Most overrated general in all of antiquity?

[Captain Martyr Mahmud]

Hello, I'm new to this forum and thought I would start with a (not-so) controversial thread.

 

I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic. I mean, what exactly did he ever do? As far as I can see, all he did was win a few easy victories in Spain and Africa over third-rate generals and armies. Here's a brief analysis of his career:

 

New Carthage- A brazen and reckless assault that succeeded primarily due to luck rather than brilliance.

 

Baecula- A complete failure by all accounts that could have cost Rome the war.

 

Ilipa- A stalemate that achieved no material results.

 

Utica- A cowardly and treacherous sneak attack.

 

Great Plains- The Punic army here consisted primarily of levies, who were no match for Scipio's veteran legionnaires.

 

Zama- Despite every possible advantage, Scipio nearly lost the battle. When Massinissa's horse returned to the field, Scipio's troops were in the process of being crushed by Hannibal's far inferior, but much better led, levies.

 

And yet, Scipio is undeservedly regarded as one of Rome's greatest generals even though he contributed little to Rome's victory in the Second Punic War. Other, better men like Marcellus, Nero and Fabius deserve far more credit. Scipio was in reality little more than a competent general who was built up by the Scipionic propaganda machine which tried to downplay the achievements of the aforementioned commanders.

 

So, to conclude, the formula for Scipio's success was as follows:

 

Veteran, highly trained legions + A general of average ability + Weak opponents = A successful, but unremarkable commander

[Captain Martyr Mahmud]

Nobody wants to reply, huh?

[Viggen]

Overrated by whom? Historians maybe, the commoner on the street probably never heard of him, so i guess his fame is on par with his rating?

 

You might want to check out this thread from a few years ago

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/8199-greatest-roman-figure/?p=81485

 

cheers

viggen

 

Hello, I'm new to this forum and thought I would start with a (not-so) controversial thread.

 

I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic. I mean, what exactly did he ever do? As far as I can see, all he did was win a few easy victories in Spain and Africa over third-rate generals and armies. Here's a brief analysis of his career:

 

New Carthage- A brazen and reckless assault that succeeded primarily due to luck rather than brilliance.

 

Baecula- A complete failure by all accounts that could have cost Rome the war.

 

Ilipa- A stalemate that achieved no material results.

 

Utica- A cowardly and treacherous sneak attack.

 

Great Plains- The Punic army here consisted primarily of levies, who were no match for Scipio's veteran legionnaires.

 

Zama- Despite every possible advantage, Scipio nearly lost the battle. When Massinissa's horse returned to the field, Scipio's troops were in the process of being crushed by Hannibal's far inferior, but much better led, levies.

 

And yet, Scipio is undeservedly regarded as one of Rome's greatest generals even though he contributed little to Rome's victory in the Second Punic War. Other, better men like Marcellus, Nero and Fabius deserve far more credit. Scipio was in reality little more than a competent general who was built up by the Scipionic propaganda machine which tried to downplay the achievements of the aforementioned commanders.

 

So, to conclude, the formula for Scipio's success was as follows:

 

Veteran, highly trained legions + A general of average ability + Weak opponents = A successful, but unremarkable commander

[Axel Wers]

I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic.

 

I could agree. I read something about his descendants and they also weren't much better from point of this view. I have to find sources about this. Here is a little example.

[guy]

Hello, I'm new to this forum and thought I would start with a (not-so) controversial thread.

 

I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic. I mean, what exactly did he ever do? As far as I can see, all he did was win a few easy victories in Spain and Africa over third-rate generals and armies.  

So, to conclude, the formula for Scipio's success was as follows:

 

Veteran, highly trained legions + A general of average ability + Weak opponents = A successful, but unremarkable commander

I assume you wrote this to be more provocative than anything else.

 

I recommend your reading Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart's "Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon." Although dated (written in 1926, a few years after the horrors and slaughter of World War I), the author makes the point that although the sources are limited, Scipio was not only a great general but also a diplomat and a humane visionary. Famous generals such as Alexander and Napoleon were essentially self-serving dictators who did not have to deal with a bickering Roman Republican Senate while they we away in battle. I read this book years ago and I would recommend this book highly.

 

One reviewer for the book put it this way:

 

 

Liddell-Hart's Scipio should be required reading in every high school and university because he refuses to worship at the altar of the sacred cows of history, killers like Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Robert E. Lee, etc. All of these "Great" men brought either tyranny to their country or left a legacy of poverty and destruction behind after their pursuit of glory on the battlefield. Not so with Scipio Africanus.

 

Scipio was an intellectual and a lover of the classics. He joined the army not to seek personal fame and fortune, but to save his people from being destroyed by the rampaging Carthaginian Hannibal. When he was through defeating his enemy in Spain, Sicily, and finally on Hannibal's home turf in Africa at the battle of Zama, Scipio built a framework of peace and stability for the young Roman Republic that would only be threatened by Julius' later introduction of tyranny and one man rule.

 

The most significant point militarily that Liddell-Hart makes is in emphasizing Scipio's use of indirect approach. Instead of relying on bloody frontal assaults into the heart of the enemies main army Scipio used an economy of human lives by attacking his enemies supply bases with few casualties to either side. By ruining Hannibal's ability to stay in Italy and forcing him to return home once Scipio was threatening to overrun Carthage, Scipio preserved the lives of his own men for the final confrontation at Zama. Once the time came for a head to head battle, the roman legions were supremely confident, even though Hannibal had never been defeated.

 

Many readers even today sing the praises of Hannibal, but the truth is that Hannibal was soundly defeated at every turn by Scipio Africanus. Scipio's name must be remembered with higher esteem and honor.

 

Liddell-Hart suggests that Scipio is greater than Napoleon because for all of his brilliance and virtuosity, Napoleon did everything to glorify himself, to seize dictatorial power, and all his efforts were ultimatley futile. He was defeated, he bankrupted France, and millions of men died or lived out their lives as cripples because of his...fantasies of personal wealth and glory. Scipio brought security and prosperity to his people, and then retired.

Another reviewer of the book wrote:

 

Liddell Hart presents us with the blueprint for the modern warrior. One who seeks to complete the overarching aim of the conflict without wanton destruction and carnage associated with World War 1. Published in 1926, fresh on the folly of the protracted trench warfare and the horribly punitive reparations demanded of the Germans, this book demonstrates a different way. The slaughter of soldiers without any clear military advantage arising from the action horrified LH's generation. Here is LH's description of a better way to prosecute a war. He dispels the notion that it something of a giant chess match played by the detached, but a horrific thing that should be resolved as expeditiously as possible. Here is how he writes that Scipio does it.

 

First Scipio crippled the Carthaginians in Spain by capturing Cartegena, then crippled Hannibal in Italy by diverting Carthaginian resources from Italy to Spain. Then, piecemeal, he disables the remaining Carthaginian threat in Spain until only a sliver is no longer in Roman control. Buoyed by his triumph he proposes to attack Carthage while Hannibal still roams Italy. He receives permission from the fearful Roman Senate but modest support, and then proceeds the most stunning defeat of three separate armies (each larger than his own), including one led by Hannibal after his recall from Italy. Each battle won here was the result of superior tactics and strategy being brought to bear on the enemy. After defeating the Carthaginians (and later the Syrians under Antiochus) there was no excess pillaging and the tribute demanded was modest. Scipio made no personal fortune from the victories and was magnanimous to the defeated.

 

The contrast to the First World War and its aftermath could not be more stark. Scipio realized that peace is the greater aim of war and he sowed the seeds of peace with every action during war. The French chose to sow a future war with the armistice concluding the First World War. As is common even in this day, Scipio was later vilified at home for his decisive action that brought peace. The critics of Scipio's day feared that his popularity would rise if they were silent in the face of his successes.

 

I have no expertise in military matters, so I will defer to military experts on this forum. War, however, has costs far greater than casualties on the field. Scipio, at least, strove to maintain stability in the Roman Republic instead of just trying to achieve personal glory and riches at the cost of the Roman Republic.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited September 21, 2014 by guy

[Artimi]

ahh.... yes..  non controversial.  Scipio Africanus was a general who learned.

[Captain Martyr Mahmud]

 

Hello, I'm new to this forum and thought I would start with a (not-so) controversial thread.

 

I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic. I mean, what exactly did he ever do? As far as I can see, all he did was win a few easy victories in Spain and Africa over third-rate generals and armies.  

So, to conclude, the formula for Scipio's success was as follows:

 

Veteran, highly trained legions + A general of average ability + Weak opponents = A successful, but unremarkable commander

I assume you wote this to be more provocative than anything else.

