Did you know that in the Roman world Scipio would be so renowned that when emperor Heraclius won his war against the Persians his men acclaimed him Scipio
Just like Caesar was so renowned that the Roman, western and eastern Roman, holy Roman and Russian emperors were all acclaimed Caesar or Kaiser or Tzar/Czar
@@TheLordRichard The title of Caesar is not greater than the title of Augustus, if you mean that the title of Augustus is greater than the title of Caesar in Rome, but it is no longer an issue. Likewise, the title of Caesar has become the largest title of Augustus
Ceaser may have lost battles, but he always recovered and won at the end. His ability to pivot and adjust against any opponent is why he was the GOAT. Also he committed to his conquests with very limited resources which he curated superbly.
Yep. The top 3 I agree with. Too bad Scipio has too many envious enemies that he eventually quit Roman politics in disgust. Mind you, he survived the disaster of Battle of Cannae as a very junior officer. As the video mentioned, he hasn't even been elected to Qaestor (minimum age requirement for Patrician is 28) he's literally of insufficient rank to lead a legion, never mind a campaign. One last thing, Scipio never lost a campaign he lead. He was after all in Cannae as a staff officer.
Honestly, the top 4 are interchangeable. Constantine and Scipio have flawless records, but Caesar and Aurelian have more impressive records despite having a few tactical losses. Marcus Agrippa should be number 5 though, for winning the Octavian/ Antony civil war in one battle, and for being a really good governor of occupied territory.
@@daniellinanmolina1044 not really considering Caesar has won most battles of all romans with 23 wins the second is flavius Aetius with 13 wins and Scippio is third with 8 wins
Agrippa literally had a modern military mindset in ancient times. He was really cool. And he is possibly the greatest Aedile in Roman history. He basically turned the city from bricks to marble. He did the Cloaca Maxima (he didnt build them, but basically rebuilt and restored them)
I agree that he was a great administrator and Aedile. I don't think that he was a great general tho. He had some successes but nothing special. Actium had an obvious outcome and he still failed to keep some of Antony's fleet. Also Antony lost because his subordinates on land surrendered, not really because of Actium.
@@Emil.Fontanot no, have to disagree there. The problem is many of his feats are lost to time. Prior to actium he had to capture Messana from Antony’s forces and one senator said it was a greater feat than Alesia. Unfortunately the records where lost. The Illyrian revolt is another example. The campaign against Sextus Pompey is another example I believe Agrippa was a fairly ordinary guy, in Caesars legions, but Caesar saw something and sent him to be educated with Octavian in Apollonia. If Caesar sees something on you and educates you with his heir… Also Octavian refused to be compared to Agrippa thinking himself lesser
@@S.P.Q.Rrespublicas the problem is that Agrippa's best campaigns were on sea. That would probably make him the best Roman Admiral rather than one of the best generals. Outside of Actium and the campaigns against Sextus Pompeius he didn't really do much, especially after Actium. It seems that he mostly showed his abilities as an outstanding organizer, administrator and engineer, not really as a general. Also his career before of Actium is overall well documented, especially compared to other Roman generals.
0:35 Gaius Magnus 1:18 Flavius Aetius 1:56 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 2:26 Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa 3:05 Marcus Ulpius Tranianus (Trajan) 3:31 Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey The Great) 4:18 Lucius Domitian Aurelianus (Aurelian) 5:17 Gaius Julius Caesar 6:15 Flavius Valerius Constantine (Constantine The Great) 7:03 Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Edit: I’m surprised Germanicus isn’t on this list
I might put #4 a spot or two higher, but it really is hard to argue with those top 3. I think, battle for battle, you'd rather have Caesar, Constantine or Scipio Africanus. I think if you had to put all the chips on the table, win or die and there is no tomorrow, I'd give the baton to Aurelianus; that man had ice water in his veins. Assassinating him was arguably the biggest self-own Rome ever committed.
By pure quality Aurelian is by far the best Roman emperor. No other emperor has forced the empire back together to the degree that Aurelian did it. Especially In a time Where it was impossible to get a ruler To even hold office for more then a year. The Palmyrene Empire was a legitimate state more then just a simple insurrection; any other person wouldn’t have thought to reintegrate them but he had the will to do so.
