Joined Dec 2009
918 Posts | 3+
This writer wants to express respect, for Roman "big mindedness", with which the Romans were able to "cobble together" the best aspects, of the militaries, of their neighbors, even despite being at war with them:
This writer offers, that that "big mindedness", was the foundation, for the then-earth-first-rate military machine, that helped promote Roman power, and protect & preserve the same. To wit, by acknowledging human strength, the Romans became a strong human society ("strength from strength").
Thus, ancient Rome was no 'bickering band of petty-minded primates & simple simians'. Rather, Rome was able to honourably acknowledge, the strengths, of other human populations -- in essence, "showing respect, where respect was due" -- even over and against the angers that come from conflict.
This writer offers, that that "big mindedness", was the foundation, for the then-earth-first-rate military machine, that helped promote Roman power, and protect & preserve the same. To wit, by acknowledging human strength, the Romans became a strong human society ("strength from strength").
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Yeah but it wasn't Scipio who broke Hannibal. It'd be like you now beating up the now old, infirm Muhammad Ali and claiming you're the greatest boxer.
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
How do you figure?
When Hannibal left Italy for Africa, his troops were decimated and weakened, but he still had a considerable force at Zama - in fact, wasn't Scipio outnumbered at Zama? As such, Hannibal wasn't really broken when he returned to Africa; he had every chance to beat Scipio, but at the end of the day Scipio was the better general.
Joined Apr 2010
5,163 Posts | 447+
Oxford
Last edited:
How do you figure?
I don't agree - he didn't massively outnumber Scipio at Zama. In fact, Scipio clearly had the better army. I don't believe it's really possible to judge who's better - they were both clearly exceptional generals, and I have no doubt Hannibal would have won given the advantage in cavalry, he almost did it with an inferior force!
Hannibal's infantry were set up in three lines, each line generally agreed to have been made up of 12,000 men for a total of 36,000 infantry and 2000 Carthaginian citizen cavalry.
The Numidian Prince Tychaeus brought 2000 cavalry.
A force of 80 elephants (which has been doubted by Richard Gabriel who suggests as it takes up to 20 years to train war elephants to a sufficient standard, the Carthaginians had already used up their best in the war already. What elephants they had were most likely inexperienced and very young.)
Total Strength: 40,000 (though Appian says 50,000, but this is generally rejected by modern historians)
The strength of the Roman army at Zama is hard to determine, but most historians generally believe Scipio's army were made up of 29,000 infantry, (23,000 Roman and Italian, 6,000 Numidian) and over 6,100 cavalry (1,500 Roman and Italian, 4,600 Numidian)
Total Strength: 35,100
Two thirds of Hannibal's infantry force were unreliable, a third completely freshly levied, only the third line made up of his veterans of Italy were an instrument of Hannibal's will. The rest were made up of disparate armies that had yet to gel. Scipio's infantry were a homogenous force and very experienced, made up of veterans who had seen constant service since at least 216 BC (made up of the remnants of Cannae, and the two battles of Herdonia, who continued to fight and campaign in Sicily and then in Africa) - Scipio's infantry had the advantage overall - not in numbers, but in organization and overall experience.
Hannibal is also thought to have devised a plan to level the playing field in regards to the cavalry. Both H.H Scullard and Richard Gabriel (Scipio biographers) believe Hannibal gave them the order to give ground and drive the opposition off the field, which could explain the ease of the Roman victory here – and they were gone a long time (though against this they may well have just perused too far, and Lazenby and Goldsworthy believes that it would have been very risky to expose his flanks like this). With the cavalry off the field, Hannibal's only chance of victory would be to break the Roman centre, thus he threw all his weight against the numerically inferior Romans, starting with the elephants, then three waves of infantry. The strategy almost worked, as we can see the hastati were exhausted after their struggles against the first two lines. It is also thought that Hannibal set up the third line to prevent Scipio's infantry flanking his first two lines, thus Scipio engaged in the normal Roman frontal slog rather than use his manoeuvres from earlier battles. Hannibal's third line also is the first true reserve in history.
Scipio's own tactics were the novel set up of his maniples and the use of the lanes to funnel the elephants, and the extension of his line to engage Hannibal's veterans, but he did not outgeneral Hannibal in the battle. Scipio's legions were superior infantry and cavalry wise, disciplined to the degree that they responded very efficaciously to re-calls and re-distributions. But they were stopped in their tracks by Hannibal and his veterans. However, the most important thing was the victory which he achieved, and the strategy that he employed to draw Hannibal to a battleground of his choosing, things that can not be overlooked. Hannibal had expected to surprise Scipio before he joined up with Masinissa, but learning he had failed, he had no choice to fight, and this strategic victory must also surely go to Scipio!
