Who was the best Roman general?

[Mulceber]

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

[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

[antisocialmunky]

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

:-D

[SlickNicaG69]

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

[vartan]

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.

[Ibrahim]

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.

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.

[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... :)

[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.

[Myth]

Resurrecting thread. We need input for this thread. Come and join in the discussion!

[Principe]

Yoo-hoo! Can't tell if this forum is deserted or not.

[Ailfertes]

Oh dear god why necro this thread, most of the discussion on this page alone makes me cringe.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[L.C. SVLLA]

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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*

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).

[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. However, to my mind that does not make a great general.

[Africanus]

My handle should give you my answer to your question.

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.

[gollum]

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.

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.

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.