The greatest wartime emperor probably, but he didn't have the opportunity to show management skills during peacetime. I'd pair him with a more administratively-minded co-emperor (Augustus or Marcus Aurelius) for maximum results
i made this comment earlier: Aurelian is interesting in that he is a great general but if he lived langer it doesnt mean he would make a good Emperor. examples Richard I of England briljant general but a bad king. Alexander III of Macedon another briljant general but a crappy ruler. wat do you think?
@@mitch8072 this is anecdotal as hell. Saying his reign was “wartime” is a massive discredit to him and that’s the main point against him. If you study the events of his rule he actually laid out the groundwork’s to rule for an immense amount of time, he was Trajan like in his pacification of the army and senate all in short time. He only died because he was assassinated by a disgruntled family member. (Not even throne related) He demonstrated the same skills a non wartime emperor would need and even enacted them he signed large treaties with Gaul and did building projects within Rome and outside of it. He’s only considered a wartime emperor because he was only emperor during wartime. And he shouldn’t be brought down for that.
Augustus was the first and best emperor of all time it doesn’t matter if Aurelian was a great general which he undoubtedly was but Augustus was much better at ruling yes Aurelian restored the empire but Augustus created it
Gotta disagree, Julius’s Gallic wars alone is a top 3 resume. Add the civil war and early stuff and that puts him above the rest by a mile, obviously just my opinion, but yeah, putting it out there. Also his battle of ilerda is one of the most beautiful tactical works in all of history. Managing to win the day while the only time troops ever engaged they lost is something very few people could ever even dream of
As a big fan of Caesar I've to said, yes, when he was great, he was really great, but he had the tendency to be somewhat reckless at times. The siege of Gergovia and the entire campaign in Alexandria are kind of a big oopsie in his military career. That being said, he also had the wonderful ability of finding nearly genius solutions to the problems he himself run into.
nah guy was so bored at being good he just intentionally rolled nat 1's so his enemies would have a fair chance and he could have more stimulating adventures
Crucially many of his victories are only possible due to his reliable second in command Labienus who later on goes on to defeat Caesar in North Africa. I think however Labienus should be on this list. Man is about as genius as caesar but crucially lacks the missteps and losses. Only thing I would argue puts him down a bit. He ends up dying against caesar in battle however was not in command of the army he fought in.
@@verySharkey There is so much wrong with your comment, it hurts. He was defeated by Caesar multiple times. Pharsalus, and Munda. He was a cavalry commander in both engagements. The battle he “won” against Caesar, Ruspina, resulted in both armies leaving the field, and Caesar’s forces completely intact and barely weakened, despite being outnumbered. The only reason it is considered a defeat is because Caesar was prevented from gathering the supplies he was after. Didn’t make a difference, he still won the campaign. Word of advice, do some research on your own before blindly repeating what you hear from Historia Civilis. He’s biased as hell and you will look like a fool if you echo his nonsense.
Glad to see Scipio #1. He was VERY underrated and a military mastermind, also, they took the damned legions by his command when rome condemned that legions after they lost in cannae. Scipio not only broguht that men back, he also led that army to take Hispania and then force Anibal to return to cartago and face him. People forget Anibal was doing his shit for so many yeras in rome and no one can even stand a chance. If he didn't take rome was because he had no siege weapons to engage, thats all. Scipio is one of the most forgotten generals of rome. Died alone and forgotten even by rome citicenz (sorry about my english). Also the lost in zama force cartago to pay rome a lot of tribute and lost a lot of land and rome conquest a lot in africa. Secured the most of hispania and the most of mediterranean. THAT was massive hit and win for rome
Great list, but one slight gripe I have. To say that Caesar “admitted” that luck was on his side is a little ignorant of Roman society, and it completely ignores the political considerations. In the 21st century, it’s an insult to attribute someone’s success to luck. In the first century BC in Rome, it was a compliment. They didn’t consider luck to be some vague, circumstantial happenstance. To them, it was an attribute like any other. A man with luck on his side was favored by the gods. I think it would’ve been far more accurate to say that he bragged about his luck, and played it up for public consumption. He was, after all, a politician.
Aurelian is pretty unlucky he died young. He basically reconqered all of the Roman Empire in just 5 years. Imagine how much he would’ve expanded the empire by if he lasted another 20 years
Aurelian wasn't nowhere near young when he died, he was 61. So, while it is nice to imagine what he would do in 25 years of rule, there is very, VERY little chance that he would actually live that long. In fact if he wasn't killed, by the average life expectancy of that time he would most likely die naturally barely a couple years after.
@@justinian-the-great Aurelian is interesting in that he is a great general but if he lived langer it doesnt mean he would make a good Emperor. examples Richard I of England briljant general but a bad king. Alexander III of Macedon another briljant general but a crappy ruler.
@@mitch8072 I disagree, Aurelian was a no nonsense kind of guy, very hard on corruption issues, that's actually how he got killed, by a corrupt secretary. If he would have lived longer he would have cracked down on corrupt officers, which would have improved the Roman economy by a lot.
Sertorius stands in my "Most under-rated generals of all time" list, dude was innovative and ran where Marius walked. You know you're a good general when you can wage a one-man war against the late republic for so long.
Probably worth adding the asterisk to Scipio's undefeated record that he was defeated prior to becoming a general when he served as a military tribune at the Battle of Cannae where he and a group of men with him miraculously escaped the carnage.
Honestly, Lucius Licinius Lucullus is extremely underrated. He was responsible for defeating Mithradates in the East. The campaign was basically completed when his troops revolted and Pompey took over. He annihilated a huge force of 100,000 Armenians and Pontic troops at Tigranocerta by outflanking them, and defeated Mithradates while was at the peak of his powers. Without him, the whole East would never have been conquered by Pompey.
Those 100k is a classic exageration of Roman sources. But yeah, he was great i would have easily put him in the top instead of Trajan and Agrippa who were nothing special, many Roman generals were better than those two.
I agree with most of the picks, honestly Rome had lots of good generals but even the best had their bad days, except the top two. Caesar, as said, had the tendency to underestimate the enemy. Pompeius (never liked much the guy, always found overrated, especially by himself) was over cautious, especially in his later years. His results against sertorius were lacking, then his opponent got killed by his own men... Marius I always found him a mediocre general but a great (in today terms) chief of staff. His reforms are superb, but as a general? Trajan overextended during his conquest of the middle east, but yeah, he was definitely a great general. So, I'll give my picks for some mentions of honor that could replace the low spots of this list (the top is quite unshakeable) Caius Claudius Nero: he was bold and prevented Hannibal to unite with his brother, obtaining a great success. Overshadowed by Scipio of course, but his descendant became emperor because of his glory (and a bit of uncle/niece incest, but oh well) Julian: despite all odds, he managed to reestablish the frontier on the Rhine. Died too soon, and not sure his campaign in the east was a good idea to begin with. Lucullus: paved the way to Sulla with a string of victories against the same enemies. After many years of fighting, however, his soldiers reeeeally hated him. Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus: the only one I would put without a doubt in the list, probably 8 above sulla. Before the punic wars, Rome was just an emerging power in Central Italy. A power which had enemies North, South and east. In the end, those enemies allied each other. And they lost. Definitely the best Roman general before the punic wars.
nah i think pompey was on par with julius caesar. he only lost the civil war by an extremely thin margin where he got scared and let caesar escape. his caution in battle was not unfounded as caesars battle hardened legions proved themselves superior again and again against pompeys fresh recruits. imagine a world where pompey had won the war and kept their optimates system.
@@AsiandOOd if you’re going to handwave Caesar’s victory as “he has better soldiers”, you can argue that any general is the best. They simply didn’t have good enough soldiers! It’s only a poor craftsman that blames his tools. Even if you are correct though, does it make a difference? Caesar’s legions weren’t made in a factory and gifted to him, they were made into battle-hardened veterans by Caesar’s campaigns. If Caesar was able to rout armies twice his size simply because his legions were the best, then the credit should rightfully go to the man who made them the best.
