fabius Maximus - the only Roman that used brain and not brawn in his time.
Funny that you say so, because Quintus Fabius was considered a slow-witted person, from what I read. But yes, undeniably, he ranks, paradoxically, as one of the most brilliant Roman strategists. He was reputed to say something along the lines of 'I may be slow, but I recognise my own ignorance, which is more than I can say of others' (e.i. he was paralleling the Socratic wisdom here).

[Macilrille]

You can say the same about his adoption of the Fabian strategy; he realised that only another military genius could beat Hannibal, so he found a way to repel Hannibal with what he had to hand. However, to my mind that does not make a great general.

[Africanus]

My handle should give you my answer to your question. :beam:

My reasons:

Surviving the devastating defeats in Rome as a young man.

Taking over the untenable situation in Hispania at 25.

Taking Syphax out of the picture and defeating the legendary Hannibal at Zama using unorthodox Roman techniques.

Humbly turning down Consul for life or dictator.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Aemilius Paulus
Funny that you say so, because Quintus Fabius was considered a slow-witted person, from what I read. But yes, undeniably, he ranks, paradoxically, as one of the most brilliant Roman strategists. He was reputed to say something along the lines of 'I may be slow, but I recognise my own ignorance, which is more than I can say of others' (e.i. he was paralleling the Socratic wisdom here).

That's exactly the image i got from him. Like a good chess player he could see the actual position not impose his assessment of the position to the position. He could think outside the norm - unlike the others, whose assessments were quick but faulty because they were coloured by their preconceptions of what a strategic advantage should be.


Originally posted by Macilrille
You can say the same about his adoption of the Fabian strategy; he realised that only another military genius could beat Hannibal, so he found a way to repel Hannibal with what he had to hand.

Not exactly, he made an accurate assessement of the strategic situation: Rome had a large army with fast replenish rate but little skill - Carthage, or rather Hanibal, had a small but highly experienced and superbly led army, that depended however in terms of success in occupying a lot of ground that it realistically could not.

The situation was very similar to that between the English and the French in the 100 years war. It was only smart generals like Bertrand du Guesclin that avoided the pitched battles in which the English excelled because they knew that they could not otherwise occupy and garrisson the vast French countryside and its many towns with their small numbers. Lengthy campaigns meant that the English would be defeated by expenses of supplies, siege warfare and attrition. Picthed battles were a gamble in which the English were given chances to crush French armies and more importantly French morale.

Like Fabius, Bertrand du Guesclin played to his actual strengths and not to what people's idea of a strength was.


However, to my mind that does not make a great general.

It actually precisely makes a great general - if you were to say that it does not make a great Commander - then i'd agree with you.

[Macilrille]

You have a point, though I tend to equal the two ;-) and I also believe we are basically saying the same thing about Fabian- Hannibal.

However, I seem to recall that Fabian was not a fan of Scipio Africanus, who was definately amongst the greatest commanders- and not just in Rome IMO. If I recall that correctly, it means he made at least one miscalculation.

Anyway, I get more and more tempted to make an analysis of Caecina vs Arminus. Not that I have time, but the wish is there ;-)

Edited to add, congrats on your 1k post.

[Hax]

Marcus

Licinius

Crassus


He just handled the invasion a bit wrong!

Seriously though, I think Marcus Antonius should be mentioned; after the disastrous battle of Carrhae, he led the remainder of the Roman force back to Syria.

[Macilrille]

But he got beaten by Agrippa a couple of times and made a mess of the effective siege he took over from Bassus. Otherwise he was a great leader, ie someone with the ability to make men follow him.

[gollum]

Thanks Macilrille.

:bow:

[vartan]

Flavius Heraclius Augustus

Made out of nothing one of the effective military operations in Roman history, also the contact between Antique and Middle Ages.

XSamatan
I have to agree with you there. Although, him coming from a western Armenian family, I was surprised to find out about his attempt of uniting the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians under the now-heretic idea of monothelitism. He'd either have to stick with Chalcedon so the locals would love him, or he'd have to stick with non-Chalcedon, Nicaea, or more precisely Cyrilline non-Chalcedonian thought, if that's still what his family held in belief. Of his military feats, I know not of much. Do you have any sources I could look into? Thanks.

[Ibrahim]

I'm torn between three soldiers:

Africanus, Caesar, and Heraclius.*

they were all great generals for their day; granted, the last two lost battles, and the last one practically lost a war (and an entire province) in a single battle. then again, I wouldn't blame him for having to send 5 idiots against one cunning general. :clown:

but seriously, I agree: Heraclius was a great general, and he did save the Byzantine empire, and managed to beat the sassanids.

*so I cheated: Belisarius was a byzantine.

[Horatius]

Well how about Germanicus, tamer of the Germanic Women, subduer of the men, and avenger of the great massacre of the Teutoburg Forest?

I would have to say Heraclius doesn't count, first off he is definitely post Roman, it was under his reign that the old Roman titles, the latin language, and other connections to Rome ceased having any importance in Byzantine Greece.

Second even if he was in 75 BC his performance against the rise of Islam was pathetic. On the one hand you could say he used up all of his resources against Persia, but if that is the reason he lost so much of his empire to the rising Islamic Empire isn't that his fault for using up all of his resources in a single campaign? True he wasn't the field commander who lost to invaders, but an emperor is not suppose to need to be everywere at once and he picked the losing field officer.

Maybe he was in an impossible situation, or maybe he failed to muster his resources well the way many earlier emperors did?

Sulla's battles against Mithradates were extrodinary, he managed the first one while losing under 20 men, so I don't think he is overestimated.

[Ibrahim]

Well how about Germanicus, tamer of the Germanic Women, subduer of the men, and avenger of the great massacre of the Teutoburg Forest?

I would have to say Heraclius doesn't count, first off he is definitely post Roman, it was under his reign that the old Roman titles, the latin language, and other connections to Rome ceased having any importance in Byzantine Greece.

Second even if he was in 75 BC his performance against the rise of Islam was pathetic. On the one hand you could say he used up all of his resources against Persia, but if that is the reason he lost so much of his empire to the rising Islamic Empire isn't that his fault for using up all of his resources in a single campaign? True he wasn't the field commander who lost to invaders, but an emperor is not suppose to need to be everywere at once and he picked the losing field officer.

Maybe he was in an impossible situation, or maybe he failed to muster his resources well the way many earlier emperors did?

Sulla's battles against Mithradates were extrodinary, he managed the first one while losing under 20 men, so I don't think he is overestimated.

well, it really wasn't his fault per se that he lost Syria. while the romano-persian wars did leave both empires in a sorry state, militarily the Byzantine empire was actually in a better state than one might be led to believe. from what I do know, Heraclius was able to raise a series of armies over a period of two years (one was beaten at ajnadayn, the other at yarmouk), not one. and the empire was able to halt muslim expansion at the taurus mountains at the end of the century, and really mess up/slow down operations in Egypt and north africa (they did send an invasion fleet to recapture Alexandreia, and aided and reinforced native berbers in their fighting).

the problem lay with how he delegated the authority of his army; if what I've read is true, 5 commanders were involved in the attack on khalid ibn al-walid leading up to the battle of Yarmouk, in 636 AD. naturally, unless the five can coordinate themselves perfectly, or one of them can control the other 4, then the command structure was shaky. Heraclius humself was not directly involved in the 6-day battle. didn't help that Khalid was a very good commander.

[gollum]

Good analysis Ibrahim.

[Macilrille]

Well how about Germanicus, tamer of the Germanic Women, subduer of the men, and avenger of the great massacre of the Teutoburg Forest?

I would have to say Heraclius doesn't count, first off he is definitely post Roman, it was under his reign that the old Roman titles, the latin language, and other connections to Rome ceased having any importance in Byzantine Greece.

Second even if he was in 75 BC his performance against the rise of Islam was pathetic. On the one hand you could say he used up all of his resources against Persia, but if that is the reason he lost so much of his empire to the rising Islamic Empire isn't that his fault for using up all of his resources in a single campaign? True he wasn't the field commander who lost to invaders, but an emperor is not suppose to need to be everywere at once and he picked the losing field officer.

Maybe he was in an impossible situation, or maybe he failed to muster his resources well the way many earlier emperors did?

Sulla's battles against Mithradates were extrodinary, he managed the first one while losing under 20 men, so I don't think he is overestimated.

