Top Ten Greatest Roman Generals?

How does one rate the top ten across such a wide span of history and circumstances?

Caesar (for instance) was facing entirely different circumstances than the Comnenoi, in so many ways that its hard to find something to measure them on even ground.
 
How does one rate the top ten across such a wide span of history and circumstances?

Caesar (for instance) was facing entirely different circumstances than the Comnenoi, in so many ways that its hard to find something to measure them on even ground.
Discover the joys of mutually accepted subjectivity?
 
Discover the joys of mutually accepted subjectivity?

Subjectivity is one thing, but this is trying to tell which apples are better with your sense of taste numbed.

I'm not saying I particularly dispute anyone's choices (though I think associating John with "high risk" is a strange thought - small payoff maybe, but not high risk), but I don't know if I can say Theodore Lascaris (who I'd like to mention as at least worth considering) with a weaker army was worse than Scipio (who was somewhat...reckless will do for want of better. Sloppy is too strong. Not a bad general outside that, by any means.) doing more with a stronger army.

That wouldn't be fair to Theodore.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that people seem to always place Belisarius in lists like this one while ignoring Narses, who was as much responsible for the Byzantine Empire's reconquest of the West as Belisarius was, and is held by many authorities to be at least equal to Belisarius in his skills as a commander. If Belisarius belongs on the list, Narses does too.
 
I find it interesting that people seem to always place Belisarius in lists like this one while ignoring Narses, who was as much responsible for the Byzantine Empire's reconquest of the West as Belisarius was, and is held by many authorities to be at least equal to Belisarius in his skills as a commander. If Belisarius belongs on the list, Narses does too.

I'm asking this as someone who isn't an expert on Justinian's era:

What authorities?

Speaking for myself from what I have read: Narses was amply supported, Belisarius nearly reconquered Italy despite Justinian not doing so.

I'm not saying the old eunuch was a bad general - he might well be as far up there, and certainly doing what he did at an old age indicates great health (although that's not a quality of generalship, it is a requirement), I'm not sure it indicates great ability - especially as he did what he did after Belisarius had already worn down the Goths considerably on the times he was campaigning before Narses was ever sent to Italy.
 
I find it interesting that people seem to always place Belisarius in lists like this one while ignoring Narses, who was as much responsible for the Byzantine Empire's reconquest of the West as Belisarius was, and is held by many authorities to be at least equal to Belisarius in his skills as a commander. If Belisarius belongs on the list, Narses does too.
Put it this way.

Tim Duncan, for the last twelve years, has been the heart and soul of the San Antonio Spurs. Every one of their four titles relied on his efforts on the court. In 2007, he played all but two games in the regular season, averaging a 20-11-3; in twenty playoff games, he averaged a 22-12 and amassed 62 blocks. His Spurs swept LeBron's Cavs in the Finals embarrassingly easily. And who won the Finals MVP? Tony Parker, for utterly annihilating Cleveland's crappy point guards and averaging a 30-4. By any calculation, Duncan was still the fundamental driving force behind the '07 Spurs - but Parker still won Finals MVP.

Was that like the disparity between Belisarios' contribution in the Gothic War and Narses'? Probably not, no. Parker just wiped out the likes of Eric Snow; Narses had to rebuild the western army from refractory soldiers and rebellious northerners, and deal with multiple Gothic and Frankish armies into the bargain. And I also agree that Belisarios is historically overrated to an alarming degree. But come on. What Narses did was cool and all, but he did it against weakened and divided opponents and he really only did it once. Pretty much all of the other serious contenders had longer and more consistent careers.
 
I don't think Basil II was as much a great general as a succesful one. He wasn't brilliant, but he was dogged and effective. And Julian the Apostate?

In an attempt to relive glory days, he lead his armies to utter disaster for no strong reason. I'd say no.
 
Another vote for Quintus Maximus

The Fabian strategy for crying out loud. He changed the fate of Western Civilization in the face of a previously unbeatable enemy. Sure he didn't switch back right away to offense, but he made the right decision knowing what he knew and it allowed Scipio the time he needed to learn Hanibal's strategy, take Hispania, and take the Numidian cavalry, all thanks to one man's delaying tactics.

Who fought a greater strategic genius than Hanibal and won?
 
Put it this way.

Tim Duncan, for the last twelve years, has been the heart and soul of the San Antonio Spurs. Every one of their four titles relied on his efforts on the court. In 2007, he played all but two games in the regular season, averaging a 20-11-3; in twenty playoff games, he averaged a 22-12 and amassed 62 blocks. His Spurs swept LeBron's Cavs in the Finals embarrassingly easily. And who won the Finals MVP? Tony Parker, for utterly annihilating Cleveland's crappy point guards and averaging a 30-4. By any calculation, Duncan was still the fundamental driving force behind the '07 Spurs - but Parker still won Finals MVP.

Was that like the disparity between Belisarios' contribution in the Gothic War and Narses'? Probably not, no. Parker just wiped out the likes of Eric Snow; Narses had to rebuild the western army from refractory soldiers and rebellious northerners, and deal with multiple Gothic and Frankish armies into the bargain. And I also agree that Belisarios is historically overrated to an alarming degree. But come on. What Narses did was cool and all, but he did it against weakened and divided opponents and he really only did it once. Pretty much all of the other serious contenders had longer and more consistent careers.

Only alternate history.com can draw parallels between the most boring NBA finals ever and Roman Generals.
 
Only alternate history.com can draw parallels between the most boring NBA finals ever and Roman Generals.
The 2005 Finals were much, much worse than the 2007 Finals. Nothing from Cavs-Spurs can even compare to the last gasp of the slow-it-down, drag-it-out Crushing Defense Era. Least exciting Game 7 ever, too.

But yeah. :p
 
The 2005 Finals were much, much worse than the 2007 Finals. Nothing from Cavs-Spurs can even compare to the last gasp of the slow-it-down, drag-it-out Crushing Defense Era. Least exciting Game 7 ever, too.

But yeah. :p

I am a Cavs fan. You have no idea how excruciating that was for me to watch. Of course it is nowhere near Lefraud and the Decision.
 
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

He was the Gauntled Sword Arm of the Princeps, otherwise scholarly body.
...kind like this guys arm

popeye-arm.jpg
 

OS fan

Banned
If you look for great Roman generals, look at their wars against the Gauls, the Samnites and Carthago. Scipio Africanus should make your list.
 
Top