The Greatest General 390BC-14AD

[athanaric]

Very interesting, I knew it was the case for native Egyptian rulers (Akenaten, Tutankamun) but I didn't know it was the case for Achaemenids. Do you know what any of these names meant?

Sure. Dareios (Darayava'uš, from daraya- and *vahu-) means "preserving good", i.e. "Keeper of Good" (for lack of a stronger word).
Xerxes (Xšaya-ŗšan-) means "ruling over heroes", i.e. "Lord of Heroes".
Artaxerxes (Ŗta-xšaça-) means "governing through (?) truthfulness", i.e. something along the lines of "Truthful King". (The first Artaxerxes had problems with his legitimacy IIRC).

Other Teispids and Achaemenids had names that made sense too, but I don't know if these were throne names.

[Brennus]

Sure. Dareios (Darayava'uš, from daraya- and *vahu-) means "preserving good", i.e. "Keeper of Good" (for lack of a stronger word).
Xerxes (Xšaya-ŗšan-) means "ruling over heroes", i.e. "Lord of Heroes".
Artaxerxes (Ŗta-xšaça-) means "governing through (?) truthfulness", i.e. something along the lines of "Truthful King". (The first Artaxerxes had problems with his legitimacy IIRC).

Other Teispids and Achaemenids had names that made sense too, but I don't know if these were throne names.

Well I go to bed tonight more educated than when I woke this morning. For your knowledge, sir!

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Well now....let me think about this. Caesar was not only in possession of a professional army, he was also aided by very competent officers. Ariovistus was clearly a very competent commander, and also showed shrewd political skills. He had subjugated large parts of Gaul, knew of the political situation in Rome (with regards to Caesar's unpopularity with powerful factions there) and had the loyalty of many Germanic/eltic tribes. The tide of the confrontation between Caesar and Ariovistus was turned by the intervention of Publius Crassus.

Boduagnatus (not even mentioned here) nearly destroyed Caesar's army with the Nervii and their allies the Atrebates and Viramandui in a surprise attack. The intervention of Labienus was necessary to turn the tide there.

When Caesar first 'invaded' Britain, much as his account tries to paper over it, he was repelled by the forces summoned by Cassivellaunus (presumably it was he). He mounted a second campaign the following summer and succeeded in bringing Cassivellaunus to terms. But the Catuvellauni remained and were seemingly a powerful force within Southern Britain for some time following.

Vercingetorix was undone, seemingly, by the indiscipline and impetuousness of a non-professional army. He was overrules with regards to defending Aventicos, and then some of his cavalry, instead of harassing (as they were supposed to) were drawn into battle and routed. Vercingetorix was then, at Alesia, reliant upon other leaders to relieve his forces. Had there been a similar level of cohesion and command talent among his 'officers' as there was in Caesar's (professional) army then Caesar could very easily have been destroyed there and then.

As for Ambiorix, I hardly think it is fair to say that Cicero was enough to deal with him. Had Caesar not relieved him when he did then he too would have suffered at the hands of the Belgic uprising.

Divide and conquer was the order of the day for Caesar in Gaul. I believe this is why the Arverni were (unusually) given their independence while the Allobroges were subjected to full Roman rule after their joint defeat. The Romans knew very well that the Arverni were the Aedui's greatest enemy in Gaul and - rather than have the Aedui gain too strong a position in Gaul it would be better to have them constantly at odds with their near-neighbours.

Rome had just the right balance of cohesion and competition, as well as a professional, well-trained and disciplined army, that there were many commanders of considerable talent to help orchestrate maneuvers, to make telling command decisions. Those that Caesar was up against were, essentially, guerrilla leaders leading (at best) semi-professional warrior armies.

Who was the best? Any one of them, with even one more talented 'deputy' could have had a very different outcome. Of those who could have had a lasting legacy.... how much has that to do with their talent and how much to do with the inherent instabilities of tribal confederations?

[fomalhaut]

great post Gracchus

[Brennus]

Boduagnatus (not even mentioned here) ?

As I said my knowledge is finite.

[fomalhaut]

Btw, I voted Jugurtha. Maybe because he is more familiar to me because of Sallust, but I do think he was quite skilled

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

As I said my knowledge is finite.

It wasn't intended as a dig, sorry if it came off that way.

[Brennus]

It wasn't intended as a dig, sorry if it came off that way.

Don't worry about it, was a very interesting and well thought out post anyway.

[Brennus]

Although a controversial choice I went for Commios. My argument being that he was a savy politician who managed to play both pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions well, he knew when to pick his battles, his little trick of pretending he had escaped to sea when being pursued by Caesar and the fact the kingdom he established in Britain survived through his successors until and through the invasion of Claudius.

[Power2the1]

Ariovistus was clearly a very competent commander, and also showed shrewd political skills. He had subjugated large parts of Gaul, knew of the political situation in Rome (with regards to Caesar's unpopularity with powerful factions there) and had the loyalty of many Germanic/eltic tribes.

Your post is excellent, but I must address something here. Ariouistos did not control large areas of Gaul. He settled his forces on a third of Sequani territory and levied hostages from the Aedui and Sequani. This would put his total dominion over a certain section of the upper Arar River in France.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Your post is excellent, but I must address something here. Ariouistos did not control large areas of Gaul. He settled his forces on a third of Sequani territory and levied hostages from the Aedui and Sequani. This would put his total dominion over a certain section of the upper Arar River in France.

Hey.... there's nothing wrong with a little hyperbole...to accentuate the point, y'know? ;-)