The Military Career of Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus

Caesarmagnus · Feb 16, 2021

I have seen all that stuff. I called him a great general. All great Roman generals could do stuff like that. It was pretty basic to pincer and flank for that level of general. The one cute tactic he used that isn't routine, and that I singled out accordingly, is having cavalry dismount to become infantry... but that's not really that great a move, and while he should get credit for using a move like that in a time that actually made it possible to pull off, I can't say I'm blown away by it. It's more a cute trick, and a testament to the amateurish forces both sides used at the time as compared to late republican armies. The quadrangular formation is also somewhat novel, though again nothing too special.

Nobody is disrespecting him; I'm just putting him in his context. I don't think most other people here rank him in the top tier of Roman generals either.

Mangekyou · Feb 17, 2021

Caesarmagnus said:
I have seen all that stuff. I called him a great general. All great Roman generals could do stuff like that. It was pretty basic to pincer and flank for that level of general. The one cute tactic he used that isn't routine, and that I singled out accordingly, is having cavalry dismount to become infantry... but that's not really that great a move, and while he should get credit for using a move like that in a time that actually made it possible to pull off, I can't say I'm blown away by it. It's more a cute trick, and a testament to the amateurish forces both sides used at the time as compared to late republican armies. The quadrangular formation is also somewhat novel, though again nothing too special.

Nobody is disrespecting him; I'm just putting him in his context. I don't think most other people here rank him in the top tier of Roman generals either.

1. You say "its basic and easy" to pincer and flank without giving any context. Even if the common sense thing to do is turn a position, it still requires tactics and co-ordination and organisation.

2. "Ameuterish" yes of course. They were citizen armies, not standing professional armies. Of course they were amateur.

3. You are discounting tactics use, and calling them novel, and yet at the same time you are calling Sulla a genius for digging trenches.

4. You missed my point entirely about the camps. Roman armies were the only ones who fortified their marching camps consistently. They dug trenches, they used stakes, they used stakes and connecting lookout forts. The Romans had organisation. They were as much engineers as they were soldiers. You say Sulla is a genius for digging ditches, and entrenching, yet, the Romans did this consistently, and they used it for anti cavalry and missile purposes.

It was ingenious to do it on the scale Sulla did, but I'm sorry, I just don't quantify that as making him a genius. Using fortified camps and mixing it with open field was used at Beneventum, against Pyrrhus. Why aren't you calling Dentatus a genius?

If you think that equates to being an utter genius, then Tiberius was a genius for his use of using armies for irregular warfare and attritional combat, in an era where Roman armies were more aggressive. We can call Pompey a genius, after all, he dug trenches and counter trenches against Caesar. We can call Trajan a genius for designing armour to adapt to the Dacian sickle weapons and make his armies more effective and take less casualties. We can Call Hadrian a genius for building a wall to keep out the Celts. See how silly it sounds?

The only two generals who deserve the title of genius to their name are Caesar and Scipio, imho. Maybe Constantine too.

Caesarmagnus · Feb 17, 2021

Mangekyou said:
1. You say "its basic and easy" to pincer and flank without giving any context. Even if the common sense thing to do is turn a position, it still requires tactics and co-ordination and organisation.

2. "Ameuterish" yes of course. They were citizen armies, not standing professional armies. Of course they were amateur.

3. You are discounting tactics use, and calling them novel, and yet at the same time you are calling Sulla a genius for digging trenches.

4. You missed my point entirely about the camps. Roman armies were the only ones who fortified their marching camps consistently. They dug trenches, they used stakes, they used stakes and connecting lookout forts. The Romans had organisation. They were as much engineers as they were soldiers. You say Sulla is a genius for digging ditches, and entrenching, yet, the Romans did this consistently, and they used it for anti cavalry and missile purposes.

It was ingenious to do it on the scale Sulla did, but I'm sorry, I just don't quantify that as making him a genius. Using fortified camps and mixing it with open field was used at Beneventum, against Pyrrhus. Why aren't you calling Dentatus a genius?

If you think that equates to being an utter genius, then Tiberius was a genius for his use of using armies for irregular warfare and attritional combat, in an era where Roman armies were more aggressive. We can call Pompey a genius, after all, he dug trenches and counter trenches against Caesar. We can call Trajan a genius for designing armour to adapt to the Dacian sickle weapons and make his armies more effective and take less casualties. We can Call Hadrian a genius for building a wall to keep out the Celts. See how silly it sounds?

The only two generals who deserve the title of genius to their name are Caesar and Scipio, imho. Maybe Constantine too.

If you want to keep discussing the Sulla stuff it should be moved to the other thread. I have to confess that these seem like disingenuous examples you are using though. How is Beneventum a suitable comparison to what Sulla did in Greece? There were some Roman camps nearby where the battle happened to take place, but the Romans didn't use entrenchment, ..... and siege artillery as the lever to win that battle. The presence of any of those things was incidental to the battle as far as I remember it. Maybe you can provide some sources to the contrary? Sulla isn't a genius for having those things, it's for using those things as the lever to win on the battlefield as opposed to defend/attack a fortress in a siege situation (which was almost unheard of). I won't drag Tiberius and Trajan into this, who were indeed fine generals, but the Pompey and Hadrian examples are ridiculous. Building a wall has nothing to do with generalship; to compare what Sulla did to Hadrian is absurd. Pompey had to dig trenches defensively because he WAS UNDER SIEGE (a siege he was frankly lucky to escape from). It was not a conventional open battle, and has nothing in common with what Sulla did at all.

