Best Roman Generals

[pompeius magnus]

Oh no now you are bad mouthing my man pompeius, I must interject. Pompey was a brillant general in his earlier years, especially at adapting to changes such as in Spain against the far more experienced Sertorius. During his friendship with Caesar while he was in Gaul was full of paranoid feelings. He was having his thoughts impacted by both Caesar and the Boni. In the end, the boni were able to persuade him to join their cause, not easily mind you. Pompeius' moving to Greece was a brillant idea as it kept Rome and Italy from being damaged and littered with human and animal corpses. The defeat he suffered in Greece can be explained in 2 ways. One he listenened to his advisiors who knew little about war, except for a few of them, and hatily gave battle to Caesar. In the end however Pompeius was defeated by a general so great he became a god soon after his death if you believe in the roman religion, Zeke do you beleive that Caesar is a god or not. Pompeius was outmatches as many great generals would have been. This is not an argument that Pompeius is greater than Caesar, very few if any are, but is an argument over whether Pompeius was great or deserved to have cognomen of Magnus. I believe he did because of his achievements in war, defeating Sertorius who learned from Marius, destroyed pirates raiding mediterranean, finished what Lucullus could not finish, and last of all captured areas of Syria and Israel. Now if those do not make one great then I do not know the meaning of the word.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

There are far worse exmple of individuals who have been dubbed "The Great". I think Hanno "the Great " of Carthage is least deserving of it, all he did was go and confiscate Libya from a bunch of disorganised tribesman.

 

 

Why wouldnt the Romans give it to him? He supported them. He made sure Hannibal didn't get any help from Carthage.

[Hamilcar Barca]

The Carthaginian senate gave him the title, not the Romans. They were apparantly impressed with his territorial expansions in Africa during Punic War 1, even though they were strategiclly pointless. Hanno didn't support the Barca's but he certanley didn't want the Romans to win. After the war, he had Numidians capturing all of his estates and stripping him of his wealth.

[pompeius magnus]

Another general that comes to mind would be Marcellus. He executed the siege of Syracuse excellently and Livy tells us he is one of the best roman generals of that war. If Syracuse had become ally of Carthage the Roman fortunes would have taken a turn for the worst.

[careyfree]

It's always been my understanding that Scipio's troops at Zama weren't "hardened veterans" as many on this thread have claimed, but a collection of defeated troops (Cannae survivors, etc.) he raised in Sicily after his admonishment by the Senate. Granted, they weren't exactly "raw" recruits, but not exactly "hardened vets" (i.e. his Spanish troops). Scipio also didn't have elephants, but did devise an innovative way of dealing with (and defeating) them.

 

Scipio has always been my favorite Roman general and, IMO, he really gets the short end of the stick by historians. The guy was Rome's savior, at its time of most dire need, in what was the most pivotal conflict in the Republic/Empire's history.

 

And then there's the Hannibal envy. Great battlefield tactician - but that's just about it. He was not a very good politician, as evidenced by his lack of support from home and his almost complete inability to turn any Latin allies to his side - the one factor he most needed to accomplish his goals. He was not very good at seeing the whole picture. I'm assuming he had poor intelligence beforehand, hence his complete miscalculation of the relationship between Rome and its Latin allies. Terrible miscalculation for someone described by some as the "greatest ever." Baah! Scipio learned tactics from observations of Hannibal's victories, he was bold in their implementation (Carthago Nova, Illipa) and was a great politician, as evidenced by his ability to do what Hannibal could not (i.e. the wooing of Massinissa and his ability to turn much of the Spanish tribes to his side).

 

Hannibal is nothing but a one-trick pony(albeit with a very good trick). Scipio was the complete package.

[Primus Pilus]

Scipio's army was definately veteran compared to Hannibal's diminished forces at Zama. 'Hardened' is an objective term though I suppose, and will grant you that.

[careyfree]

Granted, much of Hannibal's force was put together in short time, but he also had a strong force of "hardened" vets from Italy, a force that in many reports stopped his infantry cold before the returning calvary turned the battle for the Romans. Granted, Scipio's ability to train his men surly helped and his men were "experienced" (though, by most accounts, not good experiences). However, did he not also have to put together his force in rather short time.

 

I guess my question then would be: Were they that much better and more experienced than Hannibal's forces, enough so that this fact can be used to marginalize Scipio's victory?

[Primus Pilus]

Consider that Hannibal brought back roughly 12,000 weary and 'defeated' men (for all practical purposes) from Italy. Most importantly, his vaunted cavalry was only a fractional number of its strength in Italy. With the addition of Masinissa's Numidian cavalry to he Roman side, Scipio not only outnumbered Hannibal's horse 3 to 1, but was on equal terms as far as quality. Adding the tactical, numerical and experience advantages to Scipio's infantry, the situtation was far different compared to Hannibal's Italia campaigns.

 

I don't begrudge Scipio for defeating a 'weakened' Hannibal. Had he beaten him at the height of his power in Italy, however, there would probably be little question as to his 'ranking' in military genius. Alas, we'll never know.