Marius VS Sulla

[Pyrrhus]

2 Armies, 2 Generals, 1 Victor

 

Here's the story.

 

-Both men are in their prime (As this is hypothetical they can be)

-They are given a legion each

-They are all raw recruits, untrained, but young and able

-Each General is given a proper training facility, Legion equipment and people to train the recruits.

 

They are told that in one year, they will fight the other in battle. (Note I said "In battle" and not "In a battle") When the time comes, they will each be told "War has begun" (or another cliche) and they will manoeuvre, retreat, advance around their enemy as much as they wish, until they face each other and fight. The battle will take place in Italy.

 

(There are no politics, outside helpers, or any more men available. The only things that stand are the things I have said. This makes the whole thing simpler, and boils it down to the point I am trying to make)

 

So, who do you think would win? They have everything they need to win, but factors must be considered.

 

Who is the best tactician?

Who is the best at manoeuvring?

Who is the best at training and organising his men?

Who is the best at leading his men?

Who is the best at keeping moral high?

 

So, all considered, who do you think would win the war?

[Hamilcar Barca]

Way to difficult to tell who would win. The two forces would probaby slog it out in a prolonged, horribly bloody draw.

[MARCELLVS]

Difficult without a given ''terrain'' and the importance of the battle. It would be actually reduced to a puzzle in characterology or one for a headhunter.

 

I'd go for Sulla as the better strategist and the one who would take advantage on the enemy's slightest errror without mercy.

[Pyrrhus]

The terrain will be of the Generals choosing. If Marius can out-manoeuvre Sulla then he can have the better terrain, and vice-versa. The question here would be who is the best "manoeuvrer".

[Lacertus]

It is more similar on PC game, instead of to a real situation. Even if it would be possible, the winner would stand on a battlefield one above hill of corpses. For whom is it necessary? Let there will be a drawn game.

[roman wargamer]

2 Armies, 2 Generals, 1 Victor

 

Who is the best tactician?

Who is the best at manoeuvring?

Who is the best at training and organising his men?

Who is the best at leading his men?

Who is the best at keeping moral high?

 

So, all considered, who do you think would win the war?

i vote for Marius.

 

did any of you already play a tabletop wargame that have more than 100 player pieces each, same kind and

number for each player. then and try to play it again now in 18" X 18' only board, almost impossible to do.

 

now try to play it again... without dices , cards and tape measure for playing rules... almost really impossible to play.

 

that what you are proposing! ... but if you will play the rules of the Roman Wargame , it is all possible.

 

and your hypothetical question will be answer... and why i vote for Marius.

[Valentinian]

Hey new guy here....I vote Marius because although I think that Sulla relied way to much on his subordinates to carry out his orders and interpret them to his desire. Whereas Marius had a much firmer grasp of the ramifications of the battle. Don't forget that Sulla was in fact Marius' pupil as well. I also think that Marius men were also much more loyal to him and would fight to the bitter end, unlike Sulla's soldiers who were not nearly as loyal. But despite that....it would have been one hell of a brawl.

[roman wargamer]

for me it is a highly technical battle...1 minor error will count,

and affect the final ending of the engagement.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

I think you would have to call this one a toss up. Like someone already said, Sulla learned the art of war from Marius. Sulla did alot of the planning and logistics work for Marius, and also did alot to improve Marius' intelligence network. I think Marius had a better mind when it came to the actual tactics and movement during a battle along with the strategic planning, but Sulla had a better mind for long-term logistical planning. Sulla was definitely more of a skeemer, but would that give him the edge he needed? Another question to consider is who are the legates and tribunes in this hypothetical war? Even Marius would fall dead if he was saddled with the likes of a Servilius Caepio, Metellus Nepos "Numidicus", or worse. And what of the general lucky enough to have Quintus Sertorius, or Gaius Trebonius, or Marcus Herrenius as legates? Gotta say this one is a 50/50.

[marcus brutus]

i love marius hes the best

[Primus Pilus]

Quoting myself from the Forum guidelines...

 

2) Debate is encouraged. Argument and flaming is not. Support your own opinions. Do not attack the opinions of others without making your own case clear. We also generally do not encourage single line posts without some 'meat' within the posts. (This is topic dependent of course and generally relates to historical discussions.) For example rather than say just 'Caesar was the greatest general', post 'Caesar was the greatest because he conquered a unified Gaul, crossed the Rhine, invaded Britain, defeated an equally great Roman army, brought Egypt completely under Roman dominance' etc, etc.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

In my opinion they were both good tacticians,but i voted for Sylla just because Marius was fighting to become an important person in the Republic and was grand traitor.

[P.Clodius]

Well, given your scenario I presume that Sulla had not served under Marius and that Sulla would have been unaware of the changes made to the army by Marius. The Marian legions were better than the old republican legions by far. Marius would win, he made vast sweeping improvements to the army, Sulla did not.