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
Markdienekes, I'm not about to start a discussion about who was the better general out of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal in this thread - though it is an interesting topic!
Now, without further delay, here is number 8 on my list:
8. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Usually referred to as "Pompey the Great", this ally of Lucius Cornelius Sulla came from a wealthy family in Picenum, an Italian region famous for the Gallic blood of its inhabitants. The father of Pompey, Pompeius Strabo, was the first member of his family to obtain the consulship, which meant that Pompey belonged to the nobiles, the artificial nobility of the Plebeians. In his youth, Pompey sided with Sulla in the civil war of 83/82 BC. He recruited three legions in Picenum and marched to join Sulla, winning a few victories along the way. Sulla sent him to crush the resistance on Sicily and in Africa, which the young Pompey did with speed and efficiency. Having returned to Rome, Pompey triumphed - a disastrous triumph for Pompey, as the elephants that drove his chariot were too large to get through the city gates. It was after his African victories that Sulla gave Pompey the name "Magnus" or "Great".
In 80 BC, a Marian general named Quintus Sertorius revolted against Sulla. Sertorius had taken over Spain and established his own Senate, and Sulla the Dictator responded by sending his trusted general Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius the Piglet to Hispania Ulterior, or Further Spain. Some five years later, the Senate grew tired of the repeated failures of Pius - and sent Pompey the Great to Spain. What followed was a campaign of utter humiliation for Pompey - Sertorius trounced his legions at Lauro, and almost captured Pompey during the battle of Sucro. It is, however, unfair to judge Pompey too harshly because of this - Quintus Sertorius was a brilliant general, a true military genious. So in 72 BC, a desperate Pompey posted a fat reward on the head of Sertorius, who was murdered by one of his own men, Marcus Perperna Veiento.
In the early sixties BC, Pompey was given supreme command in the war against the pirates of the Mediterranean sea. In an extraordinarily speedy and well organized campaign, Pompey crushed the pirates in a mere 40 days. This is arguably Pompey's greatest achievement.
Hailed as the First man in Rome, Pompey was given supreme command in the war against Mithridates and Tigranes the Great - a war which Lucius Licinius Lucullus had almost brought to a successful conclusion. Having arrived in the East, Pompey sought peace with Tigranes, who accepted his offer. Pompey then chased after Mithridates and defeated him in battle, after which Mithridates comitted suicide. While in the East, Pompey took the opportunity to turn not only Pontus, but also Syria, into Roman provinces.
At the height of his career, Pompey returned to Rome and formed the First Triumvirate together with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gaius Julius Caesar. The former went to war against the Parthians, who defeated him at Carrhae, and the latter against the Gauls. In 49 BC, Caesar started a civil war by crossing the Rubicon. Pompey, who had sided with the Optimates, fled to Greece toghether with the Senate, where he recruited an army of approximately 50,000 soldiers. When Caesar invaded Greece, Pompey inflicted a minor defeat upon him at Dyrrachium, but failed to utilize the opportunity to decisively beat Caesar(who, according to Plutarch, commented that "Today the enemy would have won, if they had had a commander who knew how to gain a victory"). In the decisive battle of the war - the battle of Pharsalus - the outnumbered Caesar annihilated the legions of Pompey. Again, one shouldn't judge Pompey too harshly because of this; Caesar was a formidable opponent who had several legions of veteran soldiers from the Gallic War, whereas Pompey, whose legions consisted mostly of raw recruits, had not been in the field for over ten years. After Pharsalus, Pompey fled to Egypt, a nation also plagued by civil war. However, the young Egyptian king, Ptolemy XIII, deemed it unwise to aid the enemies of the new ruler of the world, and had Pompey murdered and beheaded.
Now, without further delay, here is number 8 on my list:
8. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Usually referred to as "Pompey the Great", this ally of Lucius Cornelius Sulla came from a wealthy family in Picenum, an Italian region famous for the Gallic blood of its inhabitants. The father of Pompey, Pompeius Strabo, was the first member of his family to obtain the consulship, which meant that Pompey belonged to the nobiles, the artificial nobility of the Plebeians. In his youth, Pompey sided with Sulla in the civil war of 83/82 BC. He recruited three legions in Picenum and marched to join Sulla, winning a few victories along the way. Sulla sent him to crush the resistance on Sicily and in Africa, which the young Pompey did with speed and efficiency. Having returned to Rome, Pompey triumphed - a disastrous triumph for Pompey, as the elephants that drove his chariot were too large to get through the city gates. It was after his African victories that Sulla gave Pompey the name "Magnus" or "Great".
In 80 BC, a Marian general named Quintus Sertorius revolted against Sulla. Sertorius had taken over Spain and established his own Senate, and Sulla the Dictator responded by sending his trusted general Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius the Piglet to Hispania Ulterior, or Further Spain. Some five years later, the Senate grew tired of the repeated failures of Pius - and sent Pompey the Great to Spain. What followed was a campaign of utter humiliation for Pompey - Sertorius trounced his legions at Lauro, and almost captured Pompey during the battle of Sucro. It is, however, unfair to judge Pompey too harshly because of this - Quintus Sertorius was a brilliant general, a true military genious. So in 72 BC, a desperate Pompey posted a fat reward on the head of Sertorius, who was murdered by one of his own men, Marcus Perperna Veiento.
In the early sixties BC, Pompey was given supreme command in the war against the pirates of the Mediterranean sea. In an extraordinarily speedy and well organized campaign, Pompey crushed the pirates in a mere 40 days. This is arguably Pompey's greatest achievement.
Hailed as the First man in Rome, Pompey was given supreme command in the war against Mithridates and Tigranes the Great - a war which Lucius Licinius Lucullus had almost brought to a successful conclusion. Having arrived in the East, Pompey sought peace with Tigranes, who accepted his offer. Pompey then chased after Mithridates and defeated him in battle, after which Mithridates comitted suicide. While in the East, Pompey took the opportunity to turn not only Pontus, but also Syria, into Roman provinces.
At the height of his career, Pompey returned to Rome and formed the First Triumvirate together with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gaius Julius Caesar. The former went to war against the Parthians, who defeated him at Carrhae, and the latter against the Gauls. In 49 BC, Caesar started a civil war by crossing the Rubicon. Pompey, who had sided with the Optimates, fled to Greece toghether with the Senate, where he recruited an army of approximately 50,000 soldiers. When Caesar invaded Greece, Pompey inflicted a minor defeat upon him at Dyrrachium, but failed to utilize the opportunity to decisively beat Caesar(who, according to Plutarch, commented that "Today the enemy would have won, if they had had a commander who knew how to gain a victory"). In the decisive battle of the war - the battle of Pharsalus - the outnumbered Caesar annihilated the legions of Pompey. Again, one shouldn't judge Pompey too harshly because of this; Caesar was a formidable opponent who had several legions of veteran soldiers from the Gallic War, whereas Pompey, whose legions consisted mostly of raw recruits, had not been in the field for over ten years. After Pharsalus, Pompey fled to Egypt, a nation also plagued by civil war. However, the young Egyptian king, Ptolemy XIII, deemed it unwise to aid the enemies of the new ruler of the world, and had Pompey murdered and beheaded.
Joined Jun 2011
2,141 Posts | 2+
California, USA
Last edited:
I am mainly hesitating between Caesar, Scipio and Pompey (though I've voted for the latter, as I had anticipated that he would have less votes).
Scipio is maybe the more balanced of them, combining sound strategies with inspirational leadership and tactical skills.
Caesar, in my opinion, is the best tactician of them (probably one of the best in history) and a great leader. On the other hand, I feel that on the strategic level, he seemed to be a bit reckless sometimes. For examples, his campaigns in Greece and Egypt : in the first case, had Antony failed to join him or had Pompey decided not to engage battle in Pharsalus, the result could have been catastrophic. In the second case, the campaign does not seem very sound IMO in the first place as it allowed Caesar's real enemies to rebuild their forces elsewhere and it could have been a defeat (or a least a failure) without the help of mithridates. Of course, it is a proof of Caesar's genius that he managed to get out of all those difficult situations, as difficult victories are always more spectacular.
On the other hand, I feel that Pompey was an inconsistent tactician but still a good leader, gifted with powerful strategic and organizational skills. His achievements ought not to be downplayed : in Spain, we must not forget that the senate's forces were getting the upper hand even before the death of sertorius. Though defeated twice in battle by Sertorius, Pompey's general manoeuvres did not allow his enemy to regain the initiative, and he wage an efficient war of attrition against them. In the orient too, Pompey's strategies and diplomacy were quite brilliant, allowing him to quickly conquer some immense regions. Although his command during the civil war was not that good (arguably because of the tensions within his own faction, and the "celeritas" of Caesar), one must not forget that he could have defeated Caesar in Greece. His strategic moves during this campaign (except of course the decision to engage in battle againt Caesar) were not bad at all : he broke the siege of Dyrrachium, managed to join his forces with those of Scipio and to trap Caesar in Thessaly.