There is this thing we historians practice, it is called "source criticism", try applying it. 20 men... if you believe that... I have this cheap tall tower in Paris you can buy ;-) TIC...

[moonburn]

titus labienus ? (ok he failled miserably when h was with pompey)

mark anthony ? when in doubt CHARGE \O (ok that was from the rome series and from the descriptions i guess thats is what kind of general/human being you would want to be if you where a roman general)

aethios sulla and sertorius where already said so :/ i guess only marius is left altough there was that fellow that beated down the east and then pompey came along and stole all of his glory ? can´t recall his name but he was respected by crassus pompey and cesar so i guess he had to be a fairly inteligent and capable comander to get the respect of such diverse caracthers

[mrjade06]

I would throw Titus and Vespasian as pretty seriously sound Roman leaders out there as well...in my book at LEAST the equals of Caesar

[Mulceber]

Apology accepted =)


I would throw Titus and Vespasian as pretty seriously sound Roman leaders out there as well...in my book at LEAST the equals of Caesar

Definitely not Vespasian. Vespasian was, from my understanding, largely a political appointee. He had little military experience, and played very little role in the Jewish war. Titus ended up being the one who actually conducted the siege of Jerusalem, while Vespasian was going on to be crowned Emperor. In my opinion though, Titus doesn't compare to Caesar. He proved himself competent, but he didn't have to face the wide variety of opponents with different fighting styles that Caesar did. -M

[mrjade06]

Apology accepted =)



Definitely not Vespasian. Vespasian was, from my understanding, largely a political appointee. He had little military experience, and played very little role in the Jewish war. Titus ended up being the one who actually conducted the siege of Jerusalem, while Vespasian was going on to be crowned Emperor. In my opinion though, Titus doesn't compare to Caesar. He proved himself competent, but he didn't have to face the wide variety of opponents with different fighting styles that Caesar did. -M

I guess I could have just said Titus, however I normally include the two together as they kinda go hand in hand...you are right there. However I think this was a far more determinded, tenacious, and fanatical opponent than many of those Caesar faced. These WERE religious fanatics after all, and they did succeed in destroying a Roman army at the battle of Beth Horon. In fact Roman reports during this war were extremely subdued compared to the norm. This was a VERY serious rebellion. I wouldnt neccesarily put Titus above Caesar, but he is a leader that perhaps merits more discussion as he was quite brutally effective.

[Mulceber]

I guess I could have just said Titus, however I normally include the two together as they kinda go hand in hand...you are right there. However I think this was a far more determinded, tenacious, and fanatical opponent than many of those Caesar faced. These WERE religious fanatics after all, and they did succeed in destroying a Roman army at the battle of Beth Horon. In fact Roman reports during this war were extremely subdued compared to the norm. This was a VERY serious rebellion. I wouldnt neccesarily put Titus above Caesar, but he is a leader that perhaps merits more discussion as he was quite brutally effective.

I can agree to that. Roman reports were likely more subdued because the revolt happened when the Julio-Claudian dynasty was enduring its death-throws, so the revolt was understandably less of a concern for most Roman citizens. I agree though that Titus deserves praise for his handling of a dangerous revolt being carried out by people who were fanatically devoted to their cause.

[Horatius]

There is this thing we historians practice, it is called "source criticism", try applying it. 20 men... if you believe that... I have this cheap tall tower in Paris you can buy ;-) TIC...

I would but the issue of 20 or 200 or even maybe 5000 for a very high number really isn't the issue, the issue is that Sulla and his propagandaists saw his casualties as low enough to get away with claiming such a miracle as less than 20.

What that means is when facing a very capable general who built a formidable fighting machine, and was on friendly ground with support of the local population, and very well supplied Sulla managed to pull of a great victory with very low casualties.


<20=irrelevant, a number like that was just the ancients way of saying the battle went unusually well and far exceeded all expectations, for what it's worth Mithradates did suspect that his man had secretly been bought off by and thrown the battle in favor of Sulla.

[Ludens]

The discussion on Caesar's generalship has been given its own thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126547-Is-Caesar-overrated-as-general).

:bow:

[anubis88]

The discussion on Caesar's generalship has been given its own thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126547-Is-Caesar-overrated-as-general).

:bow:

And suddenly noone posts in this one! Damnit, you broke up my thread!

(just kidding:D)

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Ceaser.

[Tanit]

I would add Metellus of the Jugurthine war to the list. He was a good dependable general who was winning the war, and Marius just played on Metellus' success to get voted as a consul and then stole both Metellus' and Sulla's glory (Sulla was the commander who approached Bocchus and recieved Jugurtha as a prisoner).

[The_Blacksmith]

Gaius Marius... :)

[fomalhaut]

from what i've read, i would say Quintus Sertorius. He was certainly a leader of men but a great tactician as well, he earned the trust of the Iberians as well as many Romans. he was only ultimately defeated by treachery

[TheLastDays]

He was certainly a leader of men

he earned the trust of the Iberians as well as many Romans

he was only ultimately defeated by treachery

something doesn't seem right there...

[Ca Putt]

why? the more popular and successfull one gets the more people get jealous of this and well...

[antisocialmunky]

The members of the Illyrian Military Junta.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Roman general Flavius Aëtius

He was one of the last Romans(a real roman) to actually defeat Attlia the Hun at Chalons.He was a proper leader,and at that time could have bought rthe old legionary army of rome back.Except I think he died or was mudred.The western roman empire at that time was so weak,only the east could have surived.FLavius would have been fit for a emperor ,the first thing he would have done is after defeating attllia,he should have taken power in rome,then he needed to drive back the germanic tribes prouling gaul and spain.He'd then go to the eastern roman empire,defeat the eastern emperor,and unite the empire,Then in the east he would wipe out the enemies there.He'd then reorgainese rome,bring back the old legionary army of rome ,and Rome would have established its power again once and for all.

Of course ,this never happened in the first place.:(
As he was assianted by the foolish roman emperor Valentinian.Had Valentinian not done this.The roman empire had a chance of striving much longer

[QuintusSertorius]

Sertorius or Lucullus.

I don't think Pompey is worthy of mention, he was a brilliant organiser and logistician, could inspire his men, but he was a rather ordinary tactician. Twice he came across opponents of calibre (Sertorius and Caesar), on both occasions he was defeated.

[vartan]

Takeda do you think Flavius had the potential to do that? It would be interesting to compare him to Constantine. Constantine had many leaders/obstacles to overcome to achieve his final success. Was Flavius too in a position to do that? Was he capable of defeating the eastern sector with his forces?

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Romulus Augustulus.

[A_Dane]

I can't really get my self to put Sulla in front of Marius. He was surely a capable man, but he built upon Marius achievements, and was in a much better position socially.

Still, have to say Scipio Africanus, he beat Hannibal, which pretty much settles it in my eyes. (Although that's not to say, that i think he was better than Hannibal :))

Caesar is another good candidate, though I'd put him behind Marius.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Takeda do you think Flavius had the potential to do that? It would be interesting to compare him to Constantine. Constantine had many leaders/obstacles to overcome to achieve his final success. Was Flavius too in a position to do that? Was he capable of defeating the eastern sector with his forces?

He was.If he could defeat Attila why not the eastern sector?Flavius could have done of all this done.Constantine in my opinion was a corrupt fool.I would not rank him as a 'real roman'.Constantine did not bring the old army of rome back.Flavius was a far better general and a capablest ruler.


I can't really get my self to put Sulla in front of Marius. He was surely a capable man, but he built upon Marius achievements, and was in a much better position socially.

Still, have to say Scipio Africanus, he beat Hannibal, which pretty much settles it in my eyes. (Although that's not to say, that i think he was better than Hannibal :))
.
Caesar is another good candidate, though I'd put him behind Marius.

He only copied Hannibals tactics.It was because of Hannibal he was there.

[A_Dane]

Same thing with Sulla, he copied Marius.

But Scipio didn't just copy, he responded to the tactics Hannibal used, (countering his elephants as one example).

It's kinda hard to compare across the ages, but I'm still gonna say Scipio, simply because he managed to defeat the greatest strategist the roman republic ever faced.

[QuintusSertorius]

It's kinda hard to compare across the ages, but I'm still gonna say Scipio, simply because he managed to defeat the greatest strategist the roman republic ever faced.

