Rome\'s Greatest General...

[Vindex]

Establishing Rome - I'd agree with Cincinnatus

Ensuring Rome's Surviva and Supremacy - Scipio Africanus

Rome from Republic to Empire - Marcus Agrippa (Augustus' guiding hand)

After that I think it falls to the Legionnary Generals to keep Rome going, but I am not a Late Roman military historian.

[Epictetus]

Rome from Republic to Empire - Marcus Agrippa (Augustus' guiding hand)

That's an excellent point. He's an interesting character, and I'd like to learn more about Agrippa. I have read about him in a couple of Augustus books, but has anyone ever written a biography of Agrippa?

[Lyceum]

You know, I agree with whoever it was who mentioned that its impossible to extrapolate a single (or even a handful!) of great figures here due to the inherent variety to Rome, still its fun and I'd be tempted to say Belisarios myself.

Agrippa I think would be stretching it as a tactician, more useful as a politician but still up there for that period.

I once remember, in a lecture on Roman Military history, someone arguing that a good candidate would be one of the guys in Britain - S Paulinus? I can't recall, its been years.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Scipio, and Caesar.

[Alexand96]

Perhaps it would be possible to "expand" this topic to the characteristics a great general should posses, as that would provide a less subjective yardstick then just personal preference. Then, we would have a set to discuss the relative merits of those generals we see fit to nominate.

If this idea meets appeal, I have composed a very short list for starters. I believe in the end it should not go beyond ten points and a ranking of importance of the characteristics be decided on. So some of my suggestions could be voted out in favor of others more deserving.

1. Abbilty to inspire his men
2. Proven tactical brilliance
3. Innovativeness/ability to adapt
4. Number of mayor clashes won
5. Strenght of the opponents bested
6. Full use of Roman military enginering
7. ......

I like this idea very much. Many of the generals discussed exemplify many of these characteristics, but I would argue some more than others...Caesar, for example was renowned for his ability to inspire his men, and his use of engineering, as we all know. I agree with many of the comments that I see placing much of the importance on the strengths and capabilities of the enemies faced/defeated, which in general would lead me to believe that the later period roman commanders had to have been more capable, at least in some ways, due to the relative strength of their various encroaching enemies.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Marius as the greatest. Maybe we simply do not know enough about his actual military endeavors?

As well, obviously Caesar won the civil war, and in some sense deservedly receives all of the accompanying attention, but I've always wondered what that conflict would have looked like if Pompey Magnus wasn't so past his prime...

[Virgil]

I think evidence for greatest Roman general overwhelmingly leads one to Caesar. His speed, decisiveness and tenacity coupled with (usually) good judgment & well-trained legions become impressive when you do a quick review of some of his military operations.

In Gaul he fought Germans and Gallic tribes constructing a navy against the Veneti, iirc wheeling his third line against a flanking attack by the Helvetii then flanking the enemy, his siege of Alesia and so on. Crassus fouled it up at Carrhae in 53BC against a clever opponent (Surena), something one can’t imagine Caesar doing (the same time Crassus was in the east he was building the bridge on the Rhine).

During the Civil War his more strategic thinking developed as well. He realized he needed to defeat Pompeii’s legions in Spain to protect his rear. After set-back at Ebro he manages to maneuver his forces into making the enemy react by restricting their supply routes and then essentially winning the ‘battle’ with no losses.

I think Caesar’s political astuteness added to his generalship, whether in squabbles between tribes, when friends (Aedui) own loyalty waivered or clemency (esp during the Civil War) against opponents.

Many claim he was reckless, JFC Fuller really pushed this view (he also seems to dislike Caesar intensely) but I think that misses the point; his swift action and resourcefulness in moments of crisis are part of why he was a ‘great’ general. As with the SAS motto; 'Who Dares Wins'.

[Alexand96]

I think Caesar’s political astuteness added to his generalship, whether in squabbles between tribes, when friends (Aedui) own loyalty waivered or clemency (esp during the Civil War) against opponents......Many claim he was reckless, JFC Fuller really pushed this view (he also seems to dislike Caesar intensely) but I think that misses the point; his swift action and resourcefulness in moments of crisis are part of why he was a ‘great’ general. As with the SAS motto; 'Who Dares Wins'.

I agree with this, in fact, I am torn between Scipio and Caesar for this very reason. Scipio was effectively sidelined in his military career due to his inability to control the political situation in Rome. Of course, Caesar had to destroy the political status quo completely in Rome in order to cope, but he did come out on top....for awhile at least.

Caesar - was it recklessness or the effective use of calculated risk-taking? I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Although I know very little about him, I have a friend who absolutely places Belisarius as greatest roman commander of all time.

