Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rome\'s most able general?
#46
....let us not forget that we only have our sources to guide us, and some certainly exaggerated the virtues of certain generals......others blew their own propaganda trumpets ! (J. Caesar springs to mind).
Perhaps Rome's most able general was one of those who have not had their story told by the ancient historians.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#47
Quote:....Perhaps Rome's most able general was one of those who have not had their story told by the ancient historians.....

or lost over time, or even purposely removed
Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind after our death.
No man loses Honour who had any in the first place. - Syrus
Octavianvs ( Johnn C. ) MODERATOR ROMAN ARMY TALK
Click for Rule for Posting [url:3135udah]http://romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
Reply
#48
Quote:Unlike some academics, I do not find Polybius’ first time use of the term cohort as proof of when it was introduced. Those that do then, for the battle of Illipa, ignore Polybius’ account of ONE cohort being used for the outflanking manoeuvre in favour of Livy’s THREE cohorts. All of a sudden Polybius’ reliability is quietly put aside. This approach shows selective academic investigation to promote a predefined theory. Academics should explain and prove why Polybius one cohort should be rejected in favour of Livy’s three cohorts.

....

But then how do you explain Dionysius and Livy’ use of cohort for the early republic, not to forget the middle republic period? If memory serves me correct, Livy uses the term cohort fifteen times in books I to V. Dionysius somewhere around 11 times, and on four occasions gives the number of men in a cohort. If your answer is ‘anachronistic practice’ (the academic mantra), then how can you prove it? In fact I will ask any academic to prove it is anachronistic.
+laudes there, excellent point.

What I'd like to know is what the big deal is about the Gladius being "Hispanic". Surely no one believes that Romans adopted a completely different way of fighting, upon discovering a sword amongst a people who themselves were completely oblivious to its awesome legionary power. Isn't that the comical conclusion we're forced to accept? Torquatus' battle written up by C. Quadrigarius (Aul.Gell.IX.8) is:

Quote:This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valor to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul.

I mean obviously his sword couldn't have been literally the spanish sword, but on the other hand an argument could be made that the historian is trying to non-pedantically connect Torquatus' equipment to something the reader would commonly see in his own day. Isn't it the likeliest conclusion that the swords throughout all of Rome's manipular history were all of basically similar type? That even if the soldiers happened upon a new shape on the Iberian peninsula, that it was merely an extension of the sword they already used, and that its actual use was mysterious to the Spaniards who never conceived of it? There's nothing magical about the gladius, as one could fight in legionary style using a Greek xiphos fully as much as with a gladius, and I really don't see what the big deal is about the introduction of the Hispaniensis.

While I do think that Scipio has displayed unique ingenuity with his dexterity with the legion, I don't think it created any sorts of institutional changes in the Roman army. In that sense, the Roman republican legion seemed to fight the same way, from the conversion away from hoplites (whenever that happened), down to Marius. But that shouldn't take away from Scipio's personal inventiveness, which was indeed exemplary. I personally think Fabius ranks above all, as saving the very Roman state. But if we must rank tactical ingeniousness, I do think that Scipio and Caesar are close at the top.
Multi viri et feminae philosophiam antiquam conservant.

James S.
Reply
#49
I always lean towards those generals who had people skills when dealing with their own soldiers, like Vespasian.
Aurelia Coritana
aka Laura Sweet
[url:3tjsw0iy]http://www.theromanway.org[/url]
[url:3tjsw0iy]http://www.legionten.org[/url]

Si vales, gaudeo. (If you are well, then I am happy.)
Reply
#50
I have a soft spot for Vespasian as an emperor. He was probably the most down-to-earth of the entire bunch. But I don't see him as such a great general. His military reputation rests basically upon his success as Legate of Legio II Augusta during the invasion of Britannia. His involvement in the Judaean War was a definite success, but the actual command seems to me to have devolved upon his son, Titus.

As to picking Rome's greatest commander, I cannot see how it can be done, since we are dealing with something like a thousand years of history and God alone knows how many different situations which the various commanders had to face.
Reply
#51
Quote:....let us not forget that we only have our sources to guide us, and some certainly exaggerated the virtues of certain generals......others blew their own propaganda trumpets ! (J. Caesar springs to mind).
Perhaps Rome's most able general was one of those who have not had their story told by the ancient historians.....
Its not Roman, but look at the Persian civil war in which Darius the Great took over the empire. Nineteen battles in a bit over a year, and all we know is roughly when and where they occurred and who won (and even that is from royal propaganda).
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#52
Quote:
Paullus Scipio:1r51jpqq Wrote:....Perhaps Rome's most able general was one of those who have not had their story told by the ancient historians.....

or lost over time, or even purposely removed


like the one in my post on page one :wink:
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply
#53
Quote:Surely no one believes that Romans adopted a completely different way of fighting, upon discovering a sword
M.C. Bishop and Coulston say just that on page 56 of 'Roman Military Equipment' : Adoption of this sword, even without its elaborate manufactuing processes, marked the development of new tactics.

Quote:That even if the soldiers happened upon a new shape on the Iberian peninsula, that it was merely an extension of the sword they already used, and that its actual use was mysterious to the Spaniards who never conceived of it? There's nothing magical about the gladius,
IIRC, the attraction of the gladius hispanienses to the Romans wasn't only its shape and length but also the quality of the metal. Holding the blade horizontally across one's head, one could bend the blade down until each end would touch his shoulders, let go, and the blade would retain its original shape. But, IIRC, the Roman replicas of the sword largely did not have this quality, they weren't warp-resistant like the Iberian originals.

As for the sword's full potential being unrealized by the Iberians themselves, I think you may have a stereotypical image of the Iberians specializing only in guerrilla warfare. According to our own Fernando Quesada, the tactics used by the Iberians and Romans of the time were not so different. You can read his articles in english here : http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus/warmas/online/online.html

Quote:There's nothing magical about the gladius, as one could fight in legionary style using a Greek xiphos fully as much as with a gladius, and I really don't see what the big deal is about the introduction of the Hispaniensis.
If that is your position then you have to ask yourself why Scipio, upon landing in Hispania and discovering the 'Spanish' swords, forced his men to adopt them. What was wrong with the swords his army brought to the peninsula ? (But I'm sure there's already a good thread on this topic elsewhere :wink: )

Quote:Scipius is probably the best. He fought in several situations and against different types of armies, also against good generals, and transformed the roman army.
Does anyone know if Scipio led on foot or on horseback ? Hannibal did the former at Cannae.

BTW, I believe "Scipio" is his proper name. I'm not sure if names ending in an "o" or "a" means they have a non-Latin origin though.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#54
Theo/Jaime wrote:-

Quote:Does anyone know if Scipio led on foot or on horseback ? Hannibal did the former at Cannae.
....Scipio certainly led on foot on occasion. At the siege of Ilurgi (Ilorca) in Spain, resistance was desperate, and Scipio led the scaling of the walls in person and at the siege of New Carthage he stood on high ground directing the Assault, and was close enough to the walls to need three bodyguards to cover him with their shields.....

In pitched battle though, it would seem most Hellenistic/Roman/Carthaginian commanders were mounted, either to lead the right-wing cavalry in person, or so as to see over the troops heads.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#55
Ah, yes, I remembering reading that about Scipio at the siege of Carthago Nova. When I wrote the question I was thinking of the battlefield. I wonder who was the last Roman general to lead his men on foot in pitched-battle.

IIRC, I thought a Dictator was supposed to led the infantry while his deputy (Master of Horses) was supposed to lead the cavalry.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#56
Well, just as a 'for instance', take Cannae. The four Roman commanders seem to have commanded their own forces, and been posted thus, ( though there are some contradictions in the sources):-
On the right, commanding the Roman Cavalry, was the Consul Aemilius Paullus, who probably also commanded one legion and equivalent Aliies ( assuming the 10,000 camp guard came from his army, though I personally think the camp guard were 'Triarii' drawn from the whole army, in which case he would have commanded two legions plus Allies)
Aemilius Paullus dismounted and joined the infantry after the defeat of his Roman cavalry, and was found sitting on a rock, wounded and bleeding profusely toward the end of the battle by a Tribune called Lentulus. He offerred Paullus his horse ( which incidently indicates even Tribunes were normally mounted), but Paullus refused, and then Lentulus horse bolted as a party of Numidians came up ( according to Livy 22.49)

Next, commanding the centre came Marcus Minucius Rufus (Fabius' Master of Horse, and deputy to M. Atilius Regulus(who had been sent back to Rome, hence his deputy commanding). He was killed in the battle.The other commander of the centre was Cn. Servilius Geminus (Flaminius' original colleague).
Finally, commanding the left was the Consul Varro commanding his own two consular legions plus Allies, and on the left wing, the Allied cavalry.

This would seem to indicate that Master of Horse was a title for a Dictator's deputy, rather than necessarily an actual cavalry. commander.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#57
Quote:This would seem to indicate that Master of Horse was a title for a Dictator's deputy, rather than necessarily an actual cavalry. commander.....
Interesting. In earlier times I suspect the title meant what it actually says.

Even in the Late Empire there seems to be no consistency with regards to the new offices of 'Magister Militum' and 'Magister Equitum'.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#58
Quote:Interesting. In earlier times I suspect the title meant what it actually says.

Zonaras (VI 19) writes the Master of the Horse had third place in seniority to that of legate. Like the legate, the Master of the Horse commanded those troops assigned to him by the dictator, which besides the cavalry, could also be the infantry, or both infantry and cavalry. On occasion, the Master of the Horse is reported as remaining at Rome, and being responsible for the armies’ food supplies. (Livy IV 18, Livy IV 26).
Reply
#59
I vote for Flavius Belisarius.
Regards,

Hisham
Reply
#60
Gaius Julius Caesar, Scipio, a few others may come close....
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome\'s Greatest General... Alexand96 29 8,846 02-01-2013, 03:54 AM
Last Post: D B Campbell
  Venditius-Rome\'s Underrated General? Johnny Shumate 3 1,808 03-16-2006, 11:53 PM
Last Post: Felix

Forum Jump: