Who was the best Roman general?

[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

[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.

[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.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Nah, that man was Constantius III. :p

He died and did not reunite the empire.

[moonburn]

sulla was never defeated in batle and he fighted the numidians easterners and romans

only general at that time that could have put up a fight to sulla was sertorious but they never seem to have fighted directly so as far as i know we can never tell

as for sulla background cesar claims that sulla spent some time with the ubii of germania so nothing tells us that he didn´t bruttiied the place and scam people out of their gold furthermore we all know the numidians where very keen on paying romans so why wouldn´t the mauritanians be the same while he was a general in north africa there where still alot of gold to be made like buy provisions for 100kg´s of gold and ask the senate 250 kg´s i mean how would they know how much he payed aslong as he had the suport of the right men on his camp ? and for someone with sulla´s carismha shouldn´t be too hard

then there´s the east but by then he was already a rich man

as for putting the plebeian in their place the trufht of the matter is that all populists fighting for power used the plebeian veto power and plebeians where played instead of having their rights defended what sulla did was to try and restore the balance because no nobilis such as himself could reach dictatorial power without the strenght of the mob when he realised it, he tryed to break the bridge and after having done everything in his power to restore the res public power he steped out office and wandered the streets of rome unharmed

the laws that where abolished and other laws restoring the plebeian tribune power did nothing more then unbalance the power in rome beteween the senate and the plebes and romes republic crumbled not on the senate but on the assemblies and particulary the plebeian tribune with their 10 tribunes it´s in cesar memoirs how he used marc anthony and was always paying up large sums of money to have at least 1 if not 2 plebeians on his side to protect him from trial

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

We actually get a lot more information about Sulla from Plutarch

What do you think Plutarch's main source was?

sulla was never defeated in batle and he fighted the numidians easterners and romans

only general at that time that could have put up a fight to sulla was sertorious but they never seem to have fighted directly so as far as i know we can never tell

as for sulla background cesar claims that sulla spent some time with the ubii of germania so nothing tells us that he didn´t bruttiied the place and scam people out of their gold furthermore we all know the numidians where very keen on paying romans so why wouldn´t the mauritanians be the same while he was a general in north africa there where still alot of gold to be made like buy provisions for 100kg´s of gold and ask the senate 250 kg´s i mean how would they know how much he payed aslong as he had the suport of the right men on his camp ? and for someone with sulla´s carismha shouldn´t be too hard

then there´s the east but by then he was already a rich man

as for putting the plebeian in their place the trufht of the matter is that all populists fighting for power used the plebeian veto power and plebeians where played instead of having their rights defended what sulla did was to try and restore the balance because no nobilis such as himself could reach dictatorial power without the strenght of the mob when he realised it, he tryed to break the bridge and after having done everything in his power to restore the res public power he steped out office and wandered the streets of rome unharmed

the laws that where abolished and other laws restoring the plebeian tribune power did nothing more then unbalance the power in rome beteween the senate and the plebes and romes republic crumbled not on the senate but on the assemblies and particulary the plebeian tribune with their 10 tribunes it´s in cesar memoirs how he used marc anthony and was always paying up large sums of money to have at least 1 if not 2 plebeians on his side to protect him from trial

I don't want to turn this into a debate about the political machinations of Rome, but there are some serious over-simplifications going on here. On what basis can one say that the plebs were "generally fine with their lot"? There was at this time a deal of unrest among the plebeians which is precisely why and how populist politicians could rally them to a given cause. The agrarian reforms attempted by Tiberius and then Gaius Gracchus were meant to address the unbalance that was becoming apparent to such reformers. One of the reasons for paid armies was because there were fewer and fewer men capable of financing their own military service as had been the case previously.

With the expansion of Roman power men were away from their lands for longer, and their families were forced into poverty or debt in trying to work those lands. At the same time a section of society was gaining wealth from plunder, taxation, control of trading routes and as heads of trading companies. There was also an influx of slave labour from newly 'acquired' provinces - resulting in land-grabs from both the indebted and newly impoverished plebeians and public land to which they had no legal rights.

These powerful men were to be found within the Senate, and more and more within the equestrian classes.

There were grain rations given to plebeians at this time - hardly a sign of prosperity among the citizenship of Rome. More and more Senators were looking to their own interests, and the interests of Rome on a more general level became subservient to those.

You argue that the Roman republic was based upon the Senate alone, but this is simply what Sulla tried to introduce. The Republic was based upon a balance between the assemblies and the Senate, and Sulla's actions were reactionary, not pro-constitutional.

As for him being a good Roman...he marched an army upon Rome - an act which many of his officers would not take part in. He cajoled his troops into stoning Roman magistrates to death. This situation is generally taken to have been undertaken with decisive legal command of these armies, but there are discrepancies within the various sources, so whether he actually had Imperium is highly debatable.

And for him being for the Senate...many of those killed within his proscriptions were Senators. He basically cleared the Senate of his enemies and admitted his own allies into it to restore the numbers. And some of those allegedly killed by Marius' faction make little sense, and make more sense as opponents of Sulla. There are massive distortions of the events of this time, but I don't think that one can reasonably argue that Sulla was acting any more in the interests of Rome than any of those other ambitious leaders also named (Caesar, marius, Pompey).

[TheLastDays]

He died and did not reunite the empire.

As did Flaevius?

[CashMunny]

Well, if we're into the debate of whether or not Sulla did good for Rome, and ignoring his command acumen, I'll throw in my opinion.

If we're judging him by today's ethical standards and our own (USA, anyways) values, then I'd say he was not very ethical, not very moral, and a pretty elitist sort of guy in general.
However, going by the standards of the time, and ROMAN values and ethics, he was an excellent Roman. He was skilled at battlefield command and politics, and he tried to keep the Republic's values upheld even though it was clear that eventually the mob would win out. We have to remember that Rome was not a democracy, and it wasn't even really a representative republic as we would consider one to be today. It was an oligarchy first and foremost, and the plebians had advocates merely to ensure there was no extreme exploitation going on by the landed gentry against the plebians.

Unlike today's ideas of universal suffrage and equality, Roman society was ruled by the wealthy landed class, and the plebians were definitely considered a second class. And this was OK. It wasn't like classism, racism or sexism today, where whenever an incident happens there's an uproar, but on the contrary the plebians were generally fine with their lot. And truly a Roman plebian had it better off than most any other commoners of the time, so they didn't have much to complain about unless something truly scandalous occurred.

[Constantius III]

He died and did not reunite the empire.

As did Flaevius?

Indeed. Came a lot closer than Aetius did, too, with arguably fewer resources. And his death was probably one of those few instances of disease actually having a macrohistorical impact.