Print Page | Close Window

Great men who challenged ancient Rome

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10121
Printed Date: 04-Oct-2022 at 11:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Great men who challenged ancient Rome
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Subject: Great men who challenged ancient Rome
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 21:47
I would like to know who you think caused the greatest threat to Rome. Although Rome has survived all of them, it proves that she certainly was not invicible, although certainly if she fell it would have dramatically changed our lives as we know it. But again, who you think deserves Rome's respect out of all of these challengers?



Replies:
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 00:15

I would take out Sertorius (a Roman), and add Jugurtha. Also Boudicca, though famous for her heroic femininity in this era, was little more than a passing concern for the Caesars. That said, I don't know that we can say who was the greatest danger to Rome. I guess, out of the list, I'll go with Hannibal, just for fun.

-Akolouthos



Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 00:18
why isnt Tigran the Great there, he was much more powerful than Mithridates and ruled a larger Empire, change the polls

-------------


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 00:49
Hannibal for the Republican period.

Zenobia for the Imperial Period - not counting Roman Rebels and Barbarians who took advantage of the near end of Rome, Zenobia made more conquests against Rome than any other.




Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 03:09
Hannibal above all


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 05:08

Hannibal with no doubt,he was very close to accomplish his mission.

Arminious too was a great challenger to Rome,he smashed three Romans legion under Varus in Germania.

Finally,I must mention Hatra city in mesopotamia it was an important fortified city and capital of Arabic kingdom, and withstood repeated attacks by the Roman empire.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 06:04
Attila the Hun, because at the time he lived Rome was weaker than ever.


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 06:34
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Hannibal with no doubt,he was very close to accomplish his mission.

Arminious too was a great challenger to Rome,he smashed three Romans legion under Varus in Germania.

Finally,I must mention Hatra city in mesopotamia it was an important fortified city and capital of Arabic kingdom, and withstood repeated attacks by the Roman empire.

 

In Roman times Mesopotamia belonged to Parthians and then to Sassanids, which "Arab kingdom" do you refer to?



Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 06:36
Surennas, a question of propaganda 


Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 07:27
What about Stilicho the Vandal?  He seemed to pretty much have Rome in the palm of his hand.

-------------
Be brave and answer me.


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 07:38
shapur II

-------------
Anfører


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 08:22

Generals Alexander and Clark really had to struggle to get to Rome, which onlly fell the day before D Day. All this leads one to think that the whole Italian campaign was a waste of men and material.

Oh you mean ancient Rome?

Hannible Barca!

 



-------------


Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 08:33
Definitely Hannibal.  The man stayed in the Italian peninsula for most of a decade and continued his campaign in spite of a lack of support from the Italian tribes whom he was trying to persuade to join his side.  He gave up only due to the exhaustion of his men and having failed to reach his goal, evuentually to end his life as an exile in the court of a Hellenic kingdom.

-------------
"There you go again!"

-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)


Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 08:40
Hannibal received a classy present from the romans though.

-------------
Vae victis!


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 10:54
I have voted for Mithridates. I am reading a book called "The Last King" which has inspired me to write this post. He was born in Persia, but was heavily inspired by GGreek influences and spoke Greek.


He never gave himself the title of "Great" that was something the Romans labeled him for. He caused so much trouble for the Romans for 40 years, that when he died all of Rome celebrated. It was like "a back-hand salute" to Mithradates because they celebrated the death of a man who almsot brought Rome down to its knees.


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 11:14
I don't think anyone other than Hannible feared the Romans at a great extend, I would certainly go with Hannible.

-------------




Posted By: RomiosArktos
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 09:16
For the republican era I would say Hannibal.Mithridates posed a big threat only until Rome finally decided to deal with him.His armies were no match for the republican Roman army.
For the imperial period I agree that Zenobia was the greatest threat.The fact that Aurelian ,who defeated her , took the title ''restituor orbis'' shows that she  counted as a really big threat to the Roman world.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 15:33
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Hannibal with no doubt,he was very close to accomplish his mission.

Arminious too was a great challenger to Rome,he smashed three Romans legion under Varus in Germania.

Finally,I must mention Hatra city in mesopotamia it was an important fortified city and capital of Arabic kingdom, and withstood repeated attacks by the Roman empire.