@@N0TYALC i never said that? i simply said pompey was on par with caesar in terms of being a strategist and his flaw in the video of being too cautious was grounded in reality?
@@AsiandOOd “caesars battle hardened legions proved themselves superior again and again against pompeys fresh recruits” You are clearly saying that the troops won the battle and that the difference in troop quality was the deciding factor, rather than the difference in generals. It’s very odd to need someone else to explain to you what you yourself wrote.
I agree with this list. But I think I’d be cool for you to do a combined list. Separate lists for Rome and Byzantine are good but it’s interesting to see how they match up :)
I paused when I got into the top 3 due to a surprising pick and made me want to say my personal top 3 roman generals would include eastern romans and itd be Caesar Aurelian Belisarius all 3 were almost barely even debatably the greatest commanders on the planet at the time because all 3 would have HUGE claims to be the greatest alive for their respective times without much contest. each of them had power in the roman military with different military set ups; Caesar with post-marian reformed legions right after the reforms(less than 10 years passed since the reforms happened) Aurelian with legions that were reformed to suit their regions with different unit types spanning across the empire Belisarius with mainly mercenaries because rome lacked the manpower and cohesion to maintain its past massive citizen-military all 3 did legendary things with what they had and outperformed any other roman with their respective ages of military technology. Edit: Push scipio to number 1 and push the other 3 down and if it were a top 5 Constantine would be 5th for me, scipio beat my favorite general of all time, im of African descent so Hannibal was always like a hero to me, the greatest African general to ever live in my opinion Constantine would be the 2nd greatest general during the military age that both Aurelian and Constantine shared, and scipio was the best pre-marian reform roman
Marcellus is very underrated. He stopped Hannibal at Nola three times, drove Hannibal's army off the field in a later battle, and captured the supposedly impregnable fortress city of Syracuse (Carthage failed to do so years earlier in a long siege). His win over Hannibal at Nola in 216 BC, not long after the catastrophe at Cannae, gave the Romans hope when they needed it most.
You should do a top 10 most underrated generals. There are so many great generals that aren’t as well known. Scipio always overshadows Fabius the Delayer. Marcus Furius Camillus is obscure due to how early in Roman history he falls. The defeats at carrhae and teutoberg are famous, but the revenge campaigns by Bessus and Germanicus respectively. Trajan wouldn’t have been the man that he was without the help of Lucius Quietus
Think he has the reputation of being the Christian guy who has that city named after him overshadows like you say his achievements on campaign then as whole empire with the simplification for the period as a whole being changes to the establishment of the empire like the Religion, Capital shift (administration focal point shift), and the tetrarchy.
Imagine being an undefeated general at a tumultuous time in the Roman Empire, but you’re so damn good at everything else that fact gets overshadowed when people learn about you. That’s how amazing St. Constantine was
There are some parallels between Ceasar and Aurelian that fill a history buff with a sense of irony and tragedy. The emotional intelligence displayed by both is evident in the way they led their soldiers inspiring confidence, and genuine affection from their soldiers. They motivated their men to overcome great obstacles regularly by understanding what it would take to bend these soldiers to their will. This is contrasted against the fact that they were both betrayed and assassinated by people relatively close to them. I really believe that much of the paranoia of Cesar's assassins was unfounded. Having lived through the civil war and the purges and prescriptions left a mark on him and he did seem very willing to make peace with former rivals on many occasions.
I'll also like to point out that Aurelian's death is unfounded as well. The only reason it happened was because of a secretary's lie of a pretty minor issue, which then snowballed into a conspiracy from the praetorian guards.
Not really, to be honest. If I'm to make a video regarding HRE, it'd be about one of its states, such as Austria or Brandenburg/Prussia, not the HRE as a whole.
As a fond reader of Plutarch, I cannot help but think that Marcus Furius Camillus should be on here. There wouldn't have been a Roman Republic if it weren't for his time as dictator, scoring numerous military victories that kept the Republic surging upward. He was like an Aurelian but for a Rome in its infancy, making it all the more impressive. Was thinking at least an honorable mention.
