Rome\'s most able general?

[Paullus Scipio]

Getting back on topic, namely the ability of Rome's Generals, Varro gets a 'bad press' in our sources, in contrast to Aemilius Paullus. Both Livy and Appian seem to have relied on Polybius' account to a greater or lesser extent.

Now as a commander, Polybius denigrates Gaius Terrentius Varro ( because he was a client of the powerful Cornelii Scipiones, and their firends and relatives the Aemilii ) saying among other slander that when it was Aemilius Paullus' turn to command at Cannae, he declined battle, but the next day Varro, on his day of command, impetuously led the army out to battle and of course disaster.

However, two things stick out as very wrong with this version of events.
Firstly, it was evidently the Senate's strategy to raise Rome's biggest Army to date, confront Hannibal, and crush him. The two Consuls, in carrying out this strategy, must have been in accord, and Paullus can hardly have intended Fabius' tactics. Certainly, the Consuls act well together, aggressively bringing Hannibal to battle.
Secondly, Roman commanders commanded either from the Post of Honour on the right wing, or else in the centre, but NEVER from the left ( at least that I can recall ).

At Cannae, Aemilius Paullus commanded the Right wing, and Varro, not even the centre, but the Left. It is Paullus who seemingly accepts responsibility for the defeat, by choosing to die with his army (like many other commanders)
Furthermore after the battle, the Senate placed no blame on Varro for the disaster, ( which they surely would have had he been in command)but formally thanked him for not 'despairing of the Republic'.

So it seems likely that it was Paullus, not Varro, who had overall command that fateful day.

This, then, would appear to illustrate the point made earlier that to be a Great Commander, you needed a Historian to write about you, and what's more, give you a 'good press' not a bad one !!! lol:

[Theodosius the Great]

Well, I did start off by saying "if he had been a citizen". Had he been, he was a deserter, and desertion from the military was certainly grounds for expatriating someone.
Anyway, I brought up that point about Caesar being labeled an enemy of the Republic, basically to show a point: The histories are typically written by the victors.

Any Roman citizen could simply be proscribed by the Senate or a Dictator (e.g. Sulla) and be lawfully killed by anybody, even by slaves. The most extreme example I can think of was when the Senate declared Nero (a sitting emperor !) an enemy of the Republic. So, no one was safe from losing his citizenship ! :wink:

This would seem to indicate that Master of Horse was a title for a Dictator's deputy, rather than necessarily an actual cavalry. commander.....

One last thing on this interesting digression : I think the last Roman 'Master of Horse' was Lepidus during Caesar's Dictatorship. But he was just left in charge of the City of Rome while Caesar went off with the troops to fight the Republican faction. So, the office seems to have lost its military function all together.

Scipio knew he had no chance to beat Hannibal without cavalry and set about binding Massinissa to himself. Again this shows the greatness of Scipio's foresight. One man's treachery is another mans shrewd planning

This may be so but Hannibal was not in complete control of the situation at this stage of the war. After Carthage's armies failed in two battles to repel Scipio's forces from Africa they just dumped the command on Hannibal's shoulders at the last minute. Whereas Scipio had total control over his forces and had months to prepare them. That's why I don't think Zama is a fair criterion to judge which commander out-generaled the other. Scipio was a great Roman general but it's a stretch to say he outwitted the greatest general of the day, IMO. He was very much Hannibal's student.

So it seems likely that it was Paullus, not Varro, who had overall command that fateful day.

This, then, would appear to illustrate the point made earlier that to be a Great Commander, you needed a Historian to write about you, and what's more, give you a 'good press' not a bad one !!!

Yes, I've read about this too years ago and the truth does seem obvious once common sense is applied. If the two consuls had competing strategies then why did they combine forces in the first place and why did they not go their separate ways if they had a quarrel ? Slandering Varro is clearly a case of Senatorial elitism since Varro was not of noble birth. We see this type of elitism in later sources like Suetonius.

Anyway, when is someone going to start a thread on Rome's least able general ? That's a much tougher question to answer :lol:

-Theo