W-13

I have moved your poll to the Greco Roman forum from the Ancient History forum - I think more people with an interest in things Roman will find it here.

v

I knew I would forget some because there are so many possible chooses. I hope people don't settle on Julius Caesar because he is the most famous on the list. Although he conquerored Gaul and was probably the most powerful of those on the list, in terms of talent and military manouvering he is not undoubtably the best. In fact, although he was able to defeat Pompey in his power struggle, it is Pompey who is widely considered the better of the two. 

My vote is for Julius Caesar: good tactic, good strategy, very good in the siege war.

Surelly, a roman army of the second century AC was more powerful than an army of first century BC; but Julius Caesar were the first roman general that fight with the highest power of legions. All the elements existed before him, but he got the best use of that elements: artillery in the battlefield, powerful cavalry, bettered the pilum, great use of auxilia and changed the basic tactic of the legion (three lines to two lines if was necesarily) The imperial generals tooks his lessons and fighted.

Julius Caesar make more things than other general after or before him with the roman army.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and probably place the only vote for Marcellus who, because of his earlier successes against Hannibal, was known as the "Sword of Rome". 

M. Claudius Marcellus had a long and distinguished military record.  As a veteran of the First Punic War, he served the earliest of his 5 consulships fighting Gauls in the north of Italy where he killed the Gallic chieftan in a personal batttle.  A play was even produced about it.

In the Second Punic War, Marcellus was the first Roman commander to enjoy a victory over Hannibal while defending the city of Nola.  Militarily it wasn't an important battle but the effect that it had on Roman morale was.   Marcellus was able to provide the first hope that Hannibal could be beaten.

Again in 215 BC, Marcellus beat Hannibal in Nola and Plutarch claims that for the first time there were enemy desertions to Rome.    His efforts won him a 3rd consulship and after fending off Hannibal's final atempt to take Nola, he moved to assist in the siege of Casilinum.  Once that city was retaken, Marcellus was assigned to Sicily.

Syracuse was one of the most important cities in the West and one that was probably the best defended thanks to Archimedes.  Marcellus abandoned his attempts to take the city by storm, deciding to put a blockade in place.  He resisted Carthaginian attempts to relieve the city and foiled all Syracusan atempts to break the blockade.  During a festival in 212 BC, the Syracusans became careless and Marcellus was able to lead a force over the walls and captured the suburbs.   The inner city was finally betrayed by an opportunistic mercenary which allowed the Romans to overwhelm the remaining defenders.

I love Archimedes. I'm so proud to be from the same island he was from.

Not saying that he's the best, but I love Gordianus III. Gaining the throne at the age of thirteen, he defeated the Sassanians who were invading Rome. Gordianus III defeated Shapur I in battle, and was even about to occupy Ctesiphon, but alas, he was assassinated by Philip the Arab, who assumed the imperial throne after his death.

Scipio��

reason: capture Spain, the base of Carthage, defeat Carthage for like 5 times kills anymost 200000sodiers.

Jilius almost lost the war in the final battle against Guals, he just got won by lucky, he is a little bit over rated.

I agree . . . and yet I voted for Augustus. In fact, if Caesar was the best tactician (with Scipio approx. on the same level), Augustus was the best strategist; besides, he not only knew how to do war, but also how and when to stop.

IIRC, among the listed ones, was the only one who was born a little more than a commoner (actually, one of many self-appointed heirs of Julius Caesar), and eventually died in his own bed and of old age as an emperor.

Since the exact question was about "the greatest Roman general in terms of talent, success and power", I think the answer is obvious.

Scipio is remembered as a great general by the accounts of Livy and Polybius, Caesar is remembered as great because he wrote his own accounts.  Next to the genius of Scipio Caesar was no more than an overrated sepoy general.  Scipio fought against the most lethal enemies Rome ever faced and crushed them in turn.  If you disagree I challenge you to find a battle fought by Julius that demonstrated the same brilliance of Scipio.  You can look at Alecium and Pharsalus but neither is an Illipia.

Of course Caesar's name endured more, he was the first emperor and he was assasinated.  As far as I'm concerned this further proves the superiority of Scipio who didn't sieze power and crown himself emperor even though he could have. The far better man Scipio fought his entire life for the service of Rome.  Caesar only for himself.

My two favourites are Julius Ceasar and Scipio. But i will have to say that despite all of the contestants of the list were good generals they always had their right hand men who many times ran the army for them. For example, generally people are considering Octavian as a great general, judging from his victories but not many know that most of his successes should be credited to his right hand man, Agrippa.  

Several major figures are missing from this poll.

Where is Vespasian?

Where is Agricola?

Where is Trajan?

And what about Marcus Agrippa, victor of Actium?  You should take down Octavian (aka Augustus) and put Agrippa up there.

was Belisarius really Roman? and I wouldn't include Constantine the Christian there either, after all he ended the real Roman empire.

Don't get me wrong Belisarius was an exceptional commander yet I think that his success was more the result of his insane luck.

There's far too many notable Roman commanders for a single poll.  Asides from the others mentioned where is Flavius Stilicho, Septimus Severus, Avidus Cassius, Nero Claudius Germanicus(well of course none of them compare to Scipio Africanus   ).  Personally I think a number of different polls should be created for different eras of the Republic/Empire with the winners from each poll included in one final poll.

Belisarius was born in the Balkans, I think the Dalmation coast.

If you like Ancient history please check out this great forum:

http://ancient-empires.net/forum/index.php?act=idx - http://ancient-empires.net/forum/index.php?act=idx

Read Procopius' On the Wars and you will see Belisarius succeeded due to his own imaginative brilliant more than anything else. Belisarius was a count from Thrace but under the circumstances of the day may rightly be considered Roman. Being Roman was being part of an idea and ideology, not specific genetic stock.

I pick Scipio. As has been said Caesar wrote his own histories and Scipio did not. Scipio was integral in snatching Roman victory from the jaws of defeat in what was a deathmatch for survival. Caesar's victories, though great, annexed the land of a militarily poorly organised and outfitted people without strong central leadership or a commander comparable to Hannibal. Caesar did this inheriting the most effective military force of the day, recently reorganised under Marius. Scipio had to use men leftover from the creme de la creme being wiped out at Trebbia, Trasimene and Cannae. Slaves were freed to take up arms and ceremonial weapons stripped from the temples to outfit them in desperation. Scipio brought Rome from desperation to the greatest power in the Western World, Caesar set out on a campaign based on greed and personal ambition.