The Greatest Roman General

[Primus Pilus]

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?

No, but the destruction of the Veneti, along with the Mediterranean fleets of the Phoenicians, Greeks, Illyrians, Cilicians, etc. wiped out the need for naval advancement for several hundred years and for all practical purposes. Had the Romans not completely dominated the waters of western Europe, and rivalries continued to develop (on a scale forcing necessity), it surely would've inspired continued changes.

[Flavius Aetius]

there is no doubt in my mine that ceasar was the best but u guys also forgot another great general Trajan

[Pantagathus]

1000 years? Is there evidence about these Veneti being that much more advanced in naval technology?

I liberally use that figure primarily because the Veneti ships as discribed by Ceasar seem to have had a lot in common with Viking longships which roughly came along ~1000 later.

 

Primus Pilas brings up an excellent point beyond my statement of the Veneti. Especially in the case of the Phoenicians being subjugated by land lubbers then absorbed into Rome...

[Flavius Aetius]

trajan almost conquered all of parthia but because of rebellions back in jerusalem was forced to go back but later died on his way of sickness Trajan in my opion is 2nd greatest roman general of all time also kicked the dacians ass

[Flavius Belisario]

Publius Cornelius Scipio takes this far and away. He was undefeated in his time as a general, secured spain and drove carthage out. Got handed a piss poor army by the senate retrained them and went into Africa and defeated one of the greatest military minds of all time. On top of this he was an able diplomat as was proven by his negociations with the numidians which allowed him to counter Hannibal's own cavalry. His defeat of Carthage paved the way for rome to become a massive power.

[Spartan JKM]

Great site fellow posters! When discussing military history on other sites, I always find myself immersed in threads concerning ancient Greece, Rome, Alexander, and Hannibal etc.

 

I am happy to have found this site! Glad to be here.

 

A big question is do we count Belisarius, Narses, and Heraclius as Romans? They were technically Byzantines in the initial stages of that identity in the 6th century. I'll assume these 3, wo would rank as 3 of the greatest commanders of all time, are not considered Romans.

 

I agree with the majority that Gaius Julius Caesar was Rome's greatest military commander. Scipio Africanus and Gaius Marius probably matched him as a field commander, but in the overall sphere of war and politics, which were inseperably linked in Rome at this time, he may be the greatest of all time (certainly a tough call), in terms of legacy and success. He was as adept as any commander in history at seizing the initiative, launching counter-offensives in winter against the Gauls. Sure, they lacked the discipline and tactical order of his X and XIII legions etc., but his siege of Alesia was a supreme display in the art of siegery. The elaborate systems of circumvallation, which included concentric walls of earth to stave off a relief army and contain Vercingetroix within the city walls, was brilliant. Of course his handicap in numbers was probably exaggerated in his Commentaries, but it was a superb display of military generalship nonetheles, and his conquest of Gaul provided Rome with an immense security and a market of wealth that layed the foundations for the Empire. He also indirectly shaped french civilization, but he didn't know that was going to happen as substantially as it did. moreover, the personal devotion of his legions was established by his generosity towards them, when he showered them in the spoils of war. Crossong the Rubicon with 1 legion took brass huevos, and his bloodless march on Rome was a triumphal progress. His reforms of the living conditions of the people improved accomodations and housing (the Agrarian Laws). The Julian Calendar was one of the greatest contributuins in history, though he was certainly aided by the likes of Sosigenes. Honors were reaped upon him in the last few months of his life, and he was generous to fault a fault with everybody, from the common people to his enemies in politics and war. Caesar was both a man of the people and a despot. He made explorations to Britain, which facilitated the more significant conquests of Hadrian a century later. in the end, he may have been too good for his own good.

 

A bit of trivia - he was not completely undefeated: he suffered setbacks at Gergovia against the Gauls in 52 B.C., against Pompey at Dyrrachium in 48 B.C., in which he couldn't break his rival's entrenchments, and Caesar, though not directly present, was defeated by the Numidians under Juba in a battle around the Bagradas Valley in 49 B.C. These few setbacks were offset by his subsequent boldness, superb ability, and the quality and fealty of one of the greatest forces any commander could have enjoyed, of which much was due to his tremendous panache. His vigor and determination resulted in ultimate victory throughout Greece, Asia Minor ("Vini Vedi Vici"!), Iberia, and North Africa in a span of just 4 years. His victory at Pharsalus over an over-the-hill Pompey, in which he was outnumbered more than 2 to 1 in infantry (approx. 45,000 to 22,000) and 7 to 1 in cavalry (approx. 7,000 to just 1,000), was sublime. His concealed oblique reserve infantry line held fast against the anticipated breakthrough of Pompey's much more numerous cavalry, and his legions were too much for their less resolute counterparts. The very able lieutenant Titus Labienus fought with Pompey at Pharsalus. He had led with distinction in the Gallic campaign under Caesar, but turned coat in favor of Pompey, taking command of the cavalry that broke through Caesar's. he was surprised his former commander's deployed reserve. We can only criticize in hindsight, but Labienus made a poor choice in selecting who to fight for. There were probably political considerations.

 

Like him, are indifferent of, or hate him, Julius Caesar was one of history's greatest men, not to mention a very controversial one. Was his personal intoxication with power a reason for the destruction of the Republic? I don't think he was the raw military genius that Epaminondas, Philip II of Macedon, or Hannibal was. But he didn't need to be.

 

How about the others?

 

Augustus (b. Gaius Octavius) was one of the most brilliant and influential leaders in history. His skill as a military leader was moderate at best, but he brought the civil wars, that had caused much strife in the classes of the Roman sphere of life and destroyed the Republic, to an end and re-organized the Roman body politic to a more stable level. He administered great legislative and civil reforms etc., founding the Roman Empire and ushering in internal peace and prosperity which lastet some 2 centuries. Rome was the culmination of the Classical Civilization, and everything, for the most part, achieved by the Babylonians, Egyptians, Judaeans, Greeks, Carthaginians, and others was disseminated throughout the West by Rome. Augustus was the primary factor as to why that happened.

It was his loyal friend Marcus Agrippa who was an outstanding commander, and provided the emperor with solid support in the military campaigns, and in times of potential crises. Augustus was not a sedentary military man, though; he joined the armies, at least in the beginning, at the front.

 

Publius Cornelius Scipio, later Africanus, did not fight for glorified conquest, but for Rome's salvation in her darkest hour. His reforms of the army, in which it could compete with enemies who had superior skirmishers and cavalry, were brilliant. He knew when not to be bold, and could gain the appeasement of others with his great personality. He was probably the greatest field commander Rome ever had. He had at his disposal very good lieutenants in Marcus Silanus and Gaius Laelius, who may merit some of Scipio's credit. Remember, it was his father and uncle who established Rome's position in Iberia that blocked the reinforcements from reaching Hannibal when Rome was practically bled white in Italy after Cannae. Scipio's victory over a much larger Punic army at Ilipa in 206 B.C. rivals even Cannae as a tactical masterpiece. At Zama 4 years later, Scipio commanded with poise and sensibility, merely conducting his battleplan so as not to lose his advantage in cavalry over Hannibal, which essentially decided the battle, coupled with his superb handling of the initial elephant charge. At Zama that day, Scipio's non-attempt at anything fancy proves his sagacity as a commander, not to mention he knew exactly who he was up against that decisive day. Scipio knew how to win the appeasement of defeated peoples as efficaciously as perhaps any commander in history.

Before Scipio, another commander was sent to north-eastern Iberia with 12,000 troops and maybe 3,000 cavalry. This commander pushed Hasdrubal Barca back, returned to Italy, leaving a good base and fresh forces, combined with the beleaugured ones (but regaining improved morale) already there, for Scipio to begin his great Iberian campaign.

 

That commander was Gaius Claudius Nero. His campaign of the Metaurus River in 207 B.C., in which he marched up and down Italy with incredible celerity, keeping Hannibal in the dark of what was commencing, and destroyed the invading army of Hasdrubal Barca, was a pivotal moment in military history, and a splendid achievement of tactics and logistics. Credit goes, to a lesser extent, to one Marcus Salinator, whose troops aided in the defeat of Hasdrubal. He should rank as one of Rome's greatest soldiers, as he, not Scipio Africanus, began the Roman use of cavalry on an effective scale. He fought Hannibal to a tactical draw in 208 B.C. in southern Italy. He became censor towards the end of the war and served in Macedonia. Nobody seems to know what became of him.

 

The wisdom and skill of Fabius Maximus would become greatly appreciated after Cannae. The specific policy of inaction with harassing tactics would become adopted in almost every future military generation, most notably from the terrific Bertrand du Guesclin in the 100 Years War. However, it was Hannibal who outwitted the composed Fabius with the legendary cattle stratagem. Anyone know this story, in which Hannibal extricated himself from a Falernian valley from Fabius' trap? It was incredibly wily.

