What Roman military hero do you admire most?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, Sulla sacked Athens!
Pompey sacked and destroyed another town with little cause,
I think Valencia or somewhere with a similar name!
Yes , after vercingetorix expelled all the woman and children from Alesia
They were trapped beteen the town and Caesar's fortification!
They were ejected from Alesia so the gaulic warriors would not need to feed them!
You cannot blame Caesar for not letting them leave, as forcin surrender
Due to lack of supplies is also standard practice in siege warfare!
As Theo helpfully points out, Caesar was brutal, due to the scale of his success!
But it is nieve to think he was more, or others , less brutal!

[DL Cooper Studios]

Gaius., that's a lot of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!
We get it, you have a bro crush on Caesar

Theodosius, I will check out Marcus Antonius Primus, Thanks!

[DL Cooper Studios]

Gaius., that's a lot of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!
We get it, you have a bro crush on Caesar hock: Jus' kiddin'

Theodosius, I will check out Marcus Antonius Primus, Thanks!

[DL Cooper Studios]

Gaius., that's a lot of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!
We get it, you have a bro crush on Caesar hock: Jus' kiddin'

Theodosius, I will check out Marcus Antonius Primus, Thanks!

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi DiAnne, there's no book on him but you can probably read about him in Suetonius under the life of Vespasian. I read about him in this book: 69 A.D.: The Year of the Four Emperors

Yes, Sulla sacked Athens!

With cause as it turns out. Athens was in enemy hands, perhaps with the approval of its citizens. They could hardly expect mercy.

Due to lack of supplies is also standard practice in siege warfare!

The fact that this siege took place at all demonstrates Caesar's lack of foresight. His Gallic allies turned on him partly because of his brutality, his faithlessness in making a treaty, and his excessive demands for supplies even when the harvest was bad. How could anyone trust such a man? Cato wanted Caesar to be deliverd for punishment to the Germans for breaking a truce.

As Theo helpfully points out, Caesar was brutal, due to the scale of his success!
But it is nieve to think he was more, or others , less brutal!

Hardly. There are degrees of brutality. Caesar was exceptionally brutal. Pompey was exceptionally moderate. The latter conquered the eastern empire mostly without resorting to great brutality.

France to this day knows Caesar as the Butcher of Gaul for enslaving a million Gauls and killing another million. Pompey does not share a similar reputation in Spain and with good reason (as I'll explain below).

Pompey sacked and destroyed another town with little cause,
I think Valencia or somewhere with a similar name!

This is another case of suppressing a rebellion unlike Caesar's Gallic campaigns. Here's the context. The Spanish provinces were almost entirely in the hands of Sertorius who refused to recognize the new Sullan government even after Sulla's victory and death. Only a small foothold in the south was still in Republican hands. Sertorius was in alliance with Mithradates and pirates. Therefore, it was vital to take the coastal towns like Valentia, which was besieged and sacked as you said, to cut off Sertorius' supply lines. I would not call that 'little cause'.

The Spanish victory came about mostly through Pompey's diplomacy with the tribesmen and the Marian rebels, not sieges. When the last Marian general, Perperna, was defeated he offered to show Pompey incriminating letters between him and several Senators. Pompey seized and burned them. He offered amnesty to everyone and granted citizenship to some Spanish chieftains who cooperated. Through these means Sertorius' support among the tribes and rebels was greatly diminished. For decades afterwards the tribesmen were very loyal to Pompey and his family during all the subsequent civil wars. In short, he was masterful at rehabilatating former enemies, the mark of a statesman. Caesar only inspired fear and hatred among both his friends and defeated enemies.

~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Pompey was exceptionally moderate. The latter conquered the eastern empire mostly without resorting to great brutality.

Hardly....the hard work had been done prior to his arrival! (again)

They hardly put up a resistance, either...

