The Greatest Roman General

[frankq]

Where's Pompey?!!!!

[frankq]

Where's Pompey?!!!!

15055[/snapback]

 

To answer my own question, I'm new here, my 2nd day, and I read only the first page of threads that made no mention of Pompey.

 

A word on his merits as a general. A great strategist, but when up against tacticians like Sertorius and Caesar, he wasnt at his best. Pompey's genius was in putting the odds in his favor. If he'd not listend to the Boni, and had employed Fabian Tactics instead as he intended during the Civil War, things might have turned out differently.

 

But he was past his glory days. The gods frankly had grown bored with him. A noble figure though.

[Cyrus]

I voted for Gaius Marius, I

[P.Clodius]

QUOTE(ZeleaCodreanu @ Sep 6 2005, 04:35 PM)

The best tactician was Scipio,but he knew nothing else.Overall Caesar is Da Grand Master of All Generals ever!

 

 

 

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Scippio has no understanding of strategy? Please correct me if I misunderstand your earlier statement.

 

 

I think he means that Scipio was a great strategist/tactician but suffered in the political arena. This is true to a certain extent. Scipio was, as was Caesar a great communicator. He understood and utilized the average romans superstitious nature and used religeon to give the impression he was/his actions were devine or were derrived from the gods. Implying that he spoke directly with the gods. Scipio's time and Caesar's were far apart. Caesar cajoled, bribed and threw aside mos maiorum to acheive his political goals at Rome. Scipio stayed within the bounds of the law. Caesar broke the law to arrive where he did. In a way, Scipio's treatment was a precursor/buildup to the Grachii. Caesar would certainly have read about and learned from Scipio's treatment.

[Primus Pilus]

This dude was named the THIRD FOUNDER OF ROME (By the way, I know it was Romulus, someone, and Marius, someone fill me in?).

15063[/snapback]

 

Furius Camillus was named the second... Plutarch's lives from Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius site.

 

What's interesting to me about Marius being named 'Third Founder of Rome' is that this title was given to a man despised by the Optimates. Not only is it a testament to the changing times, the rising power of the people, but is a true indication of the great anxiety Rome felt in facing the Cimbric/Teutonic horde. For Marius to be given such an honor in such a turbulent time period clearly indicates the great fear brought on by these migrating tribes.

 

(I apologize for a semi off-topic rambling )

[DanM]

Scipio must have been good to capture Africa and get the title africanus

15035[/snapback]

 

Most books I have read credit Scippio with a masterful strategic touch that forced Hannibal to abandon the field in Italy when no one could seem to defeat him it battle.

[DanM]

QUOTE(ZeleaCodreanu @ Sep 6 2005, 04:35 PM)

I think he means that Scipio was a great strategist/tactician but suffered in the political arena. This is true to a certain extent. Scipio was, as was Caesar a great communicator. He understood and utilized the average romans superstitious nature and used religeon to give the impression he was/his actions were devine or were derrived from the gods. Implying that he spoke directly with the gods. Scipio's time and Caesar's were far apart. Caesar cajoled, bribed and threw aside mos maiorum to acheive his political goals at Rome. Scipio stayed within the bounds of the law. Caesar broke the law to arrive where he did. In a way, Scipio's treatment was a precursor/buildup to the Grachii. Caesar would certainly have read about and learned from Scipio's treatment.

15068[/snapback]

 

I hope you are right and the earlier poster simply meant something other than what he said. Otherwise, his comments completely baffle me.

 

As for Scippio's political touch, I don't think you can compare him to other military leaders because he had no political ambitions. At least thats what I got from reading Lidell Hart's book on Scippio Africanus. Scippio believed it was his job to defend the Roman Republic and then retire from public life. How can you compare a man with that attitude to a Julius Ceasar or a Pompey? Its like saying that a person who wasn't participating in a race somehow slower than others. We just cannot know for certain since there is no basis for comparison.

[Guest Etrurian]

I voted for ceasar and I reckon that in any rating should appear Sertorius, one of the most talented commander in Roman history, while in Spain during the civil war he defeated Pompey many times and in a way was the first Roman commander to invent the method of guerrilla warfare against bigger armies. He hadn't luck cause he sided with the losing clan (Marius) during the civil war, against Sulla, but he was an outstanding general.

[Dachspmg]

I like Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, because he invented the harpax, which was the only real naval technological development between the Punic Wars and the fall of the West...and he wasn't that bad of a general, either. Greatest should go to Pompey because he was literally named for it.

[Northern Neil]

Julian.

[Sextus Roscius]

I personaly am a fan of Caesar and of Sulla, so caesar gets my vote with Sulla running as a close second.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Constantine. *cough* Yes, I'm biased.

[Gaius Julius Trajan]

Caesar is (obviously) the best Roman general with Trajan and Scipio battling for 2nd place. Than Marius and Aurelian.

 

I agree Agrippa deserves some mention, where would Octavian have been without him?

[Germanicus]

Caesar is (obviously) the best Roman general with Trajan and Scipio battling for 2nd place. Than Marius and Aurelian.

 

I agree Agrippa deserves some mention, where would Octavian have been without him?

 

Out of curiosity - Why do you put Marius so low ?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I don't think M. Aurelius was that good of a general, his campaigns were too passives. Instead of the conquering the Germans once and for all, he made a campaign of really just trying to keep them out of German, subduing them only temporary.

By the way, and no offence at all,shouldn't it be Gaius Julius Traianus, thats the real way in latin if you intended it to be a true latin cognomen form.