In fact, in terms of generalship, Caesar and Pompey were very different, but efficient in their own ways. Caesar was a lightning which striked with incredible speed. Pompey was more of a Sledge hammer. He needed more time to prepare his attacks, but once unleashed they were tremendously efficient. He relied more on strategic skills than tactical brilliance. Of course, his victories are thus less spectacular than those of Caesar but his achievements are still great : he ended the first civil war and brought peace to the empire and he subdued the orient from Pontus to Egypt.
Scipio is maybe the more balanced of them, combining sound strategies with inspirational leadership and tactical skills.
Caesar, in my opinion, is the best tactician of them (probably one of the best in history) and a great leader. On the other hand, I feel that on the strategic level, he seemed to be a bit reckless sometimes. For examples, his campaigns in Greece and Egypt : in the first case, had Antony failed to join him or had Pompey decided not to engage battle in Pharsalus, the result could have been catastrophic. In the second case, the campaign does not seem very sound IMO in the first place as it allowed Caesar's real enemies to rebuild their forces elsewhere and it could have been a defeat (or a least a failure) without the help of mithridates. Of course, it is a proof of Caesar's genius that he managed to get out of all those difficult situations, as difficult victories are always more spectacular.
On the other hand, I feel that Pompey was an inconsistent tactician but still a good leader, gifted with powerful strategic and organizational skills. His achievements ought not to be downplayed : in Spain, we must not forget that the senate's forces were getting the upper hand even before the death of sertorius. Though defeated twice in battle by Sertorius, Pompey's general manoeuvres did not allow his enemy to regain the initiative, and he wage an efficient war of attrition against them. In the orient too, Pompey's strategies and diplomacy were quite brilliant, allowing him to quickly conquer some immense regions. Although his command during the civil war was not that good (arguably because of the tensions within his own faction, and the "celeritas" of Caesar), one must not forget that he could have defeated Caesar in Greece. His strategic moves during this campaign (except of course the decision to engage in battle againt Caesar) were not bad at all : he broke the siege of Dyrrachium, managed to join his forces with those of Scipio and to trap Caesar in Thessaly.
In fact, in terms of generalship, Caesar and Pompey were very different, but efficient in their own ways. Caesar was a lightning which striked with incredible speed. Pompey was more of a Sledge hammer. He needed more time to prepare his attacks, but once unleashed they were tremendously efficient. He relied more on strategic skills than tactical brilliance. Of course, his victories are thus less spectacular than those of Caesar but his achievements are still great : he ended the first civil war and brought peace to the empire and he subdued the orient from Pontus to Egypt.
Joined Aug 2010
17,765 Posts | 23+
Central Macedonia
Gaius Julius Caesar gets my vote too...
No surprise there: More than half of the votes go to him!
No surprise there: More than half of the votes go to him!
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
Caesar was indeed a brilliant tactician, but I don't agree that he was a reckless strategist. I understand how you mean, but what you call "recklessness" I call "taking the initiative" - much like Alexander the Great always did before him. Admittedly, this often resulted in dangerous situations for Caesar, but obviously he was more than able to deal with those situations. Caesar was a master of blitzkrieg, whereas Pompey was a far better strategist than he was a tactician.
True, but he never had to defeat large Mithridatic or Tigranic armies - which he could thank Lucullus for.
Yes, I agree. However, in order to win wars, you need to win battles. That part of warfare, winning battles, was perhaps one of Pompey's greatest weaknesses. In fact, he never won a single great battle. He used strategy to wear the enemy down - sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.
Joined Jun 2011
2,141 Posts | 2+
California, USA
Last edited:
I do not agree. Pompey did won many battles : in Africa, in Spain against all of Sertorius' officers and Perpenna, against Mithridate, the Albanis, the Iberians etc. The only problem is that Pompey's campaignes are not that well recorded when compare to those of Caesar. Like I said, as a tactician, Pompey was not bad but inconsistent. In some case, he could be brilliant (the victory against Perpenna for example). In most, he did his job, maybe without genius but with efficiency. In some, he was soundly beaten, but always against formidable foes (Sertorius and Caesar). And against one of them, he did actually win the war.
