all gaius marius fans! gather!

[super dark33]

i want to see how many peoples here know gaius marius, and the roman republic in general. so show your knowlege people, show me what you got!
ate quate lave.

[Asta Kask]

My personal favorite is Scipio Africanus. His campaign in Spain was pretty much flawless and the Battle of Ilipa was just beautiful. I rank him higher than any other Roman commander, including Julius Caesar.

[Serpentine]

I'm interested in Roman history, but more cultural than political.
However, I will say that Hannibal totally would've won if he hadn't been really unlucky with the weather, and/or he'd had proper back-up from his own government

[The Rose Dragon]

Gaius Marius is a pretty cool guy. eh posts in online forums and doesn't afraid of anything.

((Honestly, that member was the first thing that came to mind.))

[Klose_the_Sith]

However, I will say that Hannibal totally would've won if he hadn't been really unlucky with the weather, and/or he'd had proper back-up from his own government

He had his campaign about as well planned out as Napoleon's into Russia.

The guy may have been a tactical genius (snakes on a boat ) but he had no place being in sole command of an invasion.

[Asta Kask]

I'm interested in Roman history, but more cultural than political.
However, I will say that Hannibal totally would've won if he hadn't been really unlucky with the weather, and/or he'd had proper back-up from his own government

But what were his goals? We don't really know, although I would guess he was going for something like Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia and an acknowledgement that all of spain was Carthage's to do what they wanted with.

And if the Romans didn't give him that after Cannae, I find it difficult to believe they would ever cave as long as Rome stood. Hannibal had no siege equipment after he crossed the Alps and Rome was heavily fortified. Also, the Romans controlled the sea, so shipping over troops from Africa was almost impossible.

[Serpentine]

He had his campaign about as well planned out as Napoleon's into Russia.

The guy may have been a tactical genius (snakes on a boat ) but he had no place being in sole command of an invasion.

Not at all. He got within a knife's edge of taking Rome, and that's with half of his original army dead and without the support of Carthage. Going through the mountains should have worked fine, and it would have, except the winter stayed on longer than it should have, or came early - I forget, but either way he was basically foiled by freak weather. And yet even so he managed to single-handedly rebuild his army just using the people in Italy he could convince to come over.
So yeah. If he hadn't been unlucky with the weather, and had the support of his government, I'm confident that he would've won.
It's... kinda one of my pet "what if?"s.

[Shades of Gray]

Pssh. The Republic's lame. Everyone loves the Empire. Good ol' Caligula.

He made his beloved horse, Incatatus, a senator.

[ben-zayb]

I only knew Gaius Marius from playing EmpireEarth:AoC (an Age of Empire-ish, Civ-ish RTS.)

I think playing history-inspired campaigns like this is a really good way to spark kid's interest and curiousity for the actual history. The only downer is realizing that sometimes the adaptation was completely nothing like the "real" history.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Marius' reforms were pretty sweet. But yeah, Scipio Africanus takes the cake, for me. Julius Caesar's over-rated, in my opinion.

[Asta Kask]

Hannibal and Scipio talk:

It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia".

To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus", because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible", he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these".

Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "to myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Hispania and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules. I invaded Italy and struck terror into all of you, laid waste 400 of your towns, and often put your city in extreme peril, all this time receiving neither money nor reinforcements from Carthage".

As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, "where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?" Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, "in that case I should have put myself before Alexander". Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in a delicate manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander.

At the end of this conversation Hannibal invited Scipio to be his guest, and Scipio replied that he would be so gladly if Hannibal were not living with Antiochus, who was held in suspicion by the Romans. Thus did they, in a manner worthy of great commanders, cast aside their enmity at the end of their wars

Note that this probably never took place.

[Dienekes]

Not at all. He got within a knife's edge of taking Rome, and that's with half of his original army dead and without the support of Carthage. Going through the mountains should have worked fine, and it would have, except the winter stayed on longer than it should have, or came early - I forget, but either way he was basically foiled by freak weather. And yet even so he managed to single-handedly rebuild his army just using the people in Italy he could convince to come over.
So yeah. If he hadn't been unlucky with the weather, and had the support of his government, I'm confident that he would've won.
It's... kinda one of my pet "what if?"s.

Possibly, but some key problems that may or may not have still beaten him:
Rome always seems to pull out more men from nowhere, and quickly restocked their troops after a defeat, something Hannibal was not able to do or realistically counter unless he crushed Rome once and for all.
Fabius strategy. Honestly it looks like Hannibal did not know how to deal with this, even if he had backing the stale-mate would likely have lasted long enough that whatever support he had would drift away because of lack of any real gains on the front.

Could he have overcome this? Maybe, but overall I place my money with Rome.

As to the original question, I love Roman history, as it was my unofficial focus in college. Also I want to learn Latin. Unfortunately, I am horrible with languages so actually starting is a daunting task.

Marius' reforms were pretty sweet. But yeah, Scipio Africanus takes the cake, for me. Julius Caesar's over-rated, in my opinion.

Why? His military skill is often considered to be unrivaled until Belisarius and Narses and his ability to play the politics of the time was masterful. Along with adding some much needed social changes to a dying Republic.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Why? His military skill is often considered to be unrivaled until Belisarius and Narses and his ability to play the politics of the time was masterful. Along with adding some much needed social changes to a dying Republic.

You just hear so much about him, I get tired of hearing about Caesar.

[Serpentine]

Hey, you've gotta hand it to the guy - when it came to propaganda, he went all-out and handled it personally.

[super dark33]

that exectly what i wanted to find out in my thread.
1- gaius marius {the account} has gave me the inspiration for this tread.
2- gaius was a tactical genius, a underdog who uprise and the Savior or rome.
3- he the one who entered suola, the first dictator.

did anyone here read the book "first citizen of rome"?

[Jubal_Barca]

I'd have said Caesar was a better politician than Scipio by miles, but on a battlefield Scipio was probably the better rank and file tactician. Caesar mostly had to fight the Gauls, who were militarily and politically far behind the Romans (their culture and metalwork were easily as good if not better, the Romans just excelled at stabbing stuff). Scipio on the other hand fought a very effective war against a less well organised but nevertheless economically very powerful enemy and wholly flattened them, including beating the best field commander in the ancient world (though admittedly with a pretty damn superior force).

Fabius' strategy relied on Hannibal's lack of a siege train or siege engineers. Had Hannibal gained these from his Macedonian allies or home supporters, he could have taken Rome and Fabius would have been able to do a whole lot of just about nothing. Without Rome, there was no Roman state at this point and things would have collapsed. While the Romans had Rome, they had an advantage in political organisational capability that was unmatched by their opponents.

[Flame of Anor]

However, I will say that Hannibal totally would've won if he hadn't been really unlucky with the weather, and/or he'd had proper back-up from his own government

Well, personally I'm very glad to live in a society which descended from the Roman empire, not the Carthaginian empire.

[Jubal_Barca]

Well, personally I'm very glad to live in a society which descended from the Roman empire, not the Carthaginian empire.

Why, in particular? I don't see many walks of life in which it would have made much difference. It may even have accelerated economic & technological development by meaning Mediterranean culture could far better circumvent the dark ages (only having one (Roman) nation, based on slaves which led to population depression, probably made Med culture far, far weaker to invasion than a more politically mixed bag).

[Flame of Anor]

Why, in particular? I don't see many walks of life in which it would have made much difference. It may even have accelerated economic & technological development by meaning Mediterranean culture could far better circumvent the dark ages (only having one (Roman) nation, based on slaves which led to population depression, probably made Med culture far, far weaker to invasion than a more politically mixed bag).

To go into it would break the forum rules (specifically, religious discussion).

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

To go into it would break the forum rules (specifically, religious discussion).

If you're talking about the supposed brutality of the Carthaginian religions, then keep in mind that the Romans tried their very best to destroy all memory of the Carthaginians. They razed the city to the ground, salted the lands, and wrote all sorts of patently false things about their religious practices, to make people look at them as the evil empire.

Both, however, were democratic, which is interesting. Carthage was ruled, at the top, by a High Priest figure, similar to the Pontifex Maximus of Rome, only with more political powers. Below that, you had a Senate of sorts. We're not certain whether the Soffet, the highest leader, was elected by the Senate or the people itself, but he was elected. If the Soffet and the Senate couldn't come to an agreement, whatever issue is at hand was voted on directly by the people.

That sounds a bit ridiculous, considering they have an empire, BUT! You have to consider that the only people who would be able to vote would be the true Carthaginians, the Phoenician-descended guys from the city proper, and perhaps the Liby-Phoenicians. The Libyans over which they ruled would not be able to vote, nor would the various other subjugated peoples: the Spanish, Sardinians, other Africans, Sicilians, etc.

Edit: Oh, there was also the Hundred and Four. I always forget about them. They were a level below the Senate/Council thing.

[Coidzor]

Gaius Marius is a pretty cool guy. eh posts in online forums and doesn't afraid of anything.

((Honestly, that member was the first thing that came to mind.))

Me too. Surprised he hasn't come by yet. Wonder what he'll have to say.

Don't really have much to say past what has been said, really, though.

[Inigo Montoya]

Now bare in mind I'm more of a Julio-Claudian fan...

You just hear so much about him, I get tired of hearing about Caesar.

He really is a master of propaganda. There's a reason we had Tzars and Kaisers.

Not at all. He got within a knife's edge of taking Rome, and that's with half of his original army dead and without the support of Carthage. Going through the mountains should have worked fine, and it would have, except the winter stayed on longer than it should have, or came early - I forget, but either way he was basically foiled by freak weather. And yet even so he managed to single-handedly rebuild his army just using the people in Italy he could convince to come over.
So yeah. If he hadn't been unlucky with the weather, and had the support of his government, I'm confident that he would've won.
It's... kinda one of my pet "what if?"s.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after the Battle of Cannae, wasn't Hannibal within 5 miles of Rome itself, and did not take the city? If that's the case, something else must have happened to pull him away from what was basically his entire reason for life.

[Serpentine]

There's no good evidence of human sacrifice in Carthage that I'm aware of, and for all the Romans blustered about it they were willing to do it themselves if the need arose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after the Battle of Cannae, wasn't Hannibal within 5 miles of Rome itself, and did not take the city? If that's the case, something else must have happened to pull him away from what was basically his entire reason for life.

He didn't have the resources to take it directly (see: failure of his government to back him up), nor to settle into a prolonged siege. I want to talk about how he took up a policy of plundering the countryside to draw out the Roman army which nearly worked except for the efforts of one particular politician, but I'm afraid I might be getting mixed up with a different invasion of Italy...

[Coidzor]

I didn't think Rome had especially impressive walls at that time, so that part always confused me.

[Klose_the_Sith]

He didn't have the resources to take it directly (see: failure of his government to back him up), nor to settle into a prolonged siege.

But how were Carthage supposed to get him these things? Last time I looked over his invasion (inevitably from a biased source) I read that Hannibal excepted Rome to surrender after he beat them in the field, which is a sure sign of a poorly-planned campaign (comparisons to Napoleon, also the best general of his respective age abound).

EDIT:

I didn't think Rome had especially impressive walls at that time, so that part always confused me.

You didn't need particularly impressive walls for an assault to be suicide.

[Coidzor]

You didn't need particularly impressive walls for an assault to be suicide.

How though? He broke their army and they were temporarily defenseless after Cannae before they made the next one, weren't they? If you're talking the mob, I thought that was what spear formations and burning cities were made to deal with.

[Flame of Anor]

How though? He broke their army and they were temporarily defenseless after Cannae before they made the next one, weren't they? If you're talking the mob, I thought that was what spear formations and burning cities were made to deal with.

Spears are only good in open ground, not cramped city streets.

[Serpentine]

But how were Carthage supposed to get him these things? Last time I looked over his invasion (inevitably from a biased source) I read that Hannibal excepted Rome to surrender after he beat them in the field, which is a sure sign of a poorly-planned campaign (comparisons to Napoleon, also the best general of his respective age abound).

He also expected the weather to hold so he could make it over the Alps with a full army. As for Carthage, the same way any country sent reinforcements. Hannibal sent for them several times - he had the time to wait when he had a hold on the countryside - and I think he may have even believed they would send some quickly after he left. But instead, they took the cowardly plausible deniability route...

[Klose_the_Sith]

He also expected the weather to hold so he could make it over the Alps with a full army. As for Carthage, the same way any country sent reinforcements. Hannibal sent for them several times - he had the time to wait when he had a hold on the countryside - and I think he may have even believed they would send some quickly after he left. But instead, they took the cowardly plausible deniability route...

But sending reinforcements through the alps would have taken a damned long time and seriously stripped their Empire of troops, while the Romans had more than enough control over the sea to make naval backup a bad idea.

Assuming good conditions and favourable terms are the marks of ultimately flawed commanders, sadly.

[Don Julio Anejo]

i want to see how many peoples here know gaius marius

*Raises hand*

Ooohh, pick me, pick me!

But if I had to choose my favourite (and best) Roman general, I would actually go with Flavius Aetius. Defeating Attila the Hun is no small matter. Second favourite Roman general (well, technically, Imperator)? Trajan.

Scipio won mostly through superior logistics rather than superior tactics and he had a lot of support at home. Hannibal accomplished what he did while being a virtual exile and with little resources except his army. Even then he brought Rome to its knees. Also, an assault on the city itself would have been possible (in hindsight). It would, however, mean a Pyrrhic victory. Which would be better in hindsight, but probably did not seem like a good idea at the time.

Caesar is even more overrated - he was first and foremost a politician. A very good one, but politician nonetheless. Victories in Gaul could be better attributed to superior Roman training, awesome troop morale and not falling for any traps rather than any brillian tactical exploits. The only battle those even occur is Alesia, and the idea to build fortifications are merely an expansion of normal Roman field camps. Victories against Crassus and Pompeius can be better attributed to their own incompetence - they were pure politicians with no military talent whatsoever.

PS: best Rhomaioi (aka both Roman and Byzantine) general? Belizarius. Aetius takes second place, Trajan third.