senatus populusque romae

Punic wars...clearly it's understandable what era is that:-)

Not quite true.Hannibal was weakened,but not quite weak: he had infantry advantage at Zama,least to say 80 war elephants,nevertheless Scipio's true genius exposed itself at battle of Ilipa. One must admit Caesar's military brilliance,but I'm just pointing out that Scipio was not far behind at all as commander,plus if you consider historical circumstances, his mission had much more importance and much dire consequences in case of failure.

Comparison not in place.Caesar had proffesional army, soldiers which sole bussines was war: he could have taken them anywhere,they would follow their leader,as for him,as for the good loot he would provide them with.Also when you compare Scipio's and Caesar's troops,you would find them evenly matched: Scipio may have had more soldiers,but Caesar's where of higher quality (best troops rome ever had posibly).

Hooraay, we have another 2nd punic war fan. Very much so! Consider it to be greatest portion of the history of the greatest ancient civilization. PS Is there a thread on this forum regarding the peoples dearest part of Roman history,if not it would be a good idea to star one.

Very much agree with your point P.Clodius,I just like to point out that position Scipio's Rome was in was much more dificult than that of Caesar's,so in that context one must admit that person of Scipio's profile was much rarer in Rome 3nd century BC, than of Caesar's 1st century BC.(Don't forget that Caesar's contemporates were Sulla, Marius, Pompey-all great generals as J.C.).All I'm saying is: after Punic wars, changes that enveloped Rome, made her fertile for emerging of great generals throughout Rome's later history,and all the way to her end,whilst before and during Punic wars, because of many reasons,such as rigid warfare,non proffesional army, command system that didn't allow molding of a single great general because army commanders shifted each year or military campaign,etc. emerging of Scipio (or Nero, or Marcellus for that matter) was all the more astounding to me. PS. I consider Scipio to be exact caliber of Caesar

Yes,and no.Yes, for Carthage did deprive Hannibal of lot he needed, only proving that greater plan eluded them,allowing themselves to be petty and jealous of Hannibals great acomplishments. No, for Zama was Hannibal's 1st and last defeat to Romans (actually not 1st, but former were small ang strategically unimportant),and allthough Scipio didn't outgeneralled him in that batlle (he simply well responded to each Hannibal's move),it was Scipio's course of actions he took (decision to attack Africa),that ultimatly lead to Zama,and Hannibal's final defeat. As for Carthage screwing Hannibal up,that proved to be their undoing,and to take Rome victory less magnificent for that is, least to say, disrespect to the Rome's shiniest historical hour!

II Punic war generals: Marcus Claudius Marcellus, and Gaius Claudius Nero.

I would also considered Antonine dynasty,which indeed gave truly great emperors (nevermind adoption policy, that is doubts that it could be called dynasty at all),after Antonines Roman empire started it's final downfall, and before them there were many ups and downs.

Hello,everobody newbie here! My vote most definetly goes to P. Cornelius Scipio: maybe it's too much to say that he saved Rome (he most certinly did,but not all on his own),but he can be considered as Roman prototype of warleader-strategist.Roman generals before him (and before II Punic war) haven't had the need of using clever strategies because they were relying on sole fact that Roman warfair style was enough to win battles (manipular system along with Roman training and discipline).Only facing the gratest general ever oposed to them,Romans realized importance of good generalship,and Scipio was first of Romans to do so: at battle of Ilipa he showed tactical genius of Hannibal's match,and after gaining his first command office (Spanish campaign),he practicaly had complete success (no battle lost), with pinacle at Zama.Maybe Caesar was more complete,but importance of Scipio was far greater: Rome desperately needed great general to beat Hannibal, and save City from anihilation, where in Caesar's case, he only determined the course of later Roman history(Rome surely would have existed even Caesar never had appeared, only that world history would differ in such case from ours with Caesar in it).Needless to say that after Punic wars,Rome's social and economic state deeply changed, creating favorable conditions for emerging of glory-hungered generals, whose primary trade was warfare (Sulla, Marius, Pompey, and offcourse Caesar), which ultimatly lead to end of Res Publica.Pre-Punic conditions were simply much different (no professional generals!),which only emphasizes the greatnes of Scipio's military genius,which saved Rome.