And you said that you need to win battles to win war. Probably, but you don't need to win great victories. For example, during the campaign in Greece : Pompey won the battle at Dyrrachium but was too cautious after that, this preventing him from winning a decisive victory. But still, he could have won had he not fight a battle at Pharsalus. All he had to do was to hold his ground and wait until the starvation of his enemy.
You also said "sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't". In fact, I see only one failure in his long career : the victory of Caesar. Otherwise, Pompey won all his wars, most of them easily. Against Sertorius, he was facing a great enemy so he resorted to a war of attrition, with great success. You don't blame Gal. Grant for having used this strategy against lee, do you ? Against other enemies, he was more offensive. I do think he deserves credit for his victory in the Orient. Mithridate may have been weakened by Lucullus, however he was still a great foe, and his army was not destroyed. And he was indeed outmanoeuvered by Pompey (he tried to escape the Roman to fight closer to his homeland and allies, but he was caught by Pompey and defeated). Also, Pompey did not only conquered Pontus : in the East, he almost made it to the caspian sea, and he intervened in Egypt (in fact, he sent Gabinius) in the south. He also had to fight against the Albanis, the iberians, the seleucids and jews.
Though he was not Caesar in battle, we must not downplay his successes.
That said, Caesar could also be a great strategist. He proved it during the first part of the civil war : the attack on Italy, Spain and southern Gaul was quite brilliant.
And you said that you need to win battles to win war. Probably, but you don't need to win great victories. For example, during the campaign in Greece : Pompey won the battle at Dyrrachium but was too cautious after that, this preventing him from winning a decisive victory. But still, he could have won had he not fight a battle at Pharsalus. All he had to do was to hold his ground and wait until the starvation of his enemy.
You also said "sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't". In fact, I see only one failure in his long career : the victory of Caesar. Otherwise, Pompey won all his wars, most of them easily. Against Sertorius, he was facing a great enemy so he resorted to a war of attrition, with great success. You don't blame Gal. Grant for having used this strategy against lee, do you ? Against other enemies, he was more offensive. I do think he deserves credit for his victory in the Orient. Mithridate may have been weakened by Lucullus, however he was still a great foe, and his army was not destroyed. And he was indeed outmanoeuvered by Pompey (he tried to escape the Roman to fight closer to his homeland and allies, but he was caught by Pompey and defeated). Also, Pompey did not only conquered Pontus : in the East, he almost made it to the caspian sea, and he intervened in Egypt (in fact, he sent Gabinius) in the south. He also had to fight against the Albanis, the iberians, the seleucids and jews.
Though he was not Caesar in battle, we must not downplay his successes.
In most case, he was able to deal with those situations by fighting one decisive battle (in Pharsalus, Egypt or Thapsus). However, in some cases, he was lucky that his enemies did not avoid the battle. Pompey could have done this in Greece (in fact, it was his strategy but not that of the senators). In Egypt, I don't know what he could have done without the arrival of Mithridates. I don't think that he would have been destroyed (he controlled the sea) but he could have suffered a setback in his grand strategy. And here we come to the last decision that I find a bit odd : why did he get involved in Egypt in the first place ? After all, the Egyptians had killed Pompey. If his intention was to avenge the death of a fellow roman, it is respectable indeed, but it did also let time for his main enemies to build another army, thus forcing him to fight another difficult campaign in Africa.
That said, Caesar could also be a great strategist. He proved it during the first part of the civil war : the attack on Italy, Spain and southern Gaul was quite brilliant.
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
Ofcourse Pompey won battles, but he never won a single great battle - examples of great battles would be Tigranocerta, Alesia, Aquae Sextiae, Orchomenus, Ilipa, Zama, Pharsalus... Basically a battle where he was severely outnumbered and/or facing a brilliant general. For the record, Dyrrachium doesn't really count, because Pompey lost at least as many soldiers as Caesar in that skirmish, and it was more of a skirmish than a battle. As for the "victory" in the Sertorian War, I don't think that bribing Sertorius's own men into murdering him counts as a victory, at least not a military one. And what was so brilliant about his victory against Perperna?
Again, I wouldn't call his "success" in the Sertorian War a victory. As for the Third Mithridatic War, Pompey won that one easily because Lucullus had already done all the hard work. Admittedly, he did win the wars in Africa, on Sicily and against the pirates easily.
Certainly he deserves some credit, but the bulk of it should go to Lucullus. Plutarch says that Lucullus defeated some three hundred thousand Mithridatic soldiers - this might or might not be an exaggeration, but in any case Mithridates only had some fifty thousand men left when he faced Pompey. Consequently, beating the petty remnants of the great army of Mithridates wasn't really an awesome feat. Also, Pompey never had to fight Tigranes the Great, whom Lucullus had beaten soundly in the actually awesome battle of Tigranocerta.
Caesar went to Egypt in search of Pompey, who had fled to Alexandria. Caesar stayed because there was a civil war going on, which meant that he needed to secure Egypt's to Rome very important grain supply. The only way to do this was by ending the civil war, i.e. by putting Cleopatra VII on the throne.
True. What annoys me so much about Pompey is that he fed on the work of others, as Lucullus so nicely put it. He took credit from Metellus Pius the Piglet, Lucullus and even Crassus, and used their glory to aggrandize himself - very annoying!
Joined Jun 2011
2,141 Posts | 2+
California, USA
Last edited:
The problem with Pompey is that his battles are not really known. And we are not sure about where they took place exactly so I will not be able to give you names. But I can still take some examples : he did face Mithridate in one decisive battle, he did also fight a big battle in Africa against the marians, etc. And about his victory against Perperna, he basically trapped him by leading him into a place of his own choice, surrounding him... And Perpenna just had to surrender.
And again, in spite of the victories of Sertorius, Pompey and Metellus were already winning before his death. When Pompey arrived in Spain, Sertorius was offensive and Metellus in a difficult situation. But after - 75, the sullans had the upper hand, and Sertorius had to resort to guerrilla tactics. Pompey, indeed (just like Grant during the civil war, this is why I brought the American general into the conversation) clearly saw that what he had to do was to put more pressure on his opponent even after his defeat on the Sucro. For all his tactical brillance, Sertorius was doomed. It was basically a war of attrition with the constant effort of the sullans weakening their enemies and progressing slowly. IMO, it was the right thing to do : Sertorius was a very capable leader and he was able to raise big armies, so to defeat him in one battle would have been difficult. Pompey made it with his own method, and in the end it worked.
As for the orient, again Pompey did defeat Mithridate too. Lucullus won a great victory, but he was unable to exploit it. He had to deal with mutinies, and had to stop. Pompey defeated quickly the remaining forces of Mithridate, but he did not stop here. He conquered not only Pontus but also many other kingdoms. I think Pompey owes credit for this : he was a conqueror. A conqueror does not need only tactical skills (and I fully admit that Pompey was really not the greatest tactician, though he was competent) but also strategic, diplomatic and administrative skills. And Pompey did possess those skills.
As for Ceasar, I don't think it is the main topic of the discussion, but I'll just say that what bothers me is that he could simply have kept Ptolemy on the throne. But again, this did not prevent him from winning the civil war, but it probably delayed his victory.
As for Pompey fedding on the work of others, it is probably true. Augustus did this too, but to a much greater extent. Gaius Marius, who was also a great commander, did not really aknowledge the part played by Sulla in the defeat of Jugurtha etc. This is how things worked at that time. But :
1/ We must not exagerrate this : As for Metellus Pius, we must not forget that he was honored too after the Sertorian war. In fact he was even honored before Pompey. But the difference is that the arrival of Pompey was a turning point in the war, Pompey gave the last blow and stayed one year after the defeat of the sertorians to pacify the province. It is true that Metellus saved him during the battle of the Sucro, but Pompey saved Metellus simply by arriving in Spain while the general was in a bad situation. And for the servile war, it was only a minor war for Pompey. If he was given the right to triumph, it was because of his role in this war but because of his previous victories (in Spain). Crassus was given the ovation because his only victory was to put an end to a slave revolt. Overall, we can't even compare the military achievements of Pompey and Crassus.
2/ Even though it may be true, this does not mean that Pompey did nothing at all. Maybe at that time, he was a bit overrated (after all, many people thought of him as a God, especially in the Orient, and all compared him to Alexander.), but on the contrary, I think you underrate him a lot.
Pompey sought glory as a political mean to take power. In this aspect, he was not different from other roman generals. On the other hand, in many aspects he was more humane than all the other generals, save perhaps Caesar (After a victory, Pompey would generally execute his enemy but spare his soldiers and officers. Caesar would even spare the leader... provided that he was a Roman citizen). If he was popular, it is also because he was respectful of the provincials, and not overly violent. But this has nothing to do with the topic.
And again, in spite of the victories of Sertorius, Pompey and Metellus were already winning before his death. When Pompey arrived in Spain, Sertorius was offensive and Metellus in a difficult situation. But after - 75, the sullans had the upper hand, and Sertorius had to resort to guerrilla tactics. Pompey, indeed (just like Grant during the civil war, this is why I brought the American general into the conversation) clearly saw that what he had to do was to put more pressure on his opponent even after his defeat on the Sucro. For all his tactical brillance, Sertorius was doomed. It was basically a war of attrition with the constant effort of the sullans weakening their enemies and progressing slowly. IMO, it was the right thing to do : Sertorius was a very capable leader and he was able to raise big armies, so to defeat him in one battle would have been difficult. Pompey made it with his own method, and in the end it worked.
As for the orient, again Pompey did defeat Mithridate too. Lucullus won a great victory, but he was unable to exploit it. He had to deal with mutinies, and had to stop. Pompey defeated quickly the remaining forces of Mithridate, but he did not stop here. He conquered not only Pontus but also many other kingdoms. I think Pompey owes credit for this : he was a conqueror. A conqueror does not need only tactical skills (and I fully admit that Pompey was really not the greatest tactician, though he was competent) but also strategic, diplomatic and administrative skills. And Pompey did possess those skills.
As for Ceasar, I don't think it is the main topic of the discussion, but I'll just say that what bothers me is that he could simply have kept Ptolemy on the throne. But again, this did not prevent him from winning the civil war, but it probably delayed his victory.
As for Pompey fedding on the work of others, it is probably true. Augustus did this too, but to a much greater extent. Gaius Marius, who was also a great commander, did not really aknowledge the part played by Sulla in the defeat of Jugurtha etc. This is how things worked at that time. But :
1/ We must not exagerrate this : As for Metellus Pius, we must not forget that he was honored too after the Sertorian war. In fact he was even honored before Pompey. But the difference is that the arrival of Pompey was a turning point in the war, Pompey gave the last blow and stayed one year after the defeat of the sertorians to pacify the province. It is true that Metellus saved him during the battle of the Sucro, but Pompey saved Metellus simply by arriving in Spain while the general was in a bad situation. And for the servile war, it was only a minor war for Pompey. If he was given the right to triumph, it was because of his role in this war but because of his previous victories (in Spain). Crassus was given the ovation because his only victory was to put an end to a slave revolt. Overall, we can't even compare the military achievements of Pompey and Crassus.
2/ Even though it may be true, this does not mean that Pompey did nothing at all. Maybe at that time, he was a bit overrated (after all, many people thought of him as a God, especially in the Orient, and all compared him to Alexander.), but on the contrary, I think you underrate him a lot.
Pompey sought glory as a political mean to take power. In this aspect, he was not different from other roman generals. On the other hand, in many aspects he was more humane than all the other generals, save perhaps Caesar (After a victory, Pompey would generally execute his enemy but spare his soldiers and officers. Caesar would even spare the leader... provided that he was a Roman citizen). If he was popular, it is also because he was respectful of the provincials, and not overly violent. But this has nothing to do with the topic.
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
Great choice. I would add Fabius Maximus there somewhere. It's rare to have someone that Hannibal couldn't defeat.
Some poster mentioned Pompey Magnus being a top 5 Roman general. I think the above 7 are better.
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
Actually, we don't know if it worked. Sertorius was murdered, so it's hard to say if Pompey's methods would have led to the defeat of Sertorius. What it comes down to is who you think would have won if Sertorius hadn't been murdered, Pompey or Sertorius. Personally, I put my money on Sertorius.
I absolutely agree.
Maybe I do underrate him a bit, but I don't think that he deserves a higher ranking than 8 on the top 10 list. Definitely not higher than 7. So where would you place him on the list? And why don't you post your own top 5/10 list!
Joined Jun 2011
2,141 Posts | 2+
California, USA
Last edited:
And me on Pompey. Simply because as i've already said twice, Sertorius was already weakened before his death and his daring tactics could do little to change that. It would have been much more difficult and would have taken longer, but the strategy of Pompey was quite sound : to put constant pressure on his enemy and advance slowly in order to weaken him gradually. Not a spectacular campaign, but an efficient one, against a more than capable enemy. Appian described it quite well. After - 75, Pompey and Metellus took cities after cities, and Sertorius could do nothing against that (on two occasions in -74, he tried, and it inflicted considerable damages to his enemy but it did not end their progress).
Well it depends. If you talk only about tactics, i would not put him in a top 5 (but in a top 10, definitely). But overall, I think I'll put him 3rd behind Caesar and Scipio (not sure about the order though). Simply because of his achievements (ending the civil war and destroying the marians, then conquering the rich Orient). As for his ability, it is necessary to have a debate on this (and we had it), but I don't think one can obtain huge results with little ability.Maybe I do underrate him a bit, but I don't think that he deserves a higher ranking than 8 on the top 10 list. Definitely not higher than 7. So where would you place him on the list? And why don't you post your own top 5/10 list!
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator is number 10 on my list, so I'll make a post about him in this thread soon(once I finish with number 9). After that, I plan to post some "honourable mentions", for example Metellus Pius the Piglet, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Publius Ventidius Bassus and Marcus Antonius.
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
Well, Sertorius was indecisively beaten at Saguntum, Pompey at Lauro. Sucro was basically a draw thanks to Metellus Pius the Piglet - without whom Sertorius would have crushed Pompey utterly. So the "score" was basically 1-1, and Pompey/Metellus Pius were just as weakened as Sertorius. However, Sertorius was inarguably the better general, so I maintain that he would've sent Pompey back to Rome in disgrace. But I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Joined Jun 2011
2,141 Posts | 2+
California, USA
Last edited:
Well, IMO, if you ever decide to rank Fabius maximus higher, then you should do so with Pompey too because I don't think Maximus was a great tactician, but his strategic skills and his tenacity were decisive. And indeed, I think Maximus is a good example of how a great strategist can defeat an outstanding tactician.
But my point is that there is something quite unusual with Pompey : he always thought on the strategic level and this is a great asset. You said that he was never outnumbered, but this is not necessarily true (though we will probably never know because the sources does not mention any number for his campaigns in the orient) since he rarely fought with his entire army. In his eastern campaign, in addition to fighting his own battles (against Mithridates, the Iberians, the Albanis, the seleucids etc.), he had to manage the armies of his legates who were operating far from him. And at the same time, he had complete control over Rome's foreign policy in the region. This was also the case for Caesar in Gaul and during the civil war, and Scipio in Spain and Africa (the two other members of my top 3), but I don't know if this was the case for Sulla, Marius or Lucullus on the other hand.
As for tactics, he was a masterful defender, and good at taking cities or fortresses (sometimes by ruse such as in spain at cauca i think were he asked the inhabitants to welcome his wounded men. Of course, they were not that wounded, and they quickly suppressed the garrison. Generally speaking, in Spain, before the death of Sertorius, he relied heavily on siege as a part of his attrition strategy ). He was also very good at luring his enemy into a trap or organizing ambushes (this is how he defeated Perperna, Mithridates, the Iberians, the Albanis). I think in this field, his main weakness was that he was less comfortable in pure pitched battles (meaning situations where he could neither rely on fortifications, nor hide his troops). It was in this type of encounter that he was beaten against Sertorius and Caesar. However, even in those situations, he was not bad. But he lacked the genius of a Caesar. He was less spontaneous in a sense.
But my point is that there is something quite unusual with Pompey : he always thought on the strategic level and this is a great asset. You said that he was never outnumbered, but this is not necessarily true (though we will probably never know because the sources does not mention any number for his campaigns in the orient) since he rarely fought with his entire army. In his eastern campaign, in addition to fighting his own battles (against Mithridates, the Iberians, the Albanis, the seleucids etc.), he had to manage the armies of his legates who were operating far from him. And at the same time, he had complete control over Rome's foreign policy in the region. This was also the case for Caesar in Gaul and during the civil war, and Scipio in Spain and Africa (the two other members of my top 3), but I don't know if this was the case for Sulla, Marius or Lucullus on the other hand.
As for tactics, he was a masterful defender, and good at taking cities or fortresses (sometimes by ruse such as in spain at cauca i think were he asked the inhabitants to welcome his wounded men. Of course, they were not that wounded, and they quickly suppressed the garrison. Generally speaking, in Spain, before the death of Sertorius, he relied heavily on siege as a part of his attrition strategy ). He was also very good at luring his enemy into a trap or organizing ambushes (this is how he defeated Perperna, Mithridates, the Iberians, the Albanis). I think in this field, his main weakness was that he was less comfortable in pure pitched battles (meaning situations where he could neither rely on fortifications, nor hide his troops). It was in this type of encounter that he was beaten against Sertorius and Caesar. However, even in those situations, he was not bad. But he lacked the genius of a Caesar. He was less spontaneous in a sense.
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
How do you figure?
Hannibal's army in Zama was quite different from the one he had at Cannae. Most of his troops were inexperienced at Zama. And of course, the Numidians.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-