Best Roman Generals

[roman wargamer]

actually i condider Scipio a best and great general.

he lost some battle but win the war aginst Carthage.

but i consider Hannibal above him in accomplishment.

in military terms not on political achivement.

 

Julius Caesar is Great. Both on military and political.

 

Scipio will be forever remember as the one who defeated=

 

Hannibal as the fearsome who walk on Italian soil for 16 years

and won many great battle against the Super power of that Time before he was deafeted.

[Sulla]

I think given his age and accomplishments, Scipio Africanus cannot be easily overlooked. I think it's already been said that before him, that Roman Army was very immobile. It mainly focused on going in straight and pounding with sheer strenght in numbers. Scipio Africanus, by learning from the tactics off Hannibal really did put more flexiblilty into the battle tactics of the Roman Army. Not just relying on simple strenght of numbers.

 

Juluis Caeser is without a doubt one of the worlds greatest generals. However, there are others, such as Gaius Marius who saved Rome from barbarian invasions, and resturctured the army. Allowing the Head count to join, and introducing new spears. There is also Constantine the Great, sho reunited the Roman Empire into one. And even managed to defeat an opposing Roman Army at least 4 times his size. Warrants thinking of.

[DanM]

And Belesaurius was a pretty special general too. Since Justinian is often called the last Roman Emperor, I think a case could be made that his general was Roman and not Byzantine. For those who lament the inability of the Romans to fully utilize cavilry, Belesaurius is a good example to the contrary.

 

He beat armies several times the size of his own army by using guile and bravery. He repeatedly defeated the Persian armies of the time. He reconquered Vandal north Africa. He reconquered much of Italy including Rome and would have almost certainly conquered the rest of the Italian Gothic kingdom if Justinian had given him the proper resources and given him a clear chain of command (instead of dividing command between Belesaurius and Narses).

 

Even in later life when he was recalled from retirement, he defended Constantinople from a barbarian invasion using little more than his personal retainers and a few poorly armed conscripts. He did this primarily by waging a brilliant guerilla campaign. I think its hard to find a general of any era who demonstrated the ability to use such a broad array of different tactics to fit the situation in front of him. He could beat you so many different ways and that ability puts him on a very short list.

 

Its hard to find a Roman general who could consistently do so much with so little as did Belesaurius. That being said, Scippio Africanus and Julius Ceasar were also exceptional leaders of men. I guess I have to come back to my original point of saying that its difficult to compare men of different times who lead armies comprised of different elements against different enemies. So much of the subjective has to enter the comparison that I think its better to just say they were all the greatest Roman generals of their respective times and leave it at that.

[haimore]

No one nominates Marius? I'm pretty impressed by him. What needs to be done is to draw up some objective criteria for this discussion...Scipio has his good points...as does Marius...and Sulla...and Ceasar...and later general's as well.

[Sulla]

No one nominates Marius? I'm pretty impressed by him. What needs to be done is to draw up some objective criteria for this discussion...Scipio has his good points...as does Marius...and Sulla...and Ceasar...and later general's as well.

Actually mate, I beat you to the punch. I put down Marius before as well. Among others including Scipio and Caeser.

 

What makes it hard to chose, is that each made their own specific contribution. Did something so original, that others only dreamed to accomplish. It is also difficult chosing, due to the fact that each faced different enemies, in different circumstances, all with success.

[roman wargamer]

it is Phillip who first Use the phalanx successfully.

 

and Alexander the concentrated Main attack.

 

Marius reform he Legion into cohesive army.

 

Hannibal the very long flanking attack.

the legion normally holds a depths of 1 miles,

he attack it at the very end,on the command nucleus.

 

Scipio the Delaying Tactic until the Enemy are Weak.

 

Juius Caesar have learn all of it and Perfected it to Arts.

 

Octavian win a War even without great battle,

by political and military manuever only.

 

The Legion is the Coventional way of making battle.

the Battle Line Formation use until now.

[haimore]

Scipio the Delaying Tactic until the Enemy are Weak.

 

 

Actually, Quintius Fabius Maximus Cunctator gets the credit for that tactic...and the Senate was not smart enough to adopt it after his dictatorship ended.

[roman wargamer]

Actually, Quintius Fabius Maximus Cunctator gets the credit for that tactic...and the Senate was not smart enough to adopt it after his dictatorship ended.

 

Yes! but he is the most famous one who use it.

and Proven it practicallity and even win a War.

even the phalaxn is not invented by Phillip.

[Iulius]

If hanibal was really so great would he have gotten involved in a war that he had no chance of winning? Threatening his life, family, and people in the process of his blunder?

[DanM]

If hanibal was really so great would he have gotten involved in a war that he had no chance of winning? Threatening his life, family, and people in the process of his blunder?

 

Who says Hannibal had no chance of winning and how can you be sure it was so obvious to him before he started? Many people blundered in the second Punic war, but I think its hard to say that Hannibal did so.

 

Even if Hannibal had been a pacifist, Rome would have ultimately conquered Carthage. Hannibal took his shot and lost more due to the failures of the Carthagenian government that did support him than to anything else. To me, its a reach to call that a blunder.

[haimore]

Hannibal could have won...or been defeated much earlier. In any case he wasn't smart enough to exploit his success, and Rome didn't field a general smart enough to defeat him in open battle..it's almost like there was a morale problem for the Legions until they got over to Africa...I really suspect this was part of the problem.

[DanM]

Hannibal could have won...or been defeated much earlier. In any case he wasn't smart enough to exploit his success, and Rome didn't field a general smart enough to defeat him in open battle..it's almost like there was a morale problem for the Legions until they got over to Africa...I really suspect this was part of the problem.

The common perception that Hannibal could have marched on Rome after one of the victories where he totally destroyed a Roman army is false. Rome was a huge city with strong walls and Hannibal lacked the needed siege equipment and engineers. He also lacked the number of troops needed to cut off all access to the city and eventually starve it out.

 

As for Roman successes outside of Italy, lets look at them in detail. In Spain, Scippio did not face Hannibal. Therefore, Rome had the leadership advantage. In Africa, much of Hannibal's army was comprised of a more unreliable element that what he had in Italy. Yes he had many of his Italian veterans in Africa as well, but he also had a lot of much greener troops as well. Also, Scippio had use of the Numidian cavilry so the typical cavilry advantage that Hannibal usually enjoye was gone. Finally, Hannibal faced Scippio in this battle. While I give Hannibal a slight edge over Scippio as a General, the difference in their leadership qualities was not enough to overcome the material advantages enjoyed by the Roman army.

 

At least thats my take on it.

[Olympia]

For me the best was Augusto.

[Primus Pilus]

So by default, do you really mean Agrippa?

[Olympia]

No, Augusto!