Greatest Roman Figure

[P.Clodius]

But my point was Scipio was a good general just not of the same caliber as Caesar.

Agreed, but he is a VERY close second. However, the second place position could be tied with with Marcellus and Nero. Some authors/historians might even place G. Claudius Nero first. He is certainly one of the ablest military leaders the world has ever seen!

[senatus populusque romae]

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

[tflex]

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

 

Lets not forget that Caesar was outnumbered in his battles, yet he still managed to annihilate all his enemies. You mentioned Pompey as great, he was annihilated too by non other then Caesar. Scipio had all Rome behind him, Caesar had his legion but a lot of Romans were not supporting him. Scipio's army were fighting for their survival they had to win or die. Caesar took his army to foriegn lands all the way to Brittania to conquer new territories and still managed to lead his troops to victory everytime.

Edited January 11, 2006 by tflex

[senatus populusque romae]

Scipio had all Rome behind him, Caesar had his legion but a lot of Romans were not supporting him. Scipio's army were fighting for their survival they had to win or die. Caesar took his army to foriegn lands all the way to Brittania to conquer new territories and still managed to lead his troops to victory everytime.

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).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Not only did Caesar benefit from a long tradition of professionalism in the military, but the Gallic tribes he faced were merely iron age warriors. Caesar's opponents were vastly less powerful than Scipio's. Surely this makes a difference in judging their respective military abilities.

[tflex]

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).

 

 

Pompey the great had a good army what happened to him? Caesars troops were great because he made them great under his superb leadership, you've made my case for me. Caesar faced many different opponents and defeated them, a lot more then Scipio. Scipio made his name by defeating a weakened Hannibal.

Edited January 11, 2006 by tflex

[Germanicus]

but the Gallic tribes he faced were merely iron age warriors.

 

Those mere Iron Age warriors had defeated many a Roman general before Caesar. Even forced some to go under the yoke....

 

Surely this makes a difference in judging their respective military abilities.

 

The fame accrued by Caesar for his conquest of Gaul usually stems from the number of battles fought without defeat, against superior numbers, and at lightening speed. Any difference in quality of opponent as you see it is more than balanced by this in terms of Scipio.

[M. Porcius Cato]

but the Gallic tribes he faced were merely iron age warriors.

Those mere Iron Age warriors had defeated many a Roman general before Caesar. Even forced some to go under the yoke....

Give me break--that was, what, 300 years earlier?!?

 

The fame accrued by Caesar for his conquest of Gaul usually stems from the number of battles fought without defeat, against superior numbers, and at lightening speed. Any difference in quality of opponent as you see it is more than balanced by this in terms of Scipio.

 

I really don't think so: he didn't fight these battles simultaneously, nor were the numerical advantages matched by superior deployment. It's like Mussolini in Ethiopia or the British against the Zulu. No one would claim that this was a victory brought by leadership--it was a victory brought about by training and by technology that was generally was vastly superior. Had any competent general been in Gaul, the number of battles won would have been just as great.

[P.Clodius]

Cato, you have, along with a pathological hatred of Caesar a poor understanding of military tactics it seems!

[M. Porcius Cato]

You want to offer some specifics?

[Neos Dionysos]

Pompey the great had a good army what happened to him? Caesars troops were great because he made them great under his superb leadership, you've made my case for me. Caesar faced many different opponents and defeated them, a lot more then Scipio. Scipio made his name by defeating a weakened Hannibal.

 

Well Caeser had the ability to make people fanatically loyal because he led from the front and incurred the same hardships they did, but, Pompey did not have his old army that he won all of his conquests from. Some were reformed but for the most part his veterans were given lands and settled and no longer in the army. They were re-formed into newly raised legions by the various power players along with new recruits etc, thus negating the experience they accumulated as they were with thier own old unit.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Germanicus]

Give me break--that was, what, 300 years earlier?!?

 

Hardly - or were the Cimbri/Tuetones not Iron Age warriors of the same ilk ? It took another GREAT General to defeat them.

 

nor were the numerical advantages matched by superior deployment.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you wasn't Alesia "superior deployment" ? I already know your answer.

[Neos Dionysos]

Cato, you have, along with a pathological hatred of Caesar a poor understanding of military tactics it seems!

 

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons. Though I must ask Cato, where/when did you first start be so anti-Caeser if I may ask? Was it a professor? A book? A lecture? etc.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Give me break--that was, what, 300 years earlier?!?

Hardly - or were the Cimbri/Tuetones not Iron Age warriors of the same ilk ? It took another GREAT General to defeat them.

Good point. If technology and training alone prevented the Gallic tribes from being better warriors, the same should have applied to the Cimbri and Teutones, who were quite fearsome while being Iron Age warriors themselves.

 

nor were the numerical advantages matched by superior deployment.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you wasn't Alesia "superior deployment" ? I already know your answer.

They were trapped behind a wall! By what definition is that deployment? Ultimately, the victory came from superior engineering plus competent (but not spectacular) on-field command. If you think otherwise, make your case--I'm all ears.

Edited January 11, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[P.Clodius]

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons.

I wasn't saying that and I agree with you. He does have good, obviously researched arguments that are well presented. I have no issue with his intelligent posts, its the comments that I have issue with. Unfortunately, I often fall into the trap of firing back and shall now desist from doing so.