Worst General Or Politician In Roman History

[tribunician power]

The worst generals in Roman history were not men like Varus and Crassus who lost men or territory or legions enacting roman policy, the worst I believe, are those who expended any energy at all while fighting for power (particularly those who failed) against men steadfast in preserving the republic against tyrants such as Gaius Julius Caesar or Sulla. A good general ensures his side has the backing of the people (this is required to maintain your victory) before putting men in harms way. The freedom alotted to a general by Roman policy has always been loose and the republic has always rested in the moral scruples of the generals with the largest legions (particularly those stationed on or near the Rhine). Not to say that Pompeii was just in his reasons for fighting Julius Caesar nor were most generals when they attempted to put down coups, but men like Cicero and those in the senate provided the cause and Pompeii and other generals provided the sword. Cicero and those like him were the greatest politicians and through manipulations of the armies and their leaders the greatest generals

[Primus Pilus]

Cicero and those like him were the greatest politicians and through manipulations of the armies and their leaders the greatest generals

 

Even attempting to name Cicero a greatest general completely destroys any sense of credibility, despite the political motivations.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Cicero and those like him were the greatest politicians and through manipulations of the armies and their leaders the greatest generals

 

Even attempting to name Cicero a greatest general completely destroys any sense of credibility, despite the political motivations.

 

 

Heh heh. But Primus, he suppressed the Cataline conspiracy in his armor and saved the Republic!

[tribunician power]

Cicero and those like him were the greatest politicians and through manipulations of the armies and their leaders the greatest generals

 

Even attempting to name Cicero a greatest general completely destroys any sense of credibility, despite the political motivations.

Obviosly the many years that Cicero spent as the most powerful and efficient man in Rome escape you as well as the coup he put asunder without blood lost from the just. I resign in awe of the the great man Cicero.

As Augustus called him,"a learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country."

[Primus Pilus]

Cicero and those like him were the greatest politicians and through manipulations of the armies and their leaders the greatest generals

 

Even attempting to name Cicero a greatest general completely destroys any sense of credibility, despite the political motivations.

 

 

Heh heh. But Primus, he suppressed the Cataline conspiracy in his armor and saved the Republic!

 

 

Yes I understand he was the self proclaimed savior of the Republic who along with Cato used illegal executions of Roman citizens to put down the conspiracy, but it certainly doesn't make him a great general.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Just want to clearify that my post was more joke than serious.

[Primus Pilus]

By the way, let me make quite clear that I have a great deal of respect for Cicero the man and politician and willingly study either side of the political environment in the Late Republic. I only take issue with the presentation of Cicero as having any great skill in the military arts and don't care about the 'rights' or 'wrongs' of history. I only care what happened, why, and what were the ramifications of the time and not how it makes me feel today related to current political perspective.

[Virgil61]

...

Obviosly the many years that Cicero spent as the most powerful and efficient man in Rome escape you as well as the coup he put asunder without blood lost from the just. I resign in awe of the the great man Cicero.

As Augustus called him,"a learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country."

 

It escapes few on UNRV, but it still has little relation with "generalship" in the military sense. In Roman history, along the spectrum of politician to general, Cicero stands as close to pure politician as any Roman and almost utterly devoid of military skill. Cicero's inability to "control" the outbreak of civil war and the outcome at Pharsalus or the Second Triumvirate makes him less than the greatest general or politician-- according to your own hazy definition.

[tribunician power]

...

Obviosly the many years that Cicero spent as the most powerful and efficient man in Rome escape you as well as the coup he put asunder without blood lost from the just. I resign in awe of the the great man Cicero.

As Augustus called him,"a learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country."

 

It escapes few on UNRV, but it still has little relation with "generalship" in the military sense. In Roman history, along the spectrum of politician to general, Cicero stands as close to pure politician as any Roman and almost utterly devoid of military skill. Cicero's inability to "control" the outbreak of civil war and the outcome at Pharsalus or the Second Triumvirate makes him less than the greatest general or politician-- according to your own hazy definition.

