Rome\'s most able general?

[Chilperic]

I don't know anything about earlier Roman commanders though I find Sardaukar's comments on Caesar compelling (a bit like Wellington, then?). As for the late candidates suggested so far, I must say I've always thought Belisarius hugely over-rated, though clearly somewhat talismanic. Lucky rather than skilful, but then didn't Napoleon say (something like - and in French!) 'give me lucky generals rather than good ones'?

I don't see how Aetius would make the cut, if only because we don't know anything about his battles. He was certainly energetic and won a number of engagements against non-Romans - although from reading Sidonius' Carmina it would seem that his defeat of a Frankish invasion was more an attack on a wedding party - but when up against Roman opposition he never did better than a draw (if I remember correctly). I also think (increasingly) that seeing him in the light of Gibbon's comment - 'the last Roman' - misses the point of fifth-century politics. He was a faction-fighter like everyone else and it was the indecisiveness of those faction fights that destroyed the Empire (e.g. came to prominence originally backing a usurper; had Felix killed; got rid of Boniface after several attempts; etc.). Certainly the Empire was in no better condition when he died than when he acquired assured control of the court in the 430s; in many respects, in terms of the extent of the imperial writ, it was worse off (most prosperous part of Africa lost; situation in Spain worse; Gothic military control of, and kingdom in, Aquitaine formally recognised; retrenchment in the south of Gaul; etc). His murder was much less important than Valentinian III's the next year. The one thing that could hold the factions together was a shared loyalty to the imperial dynasty. Once the Theodosian house was extinguished, as the history of the next 25 years shows, none of the factions was prepared to acquiesce in the legitimacy of the rule of any of the others. Avitus, Majorian and Anthemius were all perfectly good emperors and indeed in other eras might have become great emperors but (with the possible exception of Anthemius) they all lacked that crucial element of dynastic legitimacy.

On a different note, I'd accept the claims of generals who beat opposition from rival Romans or other Mediterranean or near eastern (i.e. Persia) urban cultures ahead of any general whose fame rest on fighting northern barbarians (before the C5th) as once one looks closely at the sources and their absurd claims about barbarian army sizes the struggle against the latter was so one-sided that it was about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel. If they ever lose, now that is significant!:wink:

Cheers,
Guy