Hamilcar Barca

Its temping to vote for a general who often recieves lesser mention in mainstream knowledge. But I still feel that Caesar was the greatest general by virtue of not just his amazing tactical inovations - but the sheer godliness that even the most lay person can associate with his name. Aurelian is a close second in my opinion though. His outstanding military leadership in the midst of the 3rd century crisis singlehandedly allowed the Roman Empire to recover and endure for another 2 centuries - even if the path to destruction had already been laid down. Oh and by the way, I'm back from the dead :thumbs_up:

Worst personality award: Nero/Caligula Worst influence award: Honorius (Reasons already stated, I pretty much agree) He doomed the other half though. Valens reckless failure in diplomacy and battle with the goths sent the Western Roman empire down the path to hell. While I don't believe he was the worst Roman figure, I don't think he deserves to be so spiritly defended from accusations that he did mess up big time, despite some noteworthy achievements.

Naval incinidaries were used well before the Byzantines though they were by no means as destructive. The Rhodian-Roman combined fleet at Myonnesus in 190BC included several small vessels which were fitted with incendiary devices suspended on long poles, threatening to set alight any ship that came near them. These proved tactically sound in disrupting the Seleucid naval formation for fear of getting to close. I have never heard of a clear classical reference to hull mounted balistae before, thus I know nothing of it. I do however suspect that Marcellus may have utilized similar devices at Syracuse in 212BC, as he did with the sambuca.

Well we must remember that the definition of fortified town varied over the centuries. The most obvious example is Rome itself been sacked in 390 BC (although this doesnt really count because the gates were apparantly unlocked) Hamilcars Gallic rebellion in 200BC did succeed in breeching and sacking Placentia prior to his defeat at Cremona. Just because the Romans wrote these peoples off as barbarians we shouldn't underestimate their siege making abilities, although it is fair to say that they were not in the same class as the Romans.

I was surprised when I saw that on my homepage yesterday. And impressed. Here in New Zealand you'll be hard pressed to find anyone with even a lay knowledge of Roman history so kudos to exta for hopefully bringing UNRV to more peoples attention.

Easily Augustus, what grand times those were. I am curious though Tobias, why Justinian? The man taxed people for the air they breathed and despite a number of glorious achievements during his reign, it all fell apart afterwards.

Rome had so many horrible civil wars that I often loose count of them and have trouble difficulty determining which single one could be considered the 'worst'. It depends what exactly you mean by 'worst'. i.e. loss of life, long term repercusions, political turmoil etc. As has already been stated, the collective military coups and civil wars of the 3rd century probably top all such categories but as to label a single 'contained' conflict, I'd have to say that the Caesarians vs Republicans (49BC - 36BC), was the bloodiest. While in reality a series of wars, the same underlying themes and causes was carried on until Pompey's youngest son - Sextus Pompeius, laid down his arms after the battle of Naucholus in 36BC. Constantines wars against Maxentius and Lucullus (311 - 326) also involved vast amonts of bloodshed.

I would rank no Byzantine Emperor alongside the madness and cruelty of Nero although there were certanley bad ones. Irene - Constantine VI's mother, desposed of and blinded her own son to take sole rule of the Empire for herself. In 800AD, Charlemenge was named emperor of Rome owing that their was no emperor at the time, as Irene was currenly Empress. Justinian II was by no means mad, but certanley a man who liked sweet revenge and then some. A relatively good ruler in the first part of his reign, he was none-the-less overthrown in 695 by his over ambitious general Leontius, who had his toungue and nose slit before throwing him into exile. Ten years later, having recruited a condiderable ammont of support in the countryside, he returned and snuck into the city via an aquaduct pipe, suprising his ursurper and reclaiming his throne. Leonitius and Tiberius (his successor) and his supporters were beaten black and blue in a pillory for some months before Justinian dragged them through the streets and publicly beheaded them. His revenge didn't stop there though, anyone suspected of enemy sympathies could be incarcerated, tortured or killed. Thousands were killed or mutilated in his paranoia fuelled purges which lasted over 6 years. Eventually a rebellion formed within the army and Justinian II was overthrown again, permanatly. Both he and his six year old son were put to death. Another perhaps worth mentioning would be Basil I; A brutally efficient ruler akin to the most depolarble forms of cruelty and violence of his day. When his general Leo abandoned his post in battle in 867AD, Basil had his right eye burnt out and his right hand amputated. Basil was to the Arabs what his second namesake was to the Bulgarians, only more brutal. In his campaigns against them, thousands of captured muslims were hung, burnt, skinned alive or dismembered to death.

If Vitelius hadn't overthrown Otho, Vespasian would have more than likely done it himself. He already had allusions of self grandeaur going around in his head owing to Joesephus' prophecy that Nero would die and he would eventually replace him. (Not that this was underserved, Vespasian was a great emperor)

I haven't been around my computer for a while.

Damn it, I can't believe I missed this, I've been away too long. Oh Well, it was interesting replies to ther peoples questions.

