Greatest Generals. 270 B.C - 14 A.D

Just who do you think is the Greatest General during the Roman Republic? :yes:

Short List:
Hannibal Barca (247 - 183 B.C)
Antiochus III the Great (241 - 187 B.C)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (235 - 183 B.C)
Titus Quinctius Flamininus (228 - 174 B.C)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (185 - 129 B.C)
Gaius Marius (158 - 87 B.C)
Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138 - 79 B.C)
Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysius (132 - 63 B.C)
Lucius Licinius Lucullus (116 - 56 B.C)
Gnaius Pompeius Magnus (106 - 48 B.C)
Gaius Julius Caesar (101 - 44 B.C)
Vercingetorix (? - 46 B.C)
Marcus Antonius (83 - 30 B.C)
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63 - 12 B.C)
Nero Drusus (40 - 9 B.C)
Arminius (19 B.C - 19 A.D)
Germanicus (15 B.C - 19 A.D)

What about Phyrrus?

Looking at the list:

Hannibal was a great general but eventually failed, Scipio Africanus was a literal student of Hannibal's, but still very skilled.

I respect Sulla a lot for his victories in Greece, but Mithradates wasn't a brilliant general in his own right, was a fantastic conqueror though.

Lucullus has to be be the most undervalued/unappreciated people in history. He was a fantastic general, but due to his unpopularity Pompey (a non-entity in my opinion) managed to take the credit.

Agrippa was great too, but I have to go with Caesar. I mean he was deified! lol. Probably the greatest general that ever lived, But I'm open to discussion.

Where is Pyrrhus of Epirus? And why is Antiochus III the lowlife there?

Anyway, I vote for Hannibal, I was going to vote for Scipio Africanus but, after all, he was the student of Hannibal's tactics. (Although he did overcome him in the end.)

I vote for Sulla Felix, but I would have chosen Mithradates IV too. Not neccesarily the best generals, but easily the most fascinating pair. I mean, drinking small amounts of poison regularly to innoculate yourself against real poisoning attempts? How cool is that?

Definately Hannibal Barca. Simply the amount of battles he won and always as the lesser in number. Any other nation at that time would simply have submitted to carthage under such defeats. The only reason he failed in the end was he didn't expect he had to take rome to win.

I think the main reason was the lack of support in his own nation, Carthaginians didn't support him, thus, leaving Hannibal alone with a bunch of mercenaries in southern Italy. He was very close, and it seems like the defecting states of Rome were all for nought.

Sorry about Pyrrhus, I just completely forgot about him. Antiocus III was there because I felt someone should represent the Seleucids in this poll.

The only person who should be representing the Seleucids (in a good way of course) should be King Pyrrhus of Epirus, clearly more worthier than Antiochus.

Was King Pyrrhus of Epirus a Seleucid?

The most favored king of the Seleucids, this guy almost overcame Rome, he reached as far as Tarentum.

I see.

but by 270 he was dead. ;(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fahad I

The most favored king of the Seleucids, this guy almost overcame Rome, he reached as far as Tarentum.

---

Whom? ~:eek:

Epirus - is the answer.

Pyrrhus of Epirus died in 272 B.C

I thought Epirus was part of the Seleucid Empire at that time?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fahad I

I thought Epirus was part of the Seleucid Empire at that time?:inquisitive:

---

http://rbrally.gamenavigator.ru/foru...lies/tired.gif

Say, because he was 'Seleucid' in RTW's historical battle?

Wot about Pyrrhus?

Went 4 my old fav 'Gaius Julius Caesar '

I know much more about him than most of the others.

So, these two guys get into a bar fight in Zama.

One wins.

One loses.

And there you have it. ~:smoking:

Oh, Beirut, you don't know half about the can of worms you've just opened...

Anyways, I'd vote Lucullus if it wasn't for his impopularity, which is kinda a thing you need to keep an army moving, especially back in those days. So instead, I'll have to say Caesar.

Pyrrhus was a good general but theres a reason that its called a Pyrrhic victory!:laugh4:

And I agree totally with Quirinus, Sulla and Mithradates the Great were both fascinating! But I read the question as being who was the best (ie most successful) general!

Lucullus was better than both of those ~;p

I agree, but that doesn't stop them from being more interesting!

Mithridates sure is, as is Sulla, but Lucullus' political and military career, in all its adversity despite his brilliance, surely should be a match for the drama of the lives of both the former, don't you think?

Well Lucullus certainly had a struggle...

... but Mithradates was so scared of being murdered that he delibrately poisoned himself daily! Then he tried to commit suicide by poison and failed! :dizzy2: lol. To reign over an Eastern court and plot to bring down Rome itself is a grand ambition. To survive until old age is incredible!

Sulla is just beyond description. He had so many vices and yet managed to become dictator of Rome and completely rewrite the constitution! The rest, relaxation and debauchery at the end of his life ensure that he should be remembered :no: . The addition of Metrobius to the story makes it even more interesting considering the homophobia of Rome (in comparision to Greece).

But yes Lucullus is intrigiung in his own right. The suicide of his father due to the machinations of a new man led to his Optimate politics, and his point of always adhering to the Senates will even if it was stupid! I find it interesting how he dabbled in drugs and alcohol as well :dizzy2: . And he married his wife when she was 15 or something if I'm right, when he was into his 40s! :dizzy2: (This is all off the top of my head so it may not be strictly 100% accurate). Also he was, as you have said a much better general than Pompey and maybe Sulla.:whip:

So yes I'll add him to my list of interesting people!:egypt:

I think the threat title is a bit misleading, as it implies its actually covering 270 B.C.-14 A.D., as opposed to what it actually is, covering the Roman republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Pyrrhus was a good general but theres a reason that its called a Pyrrhic victory!:laugh4:

---

According to Hannibal himself, the 3 greatest generals in History were...

1. Alexander the Great
2. Hannibal
3. Phyrrus

He said that if he had won at Zama then he would have placed himself first. So if Phyrrus was ranked third then he definately should be in discussion.

Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar probably would have been ranked pretty highly if they were alive at Hannibal's time. Although, to be honest, I've always viewed the Roman's strategy as "throw enough meat into the grinder and eventually it will break".

Love the ego from Hannibal, but he does deserve to be there!

I'll grant you that Phyrrus deserves to be discussed, its just that personally I believe that many of the Generals actually mentioned were better. Most of those were out of Hannibals timeframe anyway.

I also agree with your views on the Roman strategy, although the technological edge (ie. the use of pila, and yes I know the Iberian tribes used them too) was also a factor, and the later republican generals weren't so bad for that.

Who voted for Antiachus III?