If he hadn't been betrayed by other Romans and murdered soon after, he would have probably regained North Africa and staved off the fall of the Western Roman Empire for another few decades or even longer.
No he didn't. A pestilence in the city of Rome stopped Attila. Aetius was nominally in charge of a force of Visigoths who defeated Attilla in battle, forcing him to look for easier pickings in Italy itself.
>>611065 To be fair its a lot easy to reconquer something than take it the first time >Senate betrays Majorian because "don't want to lose muh land and shit" >Germans conquer and they end up losing their land fucking retards
>>611066 Ok. Was that pestilence a man by the name of Pope Leo? kek
Also, I was curious about this when reading about the Catalaunian Fields. In the later years of the war, were gothic/barbarian tribes mostly used to fight? What of Roman Legions? Were they mostly defunct by that time? It seems like in the later years of the empire everyone was just fighting with barbarians, but I could be wrong. Seemed like a whole new style of fighting from, say, Caesar's time.
>Ok. Was that pestilence a man by the name of Pope Leo? kek
Do you really think that Attila would care what a Christian clergyman had to say to him? It was the diseases, not the exhortations of the pontiff that caused Attila to turn back.
>In the later years of the war, were gothic/barbarian tribes mostly used to fight?
Pretty much, yeah.
>What of Roman Legions? Were they mostly defunct by that time?
Basically, at least in the sense of them being primarily Italian/Latin in composition. Italy experienced severe population decline, and was no longer the demographic center of things. You just didn't have the manpower base anymore to recruit Caesar style legions, and often the only available pool to draw upon were these newcoming barbarians.
>>611136 It's a nice dramatic idea. But I see what you mean, yes. He wasn't christian. Maybe he said honoria had herpes or something.
>Italy experienced severe population decline Right, I remember reading this. So, did it just end up that all the satellite provinces (britain, gaul, hispania, etc) slowly got re-absorbed into "barbarianism" or whatever you'd call it purely due to lack of Latin/Italian strength? What caused this decline? Overextension?
>>611055 >Takes Caesar 8 years to completely subjugate and pacify a wild land to the point where it is still Roman land after 10 years of civil strife and war >Takes Majorian 4 years to beat a few ragtag Frankish, Aquitainian, Visigothic, etc. armies, extracts oaths of loyalty from their kings, and it falls apart a year after his death
>In the first five chapters of his Secret History, Procopius characterises Belisarius as a cuckold husband, who was emotionally dependent on his debauched wife, Antonina. According to the historian, Antonina cheated on Belisarius with their adopted son, the young Theodosius. Procopius claims that the love affair was well known in the imperial court and the general was regarded as weak and ridiculous
Caesar conquered : - Gaul - Spain (Campaign of llerda, then of munda) - Greece (pharsalus) - Egypt (alexandria) - Pontus campaign of zela) - North africa (campaign of thapsus)
and what I have read had a keen interest in the knowledge and the sciences. Caesar had wanted to build a library akin to the Library of Alexandria in Rome.If Rome had become a center of learning as well as military might, who knows how that might of affected europe's later development.
>>612017 Sulla conquered: - Jugurtha - Cilicia (praetorship) - Greece (Mithridatic Wars) - Asia Minor (ditto) - Italy (Civil War) - Roma herself (balls of steel) - lots of male anuses (true conqueror)
And unlike Caesar's "wanted" that amounted to literally nothing, Sulla built a library that housed copies or originals of all Roman laws, Senate resolutions, financial and gubernatorial books, and priestly books.
The only campaign that stands out is his defeat of Mithrdites, Caesar was fighting beyond the frontiers of civilization and consistently winning but also defeated larger armies during his civil war against Pompey.
>>611814 To be fair, all great generals are "lucky". They all have those "holy crap, what if..." moments.
Whether they are genuinely lucky, or they create their own luck, without a doubt luck is one of the most important factors in being a great general. Every great general could have collapsed if his guiding star failed him.
To be fair, a truly great general can recover even when his luck fails him.
>I can't believe that there are people who are better generals than the guy who tries to cover up his mistakes in his memoirs and only does so imperfectly. >Who spent the bulk of his career figthing either barbarians whom Rome had stomped repeatedly before, or boys slapped into legion outfits and had never seen a battle before. >Nope, totally inconceivable that people who did more with less are better generals.
>>612179 That doesn't make any sense since the Romans saw Gaul as a threat for a long time. Also the Plutarch's work would have been enough to keep him at the top. Also Caesar let what he accomplished do its magic along with other accounts. He fought different types of style and adapted, won in Gaul against a population in the millions with just a few legions. It's not an accident he's regarded as the best by many.
Uh no. Nobody had stomped the Gauls the way Caesar had and they were still considered very dangerous well after they sacked the city.
Sure they'd beaten back invading Gallic hordes but nobody had ever gone that deep into Gaul and pacified the tribes like Caesar had. Nor had anybody crossed the Rhine and scared the fuck out of the germanic tribes like Caesar had.
>>612309 >>612864 You guys talk as if the Gauls were one united nation. The Rome that suffered a sack in about 400BC was very different from the Rome of 100BC, the Gauls were not a threat at all by then.
Roma had conquered and was slowly culturally and physically colonizing Gallia Provincia, and even took the helm as mediator between disputes of the tribes. The Gauls just weren't a threat at all.
Marius pacified Numidia and destroyed the Cimbri and Teutones who were best disposed at the time to destroy Rome. Sulla bitch slapped the Italians and Mithridates into absolute and relative (respectively) submission. Lucullus finished Mithridates. Metellus Pius handled Sertorius after a fashion. Pompey handled Sertorius, massacred the pirates plaguing the Mediterranean, and had a bit of fun in Syria. Caesar got disorganized Gauls, some of which worked with him until he turned against them. He'd be so much higher esteemed in my book if he had lived to conquer, or even partially wreck, the Parthians.
>>614201 You are mixing several points into an overall message that simply isn't true.
Firstly, while the Gallic tribes were not in a position to topple the Rome overtly like they had hundreds of years before, that doesn't mean they weren't serious competition in their own country.
Secondly, the very reason Rome was involved meditating between the tribes is because they wished to avoid going in militarily and fighting them on their turf.
Thirdly. The tribes did certainly unify on and off to face off against Caesar and it was his plots and ploys that disorganized. Give credit where its due. The only time I can specifically remember the Gauls backing Caesar, even for a short time, due to outside circumstance was when the Germans started crossing the rhine and Caesar had to kick them out.
And that's not even including Caesar's exploits against Pompey and in Egypt.
I agree that Caesar isn't exactly the greatest general in Rome's long history. But he's certainly towards the top and trying to make light of his accomplishments is a silly way to go about trying to elevate others.
I too would've liked to have seen how his campaign against Parthia would've turned out. It's hard to imagine anything over there going right considering every other attempt to conquer them. And his plans were not only to deal with Parthia but to spin around and deal with the Steppes and cross into Germania and deal with them too on the return journey. To say he was ambitious is putting it mildly.
Fabius Maximus is my favorite. Maybe he overdid it in his old age, but it takes a great strength of character to do what you know is wise, even when literally everybody (besides Hannibal), including your own troops is calling you a pussy. If Marcus Mincius didn't get his ass handed to him, proving Fabius right, it's likely that the Romans, OD'ing on testerone and thristy for glory, would've just lost more battles against Hannibal to the point their forces would be completely exhausted.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.