Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ten great generals
#46
I think you can find faults in both of their legacies. I just feel after reading the book mentioned above (not sure if you've read it or not) but the approaches to Stilicho seemed less self serving than some of Aetius's moves to save his own hide. Stilicho had to deal with Alaric multiple times constantly defeating him, getting the last triumph in Rome for it.

Constantine III selfish rebellion didnt help the cause of Gaul and the invading barbarians.

I find this period fascinating and both frustrating as you see all these different individuals try and power grab, killing each other off and hastening their own demise in the process. Further to that the locals decided to murder all the families of the foederati, resulting in a full revolt by Alaric and the sake of Rome after Stilicho was killed.

I'm going to get "Defending Rome: The Masters of the Soldiers By Julian Reynolds", in the ebook version to save some $. It covers both guys and ricimer. It should be and educational read.
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
#47
Choosing Philip and not Alexander seems an interesting choice; Philip was a fine general and statesman, but I think Alexander is in a league of his own.

Also, I feel that Alcibiades and Lysander always seem to be passed over. Both were brilliant leaders, and they deserve recognition.
Reply
#48
Quote: Stilicho's policies were very detrimental to the empire though, while Aetius' benefited the Empire more than they hurt it. Furthermore

You know, this could be seen in a totally different light. Not saying this is the absolute truth, but different perspectives are always helpful; and I am going to present a radically different one:

Aetius had established a military dictatorship in which he pulled the strings of the marionette Valentinian III. Outmatched and powerless, the civil elites tried to gain support, but Aetius had cut down all opposition - literary so. Therefore they turned to a more powerful ally, offering him the hand of Valentinian’s sister Honoria: Attila the Hun. The fight between Aetius and Attila was not that of a barbarian vs a Roman, one trying to destroy the Empire, the other trying to save it. It was a struggle for the domination of the western Court. Aetius simply knew Attila had a military force to match his, and an heir to Honoria would produce a candidate to the throne being the puppet of Attila, not his.

When the fight for the western Imperial Court ended with Attila’s death, Aetius was the undisputed master of the west, and married his son to the Emperor’s daughter. I may quote H. Börm now:

It is somewhat surprising how brightly the so-called “Last Roman” Aetius is portrayed in ancient sources and sometimes even in modern literature. Basically however he differed from power hungry military commanders like Genseric merely by placing his headquarters at the Imperial Court of Ravenna, therefore dominating the central administration and the emperor. It is probably for this reason people tend to confuse his interests with that of the Western Roman Empire, but those coincided only partially.
Valentinian III, meanwhile about 35 years old, certainly had a more realistic judgement about what his supreme commander was doing, knowing that he was just exploited being a figurehead for Aetius, lending the appeal of legitimacy to this regime. After all, he had watched Aetius at work all the years
. (Westrom von Honorius bis Justinian, 2013, p.90; my rough translation)

Valentinian murdering Aetius demonstrates how isolated the Emperor had been, as he had to do it alone with a single friend, in Rome (not at the Court in Ravenna), and was faced at once with desertions. Of course, he did not survive it for long. It is however telling that Valentinian III enjoyed a good reputation among the Roman people even up to the 6th century.

The political legacy of Aetius is thus not the saving of the Empire, it is the undermining of Western emperorship. The Emperor was left utterly impotent, and when powerful men longed for influence they now went for the domination of the military offices or barbarian kingship, or a combination thereof: Ricimer, Gundabad, Aegidius, Orestes, Odoaker, Theoderic, Syagrius, Clovis. At max they needed a Western Emperor to work as their puppet: Romulus for Orestes, Glycerius for Gundabad, Olybrius for Ricimer etc.
Even when the Emperor of the East tried to revert this development, he failed (thanks to Genseric, btw.)

