Orenthal wrote:Finished ^^^, yea for short reads.
The best generals are those that can win against the odds. Some of the better known Roman Generals were at the head of the most feared military machine when they made conquests. Nearly always better armed, with better tactics, and better engineering.
I'll have to check that one out, and find me something on Belisarius, Narses, and Stilicho who all either had undesirable stations or operated when Roman invincibility wasn't even remembered. Well, after I get through this glut of other stuff..
Well the thing with Scipio was Rome's man power was depleted following Hannibal's invasion of Italy. Capua deserted to his side, a long with most of southern Italy. The battle of Cannae is the single greatest military victory in history, Wiping out 8 Legions. Richard Gabriel had a great line about the battle "One has to wonder how long it takes to kill 60,000 men with sword and spear.... well, the answer seem to be about 6 hours".
One of the great Scipio stories is of a group of high ranking Senators having a meeting to suggest surrender when Scipio and 2 of his Legates burst in wearing their full set of armor and at sword point demanded the Sneators support for continuing the war. And slowly but surely, Rome hauled herself back from the edge of the abyss.
It's estimated that 1 in 5 of Roman military aged men died during the 2nd Punic War.
Romans may of had better better equipment, but they most generally fought while vastly out numbered. Caesar never fought a major battle with numbers on his side. At Alesia he faced 200,000 Gauls, to his 40,000. I'd also say his Gallic Legions were the hardest soldiers to ever fight a battle in history. 10 years in Gaul fighting, 700 cities razed, 300 tribes crushed, a million Gauls killed and million more enslaved.
I believe Belisarius and Narses both had the misfortune of serving the despotic Justinian. But he did come with in a eyelash of reconquering the west.