 

I recommend your reading Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart's "Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon." Although dated (written in 1926, a few years after the horrors and slaughter of World War I), the author makes the point that although the sources are limited, Scipio was not only a great general but also a diplomat and a humane visionary. Famous generals such as Alexander and Napoleon were essentially self-serving dictators who did not have to deal with a bickering Roman Republican Senate while they we away in battle. I read this book years ago and I would recommend this book highly.

 

One reviewer for the book put it this way:

 

 

Liddell-Hart's Scipio should be required reading in every high school and university because he refuses to worship at the altar of the sacred cows of history, killers like Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Robert E. Lee, etc. All of these "Great" men brought either tyranny to their country or left a legacy of poverty and destruction behind after their pursuit of glory on the battlefield. Not so with Scipio Africanus.

 

Scipio was an intellectual and a lover of the classics. He joined the army not to seek personal fame and fortune, but to save his people from being destroyed by the rampaging Carthaginian Hannibal. When he was through defeating his enemy in Spain, Sicily, and finally on Hannibal's home turf in Africa at the battle of Zama, Scipio built a framework of peace and stability for the young Roman Republic that would only be threatened by Julius' later introduction of tyranny and one man rule.

 

The most significant point militarily that Liddell-Hart makes is in emphasizing Scipio's use of indirect approach. Instead of relying on bloody frontal assaults into the heart of the enemies main army Scipio used an economy of human lives by attacking his enemies supply bases with few casualties to either side. By ruining Hannibal's ability to stay in Italy and forcing him to return home once Scipio was threatening to overrun Carthage, Scipio preserved the lives of his own men for the final confrontation at Zama. Once the time came for a head to head battle, the roman legions were supremely confident, even though Hannibal had never been defeated.

 

Many readers even today sing the praises of Hannibal, but the truth is that Hannibal was soundly defeated at every turn by Scipio Africanus. Scipio's name must be remembered with higher esteem and honor.

 

Liddell-Hart suggests that Scipio is greater than Napoleon because for all of his brilliance and virtuosity, Napoleon did everything to glorify himself, to seize dictatorial power, and all his efforts were ultimatley futile. He was defeated, he bankrupted France, and millions of men died or lived out their lives as cripples because of his...fantasies of personal wealth and glory. Scipio brought security and prosperity to his people, and then retired.

Another reviewer of the book wrote:

 

Liddell Hart presents us with the blueprint for the modern warrior. One who seeks to complete the overarching aim of the conflict without wanton destruction and carnage associated with World War 1. Published in 1926, fresh on the folly of the protracted trench warfare and the horribly punitive reparations demanded of the Germans, this book demonstrates a different way. The slaughter of soldiers without any clear military advantage arising from the action horrified LH's generation. Here is LH's description of a better way to prosecute a war. He dispels the notion that it something of a giant chess match played by the detached, but a horrific thing that should be resolved as expeditiously as possible. Here is how he writes that Scipio does it.

 

First Scipio crippled the Carthaginians in Spain by capturing Cartegena, then crippled Hannibal in Italy by diverting Carthaginian resources from Italy to Spain. Then, piecemeal, he disables the remaining Carthaginian threat in Spain until only a sliver is no longer in Roman control. Buoyed by his triumph he proposes to attack Carthage while Hannibal still roams Italy. He receives permission from the fearful Roman Senate but modest support, and then proceeds the most stunning defeat of three separate armies (each larger than his own), including one led by Hannibal after his recall from Italy. Each battle won here was the result of superior tactics and strategy being brought to bear on the enemy. After defeating the Carthaginians (and later the Syrians under Antiochus) there was no excess pillaging and the tribute demanded was modest. Scipio made no personal fortune from the victories and was magnanimous to the defeated.

 

The contrast to the First World War and its aftermath could not be more stark. Scipio realized that peace is the greater aim of war and he sowed the seeds of peace with every action during war. The French chose to sow a future war with the armistice concluding the First World War. As is common even in this day, Scipio was later vilified at home for his decisive action that brought peace. The critics of Scipio's day feared that his popularity would rise if they were silent in the face of his successes.

 

I have no expertise in military matters, so I will defer to military experts on this forum. War, however, has costs far greater than casualties on the field. Scipio, at least, strove to maintain stability in the Roman Republic instead of just trying to achieve personal glory and riches at the cost of the Roman Republic.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

Very well, but Scipio remains one of the most overrated generals of all time.

[Axel Wers]

 

I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic.

 

I could agree. I read something about his descendants and they also weren't much better from point of this view. I have to find sources about this. Here is a little example.

 

 

I have little change my opinion. I confused overrated with underrated. I am jerk.

 

 

I tell one thing: Only Scipio was able to defeat Hannibal for sure. That same Hannibal who destroyed almost whole Roman army.

[caldrail]

It is worth pointing out that our perceptions of the worth of a military commander are coloured by cureent expectations. We expect drama, clear sigted management, guile, and results. The Romans tended toward cautious men. partly because they didn't want politically ambitious generals and were well aware of the risk of armies being used by individuals for their own ends, but also because they didn't want rash and foolish decisions by generals leading to yet another military disaster. Caesar was by our standards a great general. By the standards of the Romans, a loose cannon, a careless commander, and fighting for his own ends rather than representing the Senate & People of Rome.

[jjamesames]

When Scipio was finally a General, it was quite more difficult to Command army's then later on, for a variety of reasons.

 

The Army was commanded by 2 generals who shared command. One day the better man had it, the next day Hannibal attacked. The Legion only was comprised of "Part-timers". There were zero non-comms in the Legion.  Imagine what would happen to Patten if he only had Officers, and Privates to fight. The World would be a very different place.

 

There is a Book, called Scipio Africanus, written by a guy named Richard E. Gabriel. It points out both flaws, and most importantly, his innovations, and he documents his book with tedious detail. Total Respect dude....

 

Finally Scipio walked away from power. He could have been the first Emperor of Rome. Yet, just like our George Washington, he turned his back on it.

 

This was my first post. Hope I did O.K.

[Viggen]

 

This was my first post. Hope I did O.K.

 

...you did good! welcome to UNRV

[guy]

 

Finally Scipio walked away from power. He could have been the first Emperor of Rome. Yet, just like our George Washington, he turned his back on it.

 

This was my first post. Hope I did O.K.

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[diegis]

More like Scipio Africanus is one of the most underrated generals (at least for the general public, not the historians).

His plans and actions at both tactical and especially strategical level (where he defeat Hannibal) were brilliant, and the battle of Ilipa can be considered a victory about the same level of Hannibal's one at Cannae (and I do consider Hannibal one of the greatest generals, and both him and Scipio as at same level and slightly over Alexander or Caesar)

[indianasmith]

As far as battlefield command, I still give top honors to Gaius Julius Caesar - his ability to inspire loyalty in his men, to consistently defeat forces far greater than his own, and his lightning quick troop movements enabled him to run rings around most of his opponents.

 

As far as overrated generals, I put Gnaeus Pompeiius Magnus in that category.

While I have to admire the chutzpah of someone who names himself "the Great" when he is only 19 years old, and then makes it stick,

the fact is that he beat some pretty dreadful commanders in the Social Wars.  He was thoroughly schooled by Sertorius in Spain and finally

got credit for a victory that was more due to his senior commander, Metellius Pius. For the rest of his career made sure that he only

fought when he outnumbered the enemy two to one or better.  He did have a great talent for organization, and his defeat of the pirates in

the Mediterranean and his settlement of the Eastern provinces shows his capacity for military administration.  But despite an enormous advantage

in numbers, Caesar crushed him at Pharsalus when Pompey had the advantage of terrain and should have won easily.

In the end, Pompey bought into his own mythos and it was his undoing.

[Corburlo]

I would argue that Alexander the 'Great' is at least in the top 20. Sure he performed an incredible feat in conquering all of the middle east (except Saudi). But the invasion was not his idea, it was his fathers. As was the military reformations that allowed him to dominate Greeks and Persians alike in battle. However as soon as he met a skilled opponent with decent troops such as Memnon of Rhodes he struggled and only through superior tools  (ie cavalry) did he succeed. Also his tactics were simple, hammer and anvil and only could be completed due to the competence of his cavalry. Whilst Gaugamela was spectacular it was to bold and if Darius been a little bit more wary and skilled he would have easily countered Alexander strike towards Darius himself. Then Alexander would have been up shit creek without a paddle. He was a poor diplomat and survived due to the reforms of his father.