Hamilcar Barca

Peter Griffen. but Churchill is a close contender.

Germanicus as Emperor is one of histories greatest what-if's. Who knows how much greater Rome would have been had he taken the position. If I were him I certainly would of had a shot at it, Tiberius was nothing greater than an ancient muderous version of Michael Jackson.

When and where was napalm ever used for anything other than defoliation or killing people? Napalm was invented for just such purposes. In fact, during the Vietnam' war it evolved to get specifically better at killing poeple: Stage 1 (start of war): Napalm can cause severe burns, but is found that in some cases victims can scrape it off before it causes grevious bodilly harm Stage 2: US military engineers add an adhesive quality to the gel that sticks to targets as to prevent scraping off. Stage 3 (closing years of war): Military engineers add white phosphate to the gel so that even if the victim doses themselves in water, the phosphate continues to burn, eroding in many cases right down to the bone. yay. Napalm and Greek fire were both deisgned to KILL people. That is the bottom line. In any case incinidary based wepaons are for the most part outdated, Napalm hasn't been used on a grand scale in any recent decades of conflict. This owing to the fact that there are far more deadly weposn around now.

Thats one hell of a compliation. I commend your research I would of course challenge some of the names appearing in order of those tiers, particulary Claudius II and Clovis, I would certainly have ranked them up from the gutter level. How Lucius Cornelius Sulla didn't make it to either of the top two tiers is surprising as well. However, owing to the multitude of names that you had to sort through I won't kick up a fuss. Personaly I rate Caesar as the greatest but I don't want to get to drawn into another Alexander vs Caesar debate because that argument has long since exhausted itself with no clear advantagee. I'm sure all the forum veterans would agree on that one.

Thanks for the info guys

Many great Roman generals of the late republic tend to fade in obscurity owing to the prominence that Marius, Sulla and the triumvirates held during this time. In a similar thread I noted that the poll I conducted regarding the greatest Roman general of all time was premature and horribly incomplete. This is owing to the fact that Rome produced copious amounts of military talent that can hardly be confined to a 10 poll list. Even a 50 poll list would probably come up short as I can think of countless Romans whose brilliance so often goes undermentioned, Lucullus of course been among them

We all know Livy, Polybius, Cicero, Casesar, Suetonius, Tacictus etc - they chronicled the best known part of Roman history and it is because of them that this is so. However, the events through the third, 4th and fifth centuries are scantily documented in comparison. Asides from Aemelianus and Jordannes, who were the other contemporaries to whom we are indebted for glimpses into Roman history of this time? I would sincerely like to know what good first hand sources are available with regards to the era between 192 - 476AD, other than those I have mentioned. Moving on to the 6th Century we have Procopius, but after this we have little. Other than Skylitzes can anyone offer me some great contemporary historians regarding the period 582 - 1453. I know thats a big period but any suggestions would be welcomed.

Ticaremon 533 Mons Lactarius 552 Nivenah 627 Syllaeum 677 Kleidon 1014 Pelagonia 1259 =Awesomeness: 10/10 Heraklias does go uncredited in history like so many of Byzantines great military men. Other who deserve more mention: Narses, Constantine IV and Leo V. Plenty more but i'm tired and can't be bothered thinking harder. -_-

I'm honoured Primus. I'll try and get a new one up when I have some free time.

Do remember that the estimate number of Goths that crossed the Danube River was upwards of a million people. Thats one hell of an ethic clensing mission, Hitler would have been proud. They may have been weak refugees but they were even weaker, hungrier and all the more desperate when they rebelled at Marcinople in 377. Also the Goths, feared the Huns more than the Romans, refusing to let them cross the Danube would have meant instant war. The only way to have resolved the struggle would have been to treat them better. I understand why the Romans didn't. They hated them with a passion. Which is why, failing this, Valens should of under no circumstances engaged them at Adrianople without Gratian. It is almost certain that the result would have been different had he not made one of the costliest mistakes in western history.

As has already been stated, Why the hell would Alexander want to invade Italy in 335BC? The Romans were at this stage at an interlude between the 1st and 2nd Samnite wars and had yet to conquer any significant portion of Italy. In fact at this point in history it was the Samnites who had the greater amount of territory. That having been said, Alexander of Epirus (Alexanders brother-in-law) did wage his own war out west against the Samnites but he was killed in 331BC before much was accomplished. Out East was where the threats and money were percieved to be at the time. It would still be another 50 years before Rome had anything to do with the Greeks at which point they would be invaded by the Epirote army in the model and standing profesion of Alexanders. Whether or not you can compare Pyrrhus to Alexander is a slippery subject though.