 

In Roman times Mesopotamia belonged to Parthians and then to Sassanids, which "Arab kingdom" do you refer to?

It was a vassel kingdom under the influence of Parthians like Lakhmid with Sassanids and Ghassanid with Byzantians,the city was very famous in it's artchitecture and military ,many armies are defeated on the walls of the City Trajan,Septimius Severus and Ardasher

finally the Sassanids under Shapur destroy the city and capture it in 241 A.D



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 16:06
It's Spartacus,not Sparticus...Jesus!(kidding )

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: padem
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 18:41
I 'll go with the flow and say Hannibal...but what about Pyrrhus?He certainly gave the Romans a run for their money.I think he deserves a place in the poll...


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 22:53
Why aren't the Gaulish and Germanic plunderers of Rome in that list? They surely caused more fear than most of the mentioned ones.

I voted for Hannibal anyhow. I'm a fan of that general and the phrase "Hannibal ad portas" and not "Vae victis!" was the one used to scare little children for centuries.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 08:06
Originally posted by Maju

Why aren't the Gaulish and Germanic plunderers of Rome in that list? They surely caused more fear than most of the mentioned ones.


Indeed, after Rome was sacked by the Gauls in 395 BC, none managed to breach it again until 410 AD, when the Goths lead by Alaric entered the Eternal City.

Some time prior to this sack, Alaric had been threatened by the Senate. They warned him of how the desperate masses of the city might react to a Gothic offence, yet Alaric merely laughed and replied; "the thicker the hay, the easier it is mowed!"

The sack itself was conducted in quite an exemplary manner. Churches were spared, as were they who cowered inside them. Material belonging to the Church was also let alone. Apart from the Basilica Aemilia and Sallust's palace, no buildings were razed or damaged by fire as far as our sources tell. Indeed, contemporary men of the Church sound quite pleasantly surprised with the clemency of most Goths.

This task accomplished, Alaric headed south to Calabria. His plan was sailing across to Africa, conquering the rich agricultural lands there for his people to settle. Alas, a storm forced the Goths back to Italy, and Alaric caught a fever in the process. He died soon after, only 34 years old.

Alaric's grave, no doubt filled with riches as was the custom with Germanic burial rites, was quite ingeniously concealed to prevent it from being plundered. His men turned aside the course of the river Busento, preparing the grave on the riverbed. After Alaric's body was interred, they released the river, and to this day no one has been able to find it.



-------------


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 09:24
Gold that was taken from ROME, gold that was taken from so many others that kept it for their own.


Posted By: Lord Styphon
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 21:59
Originally posted by RomiosArktos

For the republican era I would say Hannibal.Mithridates posed a big threat only until Rome finally decided to deal with him.His armies were no match for the republican Roman army.
For the imperial period I agree that Zenobia was the greatest threat.The fact that Aurelian ,who defeated her , took the title ''restituor orbis'' shows that she  counted as a really big threat to the Roman world.


The thing about Aurelian being proclaimed Restitutor Orbis wasn't just that he defeated Zenobia, despite being the grave threat she was. At this period in Roman history, imperial authority was effectively non-existant, with Valerian's defeat and capture by the Persians. In addition to Zenobia and the Palmyrenes taking over much of the eastern Empire, Gaul, Spain and Britain formed their own government (the Gallic Empire) to replace the authority that Rome wasn't able to exercise. There were also barbarians running about, doing what barbarians do.

Emperor Gallienus began the process of bringing the Empire back under control, notably by introducing cavalry as a major arm of the army and barring senators from holding army command. However, he was assassinated before his reforms could come full circle, but his successors, beginning with Claudius II, who had been Gallieunus's cavalry commander, were able to use them to begin the restoration. The restoration culminated under Aurelian, with the reconquest of the east from Zenobia and the restoration of Roman control in the Gallic Empire. Aurelian restored imperial authority, hence "Restorer of the World".

I'll have to agree that Hannibal was the greatest opponent of Rome during the republican era. For the imperial era, I'll have to say Arminius, the victor at Teutoburg Forest. By annihilating the Romans there, Arminius was able to halt Roman expansion into Germany. He was helped by a later revolt in Illyria that diverted troops from a massive planned retaliatory attack, and ultimately helped cancel it. Nevertheless, Arminius kept the Romans from pushing their borders into Germany. This in turn created the long border that Rome had to defend during the imperial era, which would have been shortened by Roman control of Germania (compare the Rhine-Danube line with a potential Elbe-Danube line).

