Rome\'s most able general?

[Ygraine]

One often reads that Julius Caesar was the most brilliant. I have noted that Alesia is often mentioned, even though he did not invent circumvallation as a strategy. It was truly amazing, and speaks to the discipline of his soldiers and their respect for him as well his own competence.

In your learned opinions, who would Rome's most able general be?

[Jona Lendering]

I'd vote for Caesar as well, although I have a weak spot for Tiberius, who -better than Drusus- knew how to deal with the tribes across the Rhine: leaving them to themselves was the best way to keep them occupied, fighting against each other and leaving Rome in peace. However, the brilliance of Rome was that it had some sort of standardized way to wage war, and that in the end, even a bad general could perform well. Now that is what I really call genius.

PS: Marc Antony is underestimated. He lost at Actium, but his eastern campaigns were more successful than our pro-Augustan sources are willing to admit.

[Decimus Claudius Drusus]

I am going to have to vote Caesar as well, but i also think Antony was as well underestimated, perhaps Agrippa of the era too.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Scipio Africanus.

[Decimus Claudius Drusus]

OH! How could i forget Pompey Magnus. Guy cleaned out the pirates man.

[Paullus Scipio]

.....first you have to define "able".....greatest achievement? Largest conquest? most continually successful? greatest tactical/strategic innovator?beats a strong opponent, not just a mob?....well my vote for one who fits all those would be Scipio Africanus, who not only reformed the army, but beat History's all-time greatest General (Hannibal), beat Antiochus and the Phalanx(considered to be the most fearsome weapon system of the time)....and much more besides. D

[SOCL]

Scipio Africanus, for all the reasons Paul mentioned above. I also have a sweet spot for Fabius Maximus because, though not quite as inventive or exciting as the more popular generals, he was also able to create a war-winning strategy against Hannibal, even if it was unpopular.

[Theodosius the Great]

Although not much of a conqueror, I believe Lucius Cornelius Sulla meets most of Paul's criteria except for military reforms (Marius' achievement) however he did implement lasting political reforms following his triumph in the civil war.

He defeated :

• barbarians (Cimbri, Teutones, & Numidians),
• Hellenistic armies of Mithradates (with their scythed chariots & phalanxes), and
• Romano-Samnite armies alike.

The Battle of Chaeronea in 86 BC was a more impressive Roman victory than Caesar's at Alesia. Both faced comparable odds (3 to 1, or 5 to 1 depending on who you read) but Sulla won on the battlefield against a more advanced force. Caesar won his while hiding behind fortifications against unorganized, unarmored mobs of Gauls. (And Sulla came out of his victory with a more favorable casualty rate.)

I didn't pick Scipio because his strategies seem like carbon copies of Hannibal's. Not much innovation or originality on Scipio's part, IMO.

Sulla !

~Theo

P.S.

Marc Antony is underestimated. He lost at Actium, but his eastern campaigns were more successful than our pro-Augustan sources are willing to admit.

Is there a thread discussing this opinion ? If not a new thread should be launched. I don't see how Antony's Parthian campaigns were successful by any measure. He failed to retrieve the lost eagles of Crassus.

[L C Cinna]

I agree with the posters above but I'd like to mention one of the less famous Roman generals who's record I find quite impressive:

Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus (the guy in my avatar):

Roman emperor from 253 - 268

He was made co-emperor by his father in 253 and while his father took care of the east he was to govern the western half of the empire.

During the early years of his reign there was constant preassure on nearly all boarders and so he had to spend all of his time fighting incursions along the Danube and the Rhine.

We are told that he fought victorious campaigns along the Danube and then had to march to Gallia where he fought the Franks and Alemanni with only few forces (his father had taken many troops to the east for his war against the Sassanids and the constant preassure along the front didn't allow for big contingents to be removed from the other areas).

Still he seems to have beaten several Germanic forces and gained the title Germanicus Maximus 3 times during his early reign.

The death of his oldest son and violent attacks by the Sarmatians caused a rebellion among the Moesian and Pannonian troops. He left Gaul and marched south where he defeated the Usurpator Ingenuus and the Moesian troops (the desperate situation and the lack of troops is shown by the fact that the garrisons on the Rhine had to be reinforced by several vexillations from Britain).

In the meantime 2 groups of Alemanni had broken through the limes and marched into Italy. After his victory against Ingenuus Gallienus left his commander Aureolus in Pannonia to fight another Usurpator who was raised as a result of the defeat of the 1st usurpation and he himself marched back to Italy with only the core of his army (the Praetorians and II Parthica plus some cavalry troops) and defeated the Alemanni at Milan.

