Who was the best Roman general?

[vartan]

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.

[NikosMaximilian]

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).

[Harkilaz]

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.






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!

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

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

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

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.

[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 :\

[Nirvanish]

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.

[CashMunny]

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.

[therup]

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

[A_Dane]

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...

[moonburn]

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

[fomalhaut]

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

[A_Dane]

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.

[Harkilaz]

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!

[fomalhaut]

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.

[NikosMaximilian]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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

[delablake]

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

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

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.

[Geticus]

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.

[A_Dane]

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.

He basically said, that even if Flavius had lived, he wouldn't have been able to reverse the already ongoing tendency, hence he might have prolonged it a bit, but in the end it was doomed to fall :p

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Still,it would have done the romans some good.

[moonburn]

sulla never lost a batle in his lifetime and he had cesars life on his hand and spared him stating that in cesar there´s 1000 marius with all the populism and lack of scrupulous that comes with such bottom feeders

furthermore sulla was able to get the respect of such amazing generals as lucullos one of the best on his own pompey (altough we all know he wasn´t that great) and even marius

furthermore to attest to his caracther he had the balls to march on rome itself (1st one ever) and the decency to step out once he decided his work was done and was freely walking the streets of rome next to the brothers and sons of those he had proscrited or had killed in revenge for cinna´s actions and he explained all of his actions and nobady dared to killed him in the midle of the street even tough he was a nobiles and had just passed laws putting the plebeians in their place

had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome

one of the greatest losses of classicism is the loss of sulla´s memoirs altough i tend to believe they where all destroyed by gaius cesar and octavian since the mind of such a brilliant man could have inspired the romans to adapt to becoming an empire without the need for an emperor

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

sulla never lost a batle in his lifetime and he had cesars life on his hand and spared him stating that in cesar there´s 1000 marius with all the populism and lack of scrupulous that comes with such bottom feeders

furthermore sulla was able to get the respect of such amazing generals as lucullos one of the best on his own pompey (altough we all know he wasn´t that great) and even marius

furthermore to attest to his caracther he had the balls to march on rome itself (1st one ever) and the decency to step out once he decided his work was done and was freely walking the streets of rome next to the brothers and sons of those he had proscrited or had killed in revenge for cinna´s actions and he explained all of his actions and nobady dared to killed him in the midle of the street even tough he was a nobiles and had just passed laws putting the plebeians in their place

had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome

one of the greatest losses of classicism is the loss of sulla´s memoirs altough i tend to believe they where all destroyed by gaius cesar and octavian since the mind of such a brilliant man could have inspired the romans to adapt to becoming an empire without the need for an emperor

Hmmm...I've seen this sort of sentiment before. I must admit that I am puzzled by it - especially in an age where so many of us value our democratic rights. Perhaps they are not as valued as I imagine them.

Sulla's background is a little....., murky, shall we say. One of Caesar's descendants was reported to have questioned Sulla's rise to prominence, and by implication the honesty of his position. We know only of some 'lover' and a step-mother who allegedly left him large sums of money - rather an odd proposition for a culture bound by the notion of pater familias, don't you think?

I don't understand why Sulla's reputation is any less factional than his enemies. Why is it that one might describe Sulla's march on Rome in terms of 'having balls', while he that follows (Caesar) is (by implication) seen as a usurper?

There is much vagueness, an opaqueness, regarding the goings on of this era. Sulla, Pompey, Marius, Caesar.... all are over-stepping the line in terms of the Republic's constitution. Given the nature of those institutions (oligarchical power-sharing and fulfilling familial ambition) it was inevitable that the power of those institutions would be challenged.

I have to say, though, that I find sentiments such as "putting the plebeians in their place" rather worrying when expounded as a good thing. Perhaps, though, this is due to Plebians (like the notional 'barbarians') being always projected as smelly, unthinking, drunken mobs.

[Constantius III]

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.

Nah, that man was Constantius III. :p

In 420 I would say that the West was on the verge of complete restoration under Constantius III and that had the emperor not dropped dead of pleurisy the next year things would probably have been very different indeed (see, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, p.234). What brought down the Roman Empire? Pleurisy. ... As I always, not entirely jokingly, tell my first-years.

[fomalhaut]

yeah i think the concept of 'best general' should extend to the ends of them campaigning in the first place. Sulla was basically a bad guy in my opinion, his tactical abilities were all to the end of perpetuating the rule of the patricians and the oppression of the plebeians.

There are great tacticians who supported great evils but i would consider them better generals just because their intentions weren't really evil, Rommel and 'Stonewall' Jackson are two great examples.

[CashMunny]

This isn't a contest of who was the nicest general, it's a contest of who was the best general. The job of a general is to send thousands of men to their deaths, oftentimes when those men have little or nothing to gain by winning, and to make them actually want to fight anyways. It's not a job for a nice guy. Sulla strikes me as a corrupt power-hungry oligarch, but to others he is seen as a defender of Roman virtue. We could debate whether he was a moral crusader or a misguided buffoon all day, but we can't dispute that he was a great leader of men. Likewise, we can spend all day discussing Caesar's evil evil ways, or his noble and virtuous life, but we can't call him a slouch when it comes to commanding armies. It almost seems like to be a successful general, you need to a bit of a prick. Patton, Rommel, Caesar, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Tamerlane were all pretty bad dudes, but their job was to send their people to kill the other guy's people in the most efficient manner, so what the heck do you expect?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

This isn't a contest of who was the nicest general, it's a contest of who was the best general. The job of a general is to send thousands of men to their deaths, oftentimes when those men have little or nothing to gain by winning, and to make them actually want to fight anyways. It's not a job for a nice guy. Sulla strikes me as a corrupt power-hungry oligarch, but to others he is seen as a defender of Roman virtue. We could debate whether he was a moral crusader or a misguided buffoon all day, but we can't dispute that he was a great leader of men. Likewise, we can spend all day discussing Caesar's evil evil ways, or his noble and virtuous life, but we can't call him a slouch when it comes to commanding armies. It almost seems like to be a successful general, you need to a bit of a prick. Patton, Rommel, Caesar, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Tamerlane were all pretty bad dudes, but their job was to send their people to kill the other guy's people in the most efficient manner, so what the heck do you expect?

Which is a fine defence as long as one is defining the argument in terms of their Generalship, but when one adds such as

had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome

..then one is taking the discussion beyond that remit. We don't actually know very much about what Cinna's actions were during this period. The outline of the history of this period are almost entirely based upon Sulla's own memoirs and so it follows that they will show him in a more favourable light than perhaps he merits.

If it is Generalship that is being discussed then discuss that, if one wishes to extol the virtues of the man, or his politics (and especially where one tries to diminish the aspect of personal ambition) then expect that to come into question.

As for whether or not his Generalship can be questioned, I believe that it can. As above, the outline of the history of this period is taken from Sulla's own memoirs. Many of the victories attested to his leadership can be questioned - starting, of course, with Jugurtha. I shall root out some more campaigns where his command has been put into question when I return from work.

[CashMunny]

We actually get a lot more information about Sulla from Plutarch, and we really don't have too much reason to doubt Plutarch's word as far as Sulla's concerned. He didn't have much of a motive to trump up Sulla's greatness a century after Sulla's time. In fact if anything Plutarch might have had a motive to make Sulla sound as bad as possible. Plutarch lived during the Julian and Flavian dynastic eras for the most part, they certainly wouldn't be paying Plutarch extra to make Caesar's enemy seem like a good guy since the Julians were Augustus' adopted children and grandchildren and the Flavians had Caesar to thank for becoming prominent at all.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Nah, that man was Constantius III. :p

He died and did not reunite the empire.