Also, I'll have to say Pyrrhus deserves mention here. He was a great general in his own right (Hannibal is supposed to have ranked him second only to Alexander the Great in that regard), and the threat he posed forced Rome and Carthage to cooperate to defeat him.


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 01:59

the brave and foxy collective of the free and independant germanic tribes under the leadership of the famous commandante arminius who defeated the roman supressors with the usupator varus in a heroic fight ,which showed the ancient world the predominance of the germanic worker and countrymen state.

after this challenge the bloody romans didn't even trust to come back as tourists for hundred of years.



-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 02:06
The thing about Aurelian being proclaimed Restitutor Orbis wasn't just that he defeated Zenobia, despite being the grave threat she was. At this period in Roman history, imperial authority was effectively non-existant, with Valerian's defeat and capture by the Persians. In addition to Zenobia and the Palmyrenes taking over much of the eastern Empire, Gaul, Spain and Britain formed their own government (the Gallic Empire) to replace the authority that Rome wasn't able to exercise. There were also barbarians running about, doing what barbarians do.


If you bring in Roman Rebels, it makes it complex. In that case, I think Constantine deserves to be the named the greatest who challenged Rome. Not only did Constantine defeat Rome, he also removed its power and prestige.

Zenobia was the greatest woman to challenge Rome. No doubt. While boudicca conquered a few Legions, Zenobia conquered cities and built her Empire.



Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 05:48
You left out the great Barbarian Chief Vercingeterix who challanged the Garrison at hadrians Wall

-------------
Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 07:52

All of those on the list and many who aren't, challenged Rome or its rule over a particular area, but many are little more than a flash in the pan, hardly ever a real challenge to the empire as a whole.

 The likes of Boudicca, Sertorius, Sparticus were all in the long run doomed to fail, Boudicca posed a real threat to Romes control of Britain, but Rome had come up against alot worse theres no reason to think that sooner or later Rome wouldnt have crushed Boudicca had they been expelled.

 Sertorius was an incredible Roman, but never really stood a chance against Sulla and his Republic, he fought extremely hard and won many victories but again it was inevitably only going to end in one way eventually.

 Sparticus is the same, he defeated on the whole, poor sub-standard Roman armies who had no place on a battlefield, his destruction was also inevitable, it took time but it was never in doubt for anybody but the most pessimistic.

 Theres a big difference between, merely fighting the Romans and actually challenging their very existance or dominance on an empire wide scale. Countless numbers of individuals resisted and fought Rome, but only a handful ever challenged it on such a scale that Romes existance was in doubt.

 On that list and on that basis only Hannibal and Attila stand out, Shapur was never going to conquer all of the Roman empire anyway, never more than a threat to Romes most Eastern possessions.

 I think Pyrrhus deserved a place, he could have potentially destroyed Rome whilst it was still relatively isolated, nothing more than an aggressive land power.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 10:36
Originally posted by barish

Attila the Hun, because at the time he lived Rome was weaker than ever.


I agree with that. Attila was the Romes biggest headache. Imagine that both the west and the east empire cooperated to fight him. When did that happen again after their division?


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 11:04
Where is Phyrrus of Epirus?? He is surely one of the top five who threatened Rome the most.

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 04:28
Originally posted by vulkan02

Where is Phyrrus of Epirus?? He is surely one of the top five who threatened Rome the most.


Damn you got me!!!
It's so true. Pyrrus was the only one to defeat that great Roman army. Maybe he's forgotten cause he did the same mistake like all the hellinic city-states. When they won over an intruder they never hunt them down (there were exceptions). That was what happened to Pyrrus. He won, the Romans retreated and some years later they returned in full streingth to conquer his kindom as well.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 14:35
Mine is other... What about Viriathus?


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 15:33
Ok ok ok!!! So I do not know "a lot" of great men who challenged Ancient Rome! So sue me i put up the ones i am more familiar with. Geez give me a break and dont whine!


