Who was the best Roman general?

[Horatius]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ibrahim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gollum]

Good analysis Ibrahim.

[Macilrille]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[moonburn]

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

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

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

[mrjade06]

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

[Mulceber]

Apology accepted =)

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

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

[mrjade06]

Apology accepted =)



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

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

[Mulceber]

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

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

[Horatius]

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

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

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


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

[Ludens]

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

[anubis88]

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

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

(just kidding:D)

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Ceaser.

[Tanit]

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

[The_Blacksmith]

Gaius Marius... :)

[fomalhaut]

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

[TheLastDays]

He was certainly a leader of men

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

he was only ultimately defeated by treachery

something doesn't seem right there...

[Ca Putt]

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

[antisocialmunky]

The members of the Illyrian Military Junta.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Roman general Flavius Aëtius

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

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

[QuintusSertorius]

Sertorius or Lucullus.

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

[vartan]

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

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Romulus Augustulus.

[A_Dane]

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

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

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

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

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

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

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

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

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

[A_Dane]

Same thing with Sulla, he copied Marius.

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

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

[QuintusSertorius]

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

Hannibal himself thought Pyrrhus was the greatest general.

[A_Dane]

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

[Nirvanish]

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

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

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

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

[strategos roma]

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