Greatest Generals. 270 B.C - 14 A.D

[Quintus.JC]

Just who do you think is the Greatest General during the Roman Republic?

Short List:
Hannibal Barca (247 - 183 B.C)
Antiochus III the Great (241 - 187 B.C)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (235 - 183 B.C)
Titus Quinctius Flamininus (228 - 174 B.C)
Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (185 - 129 B.C)
Gaius Marius (158 - 87 B.C)
Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138 - 79 B.C)
Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysius (132 - 63 B.C)
Lucius Licinius Lucullus (116 - 56 B.C)
Gnaius Pompeius Magnus (106 - 48 B.C)
Gaius Julius Caesar (101 - 44 B.C)
Vercingetorix (? - 46 B.C)
Marcus Antonius (83 - 30 B.C)
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63 - 12 B.C)
Nero Drusus (40 - 9 B.C)
Arminius (19 B.C - 19 A.D)
Germanicus (15 B.C - 19 A.D)

[woad&fangs]

What about Phyrrus?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Looking at the list:

Hannibal was a great general but eventually failed, Scipio Africanus was a literal student of Hannibal's, but still very skilled.

I respect Sulla a lot for his victories in Greece, but Mithradates wasn't a brilliant general in his own right, was a fantastic conqueror though.

Lucullus has to be be the most undervalued/unappreciated people in history. He was a fantastic general, but due to his unpopularity Pompey (a non-entity in my opinion) managed to take the credit.

Agrippa was great too, but I have to go with Caesar. I mean he was deified! lol. Probably the greatest general that ever lived, But I'm open to discussion.

[Paradox]

Where is Pyrrhus of Epirus? And why is Antiochus III the lowlife there?

Anyway, I vote for Hannibal, I was going to vote for Scipio Africanus but, after all, he was the student of Hannibal's tactics. (Although he did overcome him in the end.)

[Quirinus]

I vote for Sulla Felix, but I would have chosen Mithradates IV too. Not neccesarily the best generals, but easily the most fascinating pair. I mean, drinking small amounts of poison regularly to innoculate yourself against real poisoning attempts? How cool is that?

[master of the puppets]

Definately Hannibal Barca. Simply the amount of battles he won and always as the lesser in number. Any other nation at that time would simply have submitted to carthage under such defeats. The only reason he failed in the end was he didn't expect he had to take rome to win.

[Paradox]

I think the main reason was the lack of support in his own nation, Carthaginians didn't support him, thus, leaving Hannibal alone with a bunch of mercenaries in southern Italy. He was very close, and it seems like the defecting states of Rome were all for nought.

[Quintus.JC]

Sorry about Pyrrhus, I just completely forgot about him. Antiocus III was there because I felt someone should represent the Seleucids in this poll.

[ShadesWolf]

Wot about Pyrrhus?

[ShadesWolf]

Went 4 my old fav 'Gaius Julius Caesar '

I know much more about him than most of the others.

[Beirut]

So, these two guys get into a bar fight in Zama.

One wins.

One loses.

And there you have it.

[The Wizard]

Oh, Beirut, you don't know half about the can of worms you've just opened...

Anyways, I'd vote Lucullus if it wasn't for his impopularity, which is kinda a thing you need to keep an army moving, especially back in those days. So instead, I'll have to say Caesar.

[Beirut]

Oh, Beirut, you don't know half about the can of worms you've just opened...

Not the first half, no.

But I'm eating the other half that's left in the can right now.

Mmmm... worms.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Well somebody had to contradict you, so I will!

Alternative: A master and an apprentice face off at Zama, the apprentice has the advantage of superior materials, the apprentice wins.

[Caius]

Not the first half, no.

But I'm eating the other half that's left in the can right now.

Mmmm... worms.

Hmm...eating McDonalds food Beirut?

I will vote 4 Caius Julius Caesar.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Pyrrhus was a good general but theres a reason that its called a Pyrrhic victory!

And I agree totally with Quirinus, Sulla and Mithradates the Great were both fascinating! But I read the question as being who was the best (ie most successful) general!

[The Wizard]

Lucullus was better than both of those

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I agree, but that doesn't stop them from being more interesting!

[woad&fangs]

Pyrrhus was a good general but theres a reason that its called a Pyrrhic victory!

According to Hannibal himself, the 3 greatest generals in History were...

1. Alexander the Great
2. Hannibal
3. Phyrrus

He said that if he had won at Zama then he would have placed himself first. So if Phyrrus was ranked third then he definately should be in discussion.

Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar probably would have been ranked pretty highly if they were alive at Hannibal's time. Although, to be honest, I've always viewed the Roman's strategy as "throw enough meat into the grinder and eventually it will break".

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Love the ego from Hannibal, but he does deserve to be there!

I'll grant you that Phyrrus deserves to be discussed, its just that personally I believe that many of the Generals actually mentioned were better. Most of those were out of Hannibals timeframe anyway.

I also agree with your views on the Roman strategy, although the technological edge (ie. the use of pila, and yes I know the Iberian tribes used them too) was also a factor, and the later republican generals weren't so bad for that.

[Spartan198]

The easy picks are Gaius Julius Caesar,Hannibal Barca,and Scipio Africanus,but I'd personally have to go with Gaius Marius. If not for his military reforms,the Roman army would probably have never reached its full potential. Caesar may have been the general,but it was the Marian legions who did the fighting that transformed the Republic into an empire.

[Tabuu]

Ehhhrrr..... yes, Hannibal Barca.

Really, can you get trained by your father to slay a whole race as soon as you're ready? All I can say is: Hannibal was God when it came to strategy.

Slayed 7,000 Romans in one day. That's Cannae for ya'. The other battles only added on to his strategic skill.

Anyone hear that saying about Hannibal? "He knows how to gain a victory, but does not know how to use it." Well that was true when he decided to march back home instead of march a mere 200 miles to Rome itself. However in my opinion he made the right choice. He was low on supplies and his men's morale was depleted. So, yes I vote for Hannibal Barca.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Han Xin?

[A Nerd]

Scipio. Liked his ever since I played 'Centurion: Defender of Rome'. No other valid reasoning to back up my choice however.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Scipio. Liked his ever since I played 'Centurion: Defender of Rome'. No other valid reasoning to back up my choice however.

Sounds like you're ready to vote in the general elections.

[Caesar the IIIV]

Hannibal by far, I mean, his ability to get elephants through the Alps, and actually get NEAR Rome was a great achievement.

[therup]

I think Surena of Parthia should be included. Coward tactics but still he got the job done against the romans.

I know by writing this someone will say that crassus was just a fool and maybe he was but victory is mostly gained by the mistakes of the enemy.

There are also alot of others who should be included but i voted Hannibal even if i believe his father was just as good by fighting the Romans in sicily for several years with inferior troops and the winning the mercenary war for carthage and expanded in iberia and therefor giving Hannibal the ability to do what he did.