Hannibal himself thought Pyrrhus was the greatest general.

[A_Dane]

Indeed, but tbh I find Hannibals achievements to be more astonishing than Pyrrhus'. Hannibal had a.. diverse force which he led over the alpes, and he conteniously bested the romans with few losses.
Pyrrhus had a proffessional army, and did beat them, but with horrific losses every time.
Pyrrhus never threatened Rome the way Hannibal did, and he pretty much just built upon Alexanders' tactics.

[Nirvanish]

titus labienus ? (ok he failled miserably when h was with pompey)

mark anthony ? when in doubt CHARGE \O (ok that was from the rome series and from the descriptions i guess thats is what kind of general/human being you would want to be if you where a roman general)

aethios sulla and sertorius where already said so :/ i guess only marius is left altough there was that fellow that beated down the east and then pompey came along and stole all of his glory ? can´t recall his name but he was respected by crassus pompey and cesar so i guess he had to be a fairly inteligent and capable comander to get the respect of such diverse caracthers

Sounds kind of like Lucius Licinius Lucullus to me. I have found it kind of odd that only one person mentioned him so far. He can be credited with stabilizing the situation in Asia Minor by wiping out pontus, reinstalling Roman governance and nearly toppling Tigranes's control of armenia...well until his brother in law instigated the army to go on strike. Afterwards he kind of lost it when he returned home and turned his back on traditional roman ideals.

[strategos roma]

Quintus Sertorius... Only a genius could have held off the Romans and Pompey for as long as he did. Had he not been assasinated, then the war would likely have dragged on.
Scipio Aemilianus...Frequently ignored commander who managed to subdue the fierce Numantians.
Fabius Maximus...He wasn't a great commander, but he saved Rome from Hannibal
Marcus Claudius Nero...Again frequently ignored but probably the most successful Roman commander aside from Scipio Africanus

[vartan]

Sounds kind of like Lucius Licinius Lucullus to me. I have found it kind of odd that only one person mentioned him so far. He can be credited with stabilizing the situation in Asia Minor by wiping out pontus, reinstalling Roman governance and nearly toppling Tigranes's control of armenia...well until his brother in law instigated the army to go on strike. Afterwards he kind of lost it when he returned home and turned his back on traditional roman ideals.
I know many that hate LLL, usually referring to him as a bastard Roman. I'm glad Pompey replaced him. I believe for all their smarts and faults, Pompey had the more sense. Poor Cicero, he spoke at the senate house about the then current events in Asia. LLL was recalled and Pompey send to do a clean job, which I believe he did. Wonder what LLL's villa looked like, though.

[NikosMaximilian]

Roman general Flavius Aëtius

He was one of the last Romans(a real roman) to actually defeat Attlia the Hun at Chalons.He was a proper leader,and at that time could have bought rthe old legionary army of rome back.Except I think he died or was mudred.The western roman empire at that time was so weak,only the east could have surived.FLavius would have been fit for a emperor ,the first thing he would have done is after defeating attllia,he should have taken power in rome,then he needed to drive back the germanic tribes prouling gaul and spain.He'd then go to the eastern roman empire,defeat the eastern emperor,and unite the empire,Then in the east he would wipe out the enemies there.He'd then reorgainese rome,bring back the old legionary army of rome ,and Rome would have established its power again once and for all.

Of course ,this never happened in the first place.:(
As he was assianted by the foolish roman emperor Valentinian.Had Valentinian not done this.The roman empire had a chance of striving much longer

I'm sorry, but you are ignoring many factors outside the military field in your hypothetical scenario. Flavius Aetius won the Battle of Chalons by forging an alliance with Alaric, the King of the Goths. The alliance grew out of desperation: by that time the Western Roman Empire armies were nowhere near the legions of the past. A great percentage of the army was compossed by Germanic soldiers whose loyalty was divided between Roman gold and their own warchiefs. These troops weren't an organized army, they resembled more of a warband, so their discipline, organization and loyalty were inferior. The equipment was of poorer standards too: the Empire was in a bad financial situation, so there were less state provided shields and swords, and they were of worse quality.

Also don't forget that after the Catalaunian Plains, Attila didn't go away and invaded Italy. The only thing that stopped the Huns was the sudden death of their leader, who united several nomadic confederations.

I think that your claim that if he had proclaimed himself Emperor, he would have driven the Germanics out of the Empire provinces, is also wrong. The Empire was heavily dependant on foreign troops who sometimes responded to the Germanic warlord, sometimes to the Roman (promises of) gold and lands. There was no practical standing army, and the recruitment pool in the Western provinces had dwindled in the last hundred years, because of many factors (demographic crisis, climate change, loss of African grain, de-urbanization, invasions, etc.).

A realistic "what if" point for those who are interested in the survival of the Empire would the the Third Century Crisis, where the tide could have been changed. By the fifth century, there was no going back. Even if Aetius managed to beat migration after migration in the battlefield, the economic and social changes had sealed the Empire's destiny. In this scenario, my wild guess, is that it could have lasted a maximum of another 100-150 years but with its powers and territories greatly diminished. There are some other key moments that could have slowed down its fall like the reign of Constantine, Adrianople, the crossing of the Rhine, the first sack of Rome (its importance more about the message sent to the rest of the territories than the sack itself).

[Harkilaz]

Fabius Maximus...He wasn't a great commander, but he saved Rome from Hannibal

That's far too simple a way of looking at it! There was a combination of factors that contributed to the defeat of Hannibal... It wasn't as though all Roman commanders followed Fabius' strategy, many confronted Hannibal in battle after Cannae! Fabius was however, one of the only generals to realise Hannibal's logistical limitations when he first set foot in Italy before he had anywhere as a supply base.

Fronda in his book Between Rome and Carthage: Southern Italy during the Second Punic War supposes the alliances to both Hannibal and Rome were dictated by centuries of interstate rivalries that determined what actions the cities and towns would take when faced by Hannibal - political factionalism within the cities governing elite and interstate rivalries hindered Hannibal's strategy - for example - gaining Capua turned a number of cities from ever joining Hannibal out of choice because of their fear of Capuan hegemony (who most likely didn't want to control all of Italy, but take back what had been stripped of them by Rome) - those in the past that had joined Capua in her policy decisions in war turned from Rome - and those that didn't had fought that very same Capuan league in the past, and their very survival depended on staying with Rome as they feared they'd lose out in an alliance with Hannibal. This was the case all over the South where he tried to turn allies from Rome. In Bruttium, centuries of warfare between the Greeks and the Bruttians made the Greeks hesitant of joining Hannibal when most of Bruttium joined him, which is true of Greek intercity rivalry too - when he captured Locri, who had previous interstate rivalry with Rhegion, the Rhegions turned to Rome for help fearing Locrian hegemonic aspirations. Likewise, the Bruttians also attacked Croton without Hannibal's knowledge, which shows they also expected more power - sadly - with Rome's reaction after Cannae to garrison cities that might sway in order to prevent such a thing (though this did not mean it would work - see Tarentum in 213/2) this limited Hannibal's success massively. The combination of long term conditions (local rivalries) and short term factors (Rome's military response) proved to much for Hannibal's strategy to overcome.

Here are some tables from Fronda's book which reveals alliance patterns in Apulia and Campania.

https://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu348/markdienekes/ALL1.jpg

https://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu348/markdienekes/ALL2.jpg


There isn't any indication that the allies had any particular love for Rome and its future, instead, the Second Punic War reveals that decisions made by each city and town was to further it's own interests and survival rather than loyalty to Rome. If the pro-Hannibal (or anti-Roman) political faction elite in the other cities had managed to win over the pro-Roman elite, Rome would have been in dire straits!

Personally I'd go for Caesar - his engineering ability alone was brilliant!

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I'm sorry, but you are ignoring many factors outside the military field in your hypothetical scenario. Flavius Aetius won the Battle of Chalons by forging an alliance with Alaric, the King of the Goths. The alliance grew out of desperation: by that time the Western Roman Empire armies were nowhere near the legions of the past. A great percentage of the army was compossed by Germanic soldiers whose loyalty was divided between Roman gold and their own warchiefs. These troops weren't an organized army, they resembled more of a warband, so their discipline, organization and loyalty were inferior. The equipment was of poorer standards too: the Empire was in a bad financial situation, so there were less state provided shields and swords, and they were of worse quality.

