Emperors As Generals: The Best

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Definately Trajan. Had he lived longer the Roman Empire would have been much bigger. People considered him the second coming of Alexander. However age did him in.

[Primus Pilus]

Definately Trajan. Had he lived longer the Roman Empire would have been much bigger.

And much like Alexander, it probably would've collapsed after his death. Fortunately for Rome, they still had another 50 years of positive imperial rule ahead of them after Trajan died.

[pompeius magnus]

What about the worst. As much as he could dominate at politics and government, Augustus was a poor general, but hey with a guy like Agrippa on your side he didn't really need to be a good commander, b/c Agrippa was an excellent one and often overlooked one.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Definately Trajan. Had he lived longer the Roman Empire would have been much bigger.

 

And much like Alexander, it probably would've collapsed after his death. Fortunately for Rome, they still had another 50 years of positive imperial rule ahead of them after Trajan died.

Yea but we forget to mention that Alexander died in his prime. He did not have enough time to consolidate all his gains. Had Trajan been younger during his conquest(even as old as 30-40 or so) he could have been able to strenghten their hold on the territory. However when Rome would go on the start of collapse, that land would probably be the first to go.

[Primus Pilus]

What about the worst. As much as he could dominate at politics and government, Augustus was a poor general, but hey with a guy like Agrippa on your side he didn't really need to be a good commander, b/c Agrippa was an excellent one and often overlooked one.

As were Tiberius and Drusus really.

[Marcus Regulus]

For worst commanders Tiberius tops my list, but Tiberius makes higher grades in being and able administrator of the Empire. But he is definitely bad in the field.

[Julius Caesar]

For worst commanders Tiberius tops my list, but Tiberius makes higher grades in being and able administrator of the Empire.  But he is definitely bad in the field.

 

Why do you say Tiberius was a bad field commander? Didn't he complete his brother Drusus' conquest of Germany to the Elbe, then successfully suppress the massive Pannonian revolt?

 

Of course this was before he became emperor, but as emperor he never commanded again, so I don't see why he'd be considered a bad military emperor. He did recall Germanicus from his attemps to reestablish the lost province of Germany, but even with that there seems to be no consensus from historians as to why. Some say it was out of jealousy of the popular Germanicus and fear that he'd pull a Caesar and march on Rome. Others say it was a wise and prudent decision because, although Germanicus had commanded well in defeating Arminius and reasserting Roman military dominance over the Germans, the successful completion of the campaign would have required several more years of campaigning and incurred a cost in men and material that far outweighed the gain from attaining the Elbe as the new frontier.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

There were many bad commanders

 

But thats not the topic.

[Primus Pilus]

Yes I was pointing out that Tiberius was very able. If not for his strange 'retirement' perhaps the conquests in Germania would've been more complete.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I agree with the second comment made about ending conquest in Germania. between the Varus and other battles. Tiberius realized that they had just barely recovered the land they lost. I believe it was not worth it either. Too have such hard fighting and too get just a little while away from the Rhine.

[Germanicus]

I am sorry to say that I am new to UNRV,not sure where I should put this, but a good book on the subject you are discussing is "The Battle that stopped Rome" by Peter S Wells. It presents all the latest evidence regarding the Varus ambush and subsequent massacre, along with detailing the attempts to re-establish the provence beyond the Rhine by Tiberius and Germanicus. It also discusses the possible reasons expansion was halted in that direction shortly after. And raises the contention that "conquest of Germany to the Elbe" was perhaps more a nice peice of political propaganda from Augustus, to please the population and Justify Drusus and Germanicus' positions as heirs.

Regarding the actual topic, I admire Trajan, but also think Septimus Severus was an excellent general, ruthless, cunning and continued to general troops right up to the end in Britain. The two he defeated for the throne, Albinus and Niger were no lightweights !

[Julius Caesar]

Germanicus:

 

I have only read parts of the book you speak of, so I can't really comment on it as a whole, but I do find his skepticism of the accepted history that Germanicus defeated Arminius to be a bit puzzling. To use as evidence against it the fact that the province of Germany was not reestablished seems weak to me seeing as how the Romans were seldom able to subdue a people with one or two battles. It took Caesar yrs to subdue Gaul, and it took Germanicus' father and uncle yrs to subdue Germany the first time. That Germanicus defeated the Germans, but that it didn't result in the subjugation of Germania makes perfect sense to me. Total victory would have required several more campaigns.

[Julius Caesar]

But back to the topic of the thread;

 

The beleaguered Gallenius showed great promise.

 

Carus also showed his potential in his brief reign, as he defeated a Quadi and Sarmatian incursion into the empire, then led a successful invasion of Persian territory, capturing their capital Ctesiphon. I've read the invasion was either completely unopposed, or initially unopposed and that Carus defeated a Persian army before taking their capital. Whatever the case, he planned to campaign futher against the Persians when he died.

[Julius Caesar]

Definately Trajan. Had he lived longer the Roman Empire would have been much bigger.

 

And much like Alexander, it probably would've collapsed after his death. Fortunately for Rome, they still had another 50 years of positive imperial rule ahead of them after Trajan died.

 

Despite his failure at Hatra, Trajan and his generals had done much to restore Roman control over northern Mesopotamia by the time of his death. I think that Hadrian could have held the area if he had wanted to, but it would most certainly have required the raising of new legions. Afterall, Severus established a permanent province in the area by the end of the 2nd century, and it would remain in Roman hands, off and on, for the next 160 years until the Jovian peace.

 

Trajan himself planned to march back into Mesopotamia in 117, but was dissauded from doing so by his failing health. So it is tempting to contemplate what he might have done had he lived, or better yet had he been younger when he started the war.

[Primus Pilus]

I think its important to note that the 'conquest of Germania' that I was referring to with Tiberius and Drusus were those long before Germanicus' campaigns. Germania, was essentially conquered, but it had not yet been stabilized. The inability of Varus to secure the province does not attest to the successes of Tiberius, Drusus and others in the initial campaigns. In my opinion the campaigns of Germanicus were nothing more than

1) Punitive expeditions in an attempt to find the Varus legions and

2) A way to keep the legions that had just revolted (after the death of Augustus) busy.

 

While Germanicus may have had visions of permanent conquest, I think Tiberius clearly wanted to stick to the Augustan principal of maintaining the status quo of the borders. The Varus disaster affected Tiberius the emperor as much as it did Augustus.

 

For my own take of that period...

Conquest of Germania