Yes, what Germanicus said. Caesar was a more savy and brilliant general/politician than Trajan. Not to say that Trajan wasn't one of Romes most accomplished Emperors, he was, but seriously you cannot compare the two. Just ask the mainstream idiots who nothing about history, who do people recall out of the two? Sure Caesar found himself on the wrong end of many daggers after his dictator for life fiasco, but still, his acomplishments and influence upon western history are quite frankly mindboggling.

Unlike Senatorial or Equestrian officers which were stricty forbidden to marry while in service, Centurions were. There were of course many exceptions to this rule and soldiers often married anyway, their marriage just wasn't recognized by the state thus any childeren they concieved were deemed illigitamate. The same anti-mariage laws applied to basic legionaries. Oh and yes, a train of officer's spouses and childeren often followed the army.

By the way, how the hell did Claudius end up on that poll? The guy wasn't a bad emperor but there were plenty better than him that could have been included instead. Example ^^.

I arrived in the forums just before the Spartacus revolution, 21 March 05 and found that the greatest thing here was simply been able to talk to like minded Roman enthusiusts, opposed to boring my friends and family. I have picked up alot of knowledge since first arriving here and hope that more will follow in the months/years to come.

You scored as Vespasian. Your attention to military affairs and your humble life make you Vespasian, one of the great emperors. Nearly your whole life you have fought wars of conquest or crushed rebellions, and in fact you have earned the empire in this way after the bloody civil war of The Year of the Four Emperors. The empire is in capable hands with your practicality and discipline.

I'll asume you meant 1st Punic War The reason this battle was lost was Antiochus' failure to support the phalanx with his cavalry. His ill-fated cavalry charge against the Roman centre at the battles start allowed the right wing to encircle the Selecuid phalanx and pick it apart.

Without the church the western empire may not have slid into decline as fast as it did. Constantine wasn't really a Christian, he called himself one but the demograph of mace weilding mass murderer suits him better. I don't have any gripes with Constantine by the way, just making a point. Augustus and Aurelian get my votes. The creator and the restorer.

LOL. To a point I agree with you, Christianity had that effect on many Romans.

Thanks for the feed back people.

Before we address the main question at hand I think it should be noted that Spartacus' revolt in the late republic wasn't really a major crisis. The battles themelves are poorly documented and while Spartacus may have been successful against smaller Roman armies under Quaestars etc, as soon as he came up against the real deal under Crassus, he had no show. Moving on, Adrianople was a total crisis like no other. Gratians reinforcements were hardly adequate to fight the goths in pitched battle by themselves - so the Goths were more-or-less free to run amok for 2 years before a peace treaty was finally settled. Remember also that Rome was dealing with numerous enemies at the same time and a resolution to the crisis at hand was imperative. If the Romans had perhaps waited a little longer to try and build up their shatterred armies for a rematch, the Goths may have spread do much destruction that any battle fought would have been meaningless. I have no doubt that Gratian and Theodosius would have liked nothing better thans swift, brutal revenge, but the fact was they had neither the resources or the time. In consequence to incorporating them within the empire and army, I belive that the Romans simply decided to make the best of the situation. The Goths were a warlike, numerous people and the Romans at the time never could have forseen the amount of power and influence that they soon acquired through becoming staple units of the 5th Century mercinary army. Individuals such as Stilicho and Richimer would rise from such ranks to become the puppet masters of the late Empire. In any case, once the Romans did realise it it was far too late to do anything about it.

Like I said, there is no official date. It should also be noted that only 4 signifiant land battles tookplae during the 1st PW, and all but one are described in the scantiest of detail. I would however say that, yes, it is safe to assume that the Romans were using the gladius before Hannibal invaded Italy.

Thank you for finally mentioning this PP. Coming to this forum (where the 15 or so core members are increadibly well read on ancient history) and then reciting common facts in the tone that people are ignorant of it is insulting. What counts is coherent opinions and reasoning for these events. Having said that, if you are knowledgable on something that is perhaps generally lesser known e.g. Galerius' Persian expedition, the battles of the 6th Century BC, Aetis and Bonafaces Civil war etc, by all means share it. But with regards to events such as the Punic Wars, Gallic Wars or civil wars of the Republic etc - Please don't bother reciting them, you are imparting knoledge upon no one. Do by all means raise interesting issues or opinions on these events - it is encouraged to do so - as long as you back your argument up with solid facts and examples.

One thing we can thank Mithridates for is the quote Vedi veni veci. If it weren't for him, Farnacles would never of been born and Caesar wouldn't of had anyone to annhilate at Zela in 47BC, thus never imparting that brilliant one liner upon us. As for the Alexander VS Caesar debate - its floating around in the forums somewhere but I personally find speculation topics fusterating. General consensus is Alexander wins the battles, Caesar wins the war.

No official date, Polybius describes the Roman army of the third century in great detail but makes no specific reference to the introduction of the gladius. We can however be certain that it emerged sometime in the early to mid 3rd century BC.