Also don't forget that after the Catalaunian Plains, Attila didn't go away and invaded Italy. The only thing that stopped the Huns was the sudden death of their leader, who united several nomadic confederations.

I think that your claim that if he had proclaimed himself Emperor, he would have driven the Germanics out of the Empire provinces, is also wrong. The Empire was heavily dependant on foreign troops who sometimes responded to the Germanic warlord, sometimes to the Roman (promises of) gold and lands. There was no practical standing army, and the recruitment pool in the Western provinces had dwindled in the last hundred years, because of many factors (demographic crisis, climate change, loss of African grain, de-urbanization, invasions, etc.).

A realistic "what if" point for those who are interested in the survival of the Empire would the the Third Century Crisis, where the tide could have been changed. By the fifth century, there was no going back. Even if Aetius managed to beat migration after migration in the battlefield, the economic and social changes had sealed the Empire's destiny. In this scenario, my wild guess, is that it could have lasted a maximum of another 100-150 years but with its powers and territories greatly diminished. There are some other key moments that could have slowed down its fall like the reign of Constantine, Adrianople, the crossing of the Rhine, the first sack of Rome (its importance more about the message sent to the rest of the territories than the sack itself).

I can agree with what you say.But Flavius was the last true roman.He still would have had to drive those germanic tribes that were rome's enemies.iF he had taken power,rome of course would have lasted for 150 years or so

There was no practical standing army, and the recruitment pool in the Western provinces had dwindled in the last hundred years, because of many factors (demographic crisis, climate change, loss of African grain, de-urbanization, invasions, etc.

Flavius would have reformed all of this.

It was the true that the romans did not resemble their ancestors.But Flavius,you are ignoring that he had not died.he would have made a excellent ruler and reformed the empire,he would have the germanic tribes in diplomacy qquite a lot and he would have bought the old army of rome back.

============================

Napoleon thought Hannibal himself as the greatest general

[QuintusSertorius]

Sounds kind of like Lucius Licinius Lucullus to me. I have found it kind of odd that only one person mentioned him so far. He can be credited with stabilizing the situation in Asia Minor by wiping out pontus, reinstalling Roman governance and nearly toppling Tigranes's control of armenia...well until his brother in law instigated the army to go on strike. Afterwards he kind of lost it when he returned home and turned his back on traditional roman ideals.

Precisely. Lucullus was a peerless general, just one so aristocratic as to completely lack any kind of common touch or appreciation for the sentiment of the ordinary legionary. It was this, rather than any strategic shortcoming, that undid him.


I know many that hate LLL, usually referring to him as a bastard Roman. I'm glad Pompey replaced him. I believe for all their smarts and faults, Pompey had the more sense. Poor Cicero, he spoke at the senate house about the then current events in Asia. LLL was recalled and Pompey send to do a clean job, which I believe he did. Wonder what LLL's villa looked like, though.

Pompey took credit for Lucullus' hard work, all the fighting was done when he arrived. Though he did do a good job of settling matters in the aftermath, but that's an administrator's work, not a general.

[moonburn]

anyone that puts marius before sulla as the best roman general needs to go and read alot of books :\ marius reformed the legion wich 1st was a process that was already happening he just took advantage of a dire situation to further it (wich after the grachus assassination was the 2nd stone in the republics grave) he had the money of rome and the man power of rome behinde him rome could have survived without him

sulla on the other hand fighted against the roman stupidity to try and reform the republic like the grachus had done (well not exactly he tryed to further the senatorial power to keep a balance that was quickly disapeiring and turning the romans against rome )

anyone that can befriend zee germans will always be besser then anyone trying to destroy them :\

[Nirvanish]

Precisely. Lucullus was a peerless general, just one so aristocratic as to completely lack any kind of common touch or appreciation for the sentiment of the ordinary legionary. It was this, rather than any strategic shortcoming, that undid him.



Pompey took credit for Lucullus' hard work, all the fighting was done when he arrived. Though he did do a good job of settling matters in the aftermath, but that's an administrator's work, not a general.

Agreed but I think that its easy to understate the task of keeping an army such as Lucullus's in order. They had been campaigning for nearly 15 years in the east before Publius Clodius Pulcher instigated the army to go on strike. I can only think of two other situations off the top of my head where a general has been in the field with atleast the same core army for nearly as long, Hannibal(15 years) and Alexander the Great(11 years). I'm not sure if anything close to a mutiny ever happened to Hannibal but I know the latter part of Alexander's campaign has several examples of his men refusing to take orders until either Alexander shamed them into action, charged into battle himself, or agreed to his mens' desires.

While I completely agree that Lucullus had no "common touch", I feel that any general in his shoes would have been hardpressed to keep order as long as he had.

[CashMunny]

As a General, Sulla probably has Marius beat. As a reformer, no way! Marius was the driving force behind the aptly named 'Marian Reforms' which gave Rome a much needed boost in manpower. Yes, perhaps someone else would have came along eventually and done what Marius did, but since Marius accomplished it, he gets the title. I'm sure if Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone, someone would have done it a few years after, but he's still a great inventor nonetheless because he DID invent it.

[therup]

I have to say Flavius Belisarius. No need to say anything else, check him out if you dont know about him.

[A_Dane]

anyone that puts marius before sulla as the best roman general needs to go and read alot of books :\ marius reformed the legion wich 1st was a process that was already happening he just took advantage of a dire situation to further it (wich after the grachus assassination was the 2nd stone in the republics grave) he had the money of rome and the man power of rome behinde him rome could have survived without him

sulla on the other hand fighted against the roman stupidity to try and reform the republic like the grachus had done (well not exactly he tryed to further the senatorial power to keep a balance that was quickly disapeiring and turning the romans against rome )

anyone that can befriend zee germans will always be besser then anyone trying to destroy them :\


Reforming a government has little to do with being a general.

Marius reformed the army, and he defeated the forces which inflicted the greatest number of casualties to the romans since Cannae. Whether the army was evolving on it's own, is really irrelevant, as it would have taken alot of time, and Sulla certainly wouldn't have been able to do it the way Marius did it.

That's not to say Sulla wasn't a very capable man, Marius was just the better general, simple as that.
Sulla however was a greater statesman, and combined with the fact, that he didn't have to face the obstacles Marius faced in the political life, he came out on top of their struggle, but it really had not much to do with their military skill...

[moonburn]

sulla was the better general of the two marius gets alot of credits for aqua flavia (or whatever was the batle where he fighted for his life against the cimbrii ) wich admitly was his highest point but ignoring sulla´s achievements when he defeat roman generals after roman generals when he put the ubii in their place marius fighted against barbarians but when it was time to face sulla he lost he even had to free gladiators and he still lost sulla was all in all a better general the fact that the world recognises marius because of his "reforms" wich was just another stab in the res publica back since after him soldiers where loyal to the generals and not rome wich coincidently initiated the civil strifes period (the socii wars i believe) and the civil wars period so that reform everyone praises was responsible for more dead romans then cannae

after marius there where no more citizens since citizens no longer had to grab weapons and defend rome they only had to pay taxs so that rome could pay for soldiers wich then where being used in power struggles for the betterment of their own generals and not rome itself wich coincidently ended with lucullus having his more then deserved triumph stolen from him

as for belisarius i totally agree a man in a very hard place finding amazing tactical strategic and operational solutions to all the problems he faced he defeated eastern factions fighted against the sassanid and won fighted against the vandals and goths and whatever else they could trough at him and he always found a way to win on the batlefield

[fomalhaut]

Hannibal himself thought Pyrrhus was the greatest general.

perhaps because of his near conquest of Sicily? Hannibal must have respected someone who could so easily defeat his own people. Maybe he also liked that they both weren't very good at siege warfare

[A_Dane]

You completely ignore the fact, that Marius was, at most, low born nobility. He was frowned upon by the elites in power. They didn't trust him, and therefore worked against him, while giving more suppourt to Sulla, thus making his rise to power easier.

and him only defeating "barbarians", is hardly relevant. Those barbarians killed more roman soldiers in a single battle, than any of romes other enemies, so defeating them was quite a feat, no matter how you look at it.

Anyways, I'm not gonna use more time on discussing this, as it's completely pointles.

