Who was the best Roman general?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.