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 13:34
I chuse atilla because cartigge i think its written like that fel under roman Rule and atilla didn't

-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Lunwlf
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 00:40
I choose Hannibal because he was able to defeat many Roman forces even when they outnumbered him. He had limited men and no reinforcements and yet he made it to the walls of Rome itself.
I agree that Attila the Hun was also very frightening for Rome, but he had many warriors and he attacked Rome after Rome had been split in two and ravaged by corruption and war. Also the Roman legions were not as disiplined as the were against Hannibal.


-------------
I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.- Socrates


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 14:54
Originally posted by Flipper

Originally posted by barish

Attila the Hun, because at the time he lived Rome was weaker than ever.


I agree with that. Attila was the Romes biggest headache. Imagine that both the west and the east empire cooperated to fight him. When did that happen again after their division?
 
voted attila for the same reason


-------------


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 11:40
I still vote for Mithridates on this one

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 11:56
If I had to chose one, I would say Shapur, he challenged and bested Rome at her peak.


-------------


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 10:54
Originally posted by Sparten

If I had to chose one, I would say Shapur, he challenged and bested Rome at her peak.
 
Really it was during the anarchy and the crisis of the third century ...
 
 
 


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 18:35
You could say that, but then again, Rome never conquered as much land as during the crisis of the late Republic period. On the other hand, circumstances are quite different when we reach the mid-third century.

-------------


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 19:48
Where is Vercingetorix on the poll?
 
I voted for Attila, as stated before, he was the most dangerous man who made the farthest advance, in both East and West.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 00:14
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Sparten

If I had to chose one, I would say Shapur, he challenged and bested Rome at her peak.
 
Really it was during the anarchy and the crisis of the third century ...
 
 
 
Which was caused in no small part to the Persian threat.
 


-------------


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 00:44
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Where is Vercingetorix on the poll?

I voted for Attila, as stated before, he was the most dangerous man who made the farthest advance, in both East and West.

    Vercingetorix is "other". Saves my fingers from typing the long ass name!~

-------------


Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 18:15
Well, i put my vote in for Hannibal.  But i think Attila is also on the same playing field that Hannibal is.  These two men really did threaten Rome's existence as a whole. 
 
Hannibal had free reign throughout Italy for 17 years and went where he pleased.  He defeated numerious armies, killing thousands of Romes best men, killed many high ranking officals and he had a true hatred of anything and everything Roman and he had the tatical genius and an army to implement his rage.  And if his brother did make it through the battle of Mataurus, he may have had the siege weapons and troops to make an attempt on Rome or other important cities in the region.  But of course he didn't. 
 
Attila went to the walls of Constantinople and even extorted tribute from the Eastern Empire (2000 pounds of gold).  And in his second invasion of the Western half, he very nearly went through Italy, only epidemic and long supply lines stopped him (or Pope Leo if you believe that).  And destoryed many towns along the way.  These two really did bring Rome to the brink. 
 
As for Shapur I, i do believe he is well up there with one of Romes greatest enemies, but he never came as close as the previous two came.  He was a real grave threat to the Eastern provinces and thats about it.
 
Alaric I should be up there simply because he sacked Rome and caused chaos (although Stilicho had a tight hold on him til he was assassinated).  The sack of Rome is huge, even though Roman power was transfered to Revanna, Rome is a symbol. 
 
I'm surprised no one mentioned Fritigern!  He was the overall commander of the Gothic forces at Adrianople.  The Eastern part of the empire lost 20,000 of its best troops, as well as many high ranking officers and an Emperor to boot.  Not only that but he sacked many key factories and the such in the area as well and crippled Roman control in the area for a time.
 
Arminius did defeat three legions.  But his confederation of tribes soon fell apart quickly after.  And Germanicus did show them whats what eight years later at the battle of the Weser River in 16 CE.  But defeating three legions of Romes best troops is nothing to snuff at, these were Roman troops at their best. 
 
Mithridates VI was also one of those great challengers of Rome.  After all, he expelled all of the Romans out of the East (including Greece), used Romes own sources of propoganda aganist them (the books of the Sibyl).  And caused problems in not just one war but three (from 88-63 BCE).   But Roman forces handled him quite well once they got themselves together. 
 
As for Tigranes the Great.. Lucius Lucullus really handled him quite well.  No great threat.
 
But really, these are just external threats.  The real people that threatened Rome were the many emperors that vied for power (especially during the crisis of the 3rd century).  They really ruined Romes economey, internal trade and drained its military the most. 
 