Mangekyou · Feb 17, 2021

Caesarmagnus said:
If you want to keep discussing the Sulla stuff it should be moved to the other thread. I have to confess that these seem like disingenuous examples you are using though. How is Beneventum a suitable comparison to what Sulla did in Greece? There were some Roman camps nearby where the battle happened to take place, but the Romans didn't use entrenchment, ..... and siege artillery as the lever to win that battle. The presence of any of those things was incidental to the battle as far as I remember it. Maybe you can provide some sources to the contrary? Sulla isn't a genius for having those things, it's for using those things as the lever to win on the battlefield as opposed to defend/attack a fortress in a siege situation (which was almost unheard of). I won't drag Tiberius and Trajan into this, who were indeed fine generals, but the Pompey and Hadrian examples are ridiculous. Building a wall has nothing to do with generalship; to compare what Sulla did to Hadrian is absurd. Pompey had to dig trenches defensively because he WAS UNDER SIEGE (a siege he was frankly lucky to escape from). It was not a conventional open battle, and has nothing in common with what Sulla did at all.

Yes, we shouldn't hijack the thread anymore. This will be my last response in this thread. I'm on phone so will be brief.

1. Beneventum is not meant to be a like for like example. It's meant to showcase that Romans could fight in entrenched positions, not forts, entrenched positions.

2. Of course they are silly examples, I even said so, but they are certainly not disingenuous. Well, maybe the Hadrian's wall one was a bit much, but I was tired when replying. The others are examples of Roman ingenuity in difficult situations, and yes, Pompey was besieged, but he did display the quick thinking ability to counter siege exactly was Caesar was doing, which allowed him to hold out until Pharsalus.

It's not even like we are disagreeing on the fundamental point, just the way it's presented. Anyway, my last response here.

Caesarmagnus · Feb 18, 2021

Mangekyou said:
Yes, we shouldn't hijack the thread anymore. This will be my last response in this thread. I'm on phone so will be brief.

1. Beneventum is not meant to be a like for like example. It's meant to showcase that Romans could fight in entrenched positions, not forts, entrenched positions.

2. Of course they are silly examples, I even said so, but they are certainly not disingenuous. Well, maybe the Hadrian's wall one was a bit much, but I was tired when replying. The others are examples of Roman ingenuity in difficult situations, and yes, Pompey was besieged, but he did display the quick thinking ability to counter siege exactly was Caesar was doing, which allowed him to hold out until Pharsalus.

It's not even like we are disagreeing on the fundamental point, just the way it's presented. Anyway, my last response here.

It is not analogous to Sulla's Pontic victories in any way shape or form except that some fortifications were nearby. You're right though; the Hadrian example was ridiculous.

I'm not going to get into Pompey more here, except to say I disagree, but saying "here's an example of something I consider ingenious" is not a response to what I said, regardless of whether it actually is ingenious. My point was that Sulla's tactics were almost unheard of, not that genius didn't exist prior to Sulla. Your response is missing the point I'm afraid.

Arminius · Feb 18, 2021

Olleus said:
I, for one, enjoyed reading about a period of history I'm less familiar with and can appreciate the talent of the men who were involved without taking it as an assault against the idols I worship...

i doubt this has been heeded, but it's an excellent point.

Arminius · Feb 18, 2021

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou said:
I'm not interested in getting baited into one of your slugfests where you stan your favourite Late Republicans and act with contempt towards those who don't agree with you. It's boring and bizarre behaviour and I want no part in it.

again, I'm afraid this is unfortunately unlikely to have been acknowledged or understood, never mind heeded.

Arminius · Feb 18, 2021

Caesarmagnus said:
I'm not going to get into Pompey more here

Hope springs eternal.

Anyone else you'd like to swear off discussing? I could add another 10-15 names for you, I'm sure many of us would welcome a self-imposed silence.

Caesarmagnus · Feb 19, 2021

Arminius said:
Hope springs eternal.

Anyone else you'd like to swear off discussing? I could add another 10-15 names for you, I'm sure many of us would welcome a self-imposed silence.

Nope. I'll discuss who I like thanks.

Arminius · Feb 20, 2021

Caesarmagnus said:
Nope. I'll discuss who I like thanks.

on current form you'll be doing it in an empty room, good luck with that and have fun

Caesarmagnus · Feb 20, 2021

Arminius said:
on current form you'll be doing it in an empty room, good luck with that and have fun

Thanks for the constructive comment. Let me know if you've got anything actually substantive to discuss

Search

Search

The Military Career of Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus

Caesarmagnus

Mangekyou

Caesarmagnus

Mangekyou

Caesarmagnus

Arminius

Arminius

Arminius

Caesarmagnus

Arminius

Caesarmagnus

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions