Greatest Roman Figure??

[sylla]

If Scipio was never defeated, why did he require five full years (210-206 BC) for expelling the Carthaginians from Hispania?

If Hasdrubal Barca was so utterly defeated, how was he able to cross the Alps with so huge an Army in 207 BC?

 

Scipio did not land in Spain until late in the campaigning season of 210 and retired to winter quarters to train and gather intelligence. The position he faced was one where three widely dispersed Carthaginian armies, each as large as his own, could not plainly be engaged at once and if he engaged with one, he feared the intervention of the others. That is why the following year was taken with the campaign at New Carthage. The major campaign of 208 ended with Hasdrubal Barca's defeat at Baecula. 207 was a quiet year when an attempt to face Hasdrubal Gisgo in the far South was thwarted by his dispersing his army amongst the region's cities. Scipio could not remain in the area and suffer a supply problem and also allow opposition forces to grow strength around him. 206 saw the final battle at Illipa and given the circumstances, I don't think this period is lengthy for completely changing the fortunes of Rome on the Iberian peninsula.

 

Scipio was cautious and it is perhaps fair to say that he was undefeated because of this, his attention to detail in gathering intelligence and building alliances with the Spanish tribes.

 

On Hasdrubal Barca's defeat, this was not by any means a slaughter. His defensive position at Baecula positioned on a plateau with ravines on both flanks and a river in front, led Scipio to employ innovative tactics in attacking the Carthaginian flanks. However, Hasdrubal was able to withdraw the larger part of his army and baggage train. Scipio, still feared the arrival of Maga or Gisgo and did not pursue, instead allowing his men to plunder the Carthaginian camp.

All that is perfectly plausible; however, in the absence of independent sources to confirm it, it seems we should be extremely cautious; it doesn't seem we can discard some defeats from the Roman army (unaccounted by our biased sources) that might help explain the delay in the expulsion of the Carthaginians from Spain as a more parsimonious explanation.

 

Besides, Hasdrubal success in crossing the Alps with such a huge army was undisputedly a spectacular victory with immense obvious strategic implications, almost as amazing as the first Carthaginian expedition by his brother a decade before. It's hard to consider it as the natural outcome from an utterly defeated general, as depicted by our available sources; after all, the same sources stated that there were at least 56,000 soldiers with him, even after correcting for the unavoidable losses from the expedition itself.

[Pompieus]

Interestingly, it also took Arthur Wellesley (the future Duke of Wellington) five years (1809-1813) to expel the French from Spain (going in the oposite direction). Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of the country.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Pompieus

[sylla]

Interestingly, it also took Arthur Wellesley (the future Duke of Wellington) five years (1809-1813) to expel the French from Spain (going in the oposite direction). Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of the country.

That might be a good example: Wellesley didn't expel the French alone, not even just with his army; in fact, most of the 300,000 or so French casualties in Spain were not killed by the British.

 

The French expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula required an immense effort from both the popular guerrilla and the regular armies of both Portugal and Spain in concert with the British expeditionary force

Edited May 29, 2009 by sylla

[Emperor Goblinus]

I think Aurelian needs mentioning. Conquering two schismatic empires is no mean feat. Had this not happened, the Middle Ages may have come two hundred years earlies. Also, the Aurelian Walls protected Rome for over a millenium and a half.

[Ursus]

I think Aurelian needs mentioning. Conquering two schismatic empires is no mean feat. Had this not happened, the Middle Ages may have come two hundred years earlies. Also, the Aurelian Walls protected Rome for over a millenium and a half.

 

 

I agree he is underrated. In some ways he is a kind of critical link between the early and later empires.

[Formosus Viriustus]

Does anyone here supports Fabius Cunctator ? I don't know terribly much about him, but if I am correct, without him Hannibal might well have won a total victory. In which case we would probably never have heard about any of all those famous Romans that came after him. We might even be speaking completely different languages. Or am I giving him far too much credit ?

 

But from a present day perspective there can be little doubt : Julius Caesar and Augustus are the only Roman figures that are known to every schoolkid in the world, and they each have a month of the calendar named after them. (So has L. Iunius Brutus, but most people don't know that.)

 

Formosus

[marcus silanus]

Does anyone here supports Fabius Cunctator ? I don't know terribly much about him, but if I am correct, without him Hannibal might well have won a total victory. In which case we would probably never have heard about any of all those famous Romans that came after him. We might even be speaking completely different languages. Or am I giving him far too much credit ?

 

 

Formosus

 

This is an interesting point. I gave the opinion that had it not been for the victories of Scipio or his greatness, then it may have been the case that no stage would have existed for the great exploits of Marius, Caesar etc. etc.

 

If it is valid to say that Fabius Maximus's tactics were key in Rome avoiding total defeat, then it would follow that Scipio would not have had the opportunity for greatness that he did. However, I can't find much to suggest that after his victory at Lake Trasimine that Hannibal intended to march directly on Rome. He was in need of time to recover, having diseased horses and tired, under-nourished men. Fabius succeeded in frustrating Hannibal but ultimately both were as disinclined as the other to engage in a decisive pitched battle at this time.

 

It might be true that without Fabius's tactics Rome might have forced another disastrous encounter. His keeping an eye on Hannibal, monitoring and harrying him was unpopular with many in Rome including his Magister Equitem, Minucius. However, total defeat of Rome from Hannibal's point of view was in reducing her, or returning her to a minor regional power. Key to achieving this, amongst other things, was detaching her of her allies which he was never able to do to the extent that he expected.

 

Further to this, when Rome returned to a policy of open warfare that led to the disaster at Cannae, she still recovered. Logically, it should follow that Rome would have recovered from another defeat prior to this, had she not been tethered by Fabius' caution.

 

I think Fabius had greatness of stature and great strength of character in standing against the pressure to engage in a further ill conceived open battle. What he lacks is greatness in the significance of his deeds.

Edited May 31, 2009 by marcus silanus

[Ursus]

Hmmm. What about cultural events?

 

Does anyone want to make the case Cicero is the greatest Roman ... not because of his politics, but because he molded the Latin Language, and his letters give us profound insight into Roman history at a critical stage?

 

Or what about Virgil and Ovid, whose poems and literature inspired a later Europe and delight even today?

 

Or what about the eastern emperor Justinian, whose codex of Roman law inspired European jurisprudence?

[marcus silanus]

It is perhaps not possible to establish who was THE greatest Roman figure. Who could deny that Cicero was a great Roman, as courageous in his advocacy as in he was in facing death? This is not a question than can be answered empirically however and the greatest Roman figure can only be clearly visible from a subjective point of view.

 

This is not to say that individual cases should not be put forward vigorously, such as the various arguments in this thread, because this encourages productive debate and is after all I think, good fun, without excusing undue levity.

 

My love of the history of Rome is that it provides us, in the modern age, with so many examples of greatness. This is a time of facile individualism, where the means of communication are considered superior to the communication and statesmanship is considered to be the effective use of a repetative campaign motto, rather than a political vision with the next generation in mind.

[Scipio.]

Scipio Africanus, Augustus, and Horatius Cocles (if he existed) are my top picks. And Aurelian does deserve mention for holding the empire together.

[marcus silanus]

Scipio Africanus, Augustus, and Horatius Cocles (if he existed) are my top picks. And Aurelian does deserve mention for holding the empire together.

 

I think that your picking Horatius Cocles is the first 'legendary' choice. This is interesting in as much as so much, quite rightly, has been said here about some of the most significant historical figures held in high regard by both the Romans and those familiar with their history. However it may be worth thinking about those other figures revered by the Romans and considered great who do not necessarily fall into the historical category.

 

This is unavoidably speculative, but if it can be supposed that by the time of Livius and Virgil, Rome had been fully 'versed' in her history, who might a citizen of that time consider to be 'great'? These figures are from mistier times and are often two dimensional representations of particular virtues, but are still important in understanding the greatness of Rome and her understanding of herself. Some are less so, with better documented achievements.

 

I wonder, therefore, who was considered great by the Romans of the early Principate, in addition to the characters already discussed? In what esteem did they hold the likes of Poplicola, Cincinnatus or Camillus for example?

Edited July 3, 2009 by marcus silanus

[Centurion-Macro]

I think that Caesar is Great because he was the conquer of Gaul. But then again there are others. I have always liked Pompey the great as well as Cicero. I would have to say that Pompey was one of the Greatest figures, mostly because of his victories and his personality.

[markc]

Ceasar was the reason I started to read about Roman history, the more i read about it the more i feel that not only was he the greatest roman but he was probably one of the greatest men through out history. Even when he was no more than a boy he was putting himself up against some of the most powerful men of the time. His refusal to do what Sulla told him with regards to his marrage was one of the first 'gambles' he took that in the end made him more powerful and loved by the people at rome. it seems that his biggest mistake was his benevolence towards his enemies once he had defeated them. Dont get me wrong there are many other great people in roman history but ceasar seemed to just outshine all of them with a mixture of his tactical geniusand political awareness.

 

I have joined this site to, hopefully, learn more and meet some like minded people, not only people that may agree with my opinion of giosue julious Ceasar...

[Centurion-Macro]

Ceasar was the reason I started to read about Roman history, the more i read about it the more i feel that not only was he the greatest roman but he was probably one of the greatest men through out history. Even when he was no more than a boy he was putting himself up against some of the most powerful men of the time. His refusal to do what Sulla told him with regards to his marrage was one of the first 'gambles' he took that in the end made him more powerful and loved by the people at rome. it seems that his biggest mistake was his benevolence towards his enemies once he had defeated them. Dont get me wrong there are many other great people in roman history but ceasar seemed to just outshine all of them with a mixture of his tactical geniusand political awareness.

 

I have joined this site to, hopefully, learn more and meet some like minded people, not only people that may agree with my opinion of giosue julious Ceasar...

Very true, Caesar was a great general and politician. He was a man of many talents. I have always thought that his Victory over Pompey in Greece proved that he was one of the best generals Rome had ever seen.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Centurion-Macro

[Emperor Goblinus]

I think that Arminius actually needs to be mentioned as well (Augustus gave him citizenship). Yes, he betrayed the empire and inflicted one of its worst defeats, but I think that this was good in the long term for Rome. Had Germania been conquered, Roman forces would have been spread more thinly than ever over a territory that was farther and farther from the Italian core. Because of this, Germany might have remained largely un-Romanized like Britain. No, the Romans wouldn't have had to deal with Germanic invasions, but they would have been exposed to other peoples such as Central Asian horsemen who were arguably far more dangerous than the Germanics. This could have overstretched the empire and may have caused it to collapse far earlier than it did. And this collapse may not have been the gradual and largely peaceful, non-disruptive crumbling of the fifth century, but a complete annihilation on the scale of what happened to Babylon. So, by kicking Rome out of Germany, Arminius forced it into a shape that was far more manageable and easier to defend.