A civilisation devoid of brutality would be incapable of conquering the known western world. The Romans used brutality to enforce their authority upon those who resisted but those who submitted peacefully were usually treated with respect and were often honoured or rewarded. Of course their were exceptions such as the Thir Punic War, but the brutality displayed here was based on fear and historical grievances opposed to reckless violence. Of course there were a few rogue provincial rulers who were notorious for cruelty such as Verres, the Sicilian governor who later came under attack from Cicero as well as many of the Spanish governors in the mid 2nd Century BC, whose extreme cruelty and treachary was the very cause of many rebellions. However, such individuals were a minority and in most cases were severly punnished for their brutality.

Thank you for making this rule.

He did this to the Townsfolk of Uxellodunum in 51BC after they refused to surrender to him and the town had to be carried by force (with reasonable diffuculty). This was to create a physical advertisement as to why you shouldn't oppose Caesar.

I'm not buying this, Caesar caued the downfall of the republic, not the empire. While we're making a radical claims here's mine: George Washington started the decline of the U.S - In 200 years the United States is going to collapse into anarchy and be conquered by Muslims.

That was a lengthy post with some good points JKM. I'd like to add a little something on the character of Varro as well. When we read about Varro and Paullus, we are made to think straight away that Paullus was the righteous steady-headed, cautious commander while Varro was a reckless moron. The fact is there can be no poof that this was just the case. Roman writers like Livy often convey loosing generals to the common demograph of a rash, flippant commander as a means of creating scapegoats for their defeats. It must be remembered that Aemeilius Paullus was a relative to the reverred Lucius Aemilius Paullus, conqueror of Pydna, and his famous adopted son - Scipio Aemilianus, conqueror of Carthage. Republican historians writing during the times of these men would not dare have accused their family names of playing a major role in the defeat at Cannae, or rather would have glorified them. Varro on the other hand was a relatively less important name who could easily been scapegoated. While the descriptions of Varro and Paullus' personalities given by Livy and Polybius may have been true, consideration must be taken into account. Also, the reality may well have been that both commanders were more than eager for battle, and why shouldn't they have been? Livy's narrative of the build-up to Cannae has an impending sense of doom to it but it must be realized that no one prior to this action could have guessed that Hannibal would have been capable of defeating a Roman army twice the size of his own.

Like Germanicus stated, the legion and maniple/cohort system was designed to be highly flexible, capable of defeating any opposing army type. The Phalanx was not flexible, it was rigid, immouvarable and every time the Greeko-Macedonian armies attempted to use it against the Romans they lost, spectaculuary. 197 Cynoscephelae 191 Thermopylae 190 Magnesia-ad-Sypium 171 Phalana 168 Pydna = Phalanx annihilated It should be pretty damn obvious that the legion was superior to the phalanx. The Romans adopted whatever was best suited for beating a wide range of army types. If the Phalanx was better than the legion, they would have used it. It should also be noted that the Romans did originaly use a phalanx styled army up until their wars with the Samnites, after which they discovered that the manipular system was far more effective. Arguing that the phalanx was more capable against the legion is absurd as the former was outdated. Thats like trying to say that catapults were more effective than cannon fire.

This argument has a way of always evolving into the Caesar vs Alexander debate given that those two commanders represent the best of their nations retrospective generals commanding the best legions/phalanx. It has also been established that Caesar would destroy Alexander. Lets just ignore Cynoscephelae and Pydna for a second, yes if Aemelius Paullus had come up against Alexander, then Alexander probabaly would have won. But this discussion can only be determined by comparing the best of the best. Caesar and Alexander represent such categories but given that the legions were designed to destroy a phalanx, I don't think there can be any doubt over who would win.

wow

Unfortunately Juvenal is the only one i've seriously studied to date. Right now I'm reading Jornandes.

I derived amusement from this

The Romans did have a number of familiar foods; hot dogs, pizza, marshmallows, steak etc. Then of course you've got the baked door mice and expired fishpaste ketchup to go on everything. But pigs womb?! When in Rome I guess... Thanks for sharing pertinax/pliny I never knew about that one. I'd like to hear more

Your best bet is too check out the contemporaries that recorded the battle. There were of course two battles at Philippi so it depends which one you are referring too. These are the ancients which recorded the battle. The information you are seeking is very specific but if it exists, it is exists in here. Plutarch Antony 22 Plutarch Brutus 40 - 49 Appian 4:107 - 129 Dio Cassius 47:48 The links refer specifically to the battle itself but if you read around them you may find additional information. Good luck.

Unfortunately there isn't any direct evidence that points to Juvenal been exiled to Egypt. Like you said, of his personal life we have but a paucity of information. The theory that he was exiled is pieced together from certain references and attitudes that he conveys throughout his satires. We do know for example that he blasted a poet that Domitian was fond of, and that prior to this time, his satires had a more fun and far less angry feel to them. Thereafter (assuming his return) an impassioned hatred of Domtian, Egyptians, foreigners and patricians emerges. No contemporary source actually states that he was exiled to Egypt but a number of historians today have suggested it. This is of course no more than an educated speculation, designed to explain Juvenals flamming rants.

The ancient contemporaries make little mention of dogs playing any significant role in battle although there is some evidence of the Gauls using them as guards. Prior to the battle at the Isara River in 121BC, Orosius records that the Arvenian chieftan Bituitus (whose own troops terribly outnumbered the Romans) made a mocking remark that there were not enough Romans to feed the dogs in his camp. He was however heavily defeated. I certainly agree with everything Fatboy says though. By the way, where did he go to?