04-06-2008, 04:17 AM
Although not much of a conqueror, I believe Lucius Cornelius Sulla meets most of Paul's criteria except for military reforms (Marius' achievement) however he did implement lasting political reforms following his triumph in the civil war.
He defeated :
The Battle of Chaeronea in 86 BC was a more impressive Roman victory than Caesar's at Alesia. Both faced comparable odds (3 to 1, or 5 to 1 depending on who you read) but Sulla won on the battlefield against a more advanced force. Caesar won his while hiding behind fortifications against unorganized, unarmored mobs of Gauls. (And Sulla came out of his victory with a more favorable casualty rate.)
I didn't pick Scipio because his strategies seem like carbon copies of Hannibal's. Not much innovation or originality on Scipio's part, IMO.
Sulla !
~Theo
P.S.
He defeated :
- barbarians (Cimbri, Teutones, & Numidians),
- Hellenistic armies of Mithradates (with their scythed chariots & phalanxes), and
- Romano-Samnite armies alike.
The Battle of Chaeronea in 86 BC was a more impressive Roman victory than Caesar's at Alesia. Both faced comparable odds (3 to 1, or 5 to 1 depending on who you read) but Sulla won on the battlefield against a more advanced force. Caesar won his while hiding behind fortifications against unorganized, unarmored mobs of Gauls. (And Sulla came out of his victory with a more favorable casualty rate.)
I didn't pick Scipio because his strategies seem like carbon copies of Hannibal's. Not much innovation or originality on Scipio's part, IMO.
Sulla !
~Theo
P.S.
Quote:Marc Antony is underestimated. He lost at Actium, but his eastern campaigns were more successful than our pro-Augustan sources are willing to admit.Is there a thread discussing this opinion ? If not a new thread should be launched. I don't see how Antony's Parthian campaigns were successful by any measure. He failed to retrieve the lost eagles of Crassus.
Jaime
