The Greatest General 390BC-14AD

[Brennus]

"Oh not another one of these I hear you say", yes! But with a difference! This poll is dedicated to those generals that we class as "barbarians".

Two things I will explain to prevent people asking them later:

1. Why 390BC rather than EBs start date of 272BC? This was done purely to include the two leaders we know as Brennus as their achievements (sacking Rome and defeating Macedon and invading Greece) deserve mention, I feel.

2. What are you classing as "barbarians?". Celts, Germans, Iberians, Celtiberians, Numidians, Iranian Steppe Peoples, Dacians and Thracians because apart from being described as barbarians by classical authors (for example Herodotus lists the Celts, Scythians, Libyans and Thracians as the frour great barbarian peoples) their own form of civilisation is sufficiently different from the Eastern and Hellenic influenced civilisations of the Mediterranean and East to warrant the term "barbarian".

DISCLAIMER: If this poll is missing someone you feel would be a suitable candidate I apologise, my knowledge is finite.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Brennus sacking Rome. No question. Especially since the Roman army at the Battle of the Allia apparently outnumbered the Gauls (Senones) two to one, yet were still badly defeated when the Gauls charged and routed the Roman cavalry and light infantry on the wings, then surrounded the tightly packed Roman phalanx and cut it to pieces. The Romans began moving away from the Greek-style classical hoplite phalanx from this time onward. Soon, only the Triarii remained as hoplites.

[anubis88]

I think there is far to little info on how great generals this guys were...An impossible question to answer unless you have a boner for a guy because he's from your home town or country :S

[Maeran]

Well, I've chosen Burebista because his achievements lasted rather longer than most of those other guys. Many of these men saw their work in ruin before they died. Burebista's empire fell apart a bit but the Romans still saw Dacia as a threat over a century later.

And no, I am not Romanian.

[athanaric]

Can we have Alexander on this poll? 'Cause apart from education and maybe ethnicity, he was definitely Barbarian.



Well, I've chosen Burebista because his achievements lasted rather longer than most of those other guys. Many of these men saw their work in ruin before they died. Burebista's empire fell apart a bit but the Romans still saw Dacia as a threat over a century later.Same can be said for Arminius though.

[Arjos]

Hard not to vote for Uerkingetorix :P
Brennos (Rome) and Arminius had a huge impact on history...
I've always liked how Cassivelaunos conducted the resistance against Caesar and Ambiorix's bravery...
But if it's all about generalship I guess my vote is for Suren...

[lolpah]

I'd say Viriathus, who managed to defy Rome in Iberia for a long time and his advance was not reversed until after his death, when he was murdered by Roman-bribed nobles.

Jugurtha was captured by the Romans in a similar operation, but he was already losing the war. He was quite a good commander, though.

Vercingetorix managed to persuade his warriors to destroy their homes rather than let them fall into Roman hands, and his army was better than ordinary Tribal armies, but at the end he was defeated and didn't show very great generalship.

Spartacus was also a very good commander, but at first didn't notice him in the list, but it woudl have been a close call between him and Viriathus.

We really don't know much about Brennus to judge. However, the charge of the Gauls was fierce and it could have very well shattered even a large phalanx.

[moonburn]

if we go for amount of legions/hardened warriors defeated then viriathus beats them all altough teutoberg will be remembered forever (IF IT´S championship wins then the lusitanii win if it´s the greatest victory of all times then hermann wins altough arminious ended up assassinated by his own people wich speaks alot about his inability/charisma as a great leader)

burebista was excellent

the belgian and briton heroes got beaten by cesar easily and their only victory was because of deceit and not superior soldiers tactits and strategy they almost had a 2nd victory but quintus cicero was enough for them while viriathus fighted against a scipiu (not sure if it was africanus or not tough)

i tend to believe that the name brenus stands for a title such as imperator or rex a kind of name given to a great victor such as the greeks always added magnus to their greatest or the seulekids/ptolemaioi loved to name people soter or the name brenus might just mean fieldmarshal of all the swords and since romans and greeks found the kelts repulsive they probably never gave it a try at understading their language in those days and so they just called them whatever they believed their men called them

[Brennus]

the belgian and briton heroes got beaten by cesar easily and their only victory was because of deceit and not superior soldiers tactits and strategy they almost had a 2nd victory but quintus cicero was enough for them while viriathus fighted against a scipiu (not sure if it was africanus or not tough)

I wouldn't say the Britons and Belgae were easily beaten, Caesar suffered heavy losses when the Belgic confederacy attacked his marching column, his first expedition to Britain almost ended in disaster, Cassivellaunus attack on Caesar's ships while Caesar was north of the Thames was a clever strategic move which could have succeeded. Also, the Roman army which Cassivellaunus, Commios and Ambiorix were fighting was the post-Marian proffesional force not the citizen militia of Scipio Aemillianus day, Celtic victories of the 1st Century BC were likely to have required more men and acts of deceit to even the odds.