The point I was making was to set aside military expertise in favor of political. I apologize for being taken so literally but could have outlined my views more precisely. However as a point of note Cicero did engage in a few military campaigns and was nearly awarded a triumph but recieved a supplicatio for his military campaign while governing Cilicia.

Edited November 23, 2005 by tribunician power

[Virgil61]

...

The point I was making was to set aside military expertise in favor of political. I apologize for being taken so literally but could have outlined my views more precisely. However as a point of note Cicero did engage in a few military campaigns and was nearly awarded a triumph but recieved a supplicatio for his military campaign while governing Cilicia.

 

I'd forgotten Cilicia, still he was a bit of a self-promoter on the triumph thing. He was never shy of self-promotion that's for sure.

[tribunician power]

...

The point I was making was to set aside military expertise in favor of political. I apologize for being taken so literally but could have outlined my views more precisely. However as a point of note Cicero did engage in a few military campaigns and was nearly awarded a triumph but recieved a supplicatio for his military campaign while governing Cilicia.

 

I'd forgotten Cilicia, still he was a bit of a self-promoter on the triumph thing. He was never shy of self-promotion that's for sure.

Ay, he was a politician.

 

 

By the way, let me make quite clear that I have a great deal of respect for Cicero the man and politician and willingly study either side of the political environment in the Late Republic. I only take issue with the presentation of Cicero as having any great skill in the military arts and don't care about the 'rights' or 'wrongs' of history. I only care what happened, why, and what were the ramifications of the time and not how it makes me feel today related to current political perspective.

I however spend my time philosophizing and assigning blame as I see fit. Blame it on my arrogance of youth or my large intellectual ego but some of us care to transcend popular oppinion or belief and go deeper into the essence of their beings or perhaps the aura every man gives off in the words written of him by his contemporaries. These are the ramifications I am stirred on, the ramifications that set pen to paper and a mind spinning.

[aquila]

Worst general is Julius Caesar of course, and worst politician must be Cicero. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius or Diocletian.

 

I was about to slap you silly, I also agree that Nero was a horrible politician( only thing he ever learned was assassination).

 

Can't recommend highly enough Richard Holland's 'Nero : The Man Behind the Myth' (Sutton Publishing, UK)

for a new and convincing perspective on the most maligned emperor in Roman history. (His 'Augustus :

Godfather of Europe' is also excellent.) Nero was certainly the wrong man for the job, but would any of our

leading Stoics care to confess what they'd have done if they'd been the teenager handed control of Rome, its treasury and its starstruck women, or should we move that discussion to the baths ?

[Sextus Roscius]

Worst general is Julius Caesar of course, and worst politician must be Cicero. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius or Diocletian.

 

I was about to slap you silly, I also agree that Nero was a horrible politician( only thing he ever learned was assassination).

 

Can't recommend highly enough Richard Holland's 'Nero : The Man Behind the Myth' (Sutton Publishing, UK)

for a new and convincing perspective on the most maligned emperor in Roman history. (His 'Augustus :

Godfather of Europe' is also excellent.) Nero was certainly the wrong man for the job, but would any of our

leading Stoics care to confess what they'd have done if they'd been the teenager handed control of Rome, its treasury and its starstruck women, or should we move that discussion to the baths ?

 

True words Aquila I must agree that while Nero certainly was the wrong person for the job, not many teenagers could handle the Roman Empire. I myself (a mere eight grader) doubt I would have any control at all after I became Emperor. Though if I could come to my sense's, I would try to do things well.

[NeronKaiser]

Nero was an excellent politician when Seneca and mama were around and there were certainly many that were worse than Nero after Seneca's and mama's untimely demise. Caius anyone?

[Primus Pilus]

Nero was an excellent politician when Seneca and mama were around...

 

Indeed, but that's largely because he allowed his 'elders' to administer. Its not so much that he was an excellent politician in the early part of his reign so much that he deferred to those who more capable. (though I suppose by definition that qualifies one as a good ruler )