Best Roman Generals

[Iulius]

Caesar was the greatest roman general. He did it all. Fought naval battles, land battles, sieges, politcal duels, and still manges to find time to think up reforms that would make rome a longer lasting world power.

Caeasr was a master tactition as well as strategist. Alesia is a great example. Circumventalating (spelling big time!) well surrounding the Gauls castle thing and holding off another arny that out numbers you. The other is Pharsalus, not the best battle ever but signifigant display of Caesar's milatary brilliance. I could go on but i have ot gon in five minutes and i want to give Sulla his due.

Sulla i believe comes right after caesar. sorry g2g.

[Guest Marcus1]

In my opinion one should not forget about Cornelius Scipio.

After Canae the only a Godsend general could overcome Hannibal. The conceited Varro and his companion almost made the City destroyed. The declining virtue of Romans was the greatest ally of Hannibal. A Saint (Scipio) was needed to win.

[roman wargamer]

i never consider Scipio a good general just because he is the

one who conquered the great Hannibal,it is the entire Roman military and political system.after winning a greatest battle of his life, and when Hannibal was in the gate of Rome,"to many his greatest mistake".for not pushing through.Lets take this

problem,he could conquer Rome,but what would be the casualty,if the survivor is only 25,000 he will be destroy

in counter attack of the Second Army.the Roman have more

than 150,000 thousand against 50,000 of Hannibal.

and the Roman take a Delaying Tactic Vs Hannibal.

and it takes them long long long 16 years to achieved that

simple goal but a very prudent Tactical Decision,but Right.

and Hannibal have no way of reinforcement,the Roman navy

control the sea,and the nearest land is under a very strong

Roman Legion Army.but the Roman can not fight him

in "frontal battle engagement" ,and ONLY after reaching the point that Hannibal have no longer have a force to win a battle.It takes Hannibal 16 years of no reinforcement, without

food re supply and great casualty in the process.in that long

period the Roman Legion become veteran and well feed.

Lets take this Question??? Why Hannibal was not defeated

in the first 10 years? and the Numidian Horsemen no longer

existed, and politically immobilized by the Roman not by

Battle but by political means.

[P.Clodius]

Hannibal was defeated by the Romans on their terms, not his. First they hemmed him up in the area of the heel of Italy, then they took away his empire, then they threatened to take his homeland. In short, he was a victim of his own lack of millitary/strategic intelligence in that he failed to appreciate the strength of the alliances with the Socii. He was as unable to take Rome after Cannae as he was before it, or at any other time in his life. Hannibal was a tactical genius, but what does that make the men that beat him? (Fabius, Marcellus, Scipio, et al)

[roman wargamer]

Hannibal have 50,000 vs. the Roman Legion 150,000

and still it take the Roman 16 long years to defeat him.

[P.Clodius]

Exactly my point, the time table was dictated by the Romans not by Hannibal. And yes, it was 16 years but really only 8 campaining seasons

[roman wargamer]

why does Scipio not honoroured, but dishonored,

when in fact he is the One who defeated Hannibal.

 

for the Senate beleive they are the reason why Rome

survive the attack of Hannibal not the General.

 

the Roman Empire have a normally standing Army of 30 Legion. 180,000 thousand , the fixed forces, not included the militias, and the allies auxilliary, which normally are more or less the same number to Legion.Rome maintain 3 Army group of 10 Legion each.

 

One case study: The Great Hannibal have 50,000 thousands

 

Hannibal always defeated the Roman in many great battle.

 

the First 10 legion is in the frontage of the enemy.

normally just a day to 3 days from enemy distance.

 

but the Roman always kept the Second 10 Legion

in Far Safe distance.to avoid any ambushed type engagement. but near enough to employ Rear threat to the enemy. normally weeks from the enemy distance.

 

the Third 10 Legion mostly the most veteran.

are kept in other country or in the enemy entry or exit point,

in Hannibal case ... Spain.

 

if the first 10 legion is defeated...as Hannibal have done many times, Rome simply build another 10 Legion in emergency.to take the Second Position of the 3 Army formation. but the Roman prevented at all cost any form of reinforcement.So after 16 long years without reinforcement , Hannibal force dwindled, and the rest are history.

 

as i mention, the Roman Legion could be defeated as Hannibal

did , not only once, but many times and on great battles.

 

But the Empire need is to win the War, and not the many great battle.

 

so weapons , shields , armour , artillery , and sinews of war ,

and the rank and file , the men and the general , are only pawn of war.

 

Octavian never win any great battle...but win the War.

by means of Political and Military manuever and strategy.

and Julius Caesar is right in choosing him as heir.

 

the Art of War says...it geater to win a war without battle.

[TonyGee]

I always believed it was the Roman Empire that defeated Hannibal as opposed to the roman military, and yes there is a big difference there.

 

The Roman Military and especialy its commanders could not cope with someone as adept at battlefield tacitcs as hannibal. Maybe bloodying their swords against the quite unimpressive Celts for too many years had given the roman military too much of a one sided View of how to fight battles. Hannibal was a better Battle Tactician than anyone rome had at that time. Hannibals only real mistake was not taking Rome, which was a terrible mistake and a stupid one in retrospect.

 

I dont Think Scipio Deserves to be put in the same class as Ceasar tho. Ceasar was a true general who cammanded his Army, in most other cases for me the Roman Army Commanded the Generals.

[DanM]

This is kinda like picking the greatest basketball player of all time. How do you compare a center to a point guard?

 

I suppose I would say its a tie between Julius Ceasar and Scippio Africanus. If we can include the later Roman Empire then I would include Belesaurius as well. People can have a sentimental preference, but all 3 were giants who dominated their time. Who is to say how Ceasar would have performed in the 6th century? Who is to say how Belesaurius would have performed in Republican times?

 

TonyGee, I gotta disagree with you assessment of Hannibal. I think that if he could have taken Rome, then he would have done it. Don't forget that Hannibal's army had no real capacity for siege. They lacked the engineers and the manpower needed to pull it off. That's why Hannibal did not try to siege Rome.

 

As for Scippio, I would like to again suggest you read Liddell Hart's book on the man. The title is a little over the top, but its a first rate book that could do much to improve your view of the man.

 

One last thing. I think the Carthagenian Senate did more to defeat Hannibal than the Roman Republic and there is also a very big difference in that distinction as well. If Carthage would have done more to actively support and reinforce Hannibal, then Rome may not have won the second Punic War.

[TonyGee]

An army dosent need Siege engines to take a city tho, hanibal spent enough time in italy and could have laid siege to the City of rome, its easy enough to surround a city and starve it out. And if a relief force was to appear, well Hannibal had already proven his lack of fear as far as the roman military was concerned.

 

Hannibal was always going to be defeated by someone in the end, once he neglected to take rome it was just a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( Disclaimer: TonyGee would like To state that he has no idea what he is on about, but if his rantings stimulate discussion he is happy. also note tonygee is a history Geeeeenius and cant be wrong. Ever! :Disclaimer ends)

[DanM]

I don't really think Hannibal had enough men to encircle Rome and effectively cut off supplies entering the city. Think about it. Its not just a matter of battering rams, siege towers and sappers. Its also a matter of having enough men to cut off all ways of moving in and out of the city. The whole point of a siege is to starve your opponent into submission. That only works if you can control access to the city and this can only be accomplished if you have sufficient manpower.

 

As for saying Hannibal's ultimate defeat was inevitable, all I can say is that minds much better than my own would disagree with you. Like I said, read up on Scippio. See what was involved in his Spanish campaigns to deprive Hannibal of future reinforcements. Also read a little about the peace party in the Carthagenian Senate that actually opposed Hannibal during the war. Hannibal was not driven out of Italy. He was forced to leave Italy when Scippio threatened Carthage itself. Scippio's success would have been much less likely if the Carthagenian Senate had done a better job of supporting Hannibal with men, materials and creating foreign alliances.

