Virgil61 Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 It certainly comes down to Caesar or Scipion in my opinion, with the edge to JC in my opinion. The dark horse would be Trajan, not listed, with his conquest of Dacia and sacking of the Parthian capital. Unfortunately for him he has no battles that make anyone's "greatest battles of..." list which always boosts a generals reputation. Pompey isn't listed as well, which is unfortunate. Plutarch says something along the line of Pompey having been judged the greatest if he had died at the age of forty. In my edit I'd like to add I see no reason why Augustus/Octavian is listed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 It upsets me that my namesake is not mentioned. I realize there are a lot of other great generals, but Pompeius was one of the top 5. Heres my list Caesar Scipio Marius Sulla Pompeius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Marcellus Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 I think many people attribute Pompeii's success more to the people around him than by his personal skill. At least in his later years. And also like Virgil said, he didn't retire early enough. He tried to be like Jerry Rice who runs the risk of being known as a mediocre receiver if he keeps hanging out any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Pompeius problem was that he was too easily manipulated and was molded to fit the needs of the Boni after he and Caesar no longer had the bond through Pompeius being married to Caesar's daughter. Pompey should have retired before the civil war, but he did not, the same can be said of Marius who didn't leave the political sphere early enough and went insane, kind of, slaughtering Romans who opposed him after his last election as council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Pompeius' reputation suffers as a result of his ultimate loss to Caesar (despite a near total victory at Dyrrhachium). Some of his eastern campaigns have also been questioned because of the work already achieved by previous commanders, but in reality, Pompey won one overwhelming battle after another in his career. If not for the political infighting of his senatorial entourage after Dyrrachium, history may have turned out very differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Pompeius' reputation suffers as a result of his ultimate loss to Caesar (despite a near total victory at Dyrrhachium). "They would have won today had they been led by a winner!" Caesar to his troops after Dyrrhachium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Indeed, I only point out that he lost to one of history's greatest generals. Had Pompey been good enough to follow up, he would have likely earned a place high on the list. And had he won, just how different might have western culture developed? Considering that Caesar restabilized and invigorated a sinking ship, and provided history with an equally capable heir, the civil wars following the defeat of Caesar (between any number of candidates) may have annhilited the very fragile state of affairs. (Despite any romantic anti-Caesarean thoughts, Caesar's death would not have altered the course of Roman politics... which was spiraling ever out of control for over a century. And yes, its possible that a Pompeian victory may have resulted in temporary stability, but the Republic had long since proven itself incapable and its fall was inevitable and irreversable). It's an interesting concept but probably better left to its own topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I voted for Julius Caesar because he subdued the Gauls in the most complete fashion, and for his brilliant achievements at Alesia and Zela, but I think Trajan, the "Optimus Princeps", could do with a bit more recognition, as he was the Emperor who extended the Empire to it's maximum, and his victories over the Dacians and the Parthians were quite impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 I'm amazed that G.J.Ceasar has beaten P.C.Scipio Africanus Major by that much! Rome became a world power because of P.C.Scipio's brilliance on the battlefield and contrary to propaganda he never let it get to his head. Furthermore, he introduced new tactics to the Roman Army (+ the use of the Gladius) that would be used for centuries... Ceasar was no doubt a bad a$$ but he lacked the finesse that Scipio employed in getting the most strategic benefit out of a victory. I mean, it's my view that Ceasar single handedly put naval technology behind ~1000 years by completely obliterating the Veneti... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 Maybe a poll on who had the greater gall.... I think Sulla would give Caesar a run for his money.... Sulla > Pompey It makes me so mad that Pompey gets all the credit for winning the Mithridatic Wars... Sulla owned that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 Maybe a poll on who had the greater gall.... I think Sulla would give Caesar a run for his money.... Sulla > Pompey It makes me so mad that Pompey gets all the credit for winning the Mithridatic Wars... Sulla owned that... And Lucullus rarely gets enough credit for virtually stifling resistance before Pompey even showed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 And Lucullus rarely gets enough credit for virtually stifling resistance before Pompey even showed up. The 'luitenants' never get their fair shake do they... Lucullus owned Pontus as well Kinda like Laelius with Scipio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeps Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Eh, in my last post in this thread I said Corbulo, for his victory at Actium. Doh. I meant Agrippa (though he wasn't a general). What's the Roman equivalent of Admiral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Eh, in my last post in this thread I said Corbulo, for his victory at Actium. Doh. I meant Agrippa (though he wasn't a general). What's the Roman equivalent of Admiral? Agrippa held Proconsular imperium by virtue of his consulship in 37 BC. He functioned as both a Legatus Legionis and a Praefectus Classis (fleet commander) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I mean, it's my view that Ceasar single handedly put naval technology behind ~1000 years by completely obliterating the Veneti... 1000 years? Is there evidence about these Veneti being that much more advanced in naval technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.