PDA

View Full Version : History Debate - Week Ten (ish)


Haloface
09-21-2004, 09:52 AM
Who do you believe to be the greatest general in the Roman Empire?
Who you choose, and how you define "greatest" is entirely up to you.

1) Fabius Maximus (and to a lesser extent, Claudius Marcellus) [270 BC] - Not so much a great general and warfare leader, but in a time of crisis for Rome (Second Punic War), Maximus used his head and, in a series of extremely controversial moves, denied Hannibal the luxury of facing him and the Roman army in battle, but chose instead to avoid Hannibal and give chase instead. It was a turning point in the War, and made Hannibal's time in Italy far more dangerous and cumbersome, leading to his retiring back to Africa, along with the need to defend Carthage itself.

2) Scipio Africanus [236 BC] - Scipio is widely acknowledge as Rome's Hannibal. With successful action in Spain and Africa, Scipio inflicted Rome's only success against Hannibal at Zama, which meant the conclusion of the Second Punic War, and a humiliating peace for Carthage, breaking any power it had left over the Med and Africa. Scipio's son burnt Carthage to the ground in the Third Punic War.

3) Aemilius Paullus [200 BC] - Ever since the end (and also during) the Punic Wars, Rome meddled in the Greek world more and more. It was Aemilius who lead Rome to victory in the battle of Pydna, and so conquered Macedonia, the most dominant Greek state at the time, and so laid the foundations to make Greece a Roman Playground.

4) Caius Marius [150 BC] - Marius was a real tactician and fighting general, subduing the African provinces such as Numidia through real knowledge of terrain and supply. Marius was also the man who repelled and defeated the Gaulish armies that swept down in to Italy and menaced Rome's Cisalpine Gaul province. Toward the end of his consulship, Marius was the prime figure of Sulla's civil war, and later exiled and then executed by Sulla, forcing Marius' son, a certain Caeser, to flee Rome.

5) Popmey [106 BC] - A legend his own right, Popmey excelled to power by choosing his side in the first Civil War wisely, showing Sulla his brilliance as a military campaigner, gaining successes in Spain, Africa, and Sicily early on in his life. Later dubbed "The Great" after his heroine Alexander, Popmey dominated the East, winning over much of the empire beyond Asia (minor). Present during the turbulent late Republic years, Popmey triumphed through Spartacus' slave revolt, became one of the Triumvirate, joint consul, ruler of the East, and lead the republic and the senate against Caeser when he crossed the Rubicon. For the first time in his career, he met defeat - though just - at the hands of Caeser.

6) Caeser [100 BC] - Military campaigner, leader, tactician, politician, Caeser possessed all the qualities of emporer. He conquered all of Gaul within a decade, doubling Rome's empire, sent expeditions to Britain, fought rebels in Spain, and lived through many civil disputes and wars. Much like his father, he was a politician as well as an excellent general. He formed the "Triumvirate" to extend his control of Gaul, crossed the Rubicon to plunge the Republic in to civil war, and defeating his adversary Pompey in the East, humped Cleopatra in Egypt, and returned home just in time to set up a dictatorship that made Rome even greater, not the typical bloodbath that Sulla had propelled.

7) Germanicus (1 AD) - Germanicus, much like Popmey, was a brilliant tactician. His campaigns created a Rhine frontier, piercing deep in to Germanian territory, up to the Elbe and beyond. Germanics' ability to recover from disaster and pursue avenues of diplomacy and cunning rather than just ambush and attack makes him worthy of his praise.

8) There are a few worthy contendors between the periods of early emporers and later break-down, but none as good as the examples given above, IMO. So any are up for consideration, Corbulo and his Armenian campaigns perhaps, Titus, Trajan, or even Julian and his Gaul campaigns.

9) Belisarius - [500 AD] - Definately the finest general since the days of the Republic, Belisarius was the emporer Justinian's finest tool. After the fall of the Western Empire, Belisarius was able to recover Italy on more than one occassion, inflict crushing defeats on the Persians, and regain conquered North Africa. His skill in using with what little he had to great effect - being poorly supplied and reinforced by a jealous emporer - only adds to Belisarius' reputation as a great general.

