Greatest Roman Generals?

[longshotgene]

Who do you think were the greatest generals Rome ever had to offer? This can include kings, emperors, etc. Also, why and what made them so great in your honest opinion?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, LSG

Who do you think were the greatest generals Rome ever had to offer? This can include kings, emperors, etc. Also, why and what made them so great in your honest opinion?

Roman victories should be attributted far more to their logistics and overall tactics than to any specific commander's abilities.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[WotWotius]

Roman victories should be attributted far more to their logistics and overall tactics than to any specific commander's abilities.

 

I am sorry, but these tactics and logistics of which you speak were made notable by the individual; and were much less the result of an overriding cultural mechanism. Whilst many expects dispute almost every other element of Roman society, there is no denying that Rome - most notably Republican Rome - was a highly militarised society, with war fused into almost everything. But even this only influenced Rome's perception of war, and not her ability to wage it. As in any society, the society of ancient Rome contained individuals of differing abilities, and thus many generals reacted differently in similar situations: compare, for example, Marius's campaigns again the Cimbri with his defeated predecessors. It not surprising, then, that Fabian tactics are named after an individual and not a Roman policy.

Edited September 15, 2008 by WotWotius

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, WW

Roman victories should be attributted far more to their logistics and overall tactics than to any specific commander's abilities.

 

I am sorry, but these tactics and logistics of which you speak were made notable by the individual, and were much less the result of an overriding cultural mechanism. Whilst many expects dispute almost every other element of Roman society, there is no denying that Rome - most notably Republican Rome - was a highly militarised society. Every position held by Roman aristocrats was, in some way or another, influenced by war; but even this only influenced Rome's perception of war, and not her ability to wage it. As in any society, the society of ancient Rome contained individuals of differing abilities, and thus many generals reacted differently in similar situations. Compare, for example, Marius's campaigns again the Cimbri with his defeated predecessors. It not surprising, then, that we refer to Fabian tactic in war, and not the Roman art of delaying the enemy.

Now who is sorry it's me, as I'm not exactly sure where do we disagree.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, LSG

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

I am sorry, but these tactics and logistics of which you speak were made notable by the individual.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Anyway, it seems that where you mostly see a centuries-long line of oustanding individuals (a remarkable coincidence, indeed) I mostly see what you rightly called a highly militarised society.

 

Basically, Rome almost always won on the long run because relative to its enemies it had the best army, the best economic and administrative infrastructure and more reserves. Under such conditions, you can even afford to have some really bad generals once in a while.

Rome did not always win. I recall a bunch of hairy gauls striding into the senate house in the 390's BC for example? Or Crassus discovering the hard way that the persians were not impressed with his wealth? Or Varus simply falling for a clever ruse?

 

What we can say is Rome always survived. In part that was down to roman character as a society. Warlike certainly, but also stubborn and clearly a society that believed in itself and its aims. Also, the available recruitment pool was larger than many enemies (as Hannibal discovered) so the romans were able to absorb defeats more readily. Which brings up the point about leadership. Its true the romans had some good generals over the years. Young nobles were brought up with military experience as a priority, with a sense of professionalism we don't usually see in the ancient world, but the truth is that history focuses on the achievers, the more talented commanders, and the men who were lacklustre (and didn't cause a disaster) are very rarely mentioned at all since roman commentators were only interested in hero's and villains. Typical storytelling.

 

Part of the problem is Rome's reputation as a military power. Its not that its totally exaggerated as such, but it has been turned into legend (and I suspect the romans were happy to let it be so, never mind modern perspective). Every so often on these forums I see people eulogising the legions as 'the best'. Well... at times they were, but the legions were not totally reliable nor unbeatable. I ran into the same problem at Hadrians Wall, were I heard someone commenting on the standard of roman soldiers (having watched a demo by re-enactors). I conversationally put him straight and got a slap in the face from a young man, clearly an off-duty member of HM armed forces, who saw the roman legions as a sort of parallel to his own service and thus transferred his pride readily.

 

At their best, the romans were good. There's no getting away from it. They were well equipped, relentless, and disciplined in battle.

 

At their worst, the romans were unreliable, undisciplined, totally unable to show initiative. So much depended on the quality of leadership.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Six weeks later, virtually all I have read still supports such conclusion.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Ultimately, I would have to say Rome's success was built on their passion for organisation. They were so much more business-like about warfare than others it was a real advantage, whatever the quality of leaders and men.

[DDickey]

It appears as though a fallacious argument has been presented and propagated here. Here, it would be called the

[The Augusta]

It appears as though a fallacious argument has been presented and propagated here. Here, it would be called the

[ASCLEPIADES]

It appears as though a fallacious argument has been presented and propagated here. Here, it would be called the

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[DDickey]

Yeah, sorry. I was at work when I wrote my last response, so I didn’t have time to write anything longer.

 

I think the structure of the Roman world was crucial to its success. Its ability to amass soldiers following its defeat at Cannae, for example, gave them, as you said, an upper hand. Also, Roman foreign policy tended to be extremely aggressive. The true success, I think, resided in the entire Roman milieu. As Polybius wrote,

 

‘The circumstances of the Roman army were the exact opposite, and therefore Fabius was not able to meet the enemy in a general battle, as it would evidently result in a reverse, but on due consideration he fell back on those means in which the Romans had the advantage, confined himself to these, and regulated his conduct of the war thereby. These advantages of the Romans lay in inexhaustible supplies of provisions and men.’ (III.89)

 

I think that last sentence is crucial. The Roman method, if you will, provided a structure and framework on which competent generals built and refined their tactics as the need arose.

 

So, I guess, basically I’m agreeing with you when you said, ‘My point is that Rome's success depended not so much in each individual military genius as it was the case for other countries (let say the Lusitanians under Viriathus).’

 

However, I also agree with WotWotius, who said,

 

‘I am sorry, but these tactics and logistics of which you speak were made notable by the individual; and were much less the result of an overriding cultural mechanism. Whilst many expects dispute almost every other element of Roman society, there is no denying that Rome - most notably Republican Rome - was a highly militarised society, with war fused into almost everything. But even this only influenced Rome's perception of war, and not her ability to wage it. As in any society, the society of ancient Rome contained individuals of differing abilities, and thus many generals reacted differently in similar situations: compare, for example, Marius's campaigns again the Cimbri with his defeated predecessors. It not surprising, then, that Fabian tactics are named after an individual and not a Roman policy.’

 

Overall, I think, it’s a complex issue to distill so simply.

 

But I guess, to answer the question on its face: 'Who do you think were the greatest generals Rome ever had to offer?'

 

There’s too many for me to name here, but I'll give the obvious answers. Scipio Africanus and Caesar are my two favorites—keep in mind that I’m choosing to stay in the mid-to late Republic; if I were to slip outside of that time frame, I would have to put Belisarius on the list, even though some may not consider him a ‘Roman’ general, strictly speaking. But that, as they say, is not a can of worms I want to open here.

Edited November 4, 2008 by DDickey

[ASCLEPIADES]

Overall, I think, it

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caesar novus]

Ultimately, I would have to say Rome's success was built on their passion for organisation. They were so much more business-like about warfare than others it was a real advantage, whatever the quality of leaders and men.

I think that gave a foundation that both protected them from worst consequences of leadership errors, and promoted even better results from any wise leadership.

 

From the perspective of cutting losses, I think it was unusual how well Romans seemed to have learned from setbacks. Instead of impetuous flipflops (say in strategy or technology), they seemed to keep the framework but evolve refinements along the way. From the winning perspective, it may be symbiosis where good organization lets good leadership rise to the next level in effectiveness by focusing on higher level issues.

 

I remember working with technology proposals from both world class and lesser mortal researchers. What surprised me was the almost childlike simplicity of most of the analysis by the top notch folks; it was only in the final leap into the heart of the matter where there would be a creative and mentally challenging twist. The lower achievers by contrast analyzed everything afresh and got so bogged down in complex reinvention of even the banal aspects that no overall leap seemed likely.