Rome\'s most able general?

[Hugh Fuller]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the two consuls alternated overall command each day. Hannibal waited until the more impulsive Varro had overall command and then launched his battle plan and Varro jumped right into it. The feeling is that Paullus would not have been so easily led into the trap as Varro.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or perhaps the same taunts were used against the Romans day after day, untill the more impulsive consul jumped in for it? Then of course the writers of history would have damned Varro, by making it seem part of the Carthaginians clever plan, and writing the books to make the one who would was less inclined to fight except on his own terms seem to have been obvious to Hannibal?

But I guess its the same either way, the more cautious and calculating was undone by his more impulsive co-consul?

[Timotheus]

I would have to say by far Quintus Sertorius. Able genreal and leader who beat Pompey every time he met him on the battlefield even when Pompey had him outnumbered.

Anyone who calls slaps Pompey around that well and even calls him "Sulla's pupil" gets my vote.

If he had not been assasinated who knows how far he could have gone. There was certainly nothing the optimates of Rome could throw at him that fazed him at all.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I would add him too! Good point. I forgot all about him! 8)

[Severus]

I used to think Pompey or Caesar would be my first choice but after reading

B.H. Liddel Hart's book on Scipio Africanus I might change my mind. His ability to overcome Hannibal and best him at his own game in spite of little support from the Senate his accomplishment is pretty amazing.

http://www.amazon.com/Scipio-Africanus- ... 0306805839

It was a really good read

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have quite a few books on the subject, and agree he was a good general, but also Caesar.......

Pompey, not a contender really....... :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

after reading

B.H. Liddel Hart's book on Scipio Africanus I might change my mind. His ability to overcome Hannibal and best him at his own game in spite of little support from the Senate his accomplishment is pretty amazing.

It's hardly a fair thing to say that Scipio defeated Hannibal at his own game. At the battle of Zama Hannibal commanded an army that was not even his own. It was largely made up of raw conscripts, mercenaries and demoralized native troops. Treachery played a crucial part in Scipio's victory. Spain was where Scipio showed his greatest generalship abilities, IMO.

~Theo

[Paullus Scipio]

Couldn't the same be said of Scipio? .......after all, he had to leave his highly polished and trained Spanish Army behind, except for some volunteers who replaced those too old or unfit in the disgraced 'Cannae Legions', ( the 10,000 or so survivors of Cannae, some 15 years before) based in Sicily, that Scipio was allocated for the African invasion. A rather aging force for such an enterprise, one should have thought - apparently chosen because of their 'experience of siege warfare' ( the siege of Syracuse and other places in Sicily 10 years before).
....at least one third, probably more, of Hannibal's army consisted of the army he brought back from Italy - his veteran troops, mostly Bruttians but including the survivors of the Africans, Spaniards and maybe Celts that had invaded Italy 16 years before.
Ironic that many of the soldiers who faced each other at Zama had done so 15 years before, at Cannae...............including Hannibal and Scipio...."unfinished business", you might say !!

[Severus]

It's hardly a fair thing to say that Scipio defeated Hannibal at his own game.

Scipio's ability to assess the whole situation and employ his own tricks and strategy certainly seems to me that he was able to do something more with his army than blunder forward (which seemed to be the standard Roman tactic in the second Punic war)

At the battle of Zama Hannibal commanded an army that was not even his own. It was largely made up of raw conscripts, mercenaries and demoralized native troops. Treachery played a crucial part in Scipio's victory.

From the sources I have read Hannibal seemed to have a goodly portion of his veteran troops. And Scipio was left to raise his own army by the Senate. Scipio's use of cavalry at the Zama rivals (and actually beat) Hannibal's use of horsemen. It also shows that Scipio was able to grasp how important combined arms were to winning a battle.

Spain was where Scipio showed his greatest generalship abilities, IMO.

Masterful generalship in Spain, no arguments there, but his accomplishments in Africa are incredible in their own right. His vision of invading Africa was openly attacked by the Senate and basically he was left to orchestrate it as a single man.

I am just echoing Paullus Scipio, but I enjoy the debate. I always end up knowing more after discussing things on this forum.

Matt Webster

[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

[Paullus Scipio]

For an Ancient view of who was the greatest General, we have this story from Plutarch's "Life of Flamininus" :-
"It is told, too, that they [Hannibal and Scipio] had another meeting afterwards, at Ephesus, and that when Hannibal, as they were walking together, took the upper hand, Africanus let it pass, and walked on without the least notice of it; and that then they began to talk of generals, and Hannibal affirmed that Alexander was the greatest commander the world had seen, next to him Pyrrhus, and the third was himself; Africanus, with a smile, asked, "What would you have said, if I had not defeated you?" "I would not then, Scipio," he replied, "have made myself the third, but the first commander."
( Hannibal may have been a little biased against Romans ! ) D

[Severus]

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.

But from the accounts we have of the battle Hannibal's infantry gives as good as it gets against the Roman infantry. A Roman victory is very much in doubt until the cavalry returns to take the Carthaginians in the rear.

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)

Most of Scipio's logistical support was from his own planning and shrewd decisions once he touched down in Africa. From my perspective this is another master-stroke on Scipio's part. While other Romans (including Fabius Cunctator) were declaring the mission to Africa doomed to fail, Scipio was making it work through his own military genius. I have not read this one of Goldsworthy's books, but I will. I like his stuff.

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.

While this may be true, it does nothing to diminish the accomplishments of Scipio. Who, after Spain, was stripped of his army and almost all support from the Republic.

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.)

His popularity is part of his greatness as a commander.

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:

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

I am not trying to place Scipio higher up than Hannibal (but if you ask I'd say Scipio is the better general ). But Scipio's mind for planning, supply & logistics, tactical vision , and daring make him my choice for best Roman general.

Matt Webster

[Paullus Scipio]

Theo/Jaime wrote:-

If King Masinissa of Numidia had not defected to Scipio Hannibal would almost surely have won at Zama.

.....aaah, but there's another twist to that tale too ! Carthage, while the prominent power in North Africa, was not he only one. There were native kingdoms too.On the fringes were various nomadic peoples - King Baga and the Moors, the Numidian Maesulii confederation east of Carthage( who were in the throes of a dynastic dispute), and the most powerful of all, the Masaesulii confederation west of Carthage under their king, Syphax. These various North African Nomad tribes all possessed superb light cavalry, like the steppe nomads. Numidians were supposed not to use reins, but to steer their horses by tapping their necks with a stick.(this is depicted on coins). There were constant dynastic fights and feuds between the various tribes. Originally Gala and the Maesulii supported Carthage and Syphax was sympathetic to Rome.(after 213 BC) When Masinissa's father Gala had died (206 BC), the throne was usurped and Masinissa outlawed. Syphax supported the usurper, and his troops all but killed Masinissa.
As the most powerful, Syphax was courted by both sides. In 206 after the fall of Spain to Scipio, both Scipio and Hasdrubal Gisgo found themselves simultaneously in Syphax' harbour. At first Syphax looked as if he would ratify a treaty with Rome, but Hasdrubal had an 'ace in the hole' in the form of his beautiful daughter Sophonisba(previously betrothed to the now penniless exile Masinissa!). Syphax married her and committed himself to Carthage.The most powerful North African kingdom was now a firm ally of Carthage, and played a major part in the African campaign - forcing Scipio to abandon the siege of Utica, and acting as broker in peace negotiations, for example. Syphax brought an army perhaps 15-20,000 strong to Carthage's aid. Compare this to the maximum 4,000 cavalry and 6,000 Infantry Masinissa could bring to Scipio's aid at Zama after he recovered his kingdom. Even at Zama, Masinissa's 4,000 cavalry, many of whose loyalties were dubious, were countered by Tychaeus, a relative of Syphax with 2,000 cavalry said to be "the finest in all Africa" and Masinissa's bitter rival for the throne Mazaetullus, with perhaps as many as 1,000. Vermina, son of Syphax was also bringing an army of 15,000 or so to aid Carthage, but fortunately for Scipio, was too late for Zama.
So, on the "defection" front, Scipio finished second-best to Hasdrubal Gisgo and Carthage who through Syphax gained an army of 15-20,000( at various times) against the maximum 10,000 Masinissa brought Scipio !

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion as well

....idem in me (the same for me) D

[antiochus]

I personally think the camp guard were 'Triarii' drawn from the whole army, in which case he would have commanded two legions plus Allies)

I'm putting my money on the camp guards for the larger camp, were like the primary sources state, consisted of two legions, (one Roman, one allied - hastati, principes, triarii and accensi). 8)

[Paullus Scipio]

Antiochus/Steven wrote:-

I'm putting my money on the camp guards for the larger camp, were like the primary sources state, consisted of two legions, (one Roman, one allied - hastati, principes, triarii and accensi).

.....I don't think the sources tell us who they were, Steven. Polybius simply says that there were "10,000" left in the main camp, without saying who they were, ........The Legions, normally 4,200 strong at this time,had been brought up to 5,000 strong for this campaign.When this occurred the Velites, Hastati, and Principes were all increased proportionally, but not the Triarii, who will thus have numbered around 9,600 for the whole army.

Since the Triarii customarily provided the camp guard, it is tempting to equate these with Polybius' "10,000"......

OTOH, Polybius explains that Paullus left the "10,000" specifically to take Hannibal's camp (on the same side of the river) if they could - though they don't seem to have attempted it....hardly a task for Triarii(assaulting a hill-top fortified camp) one would have thought.