The fact that Caesar proabaly triples the size of Roman teritory probabaly explains
the extent of his brutality.
I would hardly call the consuls rsponsible for the disasters at Trasamine, Cannae, carefull with the lives of their men...
Or Varus.
I can think of many others who were no where near as careful with their mens lives as Caesar.

And the behaviour of the Christian Emperors like Constantine can hardly be described as
'Christian' by any stretch of the imagination....

No, Caesar, defiantely did more for the Romans than any other...regardless of how he did it...And we only have Pompeys story of how he actually treated the pirates....

[Vindex]

Interesting debate guys but don't let your 20th/21st century morals get in the way of the "mores" of a Roman general!!

Dog eat dog in the literal not corporate sense of the phrase!

[Theodosius the Great]

That's good advice. I'm simply drawing a contrast between the two men in their methods. We already agree that Caesar's scale of brutality was unsurpassed. We disagree on why.

....the hard work had been done prior to his arrival! (again)

Lucullus built on Sulla's efforts and Pompey built on Lucullus'. There was still hard fighting to do against Mithradates whose army was swollen with Roman deserters from Lucullus' legions. No matter how many times Mithradates was defeated he always came back. Not only did Pompey defeat him but successfully isolated him diplomatically from the neighboring kingdoms which drove the old king to despair, madness and suicide. That was a greater (i.e. permanent) achievement. Clearly Pompey was the more intelligent man who brought about the end of Rome's most dangerous enemy.

They hardly put up a resistance, either...

There was little resistance to his subsequent eastern settlement partly because his reputation as a generous and moderate general preceded him. Josephus says that he successfully elicted goodwill from the region.

Contrast this with Caesar's Alexandrian War where he unnecessarily deposed the pro-Roman government and needlessly endangered the lives of his men.

The fact that Caesar proabaly triples the size of Roman teritory probabaly explains the extent of his brutality.

I read that Caesar roughly doubled the size. The more important factor was the length of his command. But that alone doesn't explain the disproportionate civilian casaulties. Pompey also doubled the size of the empire when he absorbed Syria and the surrounding territories.

And the behaviour of the Christian Emperors like Constantine can hardly be described as 'Christian' by any stretch of the imagination....

I'll answer this non sequitur by saying that anyone who looks for Christian virtues among secular rulers is looking in the wrong place. Good Christian rulers are the exception, not the rule. Besides, who is nominating Constantine as a military hero?

No, Caesar, defiantely did more for the Romans than any other...regardless of how he did it...And we only have Pompeys story of how he actually treated the pirates....

We have some details about Pompey's campaigns and settlements of Spain and the East. In Spain he was tested more rigorously than anywhere else. His victory there was hard fought and no one can say someone else did the hard work before him. Many generals were sent before him to reconquer it and they were all clobbered, as was Pompey himself on occassion. He had to adjust to the guerilla tactics of the enemy under the command of a superb general who knew Roman tactics as well as he did. And Pompey won with a smaller army than Caesar or Lucullus. After taking over Lucullus' command he dismissed many of the veterans and went on to build the eastern provinces. His methods were more sophiscated and far less bloody. His successes didn't depend on Caesar's crude aggressiveness.

And I think Scipio, Pompey, and Trajan did more for Rome than Caesar.

~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think if you look at Pompeys record in Spain, he was totally out classed by the opposition. Did someone not pull his fat out of the fire?

Trajan took his men on a Quixotic campaign in the east, gaining territory, only to lose it.
Although as Romans Scipio, Pompey, and Trajan all have certain aspects to admire, it can hardly be said that Caesar was not a a man given to clemency. To argue his reason is pure supposition.
I never commented on Scipio who I agree is another Roman worthy of status.
Pompey, while having certian atributes which are admireable, I think to say he was the better man is also looking for a saint where there were none.

Josephus was prone to flattery where it gained him grace, so he may well have
had good to say of Pompay.

[Ghostmojo]

This is an interesting and entertaining thread. I wonder whether it would be worth starting a Greek version? Possibly ... Probably ...

