04-07-2008, 12:11 AM
Robert wrote:-
Quote:The odds were so much different for several periods - did Roman generals who could wield those mighty legions of Hadrian's day, actually have it easier than those generals who fought from the small city in the early days, or those with mercenary armies in the latter days of the West?...of course, that is entirely correct - each General faced different and unique circumstances......one might have a good army, another have only recruits, one might face a tough or numerous foe, another a small band of armed raiders little more than an armed mob, one might have had freedom of action, another acting under stern control from the Senate or Emperor..........the obstacles and challenges faced by each must have been unique, but we are here considering the ability of each Roman General to deal with their unique circumstances, are we not? So, whose ability in dealing with their separate and unique problems stands out ?....
And, does that make them lesser generals?
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff