Rome's Greatest General?

Who was Rome's Greatest General?


  • Total voters
    251
Sep 2015
430
The Eastern Hinterlands
Who, in your opinion, was Rome's Greatest General(Note, this does not take into consideration the Eastern empire after the fall of Rome in the west)?
As much as I'm a Caesarean I'm going with Scipio Africanus. Not only did he defeat arguably the greatest commander in history he was one of the few generals to be undefeated in the battlefield. Ilipa is perhaps the pinnacle of tactics in military history.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,680
Australia
If Africanus was consistently facing the odds Caesar was, he'd have had a couple of minor tactical withdrawals too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macon
Jul 2018
544
Hong Kong
Julius Caesar, on his turn, is massively overrated. His invasion of Gaul wasn't really a military campaign, it was a campaign of extermination against a largely defenceless and powerless population.
Largely defenceless and powerless !? Are you serious ? Do you know that they almost overran Caesar's army in some of the most perilous situations?Do you know that they even successfully eliminated fifteen cohorts of Roman army in a single ambuscade?Do you know that they had numerous "fortified settlements" suffusing throughout Gaul which required the siege weapons for the Roman army to storm them?Do you know that Caesar might very likely lose the Battle of Alesia without all those formidable fortifications of incredible engineering technique and feats ? It took 8 years for Caesar to subdue the vast region inhabited by many tribes whose of their inhabitants were no less brave nor ferocious despite of their lack of organization and discipline in comparison with the Roman army.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
Scipio Africanus is the best, really. Carthage was one of the few truly equal enemies that Rome had. Julius Caesar, on his turn, is massively overrated. His invasion of Gaul wasn't really a military campaign, it was a campaign of extermination against a largely defenceless and powerless population. He can be praised for defeating Ariovistus and later Pompey, but he defeated Ariovistus more because of higher resources than because he was the better general (hell, Caesar's troops were almost routed by him, and it was only the timely intervention of Caesar's reserve force that saved him), and I have my doubts if Caesar could have defeated Pompey decisively anyway had Pompey not gotten executed by Ptolemy.
That's not true at all. This is just ridiculous to think Gauls were a bunch of defenseless peasants getting ravage by the Romans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nuclearguy165
Jun 2013
511
Connecticut
This is a tough question. Rome lasted a long, long time. You could have their generals seperated by 5 - 6 centuries! The types of armies and types of warfare changed. Most importantly lots of history was lost.
Maybe, for example, some later empire generals were much more daring, much more efficient with quick, surgical strikes in defense of the empire. Just a thought.
 
Oct 2018
2,080
Sydney
This is a tough question. Rome lasted a long, long time. You could have their generals seperated by 5 - 6 centuries! The types of armies and types of warfare changed. Most importantly lots of history was lost.
Maybe, for example, some later empire generals were much more daring, much more efficient with quick, surgical strikes in defense of the empire. Just a thought.
If you're interested, consider contributing to the following thread: Top 10 Roman Generals (Byzantine allowed)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talbot Vilna
Dec 2019
4
Pennsylvania
Caesar. Besides winning battles, he had to navigate the politics of winning Gallic tribes and Pompeiian Legions over to his side.