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...188#298188

[ValentinianVictrix]

I'm baffled by no mention of Constantine the Great, Julian, Theododius the Great, Aetius etc

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Constantine was a murderour psychotic, not a great general!(I did mention him) :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

And I mentioned Aetius! I even used bold text.

I think if you look at Pompeys record in Spain, he was totally out classed by the opposition. Did someone not pull his fat out of the fire?

Yes, he was...as I said. Early on he suffered some setbacks. Then he adapted his tactics.
Caesar also made amateurish makes early in his Gallic campaigns.

The big difference between Pompey and Caesar is that the former planned out his campaigns as he was a superior organizer and administrator. Caesar did almost everything ad hoc which was the main reason he always found himself in a crisis. I wouldn't want to fight in his army. Most of his men didn't live to enjoy their spoils since they died fighting his wars and all the subsequent civil wars he caused.

Josephus was prone to flattery where it gained him grace, so he may well have had good to say of Pompay.

Pompey was dead for over a century. It's hard to see how praising Pompey would endear
Josephus to the Flavians.

Suetonius, writing even later, said this about Caesar: Several memoirs record that as Governor in Spain he not only begged his allies for money to settle his debts, but wontonly sacked several Lusitanian towns, though they had accepted his terms and opened their gates to welcome him. And in Gaul, He did not ignore any opportunity to wage war regardless of how unjustified it was or how dangerous. He attacked enemies and barbarians without provocation, and even allies, so eventually the Senate sent legates to report on the condition of Gaul. Several suggested Caesar should be handed over to the enemy.

Doesn't sound so heroic. The man was not innovative, not much of a reformer, and primarily a destroyer.

Trajan took his men on a Quixotic campaign in the east, gaining territory, only to lose it.

He didn't lose it. Hadrian abandoned it. Trajan conquered Dacia, a rich and aggressive kingdom.

it can hardly be said that Caesar was not a a man given to clemency.

Caesar made propagandistic use of his clemancy. Hell, he built a temple to advertise it! The truth is Caesar's clemancy was limited to certain high-ranking Romans and was not granted to Pompey's eldest son whom Caesar executed after the Battle of Munda. Pompey was far less discriminating in showing clemancy.

Pompey, while having certian atributes which are admireable, I think to say he was the better man is also looking for a saint where there were none.

All I'm saying is he acted more honorably and heroically as a general, IMO. The most aggregious act, AFAIK, he commited was defiling the Temple of Jerusalem. And he had his personal failings that aren't pertinent to his miliary record.


~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Pompey built a temple and theater to promote himself, it was all part of the
time, the one upmanship that seems to be regarded by some as the way to prove you are the best.
Today we have the same thing, which is possibly part of the reason the world economy is in the state it is in today..but I digress.

To say one of these men are better than the other is to say Stalin was better than HITLER.
pompey did not change his tactics so much as have someone teach him how to fight.
He not only broke the law by raising his own private army, but his 'Magnus' title was self apponted, as I said.

Sulla was being ironic to let him have it.
The better title was the little butcher.

As far as Josephus goes, who knows what would motivate a kiss ass.
They are a creature I have little time for, I se too many in the real world
getting ahead at the expense of others hard work. Possibly that could be his reason for
pumping Pompey over Caesar, they were both from the same mold? Birds of a feather, and all that???

And most of the histories were written to the taste of those who were in power at the time, not all of whom loved Caesar. Seems reasonable ot assume they were biased.
Better to write histories that the establishment would accept, that end up in a sewer.

[Aemilianus]

I agree with lots of choices especially Scipio, and Marius.

I am surprised however that nobody mentionned one of my favorites AEMILIUS PAULUS that defeated the Macedonian Phalanx at Pydna.

This battle between the phalanx and the legions have always fascinated me at it should have nescessitated quite some bal.. to charge against this great spear walls.

Also the battle was won because of his officers and centurios finding the weak spots it is nevertheless one of the greatest Roman victory!