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, Hannibal couldn't (at least he believed) take Rome because the defenses were too great, and in siege warfare his army would've been left vulnerable. The lack of support from Carthage itself is hard to understand, but isn't that an all too common thing where politics, rivalries, etc. are concerned. I also agree that Hannibal's defeat wasn't necessarily inevitable. In spite of the lack of support from Carthage, reinforcements, and a continual supply from Spain would've altered the course of history. His defeat only became inevitable because of Scipio, and had he been a lesser general, who knows how many more years Hannibal would've wreaked havoc in Italy.

 

Scipio's brilliance was not necessarily his defeat of Hannibal at Zama, but using his own resources to force the war to that point. Scipio was well aware of Hannibal's logistic and reinforcement nightmares in Italy and based much of his Spanish campaign in continuing those problems. Stopping Hannibal's reinforcements from leaving Spain and joining Hannibal in Italy was paramount and Scipio accomplished this, while essentially conquering that incredibly valuable province for Rome.

 

We often forget that Scipio went on to play a considerable role in the east defeating Antiochus of Syria and bringing Roman domination into the Hellenistic world. Though the final 'conquest' of the east was still considerable time away, Scipio helped lay that foundation, on top of finally ending the threat of Hannibal.

[DanM]

Nicely said primuspilus. By Scippio's use of an indirect strategy and his grasp of logistics a vital component of war, Scippio Africanus displayed an unusually modern view of warfare.

 

One other interesting thing about Scippio Africanus was his lack of political ambition. He was a soldier first where Julius Ceasar was a hybrid politician/soldier. Scippio's aim was military success, but Ceasar's aim was power for himself.

 

Its undeniable that Ceasar is the more famous, but I think its hard for a casual observer of history to say how much of Ceasar's fame is due to his political career and how much is due to his military career. If Ceasar had wished to settle down to a quiet life after his campaigns in Gaul, does anyone really think his fame would be so great?

[Primus Pilus]

Absolutely. It didn't help Scipio's legacy any that he was eventually villified by Cato in the Forum. His political career in shambles and seemingly without the ego to force its correction, Scipio's place in history was knocked down a notch.

 

If Ceasar had wished to settle down to a quiet life after his campaigns in Gaul, does anyone really think his fame would be so great?

 

 

Certainly not. Caesar though, was brilliant in both fields, as a politician and a soldier. Adding that to his incredible mastery of propoganda, he was ensured his place in history. Of course, Caesar's great fame was dependent on his ultimate civil war victory, and without it, he wouldn't have been any more regarded than great contemporary generals like Marius, Sulla and Pompey. The legacy of his name, and eventual dynasty adds a bit of strength to the legend as well.

[DanM]

I agree that Ceasar was a brilliant general, but I still think that an assessments of military leaders from 2,000 years ago is usually based more on their reputations than any sort of analytical view of their military leadership. For example, people remember Ceasar's nephew Octavian a lot more than they remember his right hand man who ran the army for him (I believe his name was Agrippa). So, if you were to ask the casual observer who was a better general, I thnk many would pick Octavian over Agrippa even though Agrippa led Octavian's armies. See what I mean?

 

Simply put, most people will insist that Ceasar was better even when they have little to no knowledge of Scippio Africanus. They could not tell you the name of any of his battles other than Zama and could not give you any descriptive account of how and why he won his battles. Therefore, its hard for me to see how they can give an informed opinion about the merits of Ceasar over Scippio if they don't know enough about Scippio Africanus to make an informed decision.

 

It might be a more direct question to say what is your favorite Roman personality who fought in the Roman Army. Then people can talk about Ceasar, Pompey or Mark Anthony because they know these guys from the movies or college history classes. I do not mean to take anything away from Ceasar, but a comparison has to be rooted in a strong knowledge of all major the generals. Not just the ones who got the most press in ancient times or in Hollywood movies.