Who Was Ancient Romes Greatest General?

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree. I went with Julius. He may have learned from Marius, but was able to capitalize on it. Which makes him not only a great general, but also politician. Of course there was that problem with the Ides and the Senate.

Yea, if Caesar had been just a tad more humble and had not had that desire to show everyone up with his genius, he probably wouldn't have been assasinated. That's why I consider his nephew Octavian (Augustus) to have been a better Politician then Caeser (though not even remotely in Caesears league as a General). In many ways, Augustus was more influential and certainly had a more far reaching legacy then Caeser.

Caesar once said of the Dictator Sulla that he did not know his political ABC's.

Augustus could have said the same thing about Caeser.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

When you said Fabius Maximus Truncator, I'm going to assume you meant Quintus Fabius Maximus. If so then that is my choice.
He is what Fabian tactics come from and his strategy of being very careful in wearing down Hannibal, attacking supply chains was exactly what was needed given the 2 preceding disasters of Rome trying to engage Hannibal in pitched battles and then Cannae which was even worse.
I've always thought Scipio Africanus got far too much credit for engaging and beating Hannibal whose army was worn down from 15 years of Fabian harassing it. He was wise enough to realize that war can be won from time rather than battle strategy, depending on the circumstances.

Marius was a competent general but does anyone really think that the Teutones and Cimbri (or any of the northern barbarian tribes) were a big challenge? Many of them were defeated throughout Rome's history. Jugurtha was only captured by Sulla's politicking.
Marius deserves huge credit for reforming the army and doing the obvious that was needed for its size to grow by relaxing requirements for joining, which set the way for future armies to be the size needed for more major conquests but does that make him a brilliant general? I don't think so.

This is a good thread though, I miss having the time to do the reading I used to do.

Are you kidding me? The Germanic tribes were a huge threat to the Roman Republic. The battle of Arrusio in which over 100,000 Roman and Roman auxiliaries perished was the worst defeat in the History of Rome (both the Republic and the Empire).

Fabius Maximus Truncator (The Delayer) was certainly a great general and his tactics were succesful to a degree (to this day scorched earth tactics are called Fabian tactics) but he was still unable to defeat Hannibal. It was Scipio Africanus who eventually implemented the strategy that defeated Hannibal and Carthage.

I will say this. If I could expand this thread to include all generals of the ancient world, Hannibal would have been my pick as #1.

As for the Numidian war. Sulla was Marius's legate and under Marius's orders so the credit for the capture of Jagurtha belongs to Marius and not Sulla.

I think you sell short the impact of Marius's reforms. It didn't really make the Legions larger. The combined force of Arrusio that went down to defeat was larger by far then any force that Marius or Caesar ever led. The main impact of Marius's reforms from a strategic stand point and you cannot emphasize enough how critically important this was, is that he profesionalized the legions which made them vastly more efficient then they had been prior to the Marian reforms. I think you underestimate also how difficult it was for Marius to implement his reforms and the bitter and intransigent opposition he faced in order to implement them. Had not Rome faced imminent destruction at the hands of the Germanic hordes then the oligarchy would have resisted Marius's reforms to the bitter end and probably would have won out.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Ahahahaha, it makes you so manly!!!!!

LOL I would say no more so than beer and video games.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Are you kidding me? The Germanic tribes were a huge threat to the Roman Republic.

Well yes but more a constant threat than a huge threat because:
A) The majority of Roman leaders had to deal with the northern tribes at some point over a long period of time
B) The Germanic tribes, though fierce, were essentially barbarians who were not adept at planning strategic takeovers and certainly not sieges

The battle of Arrusio in which over 100,000 Roman and Roman auxiliaries perished was the worst defeat in the History of Rome (both the Republic and the Empire).

Worst in numbers but add context, the battle of Cannae was more of a concern to Rome because Hannibal's goal was the conquest of Rome and he could try and starve Rome's supplies while Germanic tribes were too disorganized.

Fabius Maximus Truncator (The Delayer) was certainly a great general and his tactics were succesful to a degree (to this day scorched earth tactics are called Fabian tactics) but he was still unable to defeat Hannibal. It was Scipio Africanus who eventually implemented the strategy that defeated Hannibal and Carthage.

Would Scipio have defeated Hannibal without Fabius previous strategy? Again he was facing Hannibal's army that was 15 years older and weary from Fabius harassing it for so long.
I think the battle of Zama was not a hard battle at all (why else did Carthage start by negotiating terms in favor of Rome?), a lot of Hannibal's army at that time was Italians pressed into forced service and his veterans were old.

I will say this. If I could expand this thread to include all generals of the ancient world, Hannibal would have been my pick as #1.

Completely agree, he was exceptionally brilliant with his strategies in using his different pieces and the battle site's geography and an incredible leader in battle.

As for the Numidian war. Sulla was Marius's legate and under Marius's orders so the credit for the capture of Jagurtha belongs to Marius and not Sulla.

LOL, come on, Sulla persuaded King Bocchus to hand over and betray Jugurtha. Yes Marius tried to take credit because Sulla was his quaestor but it was Sulla that had the diplomatic tact to pull it off and whose ass was on the line.
In any event, I don't really look on this as something that makes a great general but more a great politician/negotiator.

I think you sell short the impact of Marius's reforms. It didn't really make the Legions larger. The combined force of Arrusio that went down to defeat was larger by far then any force that Marius or Caesar ever led. The main impact of Marius's reforms from a strategic stand point and you cannot emphasize enough how critically important this was, is that he profesionalized the legions which made them vastly more efficient then they had been prior to the Marian reforms. I think you underestimate also how difficult it was for Marius to implement his reforms and the bitter and intransigent opposition he faced in order to implement them. Had not Rome faced imminent destruction at the hands of the Germanic hordes then the oligarchy would have resisted Marius's reforms to the bitter end and probably would have won out.

No, no, I don't sell them short at all, it's just you asked who was Rome's greatest general and so I judge that based on war/defence or the things that usually make up a general NOT reforms and such which are the points of what makes a great political leader - which I admit Marius certainly was.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Bump