Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Captain Martyr Mahmud

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Captain Martyr Mahmud

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    My gaff
  1. Captain Martyr Mahmud

    Most overrated general in all of antiquity?

    I assume you wote this to be more provocative than anything else. I recommend your reading Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart's "Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon." Although dated (written in 1926, a few years after the horrors and slaughter of World War I), the author makes the point that although the sources are limited, Scipio was not only a great general but also a diplomat and a humane visionary. Famous generals such as Alexander and Napoleon were essentially self-serving dictators who did not have to deal with a bickering Roman Republican Senate while they we away in battle. I read this book years ago and I would recommend this book highly. One reviewer for the book put it this way: Another reviewer of the book wrote: I have no expertise in military matters, so I will defer to military experts on this forum. War, however, has costs far greater than casualties on the field. Scipio, at least, strove to maintain stability in the Roman Republic instead of just trying to achieve personal glory and riches at the cost of the Roman Republic. guy also known as gaius Very well, but Scipio remains one of the most overrated generals of all time.
  2. Captain Martyr Mahmud

    Most overrated general in all of antiquity?

    Nobody wants to reply, huh?
  3. Hello, I'm new to this forum and thought I would start with a (not-so) controversial thread. I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic. I mean, what exactly did he ever do? As far as I can see, all he did was win a few easy victories in Spain and Africa over third-rate generals and armies. Here's a brief analysis of his career: New Carthage- A brazen and reckless assault that succeeded primarily due to luck rather than brilliance. Baecula- A complete failure by all accounts that could have cost Rome the war. Ilipa- A stalemate that achieved no material results. Utica- A cowardly and treacherous sneak attack. Great Plains- The Punic army here consisted primarily of levies, who were no match for Scipio's veteran legionnaires. Zama- Despite every possible advantage, Scipio nearly lost the battle. When Massinissa's horse returned to the field, Scipio's troops were in the process of being crushed by Hannibal's far inferior, but much better led, levies. And yet, Scipio is undeservedly regarded as one of Rome's greatest generals even though he contributed little to Rome's victory in the Second Punic War. Other, better men like Marcellus, Nero and Fabius deserve far more credit. Scipio was in reality little more than a competent general who was built up by the Scipionic propaganda machine which tried to downplay the achievements of the aforementioned commanders. So, to conclude, the formula for Scipio's success was as follows: Veteran, highly trained legions + A general of average ability + Weak opponents = A successful, but unremarkable commander