Emperors As Generals: The Best

[P.Clodius]

Vespasian has a lot going for him. He was noted for his abilities during the invasion and pacification of Britainia. Was part of Nero's court but lost favour when he fel asleep during one of Nero's performances. Was appointed to the overall command of the Jewish war after Corbulo was eliminated by Nero. He then made initial moves into Judea but put on hold the full prosecution of the war pending events in Rome. After securing support for his bid for the emperorship he went for it leaving his son, Titus with the jewish command. Vespasian was thrifty by nature. He also raised taxes to a very high rate to replenish the depleted treasury that had been squandered by mismanagement under Nero and the 3 emperors. But above all he brought a new Pax Romana and ushered in an era of relative stability.

 

For worst commanders Tiberius tops my list, but Tiberius makes higher grades in being and able administrator of the Empire.  But he is definitely bad in the field.

 

 

I don't know where you got the impression that Tiberius was a poor cmdr but let me assure you that was not the case. Tiberius was a very able cmdr who prosectuted very successful campaigns in both Germany and Ilyria.

[Germanicus]

Yes, Tiberius was an excellent General, and Augustus relied on him quite a bit, he was just not very good at relationships with relatives and the Senate.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

He is often seen as a person who often kept to himself.

[Julius Caesar]

I think its important to note that the 'conquest of Germania' that I was referring to with Tiberius and Drusus were those long before Germanicus' campaigns. Germania, was essentially conquered, but it had not yet been stabilized. The inability of Varus to secure the province does not attest to the successes of Tiberius, Drusus and others in the initial campaigns. In my opinion the campaigns of Germanicus were nothing more than

1) Punitive expeditions in an attempt to find the Varus legions and

2) A way to keep the legions that had just revolted (after the death of Augustus) busy.

 

While Germanicus may have had visions of permanent conquest, I think Tiberius clearly wanted to stick to the Augustan principal of maintaining the status quo of the borders. The Varus disaster affected Tiberius the emperor as much as it did Augustus.

 

For my own take of that period...

Conquest of Germania

You may be right about Germanicus' campaigns being nothing more than punitive campaigns. I know that some historians take that view, but then again some take the view that it was an attempt at reconquest.

 

I wonder if it could be both. Perhaps the limited excursion in 14 AD was just that, but its success convinced Germanicus to continue next year with the entire Rhine army of 8 legions instead of just the four he had taken the first year, with the goal of reconquest. It is said that he wrote to Tiberius expressing the belief, or hope, that he could complete the reconquest with another season of campaigning. His victory, or victories, over Arminius must have bolstered such a belief.

 

Or maybe the limited expedition in 14 was just a preparatory mission in advance of what a planned reconqest all along, one that had the blessing of Tiberius and that was only canceled by the emperor after the natural disasters which inflicted as much or more damage on the army as the Germans managed to do in losing battles.

 

Or maybe they were all punitive expeditions, with those of 15 and 16 being massive ones.

 

Its an interesting question. I wonder if Germanicus had lived and assumed the purple, if he would have resumed the campaign.

[Sebastianus]

I would put Aurelian ahead of all the rest. He had a collapsing empire to deal with, both Trajan and Tiberius had all the resources of an empire at its most powerful. Aurelian's effort is staggering, he was instrumental in ressurecting the empire, and restoring its unity. To think what he could have done id he had lived longer or had the resources of say, Trajan.

 

And in keeping with my view, we mustn't forget The Eastern Roman Emperors Heraclius (610-641) and Basil II Bulgaroktonos (976-1025).

 

My list:

 

1. Aurelian

2. Trajan

3. Heraclius

4. Septimus Severus

5. Constantine I

6. Basil II Bulgaroktonos

7. Vespasian

8. Tiberius

9. Julian

[Julius Caesar]

Sebastianus: Aurelian's achievements in his 5 yr reign were quite staggering, and it is tempting to think what he could have done at Rome's zenith, or even if he had lived longer in his time.

 

He was in the midst of preparing for a campaign against the Persians when he died, though I don't know if it was envisioned as more of a punitive campaign for loot, or one of conquest.

 

Clearly he was an excellent general. In his campaign against Zenobia he twice managed, at the battles of Immae and Emesa, to win the day with his infantry after the Palmyrene cavalry had routed their Roman counterparts. And of course he won one victory after another against the barbarians.

[Hamilcar Barca]

I find it interesting that Diocletian gets no mention, after all he did bring stability to the empires borders. I also agree that Basil II was the greatest warrior Byzantine Emperor, but it must be noted that after Heraclius' reign, Rome and Byzantium were in no ways alike. In any case I will include him also in my list

 

I rank the top 5 as:

 

1. Trajan

2. Diocletian

3. Basil II

4. Aurelian

5. Constantine I