[Harkilaz]

perhaps because of his near conquest of Sicily? Hannibal must have respected someone who could so easily defeat his own people. Maybe he also liked that they both weren't very good at siege warfare

He actually wasn't that bad at siege warfare - he did manage to storm and take a few cities in Italy - sadly, the focus is on the ones he failed - and that was to do with many factors - usually involving strong Roman garrisons!

[fomalhaut]

i believe that! but no doubt their respective strengths both lied with complex maneuvers which could not be done in street combat. We all know what happened in one particular city :'(

and RE: to the person who said that Sertorius being betrayed didn't make sense if he was so great, that's exactly why he was betrayed. Growth in power causes others to become jealous or wary. Alexander had multiple conspiracies against him even before he alienated his Macedonian followers, it's just politics.

[NikosMaximilian]

I can agree with what you say.But Flavius was the last true roman.He still would have had to drive those germanic tribes that were rome's enemies.iF he had taken power,rome of course would have lasted for 150 years or so

Flavius would have reformed all of this.

It was the true that the romans did not resemble their ancestors.But Flavius,you are ignoring that he had not died.he would have made a excellent ruler and reformed the empire,he would have the germanic tribes in diplomacy qquite a lot and he would have bought the old army of rome back.

I don't think that it was possible for Flavius Aetius to reverse such a trend based exclusively on military reforms and victories. Again, a massive percentage of the empire armies were formed by Germanic soldiers who were closer to mercenaries. Many former and current territories were now inhabited by these people, who moved as entire tribes, with women and children. Without these soldiers, the army would have been depleted, because there wasn't enough population to levy. The army had also moved away from the uniform equipment and organization of centuries past: now it was a border watch infantry in some fronts (limitanei) with strategically positoned reserves (comitatenses). In the middle there were provincial troops which included cavalry, that consituted a bigger percentage in the army than ever before. The legionary heavy infantry was smaller and more lightly armed.

The amount of trade between cities, that prospered under the Pax Romana, was a shadow of its former self. Population had been moving away from the cities into the countryside for more than fifty years, looking to produce their own food, which were the seeds for the process that lead into feudalism. The loss of Northern African grain accelerated this process. It was an economical and social change that went beyond emperors political abilities. It just happened that many of the emperors of the time were weak, inept and puppets of military chieftains and a very conservative, corrupt and inept ruling class. But even well intentioned emperors failed to reverse the trend. Just look what happened in Western Europe after the fall of Rome: there were very few standing professional armies for many centuries, and with the exception of the Carolingian and Merovingian dinasties (to some extent), very few centralized powers.

I don't doubt Aetius was a good tactician and strategist, however, I don't think he had the tools to reverse the inevitable. The Western Roman Empire was being overrun in many fronts and was submerged in internal strife and crisis. As I posted earlier, there were earlier moments which could have turned the tide, but by 450AD the writing was on the wall.

[Skullheadhq]

I don't like Sulla's way of doing politics, I think Scipio A. wins.

[delablake]

Gaius Marius! No doubt there! Defeated all of his enemies including Cimbri and Teutons. His lasting legacy was the reformed Roman Army.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I don't think that it was possible for Flavius Aetius to reverse such a trend based exclusively on military reforms and victories. Again, a massive percentage of the empire armies were formed by Germanic soldiers who were closer to mercenaries. Many former and current territories were now inhabited by these people, who moved as entire tribes, with women and children. Without these soldiers, the army would have been depleted, because there wasn't enough population to levy. The army had also moved away from the uniform equipment and organization of centuries past: now it was a border watch infantry in some fronts (limitanei) with strategically positoned reserves (comitatenses). In the middle there were provincial troops which included cavalry, that consituted a bigger percentage in the army than ever before. The legionary heavy infantry was smaller and more lightly armed.

The amount of trade between cities, that prospered under the Pax Romana, was a shadow of its former self. Population had been moving away from the cities into the countryside for more than fifty years, looking to produce their own food, which were the seeds for the process that lead into feudalism. The loss of Northern African grain accelerated this process. It was an economical and social change that went beyond emperors political abilities. It just happened that many of the emperors of the time were weak, inept and puppets of military chieftains and a very conservative, corrupt and inept ruling class. But even well intentioned emperors failed to reverse the trend. Just look what happened in Western Europe after the fall of Rome: there were very few standing professional armies for many centuries, and with the exception of the Carolingian and Merovingian dinasties (to some extent), very few centralized powers.

I don't doubt Aetius was a good tactician and strategist, however, I don't think he had the tools to reverse the inevitable. The Western Roman Empire was being overrun in many fronts and was submerged in internal strife and crisis. As I posted earlier, there were earlier moments which could have turned the tide, but by 450AD the writing was on the wall.

Tell me,what would have happened if he had lived then?Anyone could have changed the destiny of the roman empire and usally it ended in disasters.Flavius was the last true roman,he was the last of them only capble of destroying Rome's enemies.

[Geticus]

6th century BCE- Tarquinius Priscus
5th century BCE- Caius Marcius Coriolanus
4th Century BCE- Furius Camillus, Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus, Lucius Papirius Cursor, Marcus Valerius Corvus
3rd Century BCE- Fabius Rullianus Maximus (victor of the Samnite War, the original Maximus, not the Hannibal era Cunctator who was more statesman than general), Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Scipio Africanus
2nd Century BCE- Scipio Aemilianus
1st Century BCE- Gaius Marius, Cornelius Sulla, Pompeius Magnus, Iulius Caesar

Greatest of them all Iulius Caesar because practice makes perfect and he had the longest continuous imperium and got the most practice, remember Suetonius' reference to Caesar's "incredibilis scientia bellandi"- Caesar was like Napoleon, he kept it straightforward and simple whenever possible but when things got complicated, i.e. vs the Nervii,, or the campaign vs. the Republicans, swarmed by the Numidians on the march in North Africa Caesar always rose to the occasion.

[A_Dane]

Tell me,what would have happened if he had lived then?Anyone could have changed the destiny of the roman empire and usally it ended in disasters.Flavius was the last true roman,he was the last of them only capble of destroying Rome's enemies.

He basically said, that even if Flavius had lived, he wouldn't have been able to reverse the already ongoing tendency, hence he might have prolonged it a bit, but in the end it was doomed to fall :p

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Still,it would have done the romans some good.

[moonburn]

sulla never lost a batle in his lifetime and he had cesars life on his hand and spared him stating that in cesar there´s 1000 marius with all the populism and lack of scrupulous that comes with such bottom feeders

furthermore sulla was able to get the respect of such amazing generals as lucullos one of the best on his own pompey (altough we all know he wasn´t that great) and even marius

furthermore to attest to his caracther he had the balls to march on rome itself (1st one ever) and the decency to step out once he decided his work was done and was freely walking the streets of rome next to the brothers and sons of those he had proscrited or had killed in revenge for cinna´s actions and he explained all of his actions and nobady dared to killed him in the midle of the street even tough he was a nobiles and had just passed laws putting the plebeians in their place

had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome

one of the greatest losses of classicism is the loss of sulla´s memoirs altough i tend to believe they where all destroyed by gaius cesar and octavian since the mind of such a brilliant man could have inspired the romans to adapt to becoming an empire without the need for an emperor

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

sulla never lost a batle in his lifetime and he had cesars life on his hand and spared him stating that in cesar there´s 1000 marius with all the populism and lack of scrupulous that comes with such bottom feeders

furthermore sulla was able to get the respect of such amazing generals as lucullos one of the best on his own pompey (altough we all know he wasn´t that great) and even marius

furthermore to attest to his caracther he had the balls to march on rome itself (1st one ever) and the decency to step out once he decided his work was done and was freely walking the streets of rome next to the brothers and sons of those he had proscrited or had killed in revenge for cinna´s actions and he explained all of his actions and nobady dared to killed him in the midle of the street even tough he was a nobiles and had just passed laws putting the plebeians in their place

had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome

one of the greatest losses of classicism is the loss of sulla´s memoirs altough i tend to believe they where all destroyed by gaius cesar and octavian since the mind of such a brilliant man could have inspired the romans to adapt to becoming an empire without the need for an emperor

Hmmm...I've seen this sort of sentiment before. I must admit that I am puzzled by it - especially in an age where so many of us value our democratic rights. Perhaps they are not as valued as I imagine them.

Sulla's background is a little....., murky, shall we say. One of Caesar's descendants was reported to have questioned Sulla's rise to prominence, and by implication the honesty of his position. We know only of some 'lover' and a step-mother who allegedly left him large sums of money - rather an odd proposition for a culture bound by the notion of pater familias, don't you think?

I don't understand why Sulla's reputation is any less factional than his enemies. Why is it that one might describe Sulla's march on Rome in terms of 'having balls', while he that follows (Caesar) is (by implication) seen as a usurper?

There is much vagueness, an opaqueness, regarding the goings on of this era. Sulla, Pompey, Marius, Caesar.... all are over-stepping the line in terms of the Republic's constitution. Given the nature of those institutions (oligarchical power-sharing and fulfilling familial ambition) it was inevitable that the power of those institutions would be challenged.

I have to say, though, that I find sentiments such as "putting the plebeians in their place" rather worrying when expounded as a good thing. Perhaps, though, this is due to Plebians (like the notional 'barbarians') being always projected as smelly, unthinking, drunken mobs.

[Constantius III]

Tell me,what would have happened if he had lived then?Anyone could have changed the destiny of the roman empire and usally it ended in disasters.Flavius was the last true roman,he was the last of them only capble of destroying Rome's enemies.
Nah, that man was Constantius III. :p

In 420 I would say that the West was on the verge of complete restoration under Constantius III and that had the emperor not dropped dead of pleurisy the next year things would probably have been very different indeed (see, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, p.234). What brought down the Roman Empire? Pleurisy. ... As I always, not entirely jokingly, tell my first-years.

[fomalhaut]

yeah i think the concept of 'best general' should extend to the ends of them campaigning in the first place. Sulla was basically a bad guy in my opinion, his tactical abilities were all to the end of perpetuating the rule of the patricians and the oppression of the plebeians.

There are great tacticians who supported great evils but i would consider them better generals just because their intentions weren't really evil, Rommel and 'Stonewall' Jackson are two great examples.

[CashMunny]

This isn't a contest of who was the nicest general, it's a contest of who was the best general. The job of a general is to send thousands of men to their deaths, oftentimes when those men have little or nothing to gain by winning, and to make them actually want to fight anyways. It's not a job for a nice guy. Sulla strikes me as a corrupt power-hungry oligarch, but to others he is seen as a defender of Roman virtue. We could debate whether he was a moral crusader or a misguided buffoon all day, but we can't dispute that he was a great leader of men. Likewise, we can spend all day discussing Caesar's evil evil ways, or his noble and virtuous life, but we can't call him a slouch when it comes to commanding armies. It almost seems like to be a successful general, you need to a bit of a prick. Patton, Rommel, Caesar, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Tamerlane were all pretty bad dudes, but their job was to send their people to kill the other guy's people in the most efficient manner, so what the heck do you expect?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

This isn't a contest of who was the nicest general, it's a contest of who was the best general. The job of a general is to send thousands of men to their deaths, oftentimes when those men have little or nothing to gain by winning, and to make them actually want to fight anyways. It's not a job for a nice guy. Sulla strikes me as a corrupt power-hungry oligarch, but to others he is seen as a defender of Roman virtue. We could debate whether he was a moral crusader or a misguided buffoon all day, but we can't dispute that he was a great leader of men. Likewise, we can spend all day discussing Caesar's evil evil ways, or his noble and virtuous life, but we can't call him a slouch when it comes to commanding armies. It almost seems like to be a successful general, you need to a bit of a prick. Patton, Rommel, Caesar, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Tamerlane were all pretty bad dudes, but their job was to send their people to kill the other guy's people in the most efficient manner, so what the heck do you expect?

Which is a fine defence as long as one is defining the argument in terms of their Generalship, but when one adds such as


had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome

..then one is taking the discussion beyond that remit. We don't actually know very much about what Cinna's actions were during this period. The outline of the history of this period are almost entirely based upon Sulla's own memoirs and so it follows that they will show him in a more favourable light than perhaps he merits.

If it is Generalship that is being discussed then discuss that, if one wishes to extol the virtues of the man, or his politics (and especially where one tries to diminish the aspect of personal ambition) then expect that to come into question.

As for whether or not his Generalship can be questioned, I believe that it can. As above, the outline of the history of this period is taken from Sulla's own memoirs. Many of the victories attested to his leadership can be questioned - starting, of course, with Jugurtha. I shall root out some more campaigns where his command has been put into question when I return from work.

[CashMunny]

We actually get a lot more information about Sulla from Plutarch, and we really don't have too much reason to doubt Plutarch's word as far as Sulla's concerned. He didn't have much of a motive to trump up Sulla's greatness a century after Sulla's time. In fact if anything Plutarch might have had a motive to make Sulla sound as bad as possible. Plutarch lived during the Julian and Flavian dynastic eras for the most part, they certainly wouldn't be paying Plutarch extra to make Caesar's enemy seem like a good guy since the Julians were Augustus' adopted children and grandchildren and the Flavians had Caesar to thank for becoming prominent at all.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Nah, that man was Constantius III. :p

He died and did not reunite the empire.

[moonburn]

sulla was never defeated in batle and he fighted the numidians easterners and romans

only general at that time that could have put up a fight to sulla was sertorious but they never seem to have fighted directly so as far as i know we can never tell

as for sulla background cesar claims that sulla spent some time with the ubii of germania so nothing tells us that he didn´t bruttiied the place and scam people out of their gold furthermore we all know the numidians where very keen on paying romans so why wouldn´t the mauritanians be the same while he was a general in north africa there where still alot of gold to be made like buy provisions for 100kg´s of gold and ask the senate 250 kg´s i mean how would they know how much he payed aslong as he had the suport of the right men on his camp ? and for someone with sulla´s carismha shouldn´t be too hard

then there´s the east but by then he was already a rich man

as for putting the plebeian in their place the trufht of the matter is that all populists fighting for power used the plebeian veto power and plebeians where played instead of having their rights defended what sulla did was to try and restore the balance because no nobilis such as himself could reach dictatorial power without the strenght of the mob when he realised it, he tryed to break the bridge and after having done everything in his power to restore the res public power he steped out office and wandered the streets of rome unharmed

the laws that where abolished and other laws restoring the plebeian tribune power did nothing more then unbalance the power in rome beteween the senate and the plebes and romes republic crumbled not on the senate but on the assemblies and particulary the plebeian tribune with their 10 tribunes it´s in cesar memoirs how he used marc anthony and was always paying up large sums of money to have at least 1 if not 2 plebeians on his side to protect him from trial

[TheLastDays]

He died and did not reunite the empire.

As did Flaevius?

[CashMunny]

Well, if we're into the debate of whether or not Sulla did good for Rome, and ignoring his command acumen, I'll throw in my opinion.

If we're judging him by today's ethical standards and our own (USA, anyways) values, then I'd say he was not very ethical, not very moral, and a pretty elitist sort of guy in general.
However, going by the standards of the time, and ROMAN values and ethics, he was an excellent Roman. He was skilled at battlefield command and politics, and he tried to keep the Republic's values upheld even though it was clear that eventually the mob would win out. We have to remember that Rome was not a democracy, and it wasn't even really a representative republic as we would consider one to be today. It was an oligarchy first and foremost, and the plebians had advocates merely to ensure there was no extreme exploitation going on by the landed gentry against the plebians.