[Valerian Pertinax]

I'd like to second an answer submitted above for Marcus Agrippa. We don't have as much information on him as we do a few others, but from what I can tell, Agrippa was the *ideal* Roman general. From what we know, he was a loyal, competent, hardworking man who used his power for the betterment of the state.
Agrippa possessed a fine military mind for both land and naval engagements. I wouldn't necessarily say that he was the single most brilliant general in Roman history, but I would also state that battlefield brilliance quickly becomes a liability if a man at the head of army decides to seize power and endangers the state with a civil war. Agrippa was, in my opinion, the "complete package": a man upon whom one could depend to manage any civil or military task.

[Renatus]

Many claim he was reckless, JFC Fuller really pushed this view (he also seems to dislike Caesar intensely) but I think that misses the point; his swift action and resourcefulness in moments of crisis are part of why he was a ‘great’ general.

Ah, but don't the management gurus say that, if a manager is good in a crisis, you should sack him - because he should not have allowed the crisis to occur in the first place!

[Marja]

What was it Sun Tzu said?

Paraphrasing, "the greatest success is not to win a hundred battles, the greatest success is to win without one battle." I'm wondering if we would even think of the greatest general by this standard.

Pompeius and Caesar were certainly able generals, but they sought out wars for their own ends, and destroyed the Republic and devastated both the Romans and those they warred against. Cincinnatus, Camillus, Scipio, and Marius didn't do that, even if Marius came close to that. It's harder to draw that line for the emperors than for the generals of the Republic or of the Empire.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Why I believe Valentinian I was one of the Greatest Generals

1. Abbilty to inspire his men- After the death of Jovian the army promoted Valentinian to the Purple as he was by far the most able candidate at the time. He had a proven track record of being an effective military commander which was exactly what the Empire needed at the time. He also inspired a lot of devotion from the military as he promoted many of them to high office, something that ancient authors critised at the time.

2. Proven tactical brilliance- Valentinian preferred to personally lead his men into combat, nearly leading to his death at the Battle of Solicinium, at whcih battle Valentinian ratlher brilliantly sent part of his army on a flank march around the hill the Allemanni were defending and whilst the Allemanni were defending against waht appeared to be a suicidal up-hill attack by the Romans they were caught in the rear by the flank marchers and throughly routed. Valentinian fought campaigns against the Allemanni, Franks, Quadi and Sarmatians with success in each campaign.

3. Innovativeness/ability to adapt- Valentinian may have introduced the system of 'mile forts' along the Rhine and Danube frontiers. He actually built fortresses north of those rivers as well. Ammianus rather cryptically said that Valentinian was 'an inventor of arms' without going into any detail. It might be that Valentinian either inspired or took onboard some of the novel devices found in the 'De Rebus Bellicis'. He may have also briefly reintroduced the Pilum into the army.

4. Number of mayor clashes won- Valentinian campaigned against the Allemanni, Franks, Sarmatians and the Quadi with success. He also engineered the destruction of a band of Saxon's by the use of treachery and help of the Burgundians.

5. Strenght of the opponents bested- Unfortunately figures for the armies that Valentinian or his generals bested are scant at best. If we consider that a campaigning army at this time was between 20,000 and 30,000 strong on average then your looking at similar sized barbarian armies.

6. Full use of Roman military enginering- May have introduced the 'mile fort' system. Built fortresses north of the Rhine and Danube. Indroduced new arms into the Empire.

7. ...... Valentinian's presence was sorely missed by his brother Valens. Who knows what the outcome of the Gothic crisis in 376AD may have been haValentinian still been alive?

[Albertomv]

Stilicho, he was the only one who could stop Alarico,and we all know what happened after his death :whistle:

There are a lot of great roman generals: Scipio, Caesar, Corbulo, Titus, Trajan, Aurelian, Aetius, Belisarius...

[Theodosius the Great]

Yeah, always fun though eh? And I certainly wouldn't have mentioned Constantine five years ago. mile:

He seems like a worthy candidate. Afterall, unlike the others mentioned, he grew up with the army and by the time he became an emperor he probably didn't have a learning curve for generalship. I believe he campaigned on all the frontiers too except possibly North Africa where Maximian was warring against the Berbers.

~Theo

[NamlessCenturion]

while I don't think he would end up being considered the best I think Pompey needs to be at least mentioned here.

[D B Campbell]

I once remember, in a lecture on Roman Military history, someone arguing that a good candidate would be one of the guys in Britain - S Paulinus? I can't recall, its been years.

Tacitus claimed that, when Suetonius Paullinus came to Britain, he was eager to emulate Corbulo -- who is my candidate for greatest general!