Caracalla

This thread is, from this post on, for the use of Qymaen and Labienus to argue over who is the better general between Sargon of Akkad and Marcus Claudius Marcellus. Could other Historumites please refrain from posting in this thread. If you need to say something regarding this battle and it's contestants head on over to http://www.historum.com/ancient-history/19593-battle-ancient-generals-discussion-thread.html.


Thank you.

Labienus

Marcus Claudius Marcellus managed to check successfully Hannibal's advances in Italy for 10 years and he conquered Syracuse after a long siege. His actions in southern Italy and his conquest of Syracuse were decisive and his exploits contributed greatly to the Roman victory. The "Sword of Rome" was one of the greatest Roman generals of the era in spite of being generally overshadowed by Scipio Africanus. The point is, without Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Scipio might not even have had the opportunity to strike at the Carthaginian possessions in Iberia.

We know virtually nothing about Sargon of Akkad's conquests except that he created the greatest empire of the time. However, tactics at his time were virtually inexistent and I don't think that we have enough knowledge about Sargon to evaluate him correctly.

Conclusion: Marcus Claudius Marcellus wins decisively and awaits another triumph and a sixth consulship.