Rome\'s most able general?

[Theodosius the Great]

Severus et Paullus,

Couldn't the same be said of Scipio? .......after all, he had to leave his highly polished and trained Spanish Army behind

It isn't comparable, IMO, because Hannibal at Zama had an army made up of a majority of raw recruits and demoralized troops from the two defeated Carthaginian armies sent to repel Scipio from the African coast. Hannibal's veterans in Italy and Hasdrubal's troops in Spain were the only battle-tested 'Carthaginian' troops. The Africans at Zama who were not mercenaries were mostly raw conscripts.

All of Rome's soldiers by that time were battle-tested. Adrian Goldsworthy says that when Scipio left Sicily he did so "at the head of superbly trained army backed by logistic support." (From "In the Name of Rome", probably the best book on individual Roman generals available today, btw)

So, until Scipio's invasion of Africa the Second Punic War was really one man's against Rome. Carthage wanted and played no part until Scipio invaded Africa.

His vision of invading Africa was openly attacked by the Senate and basically he was left to orchestrate it as a single man.

Scipio's task was not as difficult as it may sound given that he was the most popular Roman of the day. He didn't need the Senate's support. (Contrast this with Hannibal who never received much needed support from his own Carthaginian Senate to finish off Rome.)

Masterful generalship in Spain, no arguments there, but his accomplishments in Africa are incredible in their own right.

Oh, I agree. Scipio finished the war in triumph for Rome, of course. But I think it's more accurate to say that he defeated Carthage rather than Hannibal.

Scipio's use of cavalry at the Zama rivals (and actually beat) Hannibal's use of horsemen.

That's the treachery I mentioned earlier. Scipio's cavalry were made up of Numidians. If King Masinissa of Numidia had not defected to Scipio Hannibal would almost surely have won at Zama. Hell, he still almost won. hock:

BTW, some people would rather have a great general with a poor army. Not me, though. I look at Rome's success and conclude that the legions won most of the time in spite of their generals' poor leadership.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion as well

~Theo