Feel free to add more. The list is slightly republico-centered, but there's no doubting that the greatest generals lived in that time. Or perhaps there is, but I guess this is what the thread is for :P

Kivorn
09-21-2004, 10:37 AM
I think you're assuming that people in general have the kind of deep interest and knowledge that you possess, Halo. I've only heard of 3 of these, and I've taken and aced every history class pre university level.

Haloface
09-21-2004, 11:18 AM
Well, uhm, choose one of the three you knew? :P

Right, maybe I'm going too deep. But plundering in to "The US won the war! No, the Russians did! No, Churchill did!" debate can only be so exciting :/

Thormir
09-21-2004, 11:26 AM
At the risk of going with the most well-known figure, I'd have to go with Caesar. The accolades he won in his own lifetime demonstrate his efficacy as general and statesman. He conquered enormous territory for Rome, defeated Pompey and was given unprecedented power by the Republic. His success cannot be attributed to historical hype or self-aggrandizement in his writings...he was the real deal.

Gulor Gularin
09-21-2004, 12:53 PM
If you decide "greatest" means most reknown and tactical ability, Julius Caesar hands down. If you look at innovation and logistics then I would go with Gaius Marius (Caesar's grandfather I believe, not father). If you go by sheer area of territory conquered and held, Trajan gets my nod.

Gandaar
09-21-2004, 01:16 PM
I would have to go with Belisarius.... but he did piss off Justinian over the affair with the Ostrogoths. After all, he WAS supposed to effect a treaty with them but wound up conquering them and arresting the leaders, which really upset Justinian.

Justinian relieved Belisarius after that, but was later forced to bring him back when the Bulgars crossed the Danube and he was pressed back into service.

Unfortunately, that was his last hurrah. He had to stand trial in Constantinople on false and trumped up charges of corruption.

Early in his career though, he was almost unstoppable. His men loved him and he was a true leader.

Just my two coppers...

Crist0
09-21-2004, 02:15 PM
Greatest in terms of reputation falls to Caesar, easily.

If you were looking for "best" you probably should have said as much.


Right, maybe I'm going too deep. But plundering in to "The US won the war! No, the Russians did! No, Churchill did!" debate can only be so exciting :/

I know you've got a hard on for Rome and specifically the punic wars, but plundering into the topic again and again can also "only be so exciting :/"

Haloface
09-21-2004, 02:23 PM
All 2 topics of them?
Don't start whinning little bitch, or it's a trip to the doctor for you to get a certain area snipped. Eh, eh.

Greatest in reputation of whose age?
Popmey's reputation commanded him far more respect and admiration than Caeser. Sure, it's an exeggeration when Popmey said he needed only to stamp his feet, and legions would spring from the ground, but even the Senate feared his reputation, time and time again. He's not Popmey the Great for nothing :P

Not that I have a problem with Caeser, I acknowledge his defeats of Popmey and conquering Gaul as, well, fucking mental. But I'd have to give more praise to Belisarius for reconquering half of the Western empire after it had been lost, from multiple foes, with poor support, and then defending entirely different areas of the empire successfully, again and again.
Caeser also had the support and (ok, not always, civil war of course) agreement of the Senate and Rome, whereas Belisarius spent a lot of his life shat on or even punished for bullshit reasons.

Willgatus Airslasher
09-21-2004, 02:33 PM
Later dubbed "The Great" after his heroine Alexander
They had sex change operations in the fourth century BCE? News to me ;)

I've never even heard of #1 and 3. Judging by the list, you may as well throw in every other Roman who won a battle or two at some point. Octavian, for one.

Seriously though, I'd have to go with Caesar.

Nydia Ywalmoriel
09-21-2004, 03:23 PM
I think he was making a reference to Alexander's well-known homosexuality, Will ;). I find it interesting that the trailers for the film coming out about him (by Oliver Stone) show this clip with the caption "The Lover" showing him with a woman, when it's well established that he conquered half the known world with his male lover at his side...

