Best Roman Generals

[roman wargamer]

for me Scipio Africanus was a good general...for he

he did not attack Hannibal at its own chioce of battlefield.

 

he first defeated the Spain forces,

the middle of Carthage Force or No. 2 position in the War

 

then the No. 3 position or the Carthage heartland

 

but he never return to Italia to attack Hannibal...Why???

the No. ! position

 

but waited for him in Africa...so Hannibal will be force to LEFT

all its advantages he have in Italia.

 

the terrain and expereince

the veteran manpower, number and organization

weapons , artillery and big catapult

 

for they do not have the ship to take them all to Africa.

 

so Africanus really attack Hannibal from the REAR.

 

from the weakess to the strongest Point.

from No. 3 toward tho 1 or the headpoint.

 

for me it is a good tactiacal decision from the beginning

[leedx7]

I think IMHO if you are going if you are going to assess the military worth of a Roman General you have to consider the scope of his victories and the calibre of his opponents. This is very brief assessment with lots of gaps! Sry but I'm on my lunch break at work!

What about Q. Sertorius?

 

Pompey was recognised as rome's wonderkid-general in the years before the first triumvirate, bearing in mind his thrashing of the pirates and victories in Africa against jugurtha (I think). But during the Sulla v Marian conflict several attempts were made to defeat Sertorius in Spain, by vastly larger armies commanded by a couple of Roman Generals, one of which was Pompey?

 

Plus, he had one eye. I think that deserves mention.

 

Pompey was a great organiser, but not tactically sound. His victories were great at the time, but his opponents were never remembered in history for their greatness and the resources at his disposal were vast.

 

Caesar conquored Gaul, but he did this by a combination of politics and warfare against an enemy who thought war should be conducted either nude or certainly armourless, and that combat should be 1 on 1 with slashing weapons. Against Roman military technology there was only ever one outcome. You can slash armour all you want, but when someone jabs a few inches of a pointed short sword in your face from behind a big shield, you're going to lose, irrespective of how much battlefury you have. Anyway, Caesar would have been one of the worst generals in history had he failed to conquer Gaul with the resources at his disposal. I concede that Vercingetorix was a challenge, but if you actually analyse the battle Ceaser was outmanourvered badly by the Gaul! I think Ceasar can be better measured by his victories during the Civil war and over the aged Pompey. However, even there he had a battle hardened army and he fought a vastly more inexperienced force, with some terrible tactical decisions being made by Caesar's enemies.

 

Crassus lost in Parthia, but was it not he who crushed spartacus? Of course, the escaped army of gladiators and slaves is no fit comparison, but its worth rememering that he was not that bad a general.

 

Scipio Africanus was the general who defeated Hannibal. Arguably, Hannibal was, along with Phyruss of Epirus, mithrodates and possibly Jugurtha, one of the greatest generals since Alexander. You cant argue with that pedigree but my knowledge of the Punic Wars is limited.

 

Vespasian was effective in the invasion of Britain, although his enemies were the disorganised British tribes.

 

To end, I have always thought Sertorius was the greatest Roman General but the one least interested in politics and therefore the one least mentioned in history. However, like Memnon vs Alexander, his contemporary's obviously repsected him enough to rarely have a bad word said against him, and it is not often that you have a man so unknown by the public who, and I'm going from memory here, plutarch felt could have, and should have, been the greatest Roman General of his time?

[pompeius magnus]

How can anyone look over Agrippa- Augustus' general.

[Guest romanfanatic]

Noone has overlooked agrippa, everyone knows about him its just his acheiviments cannot be matched to some of the greater generals.

[Iulius]

I also agree that sertorius was great. I like the spain wars alot.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

What about Germanicus? The brother of Caludius? Hell he was so popular his name was used to gain popularity by Caligula, Claudius and as far as Nero. Ah, Im just an I, Claudius fan.

 

Anyway even if Hannibal had the ability to siege Rome, he did not look like he was very pantient for it. His siege of Saguntum took months. He never marched to Rome with the idea of capturing it. he just wanted to lower Roman power. Going against the Hannoists and Senate might have been foolish but Rome was very ambitious and was a very hungry power. It could have been that Hannibal was just some tactical nut who wanted to make a name for himself and if so he succeeded. Rome was a very well defended city.Its walls were big and inside the city were tons of possible levies.Enough to completely overshadow Hannibal's army.

His idea was to isolate Rome by cutting it off from its allies. As we know now, it failed as he completely underestimated how close Rome and its Italian allies were. IMO, Hannibal gets more credit then he deserves. His tactics at Cannea were great however it was also a Roman folly. Foolishly relying on power to defeat the enemy was a horrible mistake and add in the fact that Rome simply chose to go against Hannibal's superior cavalry head to head was just asking for defeat. The people who fought against Hannibal at Trebia,Tresemine and Cannea were politicians. After Cannea, he showed no tactical moves in battle against Marcellus and Nero. Years after his rise are mostly blacked out simply because it was marked with defeats, blunders and failed sieges. Completely ignorant when Nero left his camp opposite of him leaving it completely defenseless and when Nero came back. Hannibals long awaited reinforcement was gone and his brothers head was thrown in his own camp.

 

Scipio, on the other hand, fought competent generals who did not rely on power. His strategy at Ilipa was just awesome. Only a storm saved Mago. Their army was, at its highest estimate, made up 70,000 infantry. At its lowest it was 50,000 with 5,000 cavalry and elaphants. Scipio's army was made up of only 20,000 legionnaries and with 20,000 spanish troops. These same kind of troops that betrayed his father(lol, same as Hamilcar)., yet had a storm not kicked in that army would have been completely decimated. It was totaly outflanked with their Libyan trooped mashed by the routing elaphants. His siege of Carthago Nova was quick and decisive. He did have his mistakes. In the battle of Baecula he lost a lot of men. This was due to hard fighting by the Carthagenian army. He let Hasdubral and Mago get away which could have been horrible for Rome if Hannibal had met up with Hannibal. Thanks to some quick decisive action by Nero(and risky, he had left his army next to Hannibals camp totally defenseless) , Hasdubral was killed in the Battle of Metaurus River, though it was also a fault of miscommunication of Hannibal and Hasdubral.

 

In the end Scipio came out on top because of smarter thinking at Zama. He brought much needed reforms to the army and trained his troops himself. The guy was not only one of Rome's best generals. but clearly one of histories best.

 

Off-topic: I've come to realize people don't post to often on this site. Which is a downer because its a really goods forum for Roman fans.

[Iulius]

aye but those who do often times have something interesting to say.

[pompeius magnus]

if you want to trust levy then I would put Camilius on that list. He took care of the Gauls and also took out the city of Veii. My favorite old republican general.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I trust levy. If I wanted to get a broad outlook on Roman history. However he is useless when trying dwelve deep in his history. But I don't know I wouldnt believ him on the actions of a character. Even if he often... romanticizes...them.

[Julius Caesar]

Ventidius Bassus deserves mention for his success in avenging Carrhae. Marc Antony had put him in charge of countering the Parthian (aided by Roman renegades) invasion of Syria. Bassus won several battles, most notably at Mt Amanus in 39 B.C. then the next year at the Battle of Gindarus on the anniversary of Carrhae, where he destroyed the Parthian army, killing the Parthian prince Pacorus in the process.

 

His victory was decisive, as the Parthians did not invade Syria again until the reign of Marcus Aurelius

[JetJon]

As far as roman generals go, it

[Julius Caesar]

JetJon:

 

Scipio defeated Hannibal in Northern Africa at Zama, not Spain, and Carthage wasn't sacked until the end of the 3rd Punic War, I think.

 

If one were making an elite list, you may be right that only Caesar definitely rates as great, while Scipio might, but in no way does the remainder of Rome's generals rate as 'pathetic.'

 

Cases can be made for all of the following that they were good-great commanders: Fluvius Camillus, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Ventidius Bassus, Marc Antony, Marcus Agrippa, Drusus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Caecina, Corbulo, Aulus Plautius, Seutonius Paulinus, Vespasian, Titus, Agricola, Trajan, Lucius Quietus, Cassius Avidius, Septimius Severus, Maximinus, Gallienus, Timesitheus, Aurelian, Carus, Galerius, Constantine, Stilicho, and Aetius.

 

And there were definitely great generals between the fall of Rome and WWII. You have Belisarius and Narses (if you count Byzantine as separate from Rome), Gustavus Adolphus, Wellington, Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Ulysses S Grant were all fine generals, and that is a short list.

 

And Napoleon definitely rates among the greats.

 

So I'd have to strongly disagree unless you are defining 'great' in the most strict of terms, but even then many others would merit inclusion, like Napoleon.

[JetJon]

You may be right, its been a while now and I a ma bit rusty on my Punic war info, but I was sure Scipio encountered and defeated Hannibal while he was rushing to obey the orders of Carthage and defend it, and I was sure he met Scipio for battle in Spain, lost and was executed

[Germanicus]

FYI Jetjon, Hannibal didn't lose and get executed. He lost and somehow ended up serving a foreign king as an advisor. Can't remember which king though.

[Primus Pilus]

Hannibal was defeated at Zama in Africa, but escaped and eventually was sent into exile. He served under the Seleucid King, Antiochus III in the Syrian War but only played a limited role. He commited suicide rather than give the Romans the satisfaction of capturing him.

 

The Second Punic War