That is the real legacy of Aetius.
------------
[Image: regnumhesperium.png]
Reply
#49
Quote:
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=343669 Wrote:Stilicho's policies were very detrimental to the empire though, while Aetius' benefited the Empire more than they hurt it. Furthermore

You know, this could be seen in a totally different light. Not saying this is the absolute truth, but different perspectives are always helpful; and I am going to present a radically different one:

Aetius had established a military dictatorship in which he pulled the strings of the marionette Valentinian III. Outmatched and powerless, the civil elites tried to gain support, but Aetius had cut down all opposition - literary so. Therefore they turned to a more powerful ally, offering him the hand of Valentinian’s sister Honoria: Attila the Hun. The fight between Aetius and Attila was not that of a barbarian vs a Roman, one trying to destroy the Empire, the other trying to save it. It was a struggle for the domination of the western Court. Aetius simply knew Attila had a military force to match his, and an heir to Honoria would produce a candidate to the throne being the puppet of Attila, not his.

When the fight for the western Imperial Court ended with Attila’s death, Aetius was the undisputed master of the west, and married his son to the Emperor’s daughter. I may quote H. Börm now:

It is somewhat surprising how brightly the so-called “Last Roman” Aetius is portrayed in ancient sources and sometimes even in modern literature. Basically however he differed from power hungry military commanders like Genseric merely by placing his headquarters at the Imperial Court of Ravenna, therefore dominating the central administration and the emperor. It is probably for this reason people tend to confuse his interests with that of the Western Roman Empire, but those coincided only partially.
Valentinian III, meanwhile about 35 years old, certainly had a more realistic judgement about what his supreme commander was doing, knowing that he was just exploited being a figurehead for Aetius, lending the appeal of legitimacy to this regime. After all, he had watched Aetius at work all the years
. (Westrom von Honorius bis Justinian, 2013, p.90; my rough translation)

Valentinian murdering Aetius demonstrates how isolated the Emperor had been, as he had to do it alone with a single friend, in Rome (not at the Court in Ravenna), and was faced at once with desertions. Of course, he did not survive it for long. It is however telling that Valentinian III enjoyed a good reputation among the Roman people even up to the 6th century.

The political legacy of Aetius is thus not the saving of the Empire, it is the undermining of Western emperorship. The Emperor was left utterly impotent, and when powerful men longed for influence they now went for the domination of the military offices or barbarian kingship, or a combination thereof: Ricimer, Gundabad, Aegidius, Orestes, Odoaker, Theoderic, Syagrius, Clovis. At max they needed a Western Emperor to work as their puppet: Romulus for Orestes, Glycerius for Gundabad, Olybrius for Ricimer etc.
Even when the Emperor of the East tried to revert this development, he failed (thanks to Genseric, btw.)

That is the real legacy of Aetius.

I see your point, but I'd argue that Aetius' moreso had the interests of the isolated Gallic landowning class in mind. The military focus in Gaul was obviously a portrayal of his intent to protect the estates of not only himself, but those of the Gallic court at Arles where Aetius spent most of his time. Eventually in the 440's the Gallic Aristocrats began replacing the Italic aristocrats, and that's when Aetius truly gained control of the imperial court, as the Gallic aristocracy had been left out of Imperial affairs for decades or even centuries, and Gaul was fragmenting between the North and southern parts.

Attila was only an "Honorary" Magister Militum - it was a title given to him by treaty some time after Rua's death in 439. He had no actual authority, but he certainly could have been interpreted as having authority by Honoria. The Battle of Chalons came about over dispute at the Frankish court, and the fact that the emperor Marcian had cut off tribute to Attila.

Attila missed his opportunity for a Hunnic Empire in the 430's when the East was fighting the Sassanids and he could have taken constantinople.