But this being America, and it being an Oliver Stone movie, I guess they had to sex it up somehow ;).

As to the above debate, my knowledge of the subject is sorely lacking, but Halo is right, one shouldn't sell Popmey short :).

Regards,
Nydia

Haloface
09-21-2004, 07:03 PM
I think that one *wooshed* over him, Nydia.
And yes, after watching Troy and leaving out so much about Achilles and his, err, "love life" (not to mention any sign of Greek culture or religion), I had no hopes for Alexander. But how could they leave it out? Hephaistion was one of the biggest influences in Alexander's career, and if you go for that "emotional crap", his death broke Alexander before he too died.
Hollywood, eh?

'I've never even heard of #1 and 3. Judging by the list, you may as well throw in every other Roman who won a battle or two at some point. Octavian, for one.'

- I actually thought it was quite a good list. Some of them were covered quite well in Goldsworth's "Men Who Won the Roman Empire". Fabius Maximus may not hold the celebrity status of Caeser, but his actions and tactics amount for, some could argue, more. Caeser added another province to the empire. Well, yeah, that's top notch, but Maximus avoided a complete break down for the republic, Rome was cracking under Hannibal's victories, Maximus stopped it. He is *the* reason Hannibal could not have marched on Rome successfully after Cannae, whereas every other consul and general before him just threw their armies at him willy-nilly.
Rome prevailing over Greece at that time was perhaps an inevitability (though I'm sure Xerxes thought that about his empire as well), but Paullus' actions in Macedonia and supreme command, besides stunning victories, made it a certain inevitability.
Of course, it may all depend on what you define as a "great" general.

But then, maybe you're right. Maybe it is a shit list.
So wanna tell us why you, "seriously", think Caeser is worthy of your vote? Or fancy shitting over this thread again, nancy?

Osgiliath666
09-21-2004, 10:25 PM
Halo went to the library again and thought up a question thats all.

Willgatus Airslasher
09-22-2004, 01:40 AM
I think that one *wooshed* over him, Nydia.
Pretty much. I plead ignorance, your Haloness.

Caesar was an impressive tactician and charismatic leader. He was not alone in this regard. But unlike the others, he successfully used these skills to come to sole power. What good is being the best if you have to serve an inferior leader indefinitely?

Esbat
09-22-2004, 11:24 AM
Caeser [100 BC] - Military campaigner, leader, tactician, politician, Caeser possessed all the qualities of emporer.
I think Caeser is over-rated as a *general*. There is no question his influence over Rome was huge, and that his legacy had far reaching implications.

Caesar made much of his reputation as a general beating up tribal clans who were outclassed in tactics and weaponry- any competent general could have done the same, I think.

His *real* triumph is his power grab to become the sole ruler of the empire. That doesn't make him a good general- that makes him an outstanding politician. I'm quite sure some spin and PR was done during that time to boost his reputation as a badass general to cement his power.

I think the best way to determine who the best general is isn't to look at what they did for Rome, since the situation each person was in has a great deal to do with their reputation as a general. Given equal men, how would they stack up against each other? Could any of them have pulled a victory out of their ass against Arminius? Obviously, any answer to these questions relies mostly on speculation, but I'll think it over a bit.

Haloface
09-22-2004, 11:31 AM
Well then, if we think about it that way - Caeser might well prove himself better.
He didn't only defeat tribal clans, but the entire republic-defending forces of Pompey, on Pompey's own, Eastern, turf.

But I like that definition of great, disregarding what they did for Rome.
Far more.. raw.

Esbat
09-22-2004, 12:10 PM
Yes, as you noted in your write up above. Ceasar and Pompey might have been the two best generals *at that time* in Rome's history (and I don't want to imply Ceasar was a slouch- he obviously wasn't), but the landscape varies so much from General to General- what if Ceasar had to deal with Hannibal? Could he have become Emperor?

These questions are great as brain exercise and fun, but I can't take them any more seriously than two kids arguing over if Spiderman or Batman would win in a fight :D

Gulor Gularin
09-22-2004, 12:18 PM
Spiderman! Not even close!

Haloface
09-22-2004, 12:22 PM
I think you're underestimating the batmobile.

Big time.

edit:

'These questions are great as brain exercise and fun, but I can't take them any more seriously than two kids arguing over if Spiderman or Batman would win in a fight'

- By god Jim, I think he's got it. The entire reason we dance like this on the net. No one's under the spell that we're here actually contributing to some ultimate resolution, Bob. Now, that wouldn't be any fun, would it?
Your mumma, my mumma, Caeser, Batman, Bush, Kerry, Iraq, the UN, your girlfriend, my girlfriend, your E-penis, my E-penis...no one ever wins, or intends to, I hope. All we're left with is conversation and speculation.
Ergo, get on with the debate, or stop flexing your E-muscles.

Esbat
09-22-2004, 01:17 PM
pfft... I was mainly seeing who would say "Soandso would!" first. Hence, the big toothy smile.

Besides, the whole debate I had going in my head started to sound like that:

First kid- Ceasar would win, 'cause he has his super political power and controlled the whole army!

Second kid- Nuh-uh! Caius Marius would win, because he'd know Ceasar would beat him, so he'd keep it in his pants and Ceasar would never be born!

first kid- As if! Since Ceasar fought him, we are obviously talking about dimension Z, where everything is backwards!

You get the idea.

Haloface
09-22-2004, 01:47 PM
I'm conf00sed.

Thormir
09-22-2004, 02:36 PM
Don't you mean, "Bizarro Caesar?!"

Esbat
09-22-2004, 03:24 PM
Ok, I'll explain, since my brain gets ahead of my fingers 9/10 of the time.

When I started to compare the generals outside of the context of their time and contributions to Rome outside of anything other than a measure of their potential ability, it became a game of speculation and it started to seem an awful lot like two kids arguing that their favorite superhero could defeat another superhero.

I chuckled, and decided to post that as an amusing aside, to see who would say "Batman would win" or "Spidermand would win" first.

Does that make it more clear?

Haloface
09-23-2004, 05:47 AM
' Does that make it more clear?'

- Aye mate, I was joking.

Anyway...

Vibes
09-23-2004, 02:13 PM
You forgot Hadrian ....

fildien
09-23-2004, 03:05 PM
*adds to babble thread with more random thoughts*

I think this thread would be more interesting if we discussed Batman vs Spiderman.

I once had to write a paper on Caligula(sp) for Western Civ about 11yrs ago so all I remember was how crazy he was.

On a side note man, you need to stop playing that Rome game and get out more.

Haloface
09-23-2004, 03:56 PM
' On a side note man, you need to stop playing that Rome game and get out more.'

- Throw that comment my way in a few weeks, when it's actually released here.

Cados Evilsbane
09-23-2004, 05:02 PM
One of my dogs is named Pompey.. does that count?

Nydia Ywalmoriel
09-23-2004, 05:21 PM
As another side note, the actor who played Pompey (and I *thought* you had misspelled it Halo, but I wasn't going to proclaim myself an expert on such and challenge it) on 'Xena - Warrior Princess' was dead sexy, it was such a shame when he was killed (beheaded, if I remember correctly)... ;)

Regards,
Nydia

Haloface
09-23-2004, 05:47 PM
Xena, warrior princess?
Oh Nydia :P

(And perhaps you were thinking Popmeii, the city?)

Nydia Ywalmoriel
09-23-2004, 05:53 PM
Hey, you guys brought up Batman and Superman, so nyahh ;). Gimpy geek girls need heroes to drool over too... :)

Regards,
Nydia

(And do you mean Pompeii, the city?)

Haloface
09-23-2004, 06:17 PM
' (And do you mean Pompeii, the city?)'

- You know what's even more sad? I have "Pompeii, the city of ash" on my bookshelf immediately above me.

I SPELL GOODER THAN U!!!


(geek!)