Who was the best Roman general?

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 :)

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.

Ceaser.
\thread.

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/r.../sertorius.htm

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

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.

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?

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)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.C. SVLLA

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

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

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

:-D

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

*cough*Agrippa*cough*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

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).

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks Macilrille.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.