RomanArmyTalk

Salve Ladies and Gentleman,

Inspired from some recent comments found in another thread, I want to put to you this fairly straightforward, but extremely interesting question: who was the greatest Roman military commander of them all, and why?

I myself am most interested in the era of the Roman Republic, and know less than I'd like about the Imperial, and especially late-Imperial periods. I would imagine that, at least from my epoch, some names to be discussed would include Scipio Africanus, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Quintus Sertorius, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Pompey Magnus, Titus Labienus, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Germanicus...the list goes on and I'm sure that I'm overlooking quite a few prominent Roman commanders just from the Republican era.

I'm excited to hear proponents of later commanders present their case as well since my post-Republican Roman history is abysmal (I'm working on this).

I am asking for, and value your opinions, but please, try to keep it civil, and, as I'm sure you will, present the logical reasoning behind your vote, as I believe this will not only provide interesting discussion, but hopefully lead to a greater understanding of what it was to mastermind and lead Roman armies into combat in the ancient world.

I will add my own opinion as soon as I have the opportunity to finish all of my thoughts.

Personally I vote Aetius, but it's really hard to differentiate because Rome covers a lot of time, a lot of different enemies, and a lot of different fighting styles and techniques. It's really hard to say.

My personal favourite is Scipio. It is hard to rationalise, though, like trying to explain why you like a certain food. Scipio was a winner, and realised his place and time in history.

Quote:My personal favourite is Scipio. It is hard to rationalise, though, like trying to explain why you like a certain food. Scipio was a winner, and realised his place and time in history.

He's got a point, Scipio at least recieves a mention in school textbooks. Aetius doesn't.

My own personal favorite is Valentinian I, better known as 'The last Great Warrior Emperor'.

Perhaps it would be possible to "expand" this topic to the characteristics a great general should posses, as that would provide a less subjective yardstick then just personal preference. Then, we would have a set to discuss the relative merits of those generals we see fit to nominate.

If this idea meets appeal, I have composed a very short list for starters. I believe in the end it should not go beyond ten points and a ranking of importance of the characteristics be decided on. So some of my suggestions could be voted out in favor of others more deserving.

1. Abbilty to inspire his men
2. Proven tactical brilliance
3. Innovativeness/ability to adapt
4. Number of mayor clashes won
5. Strenght of the opponents bested
6. Full use of Roman military enginering
7. ......

Scipio -- the noblest of all the Romans.

Even Hannibal thought Scipio the best general there ever was.


Of all the stories told about Scipio Africanus, the one I like most is the one about the time Scipio and Hannibal meet in Syria many years after Zama. As told by the Roman historian Livy, I quote it in full:


Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal replied, "Alexander ... because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands"

Asked whom he placed second, Hannibal said, "Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side."

When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing at this and said, "What would you be saying if you had defeated me?"
"In that case," replied Hannibal, "I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus -- in fact before all other generals!"

This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, affected Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had set him apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond calculation. (Adrian Goldsworthy, In The Name Of Rome, c2003, page 69)

http://narukamisthunderbolts.blogspot.co...t-war.html

:wink:

Narukami

Quote:Perhaps it would be possible to "expand" this topic to the characteristics a great general should posses, as that would provide a less subjective yardstick then just personal preference.

Based somewhat on your list:

The obvious choice would be Caesar: He certainly appears to have been an inspirational leader (even if he did say so himself!). His Gallic campaigns demonstrate some rather brilliant tactical moves (although, ibid), he conquered all of Gaul and won a civil war spanning the Roman world, defeated the previously-best general of Rome (Pompey), and his bridging of the Rhine in his campaign against the Germans and circumvallation of Alesia cover the engineering angle.

Downsides: he was a reckless general, audacious but sometimes strategically unwise, and this got him into trouble. His invasion of Britain was nearly a disaster, and he could easily have lost several civil war battles. He was lucky though, which counts for something...


Alternative 1: Constantine. Again, inspirational (or just inspired!), and showed sound tactical sense in eg the battles of Turin and Verona. He was adaptable (the reorganisation of the later Roman army was probably largely a Constantinian innovation). He defeated an impressive roster of Rome's enemies: Bructeri, Franks, Goths and Sarmatians, but more importantly other Romans; he invaded Italy, won three major battles there and then captured Rome. His later defeat of Licinius at Chrysopolis (his third against that emperor) allegedly involved armies of over a hundred thousand men (although this is almost certainly exaggeration!). He forcibly reunified the empire under his sole rule, reconquered Dacia, refortified the Rhine, constructed the longest bridge known in antiquity across the Danube, and when he died he was just setting off for a major campaign against Persia.

Downsides: he was defeated once, by the Sarmatians, but that was probably a skirmish. Arguably the worth of his military abilities was inflated by subsequent Christian historians...

Alternative 2: Trajan. The Romans themselves seemed to consider him one of their greatest soldier-emperors. His inspirational qualities are assumed, but after Domitian anyone would seem pretty good in this respect. His Dacian and Parthian conquests demonstrated tactical and strategic skill and a sound application of engineering (his Danube bridge, for example). Dacia and Parthia (and the Germans before that) were arguably the strongest enemies of Rome at that point.

