pompeius magnus

What makes you put Hannibal over Gaius Julius Caesar. I'm not doubting Hannibal as a great general but just not as great as Caesar. Caesar was going into most battles with at least a 1:4 ratio in Gaul and not to mention being almost, if not, outnumbered 2-1 against Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and still manage to crush him in Greece, the name of the battle slips my mind, but it began with a P. Hannibal was outnumbered as well against the Romans, however the Roman military command system was flawed, the consels often had very little military skills in the field. He used basic outmanuvering and outsmarting the Romans at Carrae but in the end he commited Suicide and Carthage was burned to the ground after the next Punic War, number 3.

The order of the best generals in ancient history would be this in my eyes: Gaius Julius Caesar Alexander the Great Hannibal Gaius Marius Phyruus

Actually I beleive that Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus reluctantly went to war with Caesar. He really didn't hate Caesar and some also speculate that had Pompey not have been murdered by the Ptolemies in Alexandria he may have been pardoned to a certain extent. The collapse of the first triumvirate was a major cause of the civil war. Its also interesting to think about the second triumvirate between Octavius, Anotonius, and Lepidius, and how its collapse led to the official end of the republic and the naming of Octavian(to be named Augustus shortly) as its first emperor.

did you by chance watch the whole movie. They used Tebuchet, which were not invented for another several centuries. Also the movie took place around Attila the Hut and the Gothic conquest, Adrianople. The referred to Rome as being the center of civilization and still powerful, when in fact it would be sacked 3 years later in 455 AD. The only historically accurate part of that movie was probably the Saxton invasion.

Now i have not yet started my study of Roman Mythology, so am not as knowledgable as some others. I would choose the Fortuna, the goddess of luck. If Sulla and Caesar could live by her, it is good enough for me.

Since I was born and raised an American I think Communism is one of the worst forms of government out there, with fascism and a monarchy right up there. Granted though, for Russia at the end of World War One, that was one of the best governments they could have used, it was perfect for their country at the time. If it will work for you people go with it, if not then be against it. I just wouldn't want to be living in a communist nation, I would choose to fight until I am dead, than see America become a Communist nation, which it is likely never to be.

To answer the question about if the celts could have won if the circumstances were different and I think no. Vercenitorix was too overconfident about his massive numbers and a lot of strategy was not used because of this. Caesar was a master strategist and created new means of siege warfar that were revolutionary. As a general Caesar was unbeatable, even though he did have some close calls and yes gnaeus pompeius magnus did manage a slight victory over caesar, but it was after a long march by caesars legions. Granted though Caesar did have the goddess Fortuna on his side, so he believes, and that, in the eyes of romans, was a major reason for Caesars success.

thanks for those resources, i glimpsed through them briefly and they seem like they will provide me with all the information that I need. I will read through them thouroughly when I have some more time. But again thanks.

thats what i thought. They represent the ethic make of most of europe, the various tribes(goths, anglo, saxon, germanic) so its a shame that not a lot of information is available about them to research. Thanks anyways.

Even though I discredit any hollywood movie as being historically accurate, there are a few exceptions, but after watching the movie it has maded me very interested in the settlement of different barbarians, which is not a good word to use as it is a greek word referring to the way the talked the Greeks thought it sounded like BAr Bar when they talked, into the the former provinces after the pulling out of the Romans during their long fall. Something I find particularly interesting was the Anglo-Saxon migration as they are my ancestors. Does anyone know any good sources to get detailed information about their migration, if that is a good word to use or not.

thats all i was saying. I am not saying that the new man did not have a great impact on rome. Gaius Marius and Pompeius Magnus were better generals than almost 90 percent of noble romans. I was saying that if you look at it from the true roman point of view Marius and Pompeius were not true romans and would always be considered new men by the senate. I am not discrediting their importance, but am trying to take the view of how someone of true patrician roman blood would have viewed it.

Before I state my opinion, by mentioning who the greatest roman was, you need to think about how the romans felt about this. Bloodline was very important to Rome, they would not just call anybody romans, even though the citizenship of most of Italia, as well as their various provinces. To ask your self who the greatest Roman was I think you need to think of who on your list was a true roman and who was not. The likes of Gaius Marius and Pompeius were both great generals and leaders, but they would never be considered romans, because of their Italian blood. Marius was from Arpium and Pompeius from Picentine. They were able to gain such high ranking because, marius married a Julian, the family with the highest blood, and Pompey's father was a general for rome as well as a senator. Pompeius also married a Julian, Caesars only daughter, with a roman wife, Julia. So to correctly reply to this question, since Caesar has been eliminated from possiblility, since he was by far the greatest roman, I would go with his great nephew, and adopted son, Octavius "Augustus" Caesar. Octavius was the first declared emperor, even though caesar was made dictator of rome, until that fateful day on the Ides of March, 15, 44 BCE. Augustus started the empire with a great start as he was the start of Pax Romano age, the golden age of rome, relative peace throughout the empire for almost 200 years I believe it was, until the last emperor Marcus Auerilius, not the gladiator one, died and his son Comodus took the ivory chair and ended that era, so my choice if caesar is unavailable is Octavius August Caesar.

does anyone know any books about the early days of the republic or perhaps even before the republic.

Even though these are a fictional series they are very good and do have a lot of factual information on the last years of the republic as the author, Colleen Mccullough spent 13 years rearching before her first book. Her books are very gripping and span from the days of gaius marius and sulla to the days of pompey, caesar, and the early reign of Octavian Caesar.

Hello, this is my first post. I am currently a student in college studying Ancient history and have an extreme fascination with rome. This idea I have been thinking about recently. What do you think that the role of christianity played in the fall of rome. Even though rome was on its way down, I believe the adoption of christianity helped pull it down. Throughout their history the romans viewed themselves not as a perticular person or nation, but as Romans. Their gods played a huge role in their life. The adoption of christianity changed that, they viewed themselves as Christians instead of Romans, which changed almost everything about their society.