Sulla needs to be higher up the ladder. The guy fought brutal wars, from the Social War (where he was awarded the grass crown, given by the legionaries to commanders who single-handedly saved the day in battle) to the massive Mithridatic war in Greece and the civil war against the Marians when he got back to Italy, and never lost a battle. Uninterrupted string of (quite bloody) victories Lucullus and Ventidius Bassus would also need a special mention Pompey was a great organizer but certainly not a masterful battle commander
Pompeius was a masterful commander. One of the best without many doubts and surely better than Sulla. Read more on the Dyrrachium campaign and you'll understand. With more luck he could have won against Caesar and the latter is without many doubts the greatest general in Roman history.
When you think about Ceasar, remember him fought for nearly fifty years, fought every kind of enemy, in every scenario, for me, Ceasar, Napoleon, Alexander and Gengis are above all the others before the industrial war age.
I liked that you added scipio he helped roman in it's darkest hour and was able to do what no other consuls were able to do which was to defeat rome's greatest enemy.
1. Basil II 2. Belisarius 3. Nikephoros Phokas 4. Herakios 5. John Tzimiskes 6. John Kourkouas 7. John II Komnenos 8. Theodosius the Great 9. Constantine V 10. Alexios Komnenos (In my opinion)
@@aloolu9962 Theodosius though he was able to clean up the mess that was the battle of Adrinople he relied on his generals like Arbogast and Stilicho and I don’t think he should count as Byzantine general there were many generals in the east the weren’t referred as the Byzantine
It's Caesar for me. Not only did he win most battles, he fought against a big variety of enemies in many different places. Scipio's military career was predominantly about defeating one empire, whose tactics and psychology he could learn about and adjust his moves to. Caesar had to adjust to everything from a people very little was known about (the British) to his former Roman allies.
Can you please start adding the “Byzantines” in these lists since they’re Roman too. I don’t think any of us would mind an extra 7 mins or so of content
I put Caesar at number one because of his versatility and the different amount of people he fought. I mean he fought gauls, germans, britains, egyptian, greeks, fellow romans, numidians, Spaniard. So from all generals on this list Caesar fought a lot more enemies and beat them.So clearly concerning his character resume he is above the others by a lot. Just for that he is my number one.
I think Lucullus deserved a spot in this list. Yes, he was just someone's lieutenant, but what this man achieved is perhaps without equal in history,. The interdiction and destruction of the (10x larger) Pontic army is stuff of the legends. I also think that Caesar deserved the top spot in this list. His battle record is just too extraordinary and I feel he is in a different league of generalship with perhaps Alexander, Napoleon and Gengis Khan
I agree with what you say here but the numbers of the Pontic and Armenian armies are very exaggerated by the sources. Lucullus was possibly outnumbered but not by much.
Another set of generals that should've gotten honorable mentions are no other than Germanicus and Tiberius, the ones who avenged the defeat of Varus at the Toeutuberg Forrest.
Hard disagree on putting Caesar not at #1. I might be a huge Caesarboo, but I still fully believe he has the most impressive record of any general in history. He fought so many campaigns against so many forces, outnumbered in just about every engagement, and he basically invented Napoleon's entire repertoire of tactics, minus the cannons. If we're judging based purely off of their commanding of troops and win/loss ratio, I could see him being that low, but where Caesar really shines is his engineering (popping a bridge out of nowhere over 10 days, a bridge that is considered one of the greatest achievements in military engineering history might I add). That led Caesar to being highly adaptable, taking on foes from boggy Britannia to the Pontic hills, and all across North Africa. And Caesar's foes were some of the most brilliant in history, too, at least by his account.
totaly agree! the few loses he had wasnt decisive and in ways out of his controll and he always bounced back with briliant victories such as Alesia, Pharsalus. even tho he was out numbered he still best his opponents by being insanely great strategist. there is so much more you can say about this man
I feel Julian is underrated as a General, his Rhine campaign was brilliant given the logistical challenges he faced and his lack of experience. He was undercut by the other Roman general out of jealousy and still managed to win. His campaign in the east was a strategic disaster, but he one most of the early engagements and managed to force the Parthians on the back foot. If he hadn't got hit with that spear and got the army out of Parthian territory he'd probably continued to do really well, despite all his comtempearies not expecting it.
I’d swap out swap Gaius Marius for Marcus Furious Camillius. Everyone sleeps on him even though he literally saved rome as it’s second founder.. and was heavily responsible for its early territorial gains. Heavily slept on generalS
Aetius is such an interesting character, wish more people knew about him. Also Marius is was way too low on this list, his reforms changed the history of Rome
Aetius my favorite. Won the hardest fight with the least. I think the state of Rome at the time unfairly took from his glory. He didn't deserve to be born in that era and the Rome of his time didn't deserve him.
His reforms were important, but not really started by him. Also if we talk about purely battlefield performance Marius was good but nothing special, his campaign against the Cimbri was his only real achievement.
Aetius always strikes me as a weird figure. He was a great general and turned back the Huns, but the question of whether he should of tried to fight Attila is another question. The Romans at this point had limited resources and were barely holding on with the strength they had. While Attila was moving into Gaul, and undoubtedly would cause chaos, he had in the past shown little interest in occupying the territory he looted as the Huns were not interested in administering former Roman territory. He very likely would of looted and pillaged the territory and retreated back to the Hunnic plains once he had amassed acceptable spoils. Which would of left the door open for a Roman army to just move into Gaul and reassert control once the Huns had left. This is similar to what the Byzantines did for the Balkans for many hundreds of years when they didnt have armies to spare. By engaging Attila, Aetius lost men Rome didn't have to spare and removed any chance they had to reassert control over Gaul, leaving a power vacuum that the Franks happily exploited.
You know what would be a really interesting video? Ranking Roman generals and emperors by how much territory they conquered. Like Caesar with Gaul, belisarius with Italy and Africa, Trajan with Dacia and Mesopotamia. That would be an interesting list!
had the 5th and 6th comment, also spectrum u think perhaps u can add a comment or something what the list would look like if u inserted eastern roman generals?
@@spectrum1140 yeah for a fact marian would have been able to also beat the Bulgarians and his reformation ability was amazing in comparison to anything basil did I agree with you having him in the top 10 because many commanders after him wouldn't have even had the creative ability to reform in the fashion he had imo
Quite sad Fabius Cuncator didnt make it. The dude basically saved the 2nd Punic war for Rome and pioneered guerilla tactics. Hes one of the few Romans who understood the sheer importance of logistics at a time everyone wanted to simply play with set piece battles
I wouldn't say he pioneered guerilla tactics as he always was working with a full-standing army. It would be more accurate to say that the Fabian strategy was an innovation in a type of warfare that can be utilized by both defensive symmetrical forces or asymmetrical forces making it a weird sort of strategy that depending on who and how it is executed it can be classified as either a symmetrical or asymmetrical strategy.
His petty nature in opposing Africanus should rightfully relegate him to the 'also ran' category. Fabius' strategy protected the Romans from repeated disasters. Africanus' strategy put an end to Carthage. He was embarrassed by that young dandy's successes and, in fact, used his own best efforts to hamstring Africanus.
@@thomashazlewood4658 the only reason why Fabius strategy didn't work is because the romans didn't followed it to the end. If they did the second punic war would have been ended whit much less bloodshed, because if the italic people did not rebel after Cannae, there are exactly 0 chances they would have rebelled if Cannae never happened. I still wouldn't put him as a top General gor the same reason i wouldn't put Sun Tzu on such a list. Sure, winning whitout fighting is the best option, but it doesn't prove you are actually good at winning when you actually fight.
@@thomashazlewood4658 By the same token, I would also argue that Scipio got exceptional luck at Zama. Not only did Hannibal have to sacrifice most of his Calvary before the battle, but Hannibal did a pretty great job playing Scipio. If it wasn't for the last second return of Scipios Calvary, Hannibal would have won and the war would have ended much more favorably for Carthage. Scipio was great, easily one of the greatest, but Fabius is what held the Republic together in its darkest momments. If it wasn't for Fabius, Scipios final victory would never have happened.
Great list I have to say! I would maybe rank Agrippa higher as without him I don't think the Roman Empire would have existed as Augustus probably wasnt as good of a military general as he was
Top 10 Byzantines imo: 10:Nikephoros I 9:Maurice 8:Alexios Komnenos 7:John II Komnenos 6:Constantine XI 5:John I Tzimiskes 4:Nikephoros II Phokas 3:Basil Ii 2:Heraclius 1:Belisarius
A bunch of amateurs... All they did, was win against all odds repeatedly against humans, and Emperor Caligula valiantly won a war against the god of the seas!
May i add germanicus. There were among the generals that you omitted campaigns in fgn nations. For ex. Pompey n caesar fourth in Spain. Agricola won victories in Britain. Caesars memoirs are taught at west point. Another good general not mention is Julian. Some not that great in winning many battles but there battles were enormous.
flip Pompey and Marius- Pompey tended to come in at the end and take credit for other's work- Metellus Pius' in Spain and Lucullus' in the East... he gave himself the title Magnus, it wasn't granted to him. Marius- with Sulla's help, also won the war against Jugurtha in Africa. Because of his low birth, Marius wasn't able to command armies until later in his life. Had he risen to power quicker- he may have won more wars. (It was his alliance with the Julian family that allowed him to finally reach the top- marrying Caesar's aunt Julia.)
Marius' only real achievement was the campaign against the Cimbri and he was kinda carried by Sulla there too. Pompey actually saved Metellus in Spain. His final campaign against Mithradates was brilliant and he also made other conquests in the East. His campaign against the pirates was a strategic masterpiece. The Dyrrachium campaign was brilliant and he could have won with more luck. Pompey was almost Caesar's equal.
@@Kunumbah1 Why? They were always loyal to each other. He had no reason to. There's no evidence Germanicus and Tiberius harboured ill will toward each other.
I find Aurelian's victories more impressive than Constantine, only Caesar surpasses him. Constantine was a great general who had a lot of momentum, and that's about it. Aurelian was a master of feign retreat fighting across an obscenely diverse array of foes and only losing once out of an ambush. He had far less momentum going for him but still succeeded. I would consider him the best Roman general until Belisarius.
I don't think it is fair to divide them as 'brain' and 'brawn'. Agrippa was brilliant. He was the one in charge of many construction projects, such as the aqueducts, temples, including the Pantheon. He was vital in revamping Rome's infrastructure. He also hard carried during the battle against Antony, as well as a multitude of other battles. Augustus was known for being rather inept (in comparison to many other great emperors) when it came to combat. In the wider scheme of things, there is no Augustus without Agrippa.
My favorite was Quintus Fabius Maiximus. He ran a defensive war against Hannibal and it WORKED. But the Roman senate, though understanding that the Fabian tactics were successful, bowed to the people. A defensive war was wildly unpopular, since the Romans were used to facing and (mostly) besting their enemies. He was replaced by Scipio Africanus. He should be considered for this list. And I would have put Agrippa near the top. We each have our favorites.
My top 10 1. Cesar 2. Sulla 3. Scpio 4. Constantine the great 4. Gaius Maurius 5. Pompey 6.Trajan 7. Augustus 8. Aurelian 9. Marcus Antonius 10. Germanicus
Don't care much for such lists, but Caesar's actions at Illerda and Ruspina(which wikipedia falsely states is Optimates victory) are more impressive than anything Scipio or Constantine did on the field.
I think Caesar deserves number one, even though he didn’t have the flawless records of Constantine or Scipio, his ability to inspire the loyalty of his men is what pushes it over the top for me. His army was always starving, always getting their retirement and pay delayed, always outnumbered, always being forced to march into unknown lands allegedly full of monsters, and yet there was never a mutiny. That is a part of generalship, and that’s something Caesar is unsurpassed in. Not even Alexander the Great inspired that level of loyalty.
@@arthurstadlin6110 And that was a brilliant move by Caesar, but I just don't think it's correct to say he inspired *more* loyalty than Alexander's men. They remained loyal to Alexander's limitless ambition over a period of 10 years where he took them from Macedonia all the way to India. It was only reasonable that they simply couldn't go any further. At Opis Alexander too, put down one mutiny.
@@TotalFiction18 True, Alexander inspired great loyalty but I think the difference is that one, Alexander never had to keep his army together after losing a battle, two, Caesar was leading his men in civil war which naturally required greater loyalty than leading men against an ancient enemy like Persia, three, Alexander had to give in to the mutiny at Hyphasis while Caesar never had to do so, and four, (this is a small thing but I do feel the need to point it out) Alexander did inherit his army from his father while Caesar, while the heir to Marius to some extent, had to build that fanatical loyalty Obviously both men are among the greatest generals of all time and inspired incredible loyalty from their troops but I think Caesar demonstrated the loyalty of his troops far more than Alexander. That might honestly speak to Alexander being a better general, to be honest, as he was never put in a position where he was relient on that loyalty the same way Caesar was. This is of course my opinion and I totally understand why one would disagree.
@@arthurstadlin6110 I hear what you are saying, but I believe those points can be countered like you said. 1. Well, Alexander never lost a battle so I can't say much else about that. 2. Caesar's Civil War army was mostly made up of his Gallic Conquest's veteran legions. By nature most of them stayed loyal to him. But it's a fair point, the Greeks had a long term grudge against the Persians for trying to suppress them. 3. Well, I think Alexander's army's mutiny is far more excusable since most of them hadn't seen home or their families for over 10 years. And most of them had reached their absolute limit physically. For Caesar he never had to go that far and only a couple of his legions mutinied, meaning he would've still been able to continue his campaign. That's why he was able to shame the men. 4. This is the only outright wrong outlook on your part. Alexander did inheit the army through his birthright, that much is true, BUT he very much had to EARN his men's loyalty to him. He fought in the frontlines at every single battle he fought. In his first battle against the Persians at Granicus he was nearly *killed* because he trusted himself with the task of crossing the river and buying time for his phalanx troops to cross and engage the enemy. He always inspired his men, and he always showed extraordinary courage and bravery, even still at India. You can see how Alexander's leadership and charisma *was the only thing* holding the Empire he created together by what transpired after his sudden death. Every single one of his top generals turned against each other, assassinations were regular, power coups among other things... Alexander, as much as Caesar, had to earn that, almost 'fanatical' loyalty you mention.
I would have put AURELIAN at 2 or 3 but good work and GREAT list. Pompey is DEFINITELY Underrated (as genera) IMHO. And GLAD that you consistently give shutouts and kudos to Constantine the GREAT.
Julius Caesar is #3???? He has the most impressive victories. He at least needs to be #2 but imo #1, Skipio , Aurelian #3, Constantine 4. Just because Constantine and skipio are undefeated doesn't mean their trials were more difficult or account for more than Caesars impressive wins against all odds. Also I really wish Caeser would have loved long enough to invade Parthia.
I would strongly argue that Titus Labienus should have been somewhere on this list. He deserves at least half the credit for Caesar's conquest of Gaul, dealt Caesar a bloody nose at the Battle of Ruspina and raised 13 legions in what seemed like no time at all in the Spanish Provinces, forcing Caesar to win the civil war for a 3rd and final time. No joke he was the most reliable/badass second-in-command to a Caesar prior to Marcus Agrippa for Octavian. Labienus's last battle, the Battle of Munda, was the battle that made Caesar say, "I have often fought for victory, but at Munda, I fought for my life." True, Caesar fought for his life at Dyrrhachium Pharsalus, Alexandria, and Ruspina, but you get my point.
@@dyingearth True, however, Antony was no Labienus in terms of overall reliability. I mean when Caesar left Rome in Antony's hands when he left for Egypt, Antony made such a mess of things that Caesar had to basically fire him and make Lepidus his new second-in-command. At least Lepidus didn't require "adult supervision" if you will. Still, fair point.