As a result of the capture of his father by the Persians another rebellion broke out in the East (the Macriani) and in Gallia (Postumus and the Gallic empire).

Gallienus fought the Sarmatians in Pannonia while his commander Aureolus was sent to Greece to fight the Macriani. The Usurpers lost. Gallienus defeated the Sarmatians and made an alliance with the Marcomanni who from now on defended the Northern boarders of Pannonia.

Now it was time to march against Postumus. We know that he managed to occupy the alpine passes and retake Raetia. The he advanced into Gaul. Postumus refused to meet him in the field and instead wanted to defend himself in a fortified town (name is unknown). Gallienus surrounded the town and offered a duel to Postumus which the usurper refused to accept. During the siege Gallienus was hit by an arrow and the operation was cancelled.

He spent the next few years reorganizing the state he had left (in the east Odaenathus had the high command and advanced on Kthesiphon but had to return to Asia Minor because of a gothic incursion)

Gallienus himself fought the Goths in the Southern Danubian area and won a decicive victory when his general Aureolus rebelled in Mediolanum and joined Postumus. Gallienus returned and started to besiege him. There he was killed by some of his officers.

Sadly we don't have too many details about his reign and nearly all reports are very negative (later senatorial authors hate him because he excluded the senators from the army and stopped the persecution of Christians). Still his military record is quite impressive, winning all his battles even with limited resources and stabilizing the situation along the Danube which let to a (for 3rd century standards) rather stable and quiet situation from 262 onwards.

In military matters he made 2 important changes:

1st he excluded the senators (and took all military posts out of the cursus honorum) in order to professionalize the officer class.

2nd he installed a mobile field army consisting of cavalry and infantry vexilations

[markusaurelius]

My vote goes for Flavius Marcellus Aetius. He beat the greatest threat to the Roman world, Attila the Hun, and took what was left of the Roman army after Adrianople and tried to patch up the crumbling Western Empire. Not only was he a great general, but his ability to raise armies out of thin air was something no one of his period was able to do, especially if they held the "purple".

Unfortunately Valentinian III felt he no longer needed the aging general, and killed him.

Sidonius Apollinaris is credited with this famous observation,

"I am ignorant, sir, of your motives or provocations; I only know that you have acted like a man who has cut off his right hand with his left"

The Western Roman Empire would fall within 25 years.

[Sean Manning]

One tricky thing is that we tend to judge “greatnessâ€

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

I might opt for Belisarius. Impressive conquests with so few men (if you believe Procopius, of course).

I'm also partial to Caesar and Scipio Africanus, men I consider to be similar in many ways.

So for me, maybe a three way tie!

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Markus,

My vote goes for Flavius Marcellus Aetius. He beat the greatest threat to the Roman world, Attila the Hun, and took what was left of the Roman army after Adrianople and tried to patch up the crumbling Western Empire.

This is how legends are born! Flavius Aetius rebuilding the Roman army after Adrianople in 378, and still defeating Atilla in 453! Truly the best Roman general ever!

Markus, you confuse three men: Theodosius I who rebuilt the Eastern Army after Adrianople, Stilicho who took over after Theodosius' death in 394, and Aetius who gained power in the west after 425.
:wink:

But joking aside, of course Aetius was a great man. But was Atilla truly such an immense threat? At the time, surely, but I can't help thinking that if Atilla had lived a hundred years earlier, the Huns would not have been such a big problem, as they evidently were for the crumbling West Roman army by the mid-5th c.

Sean Manning\\n[quote]One tricky thing is that we tend to judge “greatnessâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

.....good post, Robert

...but did you forget to nominate your candidate for 'most able general'? ...or is it that none sticks out above the others to your mind?

BTW, I agree with you that Attila as huge threat to Rome is decidedly over-rated, especially compared to some of the earlier threats that Rome had survived, but doubtless he seemed a huge bogeyman to contemporaries......I also have some severe reservations about the vast numbers of participants oft-quoted for the confrontation at Chalons between Attila, and Aetius and the Goths.......

[Robert Vermaat]

.....good post, Robert

Yeah yeah, gimme a laudes! :lol:

...but did you forget to nominate your candidate for 'most able general'? ...or is it that none sticks out above the others to your mind?

I find it a very difficult question. Of course I have favourites, but then I know very little about other periods outside my period.