Ten great generals

[Kai]

1. Alexander
2. Hannibal
3. Totila
4. Theoderic
5. Belisarius
6. Caesar
7. Genseric
8. Pyrrhus
9. Stilicho
10. Xenophon

Genseric the Vandal would be a very important addendum: ok sources, brilliant achievements (tactical against the vastly superior forces of Basiliscus invasion e.g., and strategic in his conquest of Africa and the Sack of Rome), and political success.

PS: I actually violated the rule, since all of them are Romans or Greeks, except perhaps Totila and Genseric. ...and Totila was commander of a Roman federate army while Genseric intermarried with the imperial dynasty.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I suggested Gaiseric already. His conquest of Africa caused the Fall of the Roman Empire. Theodoric and Totila are good choices, so is Belisarius. However I'd have to argue against Stilicho. His career was mostly a Political one, and although he had some major accomplishments his focus was msotly on gaining control of the east. Had he managed to do so I would have said yes to Stilicho, but if he did then I wouldn't be a fan of Aetius now would I ?

[CAeliusEricius]

Sun Tzu.

[Macedon]

..One thing about Xenophon, he did not lead the 10,000 to Asia, he was voted general for the return after the Persians assassinated Clearchos, after the retreat had begun. I do not think that he merits a place in the pantheon of the most celebrated (?), influential (?), capable (?), successful (?) generals based on that achievement, although as a writer he is one of my favorites...

And Zachary... Thucydides??? What were you thinking? However, Xanthippos, who was a Lacedaemonian mercenary in the service of the Carthaginians and not a Carthaginian, and a huge reformer, is an interesting choice. He may have actually laid the foundations for Hannibal in a way much like Philip did for Alexander.

[sonic]

Epaminondas?

[Currahee Chris]

Ive always been very intrigued by Septimius Severus. Ive always wanted to see more about him as well

Had to take a double take that Alexander didn't make the cut but after looking at the scope of your project, perhaps it makes sense??? I dunno, hard to top Alexander as far as Generalship.

Best Regards
CC

[Gesiþ]

I'd like to mention Thorismund. Didn't he rally the Visigoths at Chalons after the death of their King and lead the flank attack that basically won the battle?

[66kbm]

Hi all,
Has anyone mentioned Gaius Julius Caesar. Was he ever a general? I don't know.
By the way......I don't mean Byron.....no dis-respect mate.
Kevin

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'd like to mention Thorismund. Didn't he rally the Visigoths at Chalons after the death of their King and lead the flank attack that basically won the battle?

How that battle was won will be revealed in my new paper for submission to the JLA, but Aetius was the mastermind of that battle. We don't know much about Thorismund. He lead the Visigothic part of the charge at Chalons, was the(2nd oldest I think) son of Theodoric, and besieged Arles in 453, only to be persuaded to leave by Ferreolus. He was then assassinated by his brother and the Friendly-to-Aetius Theodoric II became leader of the Goths.

[Hannibal88]

Bit disappointed in your choices. I don't see one of my favorites on anyone's list. Without him...old Phil and Alex would have not succeeded.

Alexander- brilliant but so tragic. Perfect til Ecbatana
Pompey- underestimated. Romans, pirates, the East were his prey
Hannibal- some decent siege engineers and bye bye Roma. My favorite
Marius- his mules! No real Roman legion without him
Parmenio- Philip's only general. An ancient Grant/Monty
Scipio A.- top shelf. Too bad Rome didn't like him- died too young
Belisarius- best against the good and bad of that age including his emperor
Mithridates- Poison King!!!!! Responsible for whacking how many Romans?
Stilicho- Last real Roman, still waiting for another good one. Won't hold my breath
Pyrrhus- beat a lot of Romans, good enough for me. If only he had avoided Sicily
Spartacus- it took Rome how long to defeat him? I think he escaped-

Sorry, but had to go to 11...Spinal Tap kinda thing

[Kai]

I suggested Gaiseric already. His conquest of Africa caused the Fall of the Roman Empire. Theodoric and Totila are good choices, so is Belisarius. However I'd have to argue against Stilicho. His career was mostly a Political one, and although he had some major accomplishments his focus was msotly on gaining control of the east. Had he managed to do so I would have said yes to Stilicho, but if he did then I wouldn't be a fan of Aetius now would I ?