Unlike today's ideas of universal suffrage and equality, Roman society was ruled by the wealthy landed class, and the plebians were definitely considered a second class. And this was OK. It wasn't like classism, racism or sexism today, where whenever an incident happens there's an uproar, but on the contrary the plebians were generally fine with their lot. And truly a Roman plebian had it better off than most any other commoners of the time, so they didn't have much to complain about unless something truly scandalous occurred.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

We actually get a lot more information about Sulla from Plutarch

What do you think Plutarch's main source was?


sulla was never defeated in batle and he fighted the numidians easterners and romans

only general at that time that could have put up a fight to sulla was sertorious but they never seem to have fighted directly so as far as i know we can never tell

as for sulla background cesar claims that sulla spent some time with the ubii of germania so nothing tells us that he didn´t bruttiied the place and scam people out of their gold furthermore we all know the numidians where very keen on paying romans so why wouldn´t the mauritanians be the same while he was a general in north africa there where still alot of gold to be made like buy provisions for 100kg´s of gold and ask the senate 250 kg´s i mean how would they know how much he payed aslong as he had the suport of the right men on his camp ? and for someone with sulla´s carismha shouldn´t be too hard

then there´s the east but by then he was already a rich man

as for putting the plebeian in their place the trufht of the matter is that all populists fighting for power used the plebeian veto power and plebeians where played instead of having their rights defended what sulla did was to try and restore the balance because no nobilis such as himself could reach dictatorial power without the strenght of the mob when he realised it, he tryed to break the bridge and after having done everything in his power to restore the res public power he steped out office and wandered the streets of rome unharmed

the laws that where abolished and other laws restoring the plebeian tribune power did nothing more then unbalance the power in rome beteween the senate and the plebes and romes republic crumbled not on the senate but on the assemblies and particulary the plebeian tribune with their 10 tribunes it´s in cesar memoirs how he used marc anthony and was always paying up large sums of money to have at least 1 if not 2 plebeians on his side to protect him from trial

I don't want to turn this into a debate about the political machinations of Rome, but there are some serious over-simplifications going on here. On what basis can one say that the plebs were "generally fine with their lot"? There was at this time a deal of unrest among the plebeians which is precisely why and how populist politicians could rally them to a given cause. The agrarian reforms attempted by Tiberius and then Gaius Gracchus were meant to address the unbalance that was becoming apparent to such reformers. One of the reasons for paid armies was because there were fewer and fewer men capable of financing their own military service as had been the case previously.

With the expansion of Roman power men were away from their lands for longer, and their families were forced into poverty or debt in trying to work those lands. At the same time a section of society was gaining wealth from plunder, taxation, control of trading routes and as heads of trading companies. There was also an influx of slave labour from newly 'acquired' provinces - resulting in land-grabs from both the indebted and newly impoverished plebeians and public land to which they had no legal rights.

These powerful men were to be found within the Senate, and more and more within the equestrian classes.

There were grain rations given to plebeians at this time - hardly a sign of prosperity among the citizenship of Rome. More and more Senators were looking to their own interests, and the interests of Rome on a more general level became subservient to those.

You argue that the Roman republic was based upon the Senate alone, but this is simply what Sulla tried to introduce. The Republic was based upon a balance between the assemblies and the Senate, and Sulla's actions were reactionary, not pro-constitutional.

As for him being a good Roman...he marched an army upon Rome - an act which many of his officers would not take part in. He cajoled his troops into stoning Roman magistrates to death. This situation is generally taken to have been undertaken with decisive legal command of these armies, but there are discrepancies within the various sources, so whether he actually had Imperium is highly debatable.

And for him being for the Senate...many of those killed within his proscriptions were Senators. He basically cleared the Senate of his enemies and admitted his own allies into it to restore the numbers. And some of those allegedly killed by Marius' faction make little sense, and make more sense as opponents of Sulla. There are massive distortions of the events of this time, but I don't think that one can reasonably argue that Sulla was acting any more in the interests of Rome than any of those other ambitious leaders also named (Caesar, marius, Pompey).

[Constantius III]

He died and did not reunite the empire.

As did Flaevius?
Indeed. Came a lot closer than Aetius did, too, with arguably fewer resources. And his death was probably one of those few instances of disease actually having a macrohistorical impact.

[CashMunny]

A lot of stuff

I do not dispute that there were scandalous events going on that made the plebians very unhappy. However, when they weren't being mistreated and the tribunes could do their jobs without being killed, they were much happier than most other peasantry (for lack of a better term) in this time period. Yes, this WAS a time of unrest, I merely meant that if the Roman system was actually being upheld, they were usually happy(ier) as a result.

Yes, the Senators were being very naughty Romans indeed, grabbing all that land and hoarding all that power. I also do not dispute this.

Grain rations were pretty much always given to the plebians unless there was some dire shortage of grain in the granaries, what happened around this time was that the price was reduced for the poorest citizens.

I argued that the Assemblies, the tribunes, etc. weren't exactly meant to rule the republic, or even to have equal power with the Senate. The assemblies were there to keep the Senate from going wildly out of control and enslaving the plebians, not to be an equal lawmaking body. Sulla WAS reacting, but he was reacting to the growing threat of mob rule. Oligarchy might not be the best system of government, but it's surely better than doing whatever the uneducated mob decides on a whim. That would result in utter chaos.

Yes, he marched on Rome. But he didn't do it to enrich himself, or to forge an Empire. I fail to see how this stains his character, and in fact it actually was one of his finer moments when he gave up the reins of power just as he had promised to do. Yes, he stoned corrupt magistrates. Also not exactly a bad idea, I can think of a few politicians I wouldn't mind seeing stoned either. I won't go into whether or not he had Imperium, because that is rather murky, but I personally believe he probably did have authority over his(?) armies.

I didn't say he was good buddies with every senator, but he was certainly against mob rule, and wanted to preserve the integrity and power of the senate. He didn't attempt to abolish the senate, at any rate.

[moonburn]

wierdly enough sulla never went against several of grachus laws that tryed to redistribute the land (particulary the stolen land or the public lands being missused) what he didn´t allowed was that the rich got acused of everything (like we see comonly in the populist like caesar crying out that the fat senators where stealing from the families of the poor plebeians when he was one of them except he stole from the gauls .... ) and there´s no proof that sulla didn´t persecuted those same wrong doers that where corrupt i mean 3.000 of the richest men of rome according to some sources and those "rich" probably got their money stealling and bribing and sorts so his procristions was probably more about "purging" rome of the morally weak (altough wierdly he got pompey into the roman political scene ... )

he had the suport of lucullos who was always against the pillaging that the roman governors did so i can only assume that sulla was against such practices (altough his new taxs in the asia province after the 1st mithriac war can be a murky subject) and ofc we must remember lucullos only cared about the hellenes if the one´s being stolen where "barbarians" then he didn´t bothered so it´s always a dodgy subject

[moonburn]

almost forgot history was rewritten not 30 years after sulla had died and during those 2 years (?) of trouble where marius and cinna had the power in rome the amount of dead was never declared so it´s possible that many of the dead where only counted once sulla had restored order

marius took gladiators into rome and made a purge and it took quintus sertorius to stop them

also the octavians and julianii where no friends of the cornelii cesar and augustus and philipe (augustus father i think) where associated with marius and cinna and cesar was spared because many of sulla´s "friends" begged for his life and later on sulla´s memoirs disapear and history might have been rewritten so we basically get nobady defending sulla

but what we know is that he had the supreme power in rome aslong as he kept pompey lucullos and 2 other roman generals by his side (cratus was one i believes or crassus ) but he made his reforms "purged" the city and then stepped out thats hardly something a person lacking a caracther would do

i mean even today several countries could use such a leader a man that does what must be done for the sake of the nation and then steps out once the work is done (reminds me of one of rome´s greatest hero´s the dude who saved the city and got offered the position of chief military leader and refused to return and work on his fields) so the portraits we get from sulla for all the other authors seem a bit fuzzy at best since they all say he did this and that but his actions show otherwise

it seems to me there´s alot of anti sullism here just because he was a patrician nobilis instead of a bloody populist money pincher commie there´s nothing wrong in being a conservative you know (even tough alot of his laws where very progressive in terms of defending the state from a few greedy individuals)

[A_Dane]

Yes, he marched on Rome. But he didn't do it to enrich himself, or to forge an Empire. I fail to see how this stains his character, and in fact it actually was one of his finer moments when he gave up the reins of power just as he had promised to do. Yes, he stoned corrupt magistrates. Also not exactly a bad idea, I can think of a few politicians I wouldn't mind seeing stoned either. I won't go into whether or not he had Imperium, because that is rather murky, but I personally believe he probably did have authority over his(?) armies.



From a roman point of view, marching an roman army upon rome itself, was probably one of the worst offences imaginable.

[CashMunny]

From a roman point of view, marching an roman army upon rome itself, was probably one of the worst offences imaginable.

Was it worse than allowed corruption and greed to go unchecked? Was it worse than allowing the plebians to be stripped of all their land and rights? Was it worse than allowing the Senators who were trying to be good Romans to be killed by the misguided rage of a fed up mob? Was it worse than allowing complete chaos on the streets?

[A_Dane]

Indeed it was, you just didn't march on Rome with a roman army, especially not if your imperium was already challenged :)

I'm not saying I think he did wrong, just that from his fellow (atleast upper class) citizens, it was an extremely un-roman thing to do. Gaius Marius never expected it, because a "proper roman" would never do it ;)

[moonburn]

the same gaius marius who unleashed thousands of gladiators and allow them to murder and pillage all of his roman opponents and several other people who wheren´t into politics ?

[CashMunny]

Indeed it was, you just didn't march on Rome with a roman army, especially not if your imperium was already challenged :)

I'm not saying I think he did wrong, just that from his fellow (atleast upper class) citizens, it was an extremely un-roman thing to do. Gaius Marius never expected it, because a "proper roman" would never do it ;)

It might have been 'un-roman', but so were all of those other things. Romans were supposed to be austere, incorruptible, and to uphold the integrity of their institutions. Sulla wasn't marching a Roman army against Rome, he was marching a Roman army to save Rome.

[A_Dane]

Never said Marius was a "proper" roman, now did i? ;)

And if i remember correctly, he did this after Sulla marched on Rome :)

I'm merely saying, that from the romans of the tiems point of view, marching on Rome with an army, was not very roman :)

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

almost forgot history was rewritten not 30 years after sulla had died and during those 2 years (?) of trouble where marius and cinna had the power in rome the amount of dead was never declared so it´s possible that many of the dead where only counted once sulla had restored order

Yes, this is a very interesting point to make - especially that last part. The whole story of Marius' mad purge seems.... a bit of a stretch, especially the more one questions its voracity and looks in a little more detail at what few details we have. I actually doubt that there was any such purge. One would think that the memory of such would live long in the memory, yet we have very little reminder of this supposed reign of terror by anybody of note during the era following this. Not only that but if marching a Roman army upon Rome was to be condemned, how much worse would marching a foreign army of slaves have been? Again, we see no great outcry in the immediately following time period (especially when images of Marius are re-introduced into Rome by Caesar). Why the silence on such an emotive and recent subject?

We have very little information as to who the victims of this purge were. Let us consider a couple of names that are suggested. Lucius Julius Caesar. What great clashes were there between Marius and this Caesar? Ermmm.... silence. On the other hand, this is almost certainly the same Caesar who (at least) twice publicly insulted and humiliated Sulla. This would be the brother of Julia - the wife of Marius. This Caesar would be an uncle of Gaius Julius Caesar, later to re-instate images of Marius into Rome. Does all of this add up very well? I don't think so. Pretty much the same arguments can be made regarding Marcus Antonius (Orator, I think) - an uncle of Caesar's ally of the same name.

What followed this alleged terror is....well, seemingly a remarkable peace.

When Sulla was likely to be returning Cinna marched his army toward Greece, in order to avoid any more wars within Italy. While Cinna was alive Sulla was apparently in negotiation with the Senate. The Senate were - as a body - said to be in fear of Sulla's return, hardly an endorsement of any alleged pro-Senatorial stance on the part of Sulla. Cinna was killed by a mutiny of his army, but therein lies another aspect of Sulla's career which is somewhat .....murky. Many of his 'military' victories are built upon the back of intrigue, it seems. Cities betrayed to his troops etc. Now there is an interesting anecdote regarding the mutiny of Cinna's army. It concerns the visit of a certain Gnaeus Pompeiius - the son of Strabo - the 'teenage butcher'. There is no hint of any problems within Cinna's camp, and then there is a visit by the young Pompey. What is interesting is that the army are said to mutiny because of their anger at Cinna letting Pompey escape the camp. What can this mean? Did Pompey gain information regarding the names of those serving. Is there an implied threat to the families of these men. Once Cinna is out of the way Sulla stops his negotiations with the Senate.

What I suggest might be the case is that Sulla covered his tracks with tales of wrong-doing on the part of Marius and his allies way beyond any actual events, to lessen or excuse the impact of his own actions. So, that the numbers killed is only recorded once Sulla has "restored order" (although the Republic seems to have operated in remarkable order while he was away in the East) is indeed a very relevant point.



also the octavians and julianii where no friends of the cornelii cesar and augustus and philipe (augustus father i think) where associated with marius and cinna and cesar was spared because many of sulla´s "friends" begged for his life and later on sulla´s memoirs disapear and history might have been rewritten so we basically get nobady defending sulla

The primary source for the later histories are Sulla's own memoirs, and the aspect of conservative righteousness was, at the time of the Emperors, a very helpful propoganda.



i mean even today several countries could use such a leader a man that does what must be done for the sake of the nation and then steps out once the work is done

Hmmm... one should consider the results of such 'strong men' within our current environment. Pinochet, Gadaffi, Saddam Hussain, Mubarek etc.



it seems to me there´s alot of anti sullism here just because he was a patrician nobilis instead of a bloody populist money pincher commie there´s nothing wrong in being a conservative you know (even tough alot of his laws where very progressive in terms of defending the state from a few greedy individuals)

I'm no more anti-Sullan than I am anti-Caesar or anti-Pompeiian. I just think one should not try to see into any of their actions what is not really there - especially when that is based around some relative notion of current political beliefs.

Sulla is no more or less pro-Roman or heroically Roman than Caesar, Pompey or Marius.

[moonburn]

well sulla was skilled in the use of assassins but considering that 1 single kill saves thousands one can say he was the best general for using it

as for putting sulla in pinochet or khadaffi place none of them left the office after they seized power so no i´m not reading anything into that i just believe sulla made the best he could with what he had and not for personal wealth

maybe for personal glory ? it could be i mean cesar is recorded to have said that sulla was a fool for relinquishing the power but then again thats why cesar got assassinated while sulla left office and walked freely and unharmed on the streets of rome giving explinations to anyone who aproached him and many had reasons to want him dead (ofc we can always assume that altough sulla had left the power seat lucullos pompeii crassus and several others where still very friendly towards him so going after sulla was not a good idea but still someone who had killed many of the ordos equester and of the senatorial stand should have many enemies with nothing to loose)

furthermore not 20 years (?) after sulla left office we again see the corruption in rome putting aside people like catalinus wich forçed his hand into open rebellion so no the purges if they trully happened only kept peace for a litle while and not even long since pompeii stole the eastern lands and catus had to go around the extra mile as not to be acused of wrong doing when anexing cyprus and people like cicero´s where making fortunes defending good man of wrong doings or bad men of ilicit enrichment so sulla´s actions where short lived but then again as i said most of his laws regarding the power of the diferent assemblies where revoked not 2 years after his demise

[A_Dane]

Just noticed you called us (or me, not sure), anti sullist... tbh quite honest, I can identify more with Sulla (not the nobilis part :P), I just don't think his militart acheivements were as great as Marius'.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

i just believe sulla made the best he could with what he had and not for personal wealth

But...somewhere along the line he had made himself incredibly wealthy, and he used that wealth for his own political ends (this encompasses the two recorded insults made directly to him by Lucius Julius Caesar).


maybe for personal glory ?

That was the overriding Roman 'way'. To do better than one's forefathers, or to at least match them. That was part of the Roman ethos that undermined the Republic. The more powerful individuals became within the system, the less the system was able to contain that power. Sulla's actions should be seen in the same light as Caesar's, or Pompey's or Marius'. There was no difference. None of them can be said to have acted in the best interests of Rome, all of them can be seen to have acted in the best interests of their own power base. This isn't anti-Sullan, this is in response to a pro-Sullan sentiment, one that portrays Sulla's actions as being motivated by other than what it was. Sulla defended Sulla's 'rights', Caesar defended Caesar's 'rights', and so on. All of them can be seen to have damaged the Res Publica, to the point where Augustus' Empire was the only viable way to hold together relative peace.

[Myth]

Resurrecting thread. We need input for this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?146685-The-org-official-top-10-best-military-commanders-of-alltimes). Come and join in the discussion!

[Principe]

Yoo-hoo! Can't tell if this forum is deserted or not.

[Ailfertes]

Oh dear god why necro this thread, most of the discussion on this page alone makes me cringe.

[moonburn]

it was a good debate

[Ailfertes]

From an academic point of view, although some people made interesting points, the essentialising of 'Roman-ness' is painful. Also I read enough late-Republican political history to have variants of the basic discussion between Cashmunny and Gracchus coming out of my ears. No offence to either though, the method of argumentation here was very good.

[Lusitani]

Scipio ....even Hannibal admmited it :P