Forgive me if some of this was already mentioned, i only had time to scan the thread.
 
 


-------------
Kilroy was here.


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 09:08
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Sparten

If I had to chose one, I would say Shapur, he challenged and bested Rome at her peak.
 
Really it was during the anarchy and the crisis of the third century ...
 
 
 
Which was caused in no small part to the Persian threat.
 
 
 
Really they were mainly internal causes


Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 05:39
Well, in accordance to the poll question, 'Who caused the most fear to Ancient Rome', I would have to say that Hannibal fits this criteria most suitingly. Hannibal evoked a fear previously unknown to the Romans. He had annihilated over 120,000 Romans at Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae and Silarus alone, and then went on to freely roam the valley of Campania, and a lot of Southern Italy. Rome was at his complete and utter mercy, and consequently mobilised over 100,000 extra soldiers just to STOP Hannibal from ravaging the countryside of his own accord.
The fear Hannibal created in Ancient Rome is blatently evident through the psychological  influence he had. For example the use of brutul tales of Hannibal in order to scare misbehaving children (Modern Day Boogeyman equivilant), as well as [the fear he caused] evolving into a common latin exclamation of anxiety: 'Hannibal ad portas'.

However, Hannibal was definately not the sole reaper of all fear in Ancient Rome! Many other brilliant generals and figures of history summoned deathly fear upon Rome, such as Attila. Attila especially is a viable option because of the influence he had on Rome, and the fear that Rome felt as a result of him.Cool




Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:18
As you asked  who caused the greatest threat to Rome i would answerm commenting your candidates:
 
1. Hannibal caused great threat
 
2.Spartacus also but there was no chance that he can win,
 
3.Atilla was as great threat than Hannibal, the both were able to destroy Rome, but were defeated,
 
4. Mithridates wasnt really a threat, all what he could have done and did was murdering Romans and Italians in Asia,
 
5.Boudica and Shapur were like Mithridates, too far to cause any fear in Rome,
 
6. Sertorius is an interesting candidate. For sure there were many who were afraid of him. Not to mention that if any kind of rebellion arised in Rome he could have come back and take bloody revange on the senate and big part of the first class. But was he dangerous for Rome? Imho only for its ruling class.
 
I would add that Italians were one of the greatest threats for Rome. When they rebelled and started social war, it was really possible that in case of Italian victory there will be no Rome at all. The already declared Italy to be a new state and renamed one city for its new capital "Italia". In fact Rome first had to divide them and next was finally able to defeat them. On the begining of war Italian forces were quite succesful. Not to mention that Rome in this war was very lucky having 2 great commanders Marius and Sulla while Italians didnt have any military genius in their service.
 
Other great threat that Rome faced during late Republic were the tribes of Cimbrii and Tutonii who managed to kill 100000 Romans and Italians before got defeated, massacred and enslaved.
 


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 19:33
great posts. just keeping in mind Ancient Rome, I voted to Hannibal just because he preceded Sertorius. Hannibal changed warfare completely. It wasn't anymore two armies just running at each other. he introduced a new level of tactical strategy.

but if Hannibal was restricted to Carthage, and when he went East, despite his previous success, he wasn't able to accomplish much besides advise another side losing to the Romans.

on the other hand, Sertorius was a volcano. he went beyond Hannibal and anyone else of that time in tactics, and moreover, peoples fighting against the Romans and others would invite him to take command of their armies. what he did in Africa he repeated in Iberia, and after that, being in contact with Mithridates, there is no doubt he could have undone any Roman conquest where a liberation movement existed.

you talk about fighting trained Romans and the best Roman generals. Sertorius fought with pea shooters. guerrilla warfare, hit and run, war of attrition. he destroyed all Roman control over Iberia, to the point Rome had to mass a huge army (bee hive) that Sertorius could only nip at, but not defeat, initially. And Sertorius humiliated Pompey. Pompey would never be known as Great, had Sertorius not been assassinated.

Moreover, Sertorius was setting up an Iberian government on the lines of the Roman Republic. Influential Romans who disliked Sulla or the harsh military regime there were flocking to Spain, where Sertorius honored them according to their station and appointed them to his administration. It was a group of blue-bloods like these led bor Porpenna who, jealous of his success and glory, thought they could do just as well as him. So they murdered him. And Pompey, once he heard of it, marched back in and crushed them.

