- Reaction score
- 5,091
- Points
- 1,060
Hey! I'm in the room here! :clubinhand:WR said:
which roman general do you have most appreciation for
- Thread starter sean m
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,720
- Points
- 1,140
I personally whould have to choose Gaius Marius. While he isn't famous for his conquests he is famous for the way he restructured the entire way the Roman army worked. Without his reforms the Roman empire would quite likely have been much smaller and potentially a minor footnote in history.
Having said that I am aware that at some point another leader would have had the same idea, but it is equally true that another general would most likely have conqured Gaul or Dacia as well.
Having said that I am aware that at some point another leader would have had the same idea, but it is equally true that another general would most likely have conqured Gaul or Dacia as well.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Danjanou said:
:rofl:
I like Ceaser, as he gave us salads, and a tasty drink.
Not to mention Kicked ass from Rome, to London. Made them Gaels bow before him so he did. Then came back, crossed a River, and forced his way to become Emperor.
BTW, did I mention how tasty a Ceaser Drink is? Kicks a bloody Mary's ass any day.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Gaius Julius Caesar for me
Pretty good self-publist as well ... seems to be an essential trait to be appreciated,
No love for Maximus Decimus Meridius?
Pretty good self-publist as well ... seems to be an essential trait to be appreciated,
No love for Maximus Decimus Meridius?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
excellent choices gentlemen, and great jokes haha.
Thank god for the Romans or who knows what we would call some of our beverages.
Gaius Marius indeed is a great choice Mr.Weatherdog, it helps to how he was a commoner as well and changed the army to allow more of the poorer men join the legions, since before him you had to have a significant plot of land to join the legion.
@ Mr. JollyJackStar. Scipio Aemilanus was the adopted son of the son of Scipio Africanus.
@ Mr. Technoviking excellent choice of Scipio Africanus. Have you ever read B.H Liddel Hart "Scipio Greater Than Napoleon" great book, too bad he did not get the credit he deserved as well.
@Mr.ErCampbel, Augustus too was a great general, do you think though that alot of his sucesss was do to Julius Caesar setting the building blocks ahead of time?
@ Mr. Helpup, Belisarius was as well a great commander, yet again not given proper recognition.
@Mr.Fitzpatrick, great choice as well for Julius Caesar. It seems he really had a more public impact on Rome than other generals.
It is interesting how even though Rome had such a great military, they also had many failures as was listed prior. It seems that most of the generals came from privileged backgrounds.
They also did not seem to have any military college to train the generals, do you think this was a mistake or not?
Thank god for the Romans or who knows what we would call some of our beverages.
Gaius Marius indeed is a great choice Mr.Weatherdog, it helps to how he was a commoner as well and changed the army to allow more of the poorer men join the legions, since before him you had to have a significant plot of land to join the legion.
@ Mr. JollyJackStar. Scipio Aemilanus was the adopted son of the son of Scipio Africanus.
@ Mr. Technoviking excellent choice of Scipio Africanus. Have you ever read B.H Liddel Hart "Scipio Greater Than Napoleon" great book, too bad he did not get the credit he deserved as well.
@Mr.ErCampbel, Augustus too was a great general, do you think though that alot of his sucesss was do to Julius Caesar setting the building blocks ahead of time?
@ Mr. Helpup, Belisarius was as well a great commander, yet again not given proper recognition.
@Mr.Fitzpatrick, great choice as well for Julius Caesar. It seems he really had a more public impact on Rome than other generals.
It is interesting how even though Rome had such a great military, they also had many failures as was listed prior. It seems that most of the generals came from privileged backgrounds.
They also did not seem to have any military college to train the generals, do you think this was a mistake or not?
- Reaction score
- 5,091
- Points
- 1,060
sean m said:
I think you should do some of your own research
- Reaction score
- 5,720
- Points
- 1,140
sean m said:
Based on my admittedly limited reading, I would say that more often than not is was hindrance. The Romans were more than willing to accept the plebs as foot soldiers but they did not go so far as to accept that a common man could lead troops with proper training. They favoured the idea that only those with a specific pedigree were capable of leading troops, which was quite common until the last century. With that said, it's not as if the Romans didn't have a professional development system for their most senior officers. Any young man who wished to have a life as a senator or general had to spend some time a junior officer in a legion. I believe that most Tribunes in a legion were young men of "noble" birth.
- Reaction score
- 4,651
- Points
- 1,160
sean m said:
I hope you are not confusing Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (23 Sep 63 BCE – 19 Aug 14 CE) with Marcus Ulpius Nerva Trajanus Augustus (18 Sep53 CE – 9 Aug 117 CE) both took the agnomen Audustus (Majestic), but Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus was born Gaius Octavius, he was the great nephew of Julius Caesar and took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian) in 44 BCE after the murder of his great uncle.
Gaius Julius Caesar (Octavian) Augustus
Trajan was born Marcus Ulpius Traianus; he was adopted by the Emperor Nerva in part to placate the army.
Marcus Ulpius Nerva Trajanus Augustus
Two quite different people, separated by about a century.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
@ Mr. Campbell thank you for differentiating the two. Possibly quite a few people would not know Trajan's name in full.
@Mr.weatherdog, thank you for your information. Perhaps that was sufficient enough training. perhaps some military historians have over looked this idea, since some seem to state that the army was affected by a lack of a military college.
@mr.recceguy, Thank you for your input. haha that is one possibility. but it is also great to have such knowledgable gentlemen and ladies present here in this forum, who have done such great things for this country and could relate to the military careers of some of these romans.
Has anyone here heard about Quintus Sertorius. He was during and after the time of Garius Marius. The professor states that he was the first roman general who fought unconventional warfare during the civil war. He seems like a very interesting person.
Does anyone else have any information on any other roman generals who specialized in unconventional warfare or intelligence gathering. Supposedly the intelligence gathering capabilites of the roman empire was very good. What do you think about their intelligence gathering system.
@Mr.weatherdog, thank you for your information. Perhaps that was sufficient enough training. perhaps some military historians have over looked this idea, since some seem to state that the army was affected by a lack of a military college.
@mr.recceguy, Thank you for your input. haha that is one possibility. but it is also great to have such knowledgable gentlemen and ladies present here in this forum, who have done such great things for this country and could relate to the military careers of some of these romans.
Has anyone here heard about Quintus Sertorius. He was during and after the time of Garius Marius. The professor states that he was the first roman general who fought unconventional warfare during the civil war. He seems like a very interesting person.
Does anyone else have any information on any other roman generals who specialized in unconventional warfare or intelligence gathering. Supposedly the intelligence gathering capabilites of the roman empire was very good. What do you think about their intelligence gathering system.