['Unknown' Generals]

Well, a lot of early Rome generals are overlooked when we talk about generals like Caesar but we forget the early generals who helped take Italy for Rome.

For example there's Marcus Valerius Corvus who had quite an impressive military career.

He defeated a giant Gaul army in 349 BC as a tribune

He became consul again in 346 BC, defeats Volsci

He became consul again in 343 BC, defeats Samnites

342 BC dictator

335 BC, consul, defeats Cales

301 BC dictator again

300 BC , consul, defeats Aequi, introduces law of appeal

299 BC, suffect consul, defeats Etruscans

And he lived to be 100 (370 BC- 270 BC)

[Your Hidden Roman Name]

Thanks, but the son of my second friend most of got his evilness from his mother. He's the most cheerful guy you could ever know.

[Your Hidden Roman Name]

hey I got a couple of friends who want to find out their roman name the first one is

 

 

 

eekihttsaclontln

male

 

 

the second is

tvajliusn

male (he doesn't have a middle name, does it matter?)

[Reliance on individual generals in the Western Roman Empire?]

The attack of Germanic tribes at Kalkriese took place over miles of dense temperate rainforest and was a co-ordinated attack, which indicates central planning and communication. Also, the plan was not simply to whittle the Romans down, but a successful attempt to lure the legions into a prepared killing ground. The attacks further back along the column were intended to disrupt the Roman column and prevent any retreat. The fact these tribesmen had co-operated at all suggests also that Arminius was a considerable leader. Certainly his demise took place because of the differences between tribes (though one can speculate about Roman intrigue).

 

The weather did turn bad, but this was less of an physical factor, since the storm was deeply significant to superstitious Roman soldiers so it was their morale that was harmed. The legions of the time were no less disciplined that at any other - indeed, Arminius's plan hinged on the Romans behaving as expected.

 

What civilians are you discussing? The legions were on campaign to stop what they'd been told was a revolt. They were marching to battle in other words.

I was on vacation for a couple days sorry it took so long to reply. Anyways, the stuff I've read on the campaign there were civilians with the legions in the promise of slaves to sell and loot to take, but that's what I read anyway.

[Reliance on individual generals in the Western Roman Empire?]

You know what? I agree completely. However, the ability of the opposing troops and leaders must be considered.

 

Well, remember that in Teutoburg Forest, the Germans didn't need real, good leadership to kick the crap out of the Romans. They could just come in small or large parties and attack the Romans when they wanted. Of course it was a combination of the weather and lack of discipline inside the legions. Yet the lack of discipline could be fixed by kicking the civilians out of the mix and let the legions stay together, more of the legionnaires might have been saved then.

[Where Is Every One From?]

I'm from Canada

 

 

 

 

AND NO I DON'T LIVE IN AN IGLOO!!!!!

 

That question gets very annoying.

[Your Hidden Roman Name]

nselanbthchiteemwan

 

male

[what part of the army would you be in?]

Probaly centurion or triarii, i would like to command some men, and thew trarii were elite troops and the battle was often won befoer they needed to fight.

Yeah, I'd like to command troops but I think I'd choose Principes because If the Hastati do their job good enough I wouldn't have to do too much.

[Reliance on individual generals in the Western Roman Empire?]

Well, it"s not fair to say the Western Roman Empire relied on individual generals. For example, the Gallic tribes, when Caesar attacked, relied on Vercingtorix to protect them but when he failed they got conquered. But, like I have said before in one of the other forums i spoke on, if they had good leaders then the army did good, if under bad leadership they did horrible. I can also see why they needed to rely on good individual generals because since they started hiring mercenaries, the discipline and troop quality went down so you had to rely on good leadership to make good decisions with not the best troops in the Roman armies' existence. It's like grabbing an ordinary person, putting them on a bull with about 10 minutes to prepare. If the person teaching is good, the person will have a better chance than if the teacher is bad.

[Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar or Constantine the great]

If anything I'd serve Scipio Africanus in beating Hannibal

Agreed, not only due to their threat to Roman homeland, but the stories of child sacrifice in Carthage are supremely outrageous if true (?)

 

It was certainly a practice that originate in the Phoenician cities. thought I doubt it's was motive to the Roman war against Carthago and as far as I know they never try to ban the practice.

Yeah, there have been many wars over a simple thing like ones religion but I agree that I don't think child sacrifice was the motive for the wars against Carthage, and remember the Roman religion wasn't so pretty itself.

[Greatest Roman Generals?]

Now I realize I might not ever be able to win any debate against any of you but I believe the two reasons for Rome's success were it's great organization skills and capable military leaders that stepped up every so often. It was proven through the Roman's biggest defeats that if they had a capable leader they might of been able to win those battles. In the battle of Cannae if C. Terentius Varro didn't lead the Roman forces down the from higher ground where they had the advantage he led them down to the plains where it forced L. Aemilius Paullus to fight Hannibal on his terrain, the flat surface, the Romans might of had a chance, maybe. There the Romans got crushed and if it weren't for Scipio Africanus who led the force which crushed Carthage, Rome might have been crushed herself. In the battle of Carrhae Marcus Crassus was a complete fool motivated by glory and which in the end he died. Now, no general really showed up to save him, yet his two highest surviving officers showed great bravery in the Roman retreat. And finally one of the other great roman defeats was at Teutoburg Forest, where Publius Quinctilius Varus made a lot of mistakes. Of course, the Roman Army came back under better command and punished the germans.

 

These three Roman defeats show how even the best armies can lose horribly if put under bad command and how if it weren't for good, capable generals who came along and helped defend Rome, we might not even be discussing anything much about Romans.

 

Now the greatest general i could never tell, but Marcus Trajanus is up there with Julius Caeser.

[Bush and historians]

Bush was a complete idiot, I wish one of those shoes actually hit him. I can't believe any human could talk about a war and smile and laugh about it. And when his plans didn't work he didn't point out that they were bad ideas he said he stood behind them 100%. I can't believe you Americans actually voted that man into the White House. Still, I'm gonna miss the stupid things he said. (By the way I'm not American I'm Canadian.)

[Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar or Constantine the great]

If anything I'd serve Scipio Africanus in beating Hannibal and earning a place in history as one of many great roman armies, but if under different circumstances I would want to be under the command of the great Gaius Julius Caesar, but since his option is civil war, not him. I never really did like Constantine the great. I can understand why he changed the capital of the Roman Empire but, like I said before, I never did like him.

[What battle would you be in?]

I think I'd like to be the Romans at the Battle of Veii in 396 B.C. under the command of Marcus Furius Camillus, or any battle when he was in command really. He was a good commander.