Downsides: imperial overstretch in the conquest of Parthia. He moved too fast, it seems, and didn't secure his supply lines, and an insurgency in Mesopotamia threatened to cut him off.

I'm tempted, meanwhile, to nominate a non-emperor. Corbulo, perhaps? But I'll leave that to somebody else... :-)

I think this may be the 3rd or 4th occasion where this question has been asked on this forum. Let's see whether the results will be different. ;-)

Quote:I think this may be the 3rd or 4th occasion where this question has been asked on this forum.

Yeah, always fun though eh? And I certainly wouldn't have mentioned Constantine five years ago. mile:

Quote:Perhaps it would be possible to "expand" this topic to the characteristics a great general should posses, as that would provide a less subjective yardstick then just personal preference. Then, we would have a set to discuss the relative merits of those generals we see fit to nominate.

If this idea meets appeal, I have composed a very short list for starters. I believe in the end it should not go beyond ten points and a ranking of importance of the characteristics be decided on. So some of my suggestions could be voted out in favor of others more deserving.

1. Abbilty to inspire his men
2. Proven tactical brilliance
3. Innovativeness/ability to adapt
4. Number of mayor clashes won
5. Strenght of the opponents bested
6. Full use of Roman military enginering
7. ......

If I put Aetius into these Criterion...

1. The entire damn Army was loyal to him and no one but him.
2. Adopted new styles of warfare or used uncommon tactics more often, particularly his night attack in 439 on the Visigothic camp.
3. Supposedly he MAY have adopted the Hunnic Lance-and-Bow warfare as describe in the Strategikon
4. Off the top of my head? I think 19.
5. Attila and Theodoric were no pushovers.
6. This is actually the only thing he lacks in.

Quote:I think this may be the 3rd or 4th occasion where this question has been asked on this forum. Let's see whether the results will be different. ;-)

Sorry for that. I definitely searched for a similar post...couldn't find one. Must have been my search terms.

Already enjoying the replies though. Definitely had to google search Aetius. Like I said, abysmal knowledge of non-Republican or early Empire Rome.

As the question was "the best general" why should that only include rulers? Corbvlo could very well be included IMHO.

I believe that the race is close, and I admit that I am ignorant of many important periods of Roman history, but I do believe that Scipio Africanus was the greatest Roman general of them all.

Strategic capabilities

Scipio immediately changes the situation in Espania, by launching a surprise attack on Carthago Nova, taking the seat of Carthaginian power in Spain, and simultaneously setting himself up with the best strategic (good harbor for reinforcement/supply, city rich with spoils) position from which to launch his campaign.

Despite the fact that the 3 armies he faces in Spain are more experienced, and outnumber him, he is able to utilize “divide-and-conquer” tactics to separate them and take them apart, one at a time.

During his campaigning in Spain, years before he would ever have the ability to fight Hannibal in Africa, he took the time to court the Numidian princes Syphax and Massinissa, who provided Carthage with their exceptional cavalry, and succeeded in obtaining their support (Syhpax later reverted towards Carthage). This shows exceptional strategic forethought.

After being sidelined by the Senate and sent to Sicily, instead of sitting idle and excepting political defeat, Scipio rallied the exiled troops sent to garrison Sicily as punishment for previous defeats (such as Cannae), and trained them into an exceptional invasion force, with a chip on its shoulder to boot.

Tactical capabilities

Despite facing three armies of veteran soldiers with experienced commanders, he defeats Hasdrubal in his first large battel at Baecula. Now, it is true that Hasdrubal is allowed to escape to Italy (although that effort leads to his own defeat and death), but Scipio goes on to crush all remaining Carthaginian power in Espania at the battle of Ilipa. At Ilipa, Scipio displays his brilliant tactical capabilities for the first time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ro8vhlk_ow

While besieging Utica upon arriving in Africa, Scipio is threatened by a massive Carthaginian army. Scipio employs stealth tactics to defeat a combined Carthaginian/Numidian army numbering perhaps 40,000 strong, setting fire to their camps at night and routing the fleeing troops. This is a disaster for the Carthaginians almost as great as Cannae was for Rome. The battle allows Scipio to take Utica and knocks Carthage’s Numidian allies out of the war in one action.

Scipio faces down Hannibal himself, and wins at Zama. I have heard some people disparage Scipio for the manner in which the battle was won (it was an all-out slugfest), but his handling of Hannibal’s war elephants, along with the vigor and determination he must have been able to instill in his men to take on and defeat the mighty Hannibal on his soil must count for great generalship.

These exploits only constitute some of the most famous incidences of Scipio’s career…not to mention his involvement in the Syrian wars. Before Scipio, Rome was a super-power. After him, Rome was THE super-power.

For being the heroic farmer, Dictator and General what about Cincinnatus? He personally led the infantry against the Aequi and the Sabines and in just 16 days brought the crisis to a close. He then promptly resigned as Dictator. He was a legend even in his own lifetime for being granted a Dictatorship twice and twice retiring to his farm to live a virtuous Roman life.