Best Roman Generals

[P.Clodius]

For those of you who claim Scipio "may" be a Great general let me assure all of you he he meets the criteria of the Greats two fold. He was adaptable, flexible and he out generaled the Carthaginians in every encounter. Hannibal by contrast was a great general in a tactical sense, but what should have been his finest hour after Cannae was outdone by what could arguably have been Rome's finest hour, that is its defience of him. He consistantly underestimated the Roman resolve. And what did he accomplish 215BC to 202BC, NOTHING!! He failed to adapt, he didn't have an alternative plan!! He was held in check until the Carthaginians were uterly defeated in Spain, was powerless to stop Scipio's invasion of Africa, and allowed himself to be manouvered into an unfavourable position by Scipio, then he himself was uterly defeated. Scipio was by far the better general for all the reasons described. Hannibal is overestimated and Scipio is underestimated.

[JetJon]

Hannibal was defeated at Zama in Africa, but escaped and eventually was sent into exile. He served under the Seleucid King, Antiochus III in the Syrian War but only played a limited role. He commited suicide rather than give the Romans the satisfaction of capturing him.

Oh thank you for clearing that up, I was mistaken. I wonder then why I thought he was captured in Spain

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Hasdubral Gisgo, Hasdubral Barca and Hanno Barca(not to be confused with Hanno the Navigator)were the men Scipio fought in Spain. All very capable generals.

[Julius Caesar]

JetJon: Not to get too far off topic, but Napoleon's invasion of Russia began in the summer, and he reached Moscow before winter arrived. That's not to say he didn't make a serious error in following the Russians to Moscow, or not leaving Moscow earlier, but he at least began the campaign at the right time.

 

And it could be argued that his decision to occupy Spain was an even bigger blunder, as it bled and deprived him of thousands of soldiers who may have saved him after the Russian disaster.

 

But he was a great battlefield general. He rose from obscurity to create the most powerful empire on mainland Europe since Charlamagne, or even Rome. He routinely defeated armies that outnumbered his own, and infact, his campaigns after the Russian disaster are considered to be some of his most brilliant. But by that time, though, he simply could not match the numerical superiority of the allies.

 

Napoleon clearly showed some bad judgment, but really very few generals have gone an entire career w/o losing at some point. Napoleon's problem was that his political mistakes compounded his military ones.

[JetJon]

That is a good point, and I agree. But I still don

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Nearly all ofScipio's enemies were talking about what kind of a charming person he was. He was sent to Macedon to settle peace(though it didnt last) and managed to get the Numidians on his side. Also people claim Alexander was great. Yet according to your definition he wasn't. the man wasn't a politician. He was just nice to his allies. His own people, the Greeks, did not support his war and his men were constantly starting mutiny. Yet he is called Great.

[JetJon]

Alexander was the focus of my studies for a long time.

 

His men did love him, and when he wanted to invade India his min would have followed not for much longer but they would have. But marching some 150,000 men some 3,000 miles from home you have to give them some hope of returning home. Alexander is commonly known for his conquest, but his goal was nothing of the sort. His goal was to bring peace to Greece. This he did, by uniting (his father really did most of this but he took the final step) Greece, and then taking the Army out of Greece. What happened after that point was a bonus.

 

Politically Alexander was not as Great as his father, Philip, but he was by no means a poor politician. He captured all of the Phoenician cities with one siege. Tyre was destroyed in that siege but none of the other cities would dare resist his rule after that. Alexander

[Guest wozza]

Just on the issue of Napolean being considered a great General, do your history, of course he is considered great, one of the greatest of the great.

 

The battle of Austerlitz is a fine example where as a student of Ceasor, Napoleon demonstrates fantastic abilities on the field.

 

Vastly out numbered, he used brilliant on field tactics and manipulation to overcome his enemies

 

Even though he lost Waterloo.... he still demonstrated good strategy here worth admiring

 

He was a dedicated student of ceasor and developed an army that went through 12 campaigns marked his name on Europe for ever.

 

Hitler was never a military leader, he was nothing but a politician

 

His mistake was not having faith in people like Von Runsted and Rommel

[Hamilcar Barca]

His own people, the Greeks, did not support his war and his men were constantly starting mutiny. Yet he is called Great.

 

 

There are far worse exmple of individuals who have been dubbed "The Great". I think Hanno "the Great " of Carthage is least deserving of it, all he did was go and confiscate Libya from a bunch of disorganised tribesman. Kinda like Mussolini in 1937, except Musslini was even more pathetic. Add to that the fact that Hanno did not support the Barca's and you've got yourself a right asshole who was, in my opinion, partly to blame for Carthages overall destruction.

 

Who do I think is the best Roman general? Thats a damn hard question. S. Africanus, G. Marius, L. Sulla, J. Caesar and Belisarus all had vast contributions to Rome's military success. Although you may argue that Belisarus is a Byzantine general, he existed before Heracleas and thus was Roman cultured.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Not to mention Antiochus III "The Great". Foolishly heading off into cavalry thrill ride cost him two battles.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Indeed, how the hell did he get that title again?

[Primus Pilus]

Though the exact nature of Pompey receiving his title 'The Great' is debatable, majority consensus is that it occurred very early in his career. He was likely either self named or given it as a bit of a jest by Sulla. Either way he certainly didn't deserve at the time, but did prove himself as time went on.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Its as if anyone having anything to do with the east deserves the title "Great".

[P.Clodius]

I think Pompei deserves the title "Magnus", but not for his military abiliities but for his organizational. He was squared away when it come to administration.

[Primus Pilus]

I think Pompei deserves the title "Magnus", but not for his military abiliities but for his organizational. He was squared away when it come to administration.

Despite the fact that Lucullus essentially handed Pompey the eastern victories, I too agree that Pompey's title isn't completely unwarranted. He just didn't deserve at the time it was received/adopted.