Roman generals in general lacking

[rv]

The Roman war machine I think was not an intelligent one. Perhaps Scipio was the only one.( beat Hannibal) So many Roman legions were trapped..Hannibal, Persia, Gaul,Germany and other places. Even Caesar fell into traps. Also,it seems that most Roman battles they were outnumbered..with the possible exception of Hannibal. Hannibal made fools of them countless times though..so he proof of my theory. Hannibal knew something though that most history scholars neglect: Roman infantry should not be challenged. Trapped or outflanked only. He put Celt,German,Spaniards,Italic and other tribes to challenge their infantry while his African troops(famed Numidian cavalry too) in reserve to surprise. He knew Roman infantry would destroy others..which they did...but tiring them just enough for his Africans. Only Scipio much later could figure this out while bribing Numidians not to protect Hannibal.
My conclusion is this: Roman might has allot to do with the individual strength,stamina of their soldier. Training you say too....ALL peoples of that era were trained extensively in the art of fighting. All. Romans did not have a monopoly. Roman soldiers could beat others while outnumbered and even trapped to a degree. (Like Caesar usually did) Romans did`t fear much..maybe Huns(their archery on horseback) but Celts,Germans,Britons,Spaniards,Thracian,Persians...but did fear and respect the Numbians! Numbians were physically stronger and were sought after to be in Roman army. (like the famous Lord Byron..carrier of Christs spear). My theory can be played out in Nina the USA. In the north east us we have all ethnic groups.All. High school boys here have known that among the Caucasians the Italian boys were not messed with...but African Americans are the strongest. Some shorter ital boys were even feared by Africans. So I feel that Roman soldiers are Romanticized too much as elite in all aspects. I say they were only stronger. In fact they didn`t have the best metal or weaponry in many areas. Celt metal making, Persian archery, eastern European horses(had stirrups,Romans lacked) and much more. The generals were mainly politicians and nobles. Celts/German leaders earned their roles. Hence....lack of proper military tactics.

(moved to History & Archaeology JO)

[rusty myers]

Conclusions which of course, BEG to ask the Question:

If the Romans were so bad... why did they win so much?

DISCIPLINE. Strict DISCIPLINE.

"They outnumber us 10 to 1. Just stay in line. They will break on our shield wall."

The best archers, cavalry, slingers, metalwork, etc etc etc matter not if your army turns into a rabble on contact, which most DID. It was the discipline of the Legions that created an Empire. When it came to disciopline, they were ELITE.

Perhaps this should be on the allies and enemies board?

[FlaviusCrispus]

The Roman war machine I think was not an intelligent one. Perhaps Scipio was the only one.( beat Hannibal)

Well, that's quite a statement. Certainly the Roman Army could be stupidly led, or its generals could be tricked into making tactical mistakes. But the historical evidence seems to indicate the Roman military system WAS intelligent, at least enough so to conquer most of the Western world and hold onto it for 500+ years.

My conclusion is this: Roman might has allot to do with the individual strength,stamina of their soldier. Training you say too....ALL peoples of that era were trained extensively in the art of fighting. All. Romans did not have a monopoly. Roman soldiers could beat others while outnumbered and even trapped to a degree.

So... if everyone was equally trained, doesn't this indicate that the Roman system of training, organization and deployment was intelligent? Doesn't this contradict your opening premise?

Also, by all accounts, the average Roman soldier was a lot LESS physically imposing than the average Celtic or German warrior. It wasn't through sheer strength and stamina alone that he could defeat enemies half again his size.

There were plenty of contenders for mastery of the ancient world-- Macedonians, Celts, Carthaginians among them. The Romans beat them all and kept what they conquered for half a millennium (and another 800-odd years in the east). I doubt if a stupid culture or military system could accomplish that.

Romans did`t fear much..maybe Huns(their archery on horseback) but Celts,Germans,Britons,Spaniards,Thracian,Persians...but did fear and respect the Numbians! Numbians were physically stronger and were sought after to be in Roman army. (like the famous Lord Byron..carrier of Christs spear). My theory can be played out in Nina the USA. In the north east us we have all ethnic groups.All. High school boys here have known that among the Caucasians the Italian boys were not messed with...but African Americans are the strongest. Some shorter ital boys were even feared by Africans.

Hmmm. And the "Numbians" are...? Do you mean "Numidians"? Anyway, most of the rest of this, which races are afraid of others etc., isn't really relevent to the ancient world (or today's, IMHO), which had a completely different ethnic mix than you see in modern Europe.