Oh sorry, I must have overlooked that...

Stilicho's career was indeed very much political. In this respect he is no different from all the other 5th century patricii of the west, including Aetius
One needed such capabilities to survive in the high ranks and I would not separate military and political affairs anyway. It really comes down to the question what makes a "great" general. Theoderic's tactical achievements for example do not seem to be overly impressive from what we know, Belisarius unilateral decision to keep fighting the Goths instead of accepting their peace offer as Justinian wanted ultimately proved disastrous for the Roman Empire and Italy. (That is why Justinian was mad at him, not the silly jealousy story). Therefore I am rather inclined to rate a general's greatness according to his overall achievements including tactics, strategy, politics, and yes, even literature

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I suggested Gaiseric already. His conquest of Africa caused the Fall of the Roman Empire. Theodoric and Totila are good choices, so is Belisarius. However I'd have to argue against Stilicho. His career was mostly a Political one, and although he had some major accomplishments his focus was msotly on gaining control of the east. Had he managed to do so I would have said yes to Stilicho, but if he did then I wouldn't be a fan of Aetius now would I ?

Oh sorry, I must have overlooked that...

Stilicho's career was indeed very much political. In this respect he is no different from all the other 5th century patricii of the west, including Aetius
One needed such capabilities to survive in the high ranks and I would not separate military and political affairs anyway. It really comes down to the question what makes a "great" general. Theoderic's tactical achievements for example do not seem to be overly impressive from what we know, Belisarius unilateral decision to keep fighting the Goths instead of accepting their peace offer as Justinian wanted ultimately proved disastrous for the Roman Empire and Italy. (That is why Justinian was mad at him, not the silly jealousy story). Therefore I am rather inclined to rate a general's greatness according to his overall achievements including tactics, strategy, politics, and yes, even literature

Aetius had a far longer string of Military Achievements than Stilicho. And I wont deny Aetius had involvement in Politics, Stilicho's policies were very detrimental to the empire though, while Aetius' benefited the Empire more than they hurt it. Furthermore, Aetius was a much more aggressive General, using the Roman Army in Ambushes and stuff, rather than the usual siege and outmaneouver.

[markusaurelius]

Stilicho's policies were very detrimental to the empire though, while Aetius' benefited the Empire more than they hurt it

Can't say I agree. I personally really bought in to Gibbons praise of Aetius at first, but digging deeper changed my feelings on it. His handling of Bonifacius for one. After reading Hughes, Ian (2010). Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome I really started to like his story and efforts more and more.

[sonic]

Thank you.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Stilicho's policies were very detrimental to the empire though, while Aetius' benefited the Empire more than they hurt it

Can't say I agree. I personally really bought in to Gibbons praise of Aetius at first, but digging deeper changed my feelings on it. His handling of Bonifacius for one. After reading Hughes, Ian (2010). Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome I really started to like his story and efforts more and more.

Although I see your point, I disagree. Stilicho's policy of an attempted Invasion of the East is what prompted the Uprisings in Britain and Spain, as the Imperial Army was engaged elsewhere, especially after Alaric turned on Stilicho. The Vandals et al. probably decided to cross the Rhine at that point because they heard Roman control was collapsing in that area.

Aetius is usually criticized for neglecting Africa, but that is not true. The Western Empire simply had no Navy; what ships they had were at Carthage. When the East withdrew its navy in response to the Huns, all Aetius could do was march back to Gaul and prepare Italy for Barbarian raids. The tax policies in the 440's as recorded in the Novella Valentinanus saved the Army from being completely dismantled, and revitalized the Farming industry in Southern Italy and parts of Gaul.

Aetius did not neglect Spain either, which Hydatius criticized him for, as he sent Armies there several times to stop the expansion of the Suebes. First in 437 or 438, then in 441, 443, and 446. Vitus ultimately failed when the Visigoths broke and fled, but had much success initially. Merobaudes and Astyrius were both successful in controlling and putting down the Bacaudic groups in Spain.