Anyways, after Hannibal, I don't think there is any one man more than Sertorius who could have had such drastic effect on ancient history. imagine a mediterranean where not one, but several classical empires, with the strength of Roman laws and government, dominated. would have skipped the Dark Ages entirely.


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 18:26
I vote for Hannible. He was truly among the greatest general the Ancient World has ever seen. It could be said that he was the the greatest general, alpha and omega, of the Phoenicia.

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 13:40
On technicality, I'd say the early 4th C. (BC) Brennus of the Senones, who would be the only one to sack Rome when the city proper was the actual imperial powerbase.

-------------
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 18:48
just a question, was Spartacus all that bright? between reaching the brink of freedom before returning to the tip of Italy and being surrounded, plus dealing with Cilician pirates whose commerce was based off an Italy ruled by patricians with huge plantations populated by slaves like him. What motive would the pirates have in assisting Spartacus? do you think the Romans sent the pirates to negoatiate in order to stall Spartacus?

i don't know, it just doesn't make sense that the pirates would want to help a slave uprising, or that Spartacus would trust, essentially, slave-traders. any help?


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 03:29
SmileAll Turks will vote for attila, but I believe Hannibal was the closest. Of course, Alarix too, but his times, like Attilas Rome was too weak. Hannibal almost 13 years spent in Rome and destroyed more than 20 small armies and 3-4 big armies of Rome. I apploud Rome, becouse they never bowed before him!

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 19:11
Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

just a question, was Spartacus all that bright? between reaching the brink of freedom before returning to the tip of Italy and being surrounded, plus dealing with Cilician pirates whose commerce was based off an Italy ruled by patricians with huge plantations populated by slaves like him. What motive would the pirates have in assisting Spartacus? do you think the Romans sent the pirates to negoatiate in order to stall Spartacus?

i don't know, it just doesn't make sense that the pirates would want to help a slave uprising, or that Spartacus would trust, essentially, slave-traders. any help?


I don't believe Spartacus was an idiot, though he wasn't blessed with a oversight either.  I think he was over confident and so were his followers.  You gotta remember, he defeated the Romans on nearly six different occasions (although against incompetently led and at some occasions raw recruits).  That can do something to a mans ego, and to those of this followers. 

His supposed plan was to head over to Sicily, which had a history of slave rebellion, perhaps he wanted to fulfill his plan of in sighting a full on uprising (which is what some suspect).  Sicily was a good target, from there he could command the grain supply coming from Egypt and starve Rome (which almost worked when Sextus Pompeius took control of the army later on).  It was either that, or head over to Spain where rebellion was going on, cept Pompey was over there.  Spartacus probably thought Italy was dried up of troops, since most were on campaign and the garrisons posed no problem to him so far, which was his gravest error.  Most historians still can't quite fully explain why he turned around, but people are hardly logical. 

As for the pirates, they wanted money.  Simple as that, and Spartacus had it from robbing all the patrician houses along Italy and they knew it.  If they could make a tidy profit, and not have to rely on attacking the shipping lanes, than they would take it.  Thats what Spartacus bet on, except he didn't factor in Rome's fear factor.  The pirates got what they wanted, they took Spartacus' gifts and the advance on money and took off.  Thus, they got both money, and dodged the wrath of Rome at the same time.  I do not think the Romans sent the pirates to negotiate, the Romans never had a history with negotiating with pirates unless it was terms of surrender (see Pompey). 

This is just my view.  Hope this helps.

And another reason why the pirates might have wanted to hurt Roman interests is the fact that they were an ally (and funded) by the Roman enemy Mithridates, whom was currently at war with Rome. 

-Kilroy.


-------------
Kilroy was here.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 21:33
My vote goes to Hannibal. Even after he died, he became the boogie-man of the Romans, sort of like telling their kids they better get to bed or Hannibal will get you.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 22:28
thanks Kilroy, that was helpful.


Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 22:54
No problem Smile

-------------
Kilroy was here.


Posted By: Maat-Seshat
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2017 at 15:29
I missed some great warriors in the poll that is why I have voted for "others".

Missing in my opinion is: Vercingetorix, Arminius, the Ostrogoths: Theodoric the Great, Witichis, Totila, Teja



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com