 

Gaius Marius was a brilliant general, but he has been criticized for failing to fully exploit the power he could have had with such great reformed armies at his disposal. Maybe he didn't care, and his repulsion of the Gallic threats at the end of the 2nd century A.D. were inspiring.

 

Sulla was not very admirable, in terms of anyhting selfless, but he died never have been defeated, militarily or politically. he certainly was more than capable as a general, but nothing astounding, in my opinion.

 

Marcus Marcellus, Quintus Sertorius, and Lucius Lucullus (d.50s B.C.) deserve mention.

 

Trajan and Hadrian were personally at the helm of superb military campaigns, including success in the East, which saw the Roman Empire at its greatest extent.

 

Publius Vendetius, an associate of Caesar's, drove the aggressive Parthians, in the wake of their great triumph at Carrhae in 53 B.C., out of the Roman provinces in Asia Minor and Syria. he returned to Rome and celebrated a triumph in 38 B.C. (?).

 

Septimius Severus, of Punic descent, put down his opponents and reduced the empire to relative peace in all corners, from Mesopotamia to Britain.

 

The conquests of Constantine I have impacted human history tremendously, at least in the West, most notably because of his advocation of Christianity.

 

One of the best was certainly Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus), the emperor of the mid/late 3rd century A.D. Seldom has a reign been so short with so much brilliant success. He secured the Danube frontier to its former strength with a defeats of the Goths and Vandals. In 271 A.D. or so he destroyed the Alemanni at Rimini, who had invaded Gaul. He organized the defences of Rome with a new city wall. On his way to Syria, where he would put down the rise of Queen Zenobia, he suppressed more Gothic threats in the Balkan regions. He later again vanquished tribal armies across the Danube, and returned to the east to defeat the Palmyrian forces, who had rebelled. He would traverse hurriedly back to Gaul in 274 and defeat a revolting Roman army under one Tetricus (?). His triumphs worthily earned him the title Restitutor Orbis, or 'Restorer of the World'. We know, of course, there was a little more to the world then the Roman Empire at the time.

 

All this is IMHO, of course, and I hope I haven't expounded too much, and will gladly join the 'greatest generals of antiquity' very soon.

 

Thanks, Spartan JKM

[Tobias]

I could give a strong argument as to why one could consider Belisarius, Narses and Heraclius as Romans, but that's not the point of this thread lol.

Zenobia was a brave woman wasn't she?

[Augur]

Tobias' mention of that remarkable women, Zenobia, prompts me to cast a vote here for Aurelian (in whose triumph she marched), a man who achieved most of his impressive military accomplishments, not in the conquest of barbarians but in pulling so many of the major pieces of the Empire back together again. A nasty piece of work, a very tough guy.

 

Of all of Rome's triumphal parades, I have always wished most to be present at Aurelian's.

[Tobias]

I agree, he wasn't called "The Restorer of the World" for nothing.

[Onasander]

I can and did present a good reason for including Belisarius, but it got wiped from record and made impotent as a seperate thread, so now given my options are cut in half, I'm going with Russel Crowe as the greatest roman general.

[Primus Pilus]

I can and did present a good reason for including Belisarius, but it got wiped from record and made impotent as a seperate thread, so now given my options are cut in half, I'm going with Russel Crowe as the greatest roman general.

You could just quote yourself and re-add the relevant information, rather than try to make the forum look stupid.

[ChineseManchurian]

Caesar is way over rated, he is a conqueror but his strategy and tactics are not on the same level with Alexander and Hannibal, by the way, for a good leader luck is important^_^

[Virgil61]

Caesar is way over rated, he is a conqueror but his strategy and tactics are not on the same level with Alexander and Hannibal, by the way, for a good leader luck is important^_^

 

I'd say you're incorrect. Caesar isn't overrated, he is probably rated third behind Alexander and Hannibal. He was outnumbered, operating in enemy territory during his conquest of Gaul, always moved quickly and getting to hotspots when he needed. He was certainly as good a leader of men as Hannibal and Alexander were and was possessed of enormous energy.

 

I'll take good training and leadership over luck any day. Luck eventually runs out.

[Tobias]

You mean Russelus Crowus Maximus Onasander

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

Who voted Cornelius Sulla??? He was evil