So I feel that Roman soldiers are Romanticized too much as elite in all aspects. I say they were only stronger. In fact they didn`t have the best metal or weaponry in many areas. Celt metal making, Persian archery, eastern European horses(had stirrups,Romans lacked) and much more. The generals were mainly politicians and nobles. Celts/German leaders earned their roles. Hence....lack of proper military tactics.

Not sure what to make of this last bit. Yes, the Celts were better metalsmiths-- so the Romans conquered them and employed the Celts to make their armor! Other cultures had better horsemen, so the Romans incorporated them into their auxiliary units. All this takes planning, organization, logistics-- INTELLIGENCE.

[Carlton Bach]

I think the issue is distinguishing between intelligence and brilliance. Military historians are in love with brilliance as a rule. Hannibal, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel are their darlings (Quiz time: What do all of them have in common? They were eventually defeated by a plodding but consistent enemy).

The Roman army is short of brilliant leaders. Not as short as all that - when you look hard enough - but they lack their Hannibal, their Alexander, their Lysander. Caesar's legend shines so brightly because he is such an exception (we think - above all, he got to tell his own story). When we think of Roman commanders, we think of people like Vespasian, taking years to methodically subdue an insurrection, or Marius, patiently outmaneuvering the enemy. It isn't grand like the vast Alexandrian sweeps across the map, it isn't imaginative and it usually doesn't appeal to the average 18-year-old male very much. All of that tends to make us forget how much work, forethought, planning and training goes into this tick-tock model of warfare. The Roman army was not a good instrument for inspired warlordism, and the political scene of both the Republic and the Empire were designed to keep down overambitious commanders (think about it - in about a century when this was not the case, Rome had Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Anthony and Agrippa. Not bad for stupid.) The complex interlinking machine of the legions, auxiliaries, fleet, commissariat and allies is not as mobile as the mercenary armies of Hannibal or the companions of Alexander, but it requires intelligence and skill to use.

I think it is best summed up in the words of Marius, the most brilliant of plodders. Entrenched in a fortifoied position he was taunted by the enemy: "Marius, if you claim to be such a great general, come out and fight!". His reply: "If you are, make me."

[FlaviusCrispus]

I think the issue is distinguishing between intelligence and brilliance. Military historians are in love with brilliance as a rule. Hannibal, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel are their darlings (Quiz time: What do all of them have in common? They were eventually defeated by a plodding but consistent enemy).

If you don't mind my saying so, that's a brilliant point.

You might add Alexander to the list, who was fortunate enough to die young, before all his brilliant conquests could unravel.

[Robert Vermaat]

You might add Alexander to the list, who was fortunate enough to die young, before all his brilliant conquests could unravel.

I'm not so sure about that. Alexander was brilliant enough to keep his conquests together (or he chose his entourage well enough). Look at how his descendants kept most of his conquests for generations, despite beating the crap out of each other.
I think if Alexander would have been that little less lucky- none of these conquests would have taken place, he might well have died before he had the cjance to beat the persian.
I magine that - no Hllenistic culture spread as easily across the ancient world, and possible a Achaemenid Persian Empire ruling for some generations longer..

[john m roberts]

Great generals have been a decided rarity in any army at any point in history. For every Hannibal or Genghis Khan there have been hundreds of Zhukovs, Shermans, Wolfes, etc: competent craftsmen who know how to operate the machine. A truly bad general can of course be disastrous. In most eras, these are commonly political appointees or commanders by right of birth, not men who soldiered their way up the ranks from subaltern if not corporal. In the end, a successful army is going to depend on disciplined soldiers, competent sergeants and skilled commanders of companies, regiments and divisions. A brilliant general is just icing on the cake, since he won't accomplish anything without a well-manned army.

[Caballo]

"In fact they didn`t have the best metal or weaponry in many areas."
But what they did do was to take a good idea (eg gladius hispaninesis) , develop it, and industrialise its production at the fabricae so that economies of scale could kick in, and so be consistently better equippped (man for man) that the bulk of its enemies.
This can be added to better logistics- better roads, communications- plus discipline and training of a body of men rather than of individuals- plus an experienced backbone of junior officers (Centurions, Optios) - plus unit identity and pride- and you end up with a formidable foe. Add in a good general or two, and you have a consistent advantage over the average barbarian!

[Theodosius the Great]

Rome had Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Anthony and Agrippa

Why is Anthony (Antonius) included in the list ? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lucullus was far better.

BTW, a good book to get on this very subject is "In The Name of Rome : The Men Who Won the Roman Empire" by Adrian Goldsworthy

[url:13cupbbr]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0753817896/qid=1125297079/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2831235-6896766?v=glance&s=books[/url]