i tend to believe that the name brenus stands for a title such as imperator or rex a kind of name given to a great victor such as the greeks always added magnus to their greatest or the seulekids/ptolemaioi loved to name people soter or the name brenus might just mean fieldmarshal of all the swords and since romans and greeks found the kelts repulsive they probably never gave it a try at understading their language in those days and so they just called them whatever they believed their men called them

Quite alot of the names of Celtic leaders we know appear to have been titles rather than actual personal names (Vercingetorix, Ambiorix, Dumnorix, Orgetorix, Cassivellaunus, Cunobelin, Bolgus).

[athanaric]

Quite alot of the names of Celtic leaders we know appear to have been titles rather than actual personal names (Vercingetorix, Ambiorix, Dumnorix, Orgetorix, Cassivellaunus, Cunobelin, Bolgus).
Same for the Persians, at least the Achaemenids. Dareios, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are all titulary names.

[Brennus]

Same for the Persians, at least the Achaemenids. Dareios, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are all titulary names.

Very interesting, I knew it was the case for native Egyptian rulers (Akenaten, Tutankamun) but I didn't know it was the case for Achaemenids. Do you know what any of these names meant?

[Ca Putt]

sad thing about most of them is afterall that they failed to "use their Victory". As for Arminius, well I would not call him uncharismatic or a bad leader as he manged to do something that often marks the beginning of a one-man-Global-empire uniteing the tribes. He failed to hold them together, just like the greeks failed to refused to stay (at least semi-) united after fending off the persians or the like. Which was mainly do to the nature of tribal kingdoms/city states - when there is no threat from outside your biggest enemy is the guy next door. for Marbod eg it was more profitable to befriend the Romans than to become a vassal, subordiante or ally of Arminius. And tbh, the "german" lands were very inhomogeneous until ... actually they are still^^.
So in the same way fortune favored his uprising(romans were unprepared, fought in very unfavorable terrain, Arminus knew their fighting style and he had their Cavalry on his side/roman occupation force maltreated the population, Arminius was well educated and could convince the others) it favored his downfall(tho he was brave/naive enough to try to reach for the stars).

For the most ingenius Commander I'd actually rate Spartacus. Afterall he defeated superior armies in not always favorable terrain. Plus he managed to unite very different sorts of people. Still in the End he failed utterly, he neither managed to flee with all the slaves nor flee with his 78 friends or (what I don't think was be his plan) erect a Socialist Sun state( :rolleyes: ). Unlike Arminius who's "work" at least lasted(even when that's not entirely his acchivement afterall germania wasn't exactly the favorite province of the emperor) Spartacus' men and cause were annihilated.

PS: Sorry I'm not at all a Grammer Nazi but I'd like to correct this one:

greeks always added magnus Megas, Magnus is Latin.

[athanaric]

Very interesting, I knew it was the case for native Egyptian rulers (Akenaten, Tutankamun) but I didn't know it was the case for Achaemenids. Do you know what any of these names meant?

Sure. Dareios (Darayava'uš, from daraya- and *vahu-) means "preserving good", i.e. "Keeper of Good" (for lack of a stronger word).
Xerxes (Xšaya-ŗšan-) means "ruling over heroes", i.e. "Lord of Heroes".
Artaxerxes (Ŗta-xšaça-) means "governing through (?) truthfulness", i.e. something along the lines of "Truthful King". (The first Artaxerxes had problems with his legitimacy IIRC).

Other Teispids and Achaemenids had names that made sense too, but I don't know if these were throne names.

[Brennus]

Sure. Dareios (Darayava'uš, from daraya- and *vahu-) means "preserving good", i.e. "Keeper of Good" (for lack of a stronger word).
Xerxes (Xšaya-ŗšan-) means "ruling over heroes", i.e. "Lord of Heroes".
Artaxerxes (Ŗta-xšaça-) means "governing through (?) truthfulness", i.e. something along the lines of "Truthful King". (The first Artaxerxes had problems with his legitimacy IIRC).

Other Teispids and Achaemenids had names that made sense too, but I don't know if these were throne names.

Well I go to bed tonight more educated than when I woke this morning. :balloon3: For your knowledge, sir!

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Well now....let me think about this. Caesar was not only in possession of a professional army, he was also aided by very competent officers. Ariovistus was clearly a very competent commander, and also showed shrewd political skills. He had subjugated large parts of Gaul, knew of the political situation in Rome (with regards to Caesar's unpopularity with powerful factions there) and had the loyalty of many Germanic/eltic tribes. The tide of the confrontation between Caesar and Ariovistus was turned by the intervention of Publius Crassus.

Boduagnatus (not even mentioned here) nearly destroyed Caesar's army with the Nervii and their allies the Atrebates and Viramandui in a surprise attack. The intervention of Labienus was necessary to turn the tide there.

When Caesar first 'invaded' Britain, much as his account tries to paper over it, he was repelled by the forces summoned by Cassivellaunus (presumably it was he). He mounted a second campaign the following summer and succeeded in bringing Cassivellaunus to terms. But the Catuvellauni remained and were seemingly a powerful force within Southern Britain for some time following.

Vercingetorix was undone, seemingly, by the indiscipline and impetuousness of a non-professional army. He was overrules with regards to defending Aventicos, and then some of his cavalry, instead of harassing (as they were supposed to) were drawn into battle and routed. Vercingetorix was then, at Alesia, reliant upon other leaders to relieve his forces. Had there been a similar level of cohesion and command talent among his 'officers' as there was in Caesar's (professional) army then Caesar could very easily have been destroyed there and then.

As for Ambiorix, I hardly think it is fair to say that Cicero was enough to deal with him. Had Caesar not relieved him when he did then he too would have suffered at the hands of the Belgic uprising.

Divide and conquer was the order of the day for Caesar in Gaul. I believe this is why the Arverni were (unusually) given their independence while the Allobroges were subjected to full Roman rule after their joint defeat. The Romans knew very well that the Arverni were the Aedui's greatest enemy in Gaul and - rather than have the Aedui gain too strong a position in Gaul it would be better to have them constantly at odds with their near-neighbours.

Rome had just the right balance of cohesion and competition, as well as a professional, well-trained and disciplined army, that there were many commanders of considerable talent to help orchestrate maneuvers, to make telling command decisions. Those that Caesar was up against were, essentially, guerrilla leaders leading (at best) semi-professional warrior armies.

Who was the best? Any one of them, with even one more talented 'deputy' could have had a very different outcome. Of those who could have had a lasting legacy.... how much has that to do with their talent and how much to do with the inherent instabilities of tribal confederations?

[fomalhaut]

great post Gracchus

[Ludens]

Same for the Persians, at least the Achaemenids. Dareios, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are all titulary names.

Parthians too: Surena was the name of a clan. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surena) several later Roman histographers states that Surena also was a title, which was hereditary in a certain family. But maybe one of them just got it the wrong way round (the function became synonymous with the family) and the others copied this mistake from him.

[Brennus]

Boduagnatus (not even mentioned here) ?

As I said my knowledge is finite.

[fomalhaut]

Btw, I voted Jugurtha. Maybe because he is more familiar to me because of Sallust, but I do think he was quite skilled

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

As I said my knowledge is finite.

It wasn't intended as a dig, sorry if it came off that way.

[Brennus]

It wasn't intended as a dig, sorry if it came off that way.

Don't worry about it, was a very interesting and well thought out post anyway.

[Brennus]

Although a controversial choice I went for Commios. My argument being that he was a savy politician who managed to play both pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions well, he knew when to pick his battles, his little trick of pretending he had escaped to sea when being pursued by Caesar and the fact the kingdom he established in Britain survived through his successors until and through the invasion of Claudius.

[stratigos vasilios]

I know nothing about these generals...so I shall return after some quick research!

edit: yay 600th post! :pleased:

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Although a controversial choice I went for Commios. My argument being that he was a savy politician who managed to play both pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions well, he knew when to pick his battles, his little trick of pretending he had escaped to sea when being pursued by Caesar and the fact the kingdom he established in Britain survived through his successors until and through the invasion of Claudius.

For similar reasons (and because his forces repelled the Romans previously) I'd go for Cassivellaunus. Not only did his proto-Kingdom survive, but it seems they retained a rebellious anti-Roman streak - taking on and pushing back pro-Roman kingdoms like the Atrebates and the Trinobantes. Even gaining Roman recognition when having taken Trinobante land.

I've always thought, though, that one could certainly write an interesting 'Gaul's-eye' account of Caesar's Gallic wars from the perspective of Commios. As you say, he managed to play both sides; there is also the interesting incident with Labienus. Labienus attempted an assassination of Commios. What's odd about this is that this seems to have been at the instigation of Labienus himself and not Caesar, and though the story of Commios' 'escape' to Britain makes good copy I believe it is a later concoction, based upon a different story. More likely is that Commios went to Britain as an ally of the Romans, having made terms with Marcus Antonius. Was this, perhaps, Labienus acting against Caesar? Tellingly, Labiemus sided with Pompey in the civil war - I wonder if this is not a 'foretelling' of that. Labienus was of a similar age to Caesar, and was clearly a competent commander, but all the glory was Caesar's. Political jealousy, perhaps?

[Power2the1]

Ariovistus was clearly a very competent commander, and also showed shrewd political skills. He had subjugated large parts of Gaul, knew of the political situation in Rome (with regards to Caesar's unpopularity with powerful factions there) and had the loyalty of many Germanic/eltic tribes.

Your post is excellent, but I must address something here. Ariouistos did not control large areas of Gaul. He settled his forces on a third of Sequani territory and levied hostages from the Aedui and Sequani. This would put his total dominion over a certain section of the upper Arar River in France.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Your post is excellent, but I must address something here. Ariouistos did not control large areas of Gaul. He settled his forces on a third of Sequani territory and levied hostages from the Aedui and Sequani. This would put his total dominion over a certain section of the upper Arar River in France.

Hey.... there's nothing wrong with a little hyperbole...to accentuate the point, y'know? ;-)

[Brennus]

For similar reasons (and because his forces repelled the Romans previously) I'd go for Cassivellaunus. Not only did his proto-Kingdom survive, but it seems they retained a rebellious anti-Roman streak - taking on and pushing back pro-Roman kingdoms like the Atrebates and the Trinobantes. Even gaining Roman recognition when having taken Trinobante land.

I've always thought, though, that one could certainly write an interesting 'Gaul's-eye' account of Caesar's Gallic wars from the perspective of Commios. As you say, he managed to play both sides; there is also the interesting incident with Labienus. Labienus attempted an assassination of Commios. What's odd about this is that this seems to have been at the instigation of Labienus himself and not Caesar, and though the story of Commios' 'escape' to Britain makes good copy I believe it is a later concoction, based upon a different story. More likely is that Commios went to Britain as an ally of the Romans, having made terms with Marcus Antonius. Was this, perhaps, Labienus acting against Caesar? Tellingly, Labiemus sided with Pompey in the civil war - I wonder if this is not a 'foretelling' of that. Labienus was of a similar age to Caesar, and was clearly a competent commander, but all the glory was Caesar's. Political jealousy, perhaps?

Have you read John Creighton's "Coins and Power in Iron Age Britain" (2000) by any chance? He comes to similar conclusions about Commios transfer to Britain. Worth a look, very interesting theories.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Have you read John Creighton's "Coins and Power in Iron Age Britain" (2000) by any chance? He comes to similar conclusions about Commios transfer to Britain. Worth a look, very interesting theories.

No I haven't read it. But I shall certainly add it to my (ever-growing) list of books to source. Cheers.

I should add that it makes sense, to me, that doing such would be deemed a good Roman strategy. Having come to terms with Cassivellaunus and (one presumes) separately with the Trinobantes (whom Caesar seems to have had some relationship with prior to his 'invasions'), inserting an extra polity into the the Southern British 'pot' would keep them all at loggerheads with each other; especially if he doubted the strength of the Trinobantes (he claims, after all, that they requested his aid against the Catuvellauni (presumably)).
It is, I believe, the same principle by which the Arverni were allowed their independence - to stop one political centre from gaining suzerainty. I think he appreciated Commios' political and military skills and would have had greater trust in those to hold back the Catuvellauni than the Trinobantes on their own. This says a deal, I think, about his appreciation of both Commios and Cassivellaunus.

[Ibrahim]

so which one is Herman the German? :clown:

(Teutoburger Wald fame?)

[Brennus]

so which one is Herman the German? :clown:

(Teutoburger Wald fame?)

Ariminus.

[Ibrahim]

Ariminus.

I thought it was Arminius. meh. either way, he gets my vote.

[athanaric]

I thought it was Arminius. meh. either way, he gets my vote.
You're right. It's "the Armenian", not "the Ariminian" (from Rimini).

[Lysimachos]

You're right. It's "the Armenian", not "the Ariminian" (from Rimini).

His name has nothing to do with being armenian, though. "The Armenian" would be Armenicus or Armeniacus. Some believe it to be a the latinized form of a germanic name with a meaning of "the great"; another explanation is that it could be the nomen gentile of the roman citizen who was his patron, before "going native" again.

[athanaric]

Yes but it is a good indicator of spelling.

[moonburn]

why do germans call him herrmann then :?

[Kival]

Arminius is obviously not a german name. We don't know the german name but Arminius was part of germanies national idealogy and so he needed a german name. As far as I know the first mentioning of the name "Hermann" is from Luther, though.

[Brennus]

why do germans call him herrmann then :?

I believe it was during the Reformation his name was Christianized. German protestants were looking for a national hero who symbolised their struggle against Catholic Rome and who better than the victor of the Teutonberg Forest? However it wouldn't do to have a pagan represent the spirit of German Protestantism so his name was changed to sound more Chrisitian.... I think.

[Brennus]

I thought it was Arminius. meh. either way, he gets my vote.

My apologies for the spelling, I was a bit distracted with Cassivellaunus.

I just wish Cunobelinus achievements were within the EB time frame.