The sources of the era record that Petronius Maximus was the one who instigated the Revolt against Aetius because he wanted Aetius' power, and the Gallic control of the Italic court was hurting the Italic aristocracy. There were more than one supporter against Aetius for this reason.
Reply
#50
Jona,

From the barbarian camp, I would elect Fritigern to the list. Also, there is a bit of info for a short biography; and it appears he was at one time a Roman officer. Also, a very high-minded individual. Confusedmile:

I'd elect Tomyris also, but she was recorded for a singular battle and left no details for a bio. :dizzy:
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#51
This is a great topic. One name I haven't yet seen, apologies if I've missed it, is Epaminondas, the greatest Theban.
Life of Epaminondas

"For it seems to me that he surpassed his contemporaries...in skill and experience in the art of war. For among the generation of Epaminondas were famous men: Pelopidas the Theban, Timotheus and Conon, also Chabrias and Iphicrates...Agesilaus the Spartan, who belonged to a slightly older generation. Still earlier than these, in the times of the Medes and Persians, there were Solon, Themistocles, Miltiades, and Cimon, Myronides, and Pericles and certain others in Athens, and in Sicily Gelon, son of Deinomenes, and still others. All the same, if you should compare the qualities of these with the generalship and reputation of Epaminondas, you would find the qualities possessed by Epaminondas far superior"
-- Diodorus, XV, 88
Reply
#52
Well, I'll just stick with Fritigern, the former Roman officer and good Goth who was absolutely justified in his rebellion, and who outfoxed both Valens and Theodosius. Cool
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#53
How could Mark Antony be a suggestion for this list? Name one campaign that he led, post Caesar, that was successful. His Parthian campaign was a disaster, as was his campaign against Augustus...

What about the Spartan General Brassidus, who was sent to organize the defense of Syracuse againt the Athenians?
M.VAL.BRUTUS
Brandon Barnes
Legio VI Vicrix
www.legionsix.org
Reply
#54
YOU MUST INCLUDE ALEXANDER.
-Alexander
Alexander
Reply
#55
Quote:How could Mark Antony be a suggestion for this list? Name one campaign that he led, post Caesar, that was successful. His Parthian campaign was a disaster, as was his campaign against Augustus...

Without being a supporter of Mark Antony (nice guy, seems to generally have been able and good intentioned but not really great) I would have to remind you of the Philippi, in which Octavianus was at his low....
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#56
I have written a short biography of Fritigern (More about where this is located will be revealed at the proper time). He did not serve in the Roman army. He made an appeal to Valens for assistance in his civil war against Athanaricus, Iudex of the Tervingi Goths sometime before AD376 . Valens sent the army of Thrace to support Fritigern and as a result Fritigern was successful, splitting the Tervingi into two groups, those who followed Athanaricus and a second who initially appeared to have followed another chieftain called Alavivus, who Fritigern followed into Thrace before becoming the sole chieftain of the Tervingi south of the Danube (Athanaricus remained north of the Danube until the death of Valens). Fritigern converted to Arian Christianity as did many of the Goths in his group due to the support Valens had supplied.
I am not convinced Fritigern was as duplicitious as Ammianus claimed. Fritigern did exactly as he was instructed by Valens and he moved to the Goth's new homeland in Thrace. It was the treatment Alavivus and Frigern received at the hands of Lupicinus at the banquet he held for those two leaders at Marcianopolis that was the final straw for the Goths and their rebellion went into full swing at that point. Fritigern moved to Adrianople and did not move from the vicinity of that city for two years, only after Valens had been killed at Adrianople did Fritigern then lead his Goths to attempt to take Constantiople.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#57
Quote:How could Mark Antony be a suggestion for this list? Name one campaign that he led, post Caesar, that was successful. His Parthian campaign was a disaster, as was his campaign against Augustus...

What about the Spartan General Brassidus, who was sent to organize the defense of Syracuse againt the Athenians?

Lysander as well, he's the bane of Alcibiades (whom I consider to be in the top ten). I don't know if the defense of Syracuse was as much military genius on the part of Sparta-Syracuse but more of a horrible blunder by the Athenians. Either way, Brassidus is still a good and interesting choice.

I too believe that Mark Antony has absolutely no place on this list, he was merely a lieutenant general to the great Julius Caesar.
"The strong did what they could, the weak suffered what they must."

- Thucydides

Sean Cantrell
Northern Michigan
Reply
#58
Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo
(Mika S.)

"Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris? Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior." - Catullus -

"Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."

"Audendo magnus tegitur timor." -Lucanus-
Reply


Forum Jump: