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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Good analysis Ibrahim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

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

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

Apology accepted =)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

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.

The discussion on Caesar's generalship has been given its own thread.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The discussion on Caesar's generalship has been given its own thread.

:bow:

---

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

(just kidding:D)

Ceaser.

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).

Gaius Marius... :)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

He was certainly a leader of men

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

he was only ultimately defeated by treachery

---

something doesn't seem right there...

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

The members of the Illyrian Military Junta.

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

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.

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?

Romulus Augustulus.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_Dane

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nirvanish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strategos roma

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/...nekes/ALL1.jpg

https://i662.photobucket.com/albums/...nekes/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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nirvanish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

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.

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 :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :\

---

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian

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.

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.