Top 15 Roman Commanders

Top 15 Roman Commanders

Inspired by @GoulashComrade top 20 commanders, I wanted to get some thoughts on top fifteen Roman commanders. As a starting point I'm using Adrian Goldsworthy's In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire. In the book he has chapters deticated to 15 Roman commanders, list below, in chronological order. Do you agree with Goldsworthy's list? Who is he missing and who does not belong? Who are your top 15?

Quintus Fabius
Marcus Marcellus
Scipio Africanus
Aemilius Paullus
Scipio Aemilianus
Gaius Marius
Sertorius
Pompey
Caesar
Germanicus
Corbulo
Titus
Trajan
Julian
Belisarius
 
Last edited:
I'd say Marcus Valerius Corvus ("the Crow", c. 370-c. 270 BC). Six times consul (first time at the age of 23, unusualy young), two times dictator, he held a total of 21 offices. He fight along Lucius Furius Camillus against Brennus (last dude who conquered Rome in the span of over a half millennium) in 349 BC, where he earned is cognomen ("nickname"). Then he fought the Volsci and after them the Sanniti in the First samnite war, defeating both and earnig two triumphs (of four). He continued his career legislating and defeating enemies left and right (ausones, etruscan, marsi, aequi), until his sixth consulship. At the time the romans recalled him for another campaing against the etruscan, who were so terrified of him that they refused to fight him and holed up in their fortresses. He was 72, and after retirement he probably lived to 100, farming his property.

EDIT: orthography
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting thread and I will keep a close eye on it, but all my own knowledge was covered, and exceeded, in the first post so there's not much I can contribute to it!

I suppose I can ask: Were naval commanders a species apart, or were the commanders of fleets also the commanders of the armies that went with them? Did any naval commanders destroy an enemy naval force, eg Carthaginian, whereafter the victorious navy did not then land and attack the vanquished?
 
I suppose I can ask: Were naval commanders a species apart, or were the commanders of fleets also the commanders of the armies that went with them? Did any naval commanders destroy an enemy naval force, eg Carthaginian, whereafter the victorious navy did not then land and attack the vanquished?

Good question. From what I have read, the line between navy and army command was blurred. I think you could be given a purely naval command but more likely you would be tasked with army operations as well. Three men that come to mind are Regulus, Marcellus and Agrippa. Regulus won the naval battle of Cape Ecnomus, against the Carthaginians, then lead his army across to Africa fighting a number of land battles. Marcellus lead the joint naval-land operations against Syracuse. Agrippa lead the joint naval-land operations against Mark Antony at Actium.

I'd say Marcus Valerius Corvus ("the Crow", c. 370-c. 270 BC). Six times consul (first time at the age of 23, unusualy young), two times dictator, he held a total of 21 offices. He fight along Lucius Furius Camillus against Brennus (last dude who conquered Rome in over a half millennium) in 349 BC, where he earned is cognomen ("nickname"). Then he fought the Volsci and after them the Sanniti in the First samnite war, defeating both and earnig two triumphs (of four). He continued his career legislating and defeating enemies left and right (ausones, etruscan, marsi, aequi), until his sixth consulship. At the time the roman recalled him for another campaing against the etruscan, who were so terrified of him that they refused to fight him and holed up in their fortresses. He was 72, and after retirement he problably lived to 100, farming his property.

Great pick! I'm definitely gonna have to read up on him.
 
Aetius, I feel is not loved enough.

Despite the controversial opinion on his legacy, he was undoubtedly the one man keeping what remained of the Western Empire together at that point in time. Most of the barbarians foederati feared him, he repelled the Huns at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, in the Eastern Empire he was respected, the Western Army was loyal to him...

He would most likely have taken Carthage back too, it was one of his objectives which was postponed due to the crisis, but sadly was assassinated by the idiot at the head of the West, which feared him for his power.

The fact that the West fragmented in pieces after his death shown how much the hold he had over the barbarians was strong, compared to the fear of a Roman Empire which was much more de jure than de facto at this point of time.
Has he been alive for longer, perhaps the West would have survived for longer too.
 
I'd swap Titus out for Vespasian, myself. That said, I feel that 'Roman commander' is a bit too broad of a category to properly compare.
 
Top 15 Roman Commanders

Inspired by @GoulashComrade top 20 commanders, I wanted to get some thoughts on top fifteen Roman commanders. As a starting point I'm using Adrian Goldsworthy's In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire. In the book he has chapters deticated to 15 Roman commanders, list below, in chronological order. Do you agree with Goldsworthy's list? Who is he missing and who does not belong? Who are your top 15?

Quintus Fabius
Marcus Marcellus
Scipio Africanus
Aemilius Paullus
Scipio Aemilianus
Gaius Marius
Sertorius
Pompey
Caesar
Germanicus
Corbulo
Titus
Trajan
Julian
Belisarius
Which way is the list meant to be read?
 
If I were to drop any from the list, Titus or Corbulo would be the first to go.

I would prefer to have Sulla on the list than either of those two.

And probably Lucullus as well.

But then I worry that the list becomes too heavy in the 65 year timeframe of Marius (Jugurtha war) to Caesar (Pharsalus)
 
If I were to drop any from the list, Titus or Corbulo would be the first to go.

I would prefer to have Sulla on the list than either of those two.

And probably Lucullus as well.

But then I worry that the list becomes too heavy in the 65 year timeframe of Marius (Jugurtha war) to Caesar (Pharsalus)

You make a good point, Sulla should be on the list. I would probably replace Marius with him. Alot of Marius success was due to Sulla's efforts. Sulla captured Jugurtha and is the unsung victor of the Battle of Vercellae. At Vercellae, Marius got lost in the dust missing contact with the enemy leaving Catulus/Sulla to fight it out. Marius best day was at Aquae Sextiae and it was a great victory but Sulla's success at Chaeronea and Orchomenus were greater. Though Marius did reform the legions....
 
Though Marius did reform the legions....
He didn't really. The only sources on Marius, Livy and Sallust, only mention that he enrolled volunteers from outside the Servian classes for his African campaign. That's it. They don't even imply that this was a permanent state of affairs. There's definitely nothing in their accounts to indicate anything people like to ascribe to him -professionalization, state equipment, land grants to veterans. The armies were definitely different between where Polybios leaves off and Caesar picks up, but we can't ascribe this to Marius to anything like the degree hobbyists and enthusiasts to; there's a reason 'Marian Reforms' are seldom spoken of among academic historians and classicists.
 
John Tzimiskes would also be a good pick if we're taking in late Roman generals, he was mostly very successful in pulling the late Roman bureaucracy which was too busy fighting itself than the invader, plus he literally beat the everliving crap out of anyone who dared to look at the empire with the wrong eyes. Or look at it with any eyes.
 
You make a good point, Sulla should be on the list. I would probably replace Marius with him. Alot of Marius success was due to Sulla's efforts. Sulla captured Jugurtha and is the unsung victor of the Battle of Vercellae. At Vercellae, Marius got lost in the dust missing contact with the enemy leaving Catulus/Sulla to fight it out.
In general, does a commander get credit for having superlative subordinates whom he selected for important roles or does it lower his rating when they perform brilliantly? For example:

- Marius had the likes of Sulla and Sertorius working for him.
- Sulla had the likes of Lucullus and Pompey (and dare I had Crassus?) working for him.
- Caesar had the likes of Labienus and Marc Antony working for him.
 
In general, does a commander get credit for having superlative subordinates whom he selected for important roles or does it lower his rating when they perform brilliantly? For example:

- Marius had the likes of Sulla and Sertorius working for him.
- Sulla had the likes of Lucullus and Pompey (and dare I had Crassus?) working for him.
- Caesar had the likes of Labienus and Marc Antony working for him.

True, he should get credit for making use of subordinates effectively and I suppose it should not be held against a commander. I will add though that Marius' tended to be a glory hog and refused to acknowledge others. First, he got his commander Quintus Metellus removed and took credit for his previous success. He didn't want Sulla acknowledged and was furious when Bocchus sent an art piece to the Senate showing Sulla capturing Jugurtha. He purposely left Sulla out of credit for Vercellae and ended up having his co-consul Catalus prosecuted until he committed suicide. Not exactly the nicest guy, though Sulla and Caesar could be cruel as well.

I guess my question is did Sulla or Caesar have a tendency to not give subordinates a share of credit? Nothing comes to mind but it might have happened....
 
Last edited:
I guess my question is did Sulla or Caesar have a tendency to not give subordinates a share of credit? Nothing comes to mind but it might have happened....
I fear I have never read the Gallic War Commentaries, which should provide the definitive answer to that question.

As I've heard that they were written with the intention of boosting Caesar's image back in Rome, I will take the educated guess that they do not give much in the way of significant credit to his senior subordinates. Just a guess.
 
Sulla needs to be on there, I mean come on.
Undisputed hero of the Social War, the first Roman commander to meet Roman-style legions in the field and regularly just tear their asses up, innovative in unconventional warfare such as the fraternization of his troops with the enemies' leading to the defection of two entire consular armies to his side, the clever holing up and taunting of Gaius Marius Junior in Praeneste (Palestrina), absolutely demolishing the armies of Mithridates and Tigranes outnumbering his own on a regular basis, and somehow managing to consolidate power to the point where even after resigning there is not threat to his life.
His only failures were in achieving a final, total victory against Mithridates, and in defeating Quintus Sertorius's rebellion which pretty much closed off Spain to Roman power.
 
Top