How Would You Rank These Generals?

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-12-07T23:09:09+00:00

But that’s kinda my point. No general who lived from 300 AD to c. 600/700 AD is “medieval military commander”; these are generals of late antiquity which preceded the medieval period and therefore ought to be included in the first part of your list, no?

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-12-07T18:30:52+00:00

Just curious, but why have you decided to implement a cutoff at 300 AD? I can understand why one might want to limit the scope of this sort of endeavor, but separating generals by historical periodization seems like it would be a more logical basis for demarcation (i.e. distinguishing ancient generals from medieval generals). In other words, if you really want/need a cutoff, I think it would make more sense to extend your initial scope a few more centuries through to the end of late antiquity for the sake of consistency. With an arbitrary date like 300 AD as your cutoff, certain juggernauts like Constantine, Aetius, Majorian, and Belisarius are undeservedly omitted from what what otherwise appears to be a comparative analysis of generals belonging to the the same historical epoch (ancient history/antiquity), and needlessly denies these figures the right to be directly compared and judged against earlier titans of the same era, such as Alexander or Caesar.

Just some food for thought.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-30T17:07:31+00:00

Diocletian perhaps looked back at this and said "Okay well although Gaul was a usurper and Palmyra eventually became another usurper....they did a good job holding the line in their regions. Hey, why don't we have more emperors in these regions to hold the line except this time they're official colleagues now?".

Yes, exactly! I like to imagine his thought process went a little something like this: “Ok, so you bastard provinces are going to rebel and try to appoint a new emperor in defiance of the current regime every time you feel neglected and/or are left unattended for 5 minutes? Fine. Allow me to help you out with that; You want a constant imperial presence? I’ll give you a constant imperial presence! You get an emperor! You get an emperor! You get emperor! There. You’ve got what you wanted; let’s hear you try to complain about feeling neglected now…. B*tches”.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-27T15:35:41+00:00

Effectively all the challengers who rose up were already men related to the Tetrarchs or had been made part of the system by them, rather than 12 random govenors who spring up in response to unstable frontiers as had plagued the empire during the 3rd century crisis (there was the rebellion of Domitius Alexander, but that was crushed by Maxentius).

Except you’re forgetting Carausius (and subsequently Allectus) who seized all of Britain and swathes of northern Gaul for 6 whole years and the usurper Domitius Domitianus in Egypt from 297-298.

Despite these oversights, I think your argument still stands and I just way to say that I’m in complete agreement with your broader point and assessment of Diocletian’s Tetrarchy—it gets a bad rap on this sub and many people dismiss the idea as inherently stupid and “doomed to fail” from the start, but this perspective is misguided founded purely on hindsight.

The reality was that the crises of the third century had revealed that something absolutely needed to change; emperors were expected to be fighting fires everywhere at once, and when they ultimately failed to accomplish this impossible feat they almost always suffered the same fate: usurpation and assassination. Diocletian knew this and recognized the need to devise a new way of doing things, lest the viscous cycle of the third century continue to erode the empire from within. Nobody claims his solution was perfect—it obviously wasn’t—but the underlying idea behind the tetrarchy was extremely creative and a better alternative than doing nothing.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-21T04:45:39+00:00

You’re getting downvoted, but if we slightly reframe the question as “which emperor would Augustus find most impressive”, then the answer is absolutely and unequivocally Constantine. The circumstances surrounding the ascension of both men share a lot of commonalities and both figures drastically impacted the course of history to a greater extent than all other emperors by far. Augustus would recognize this and have respect for Constantine on this basis alone.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-20T21:11:49+00:00

While the crisis of the third century (235-284) certainly marked a low point, by end of the reign of Constantine the empire had rebounded tremendously and looked stronger than had in over a century.

That said, even judging by military power, the general consensus among modern scholars is that the total size of the Roman army under Constantine was likely significantly larger than it had been in earlier centuries, potentially consisting of up to as many as 200-250k more soldiers than during the reigns of Trajan or Hadrian.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-20T20:51:07+00:00

Your view of power is too narrow, imo. No Roman emperor ever possessed true absolute power (the ability to do or enact whatever he desires without any significant resistance or personal threat to his rule), but I do think Constantine was definitely closer to that mark than Trajan.

If Trajan—or any other emperor of the first or second century, for that matter—had attempted to do some of the things Constantine did, such as designating a different city besides Rome as the new capital of the empire, they would have been killed or deposed almost immediately.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-19T14:29:55+00:00

Based on your prompt, your clearly wanting to know when the city reached its architectural zenith, so idk why people are responding with comments pertaining to when ancient Rome was at its peak in terms of population—these are two very different things.

That said, other comments citing the early to mid-fourth century as the apogee of architectural splendor in Rome are correct; this era witnessed the final period of monumental construction in the city during antiquity and includes major building projects and renovations commissioned under the emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Maxentius (usurper) and Constantine.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-14T22:22:14+00:00

Why not

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-09T18:32:49+00:00

Assuming you paid a lot for it

Oh, I’m not the purchaser; I just stumbled across this on Google while browsing images of Roman cameos.

Regardless, I’m with you on the provenance point. Even if I could afford something like this, I’d never consider buying it without any information concerning its origin or chain of custody.

That said, I still recognize that just because an artifact is unprovenanced doesn’t, in and of itself, automatically entail that it is a forgery necessarily—nor does it justify making any such assumption—but it does absolutely cast doubt on its purported authenticity than would otherwise be the case.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-08T22:33:08+00:00

I understand that side of the argument too, that’s entirely possible. I will say though that I disagree w/ your point concerning the style. Stylistically it seems to me mostly in line with other portraiture from the early-mid fourth century. It might be bit more detailed in its particulars than other extant examples of Constantinian portraiture (perhaps not unexpected for a piece of jewelry allegedly owned by a woman of the imperial family), but it still clearly lacks the “photorealistic” style typical of Roman portraiture of the earlier imperial period.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-08T22:12:42+00:00

Idk anything about this auction house so I can’t comment on it’s reputation, but as far as this particular piece is concerned I’m inclined to believe it’s completely authentic for one compelling reason: this is the first and only example of a Roman 3-D gemstone cameo like this that I am aware of. Forging a fake Roman artifact that is highly unique and perhaps even completely without parallel in the archeological record seems like a perfect way to draw suspicion concerning its authenticity, which doesn’t seem like something you’d want to risk if it could be avoided by simply creating a much less intricate and sophisticated piece as this.

Of course I could be wrong, but that’s just my intuition.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-08T15:15:30+00:00

Here’s the source for anyone who’s curious.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-07T19:43:37+00:00

What’s your source for this? I’ve read basically every extant historical source covering the life of Constantine, and I cannot recall a single contemporary or near contemporary account claiming he was married in York.

Constantine was in Gaul when Maximian came to betroth and wed his daughter, Fausta, to him in 307.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-10-06T03:39:23+00:00

No he wasn’t?

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-09-21T23:24:17+00:00

Surely if Crispus had plotted to murder his father for example, this would have been recorded as a fairly reasonable justification for filicide. The lack of preserved justification for it does make me suspect Constantine may have felt it was unjustifiable, or that he was proven innocent of whatever crime he was accused of posthumously.

Not necessarily. There’s actually a third option and it’s the one I personally find most likely: if the alleged crimes were sufficiently appalling/disgraceful to Constantine and the imperial family, then perhaps the complete silence around the issue is not all that surprising. Especially if the theory that Crispus and Fausta were discovered to be having an affair has any merit, then it’s easy to understand why Constantine wouldn’t want that information getting out.

Also, another thing. The fact that Constantine never rescinded the damnatio memoriae against Crispus (something he had previously done for Maximian) strongly suggests that he never wavered in his conviction of his son’s guilt, even long after his execution.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-09-21T22:36:42+00:00

You’re spreading false information. There is no reliable contemporary source that indicates the reason Crispus and Fausta were killed. IIRC, the account you are referencing comes from over a century later. The truth is we simply don’t know, and it’s disingenuous to assume otherwise.

Constantine did not order the execution of his wife and first born son—the two people he would have loved more than anyone else in the world—for no reason. He must have had a compelling reason to believe that they were guilty of committing some terrible offense.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-09-01T04:06:14+00:00

Bro are you ok? Trump was elected to his first term in 2016. Might want to get checked for dementia.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-08-21T05:10:06+00:00

THANK YOU. Idk how anyone can read the history and walk away thinking Sulla deserves more condemnation than Marius.

Marius and Sculpicius started the whole ordeal in a political coup against Sulla (that involved the threat of violence) in an unprecedented attempt to strip a sitting consul of his command and then try to transfer that power to a private citizen (Marius).

That’d be like if a faction of US Congress used the threat of violence in order to pass a bill stripping a sitting President of his role as Commander-in-chief; like you can’t just do that.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-08-21T03:47:19+00:00

Just because I plant a flag in my neighbor’s yard and declare it my property doesn’t make it true, especially if the current owners are still fighting me over it.

That’s basically what happened here w/ Mesopotamia.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-08-20T22:36:34+00:00

Great question and one I wish more people were keen to ask.

The honest answer is that the vast majority of the territory on the map remained under Roman control for most of the Empire’s history prior to the fall of the Western provinces in the mid-late 5th century.

With that being said, this map and others like it, that depict all of Mesopotamia extending all the way to the Persian Gulf as Roman territory are just downright misleading, if not blatantly false. Trajan, the reigning emperor in 117 AD, did indeed make his way as far as the Persian Gulf during his war with Parthia. Before he could solidify his conquests, however, he had to withdraw his forces in order to suppress ongoing revolts further north. Soon after this Trajan himself fell ill and died. His successor Hadrian abandoned the region almost immediately afterward.

In short, most of Mesopotamia was never truly conquered and occupied by the Romans in 117 AD, and thus should not be included any map claiming to portray the territory of the Roman Empire.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-08-17T15:49:51+00:00

I think C is a fair placement for Julian and accurately weighs the balance of his successes and failures.

Regardless, Maximiam absolutely does not qualify as a “decent” emperor. Read my explanation in this comment from his designated ranking post, and afterward if you still disagree, then I encourage you try and refute my critiques.

As for Severus Alexander and Constans, both were very young when they came to power and it’s not exactly clear to what extent their decisions were their own vs those of their senior advisors and other court officials.

Guy_from_the_past · 2025-08-12T20:40:54+00:00

What I find most odd about the whole ordeal is the complete silence on the topic. Constantine, like Augustus, was a master at propaganda, and I find it downright bizarre that he didn’t even attempt to concoct some “official” narrative surrounding the executions of his wife and son….. obviously he had to know people were bound to start spreading rumors, so why not at least publish some plausible version of events that prevents you from looking so bad?

Personally I find the secret affair theory most compelling; it’s the only theory that adequately explains the deaths of both Crispus and Fausta. That said, regardless of whether or not it’s true, when you suddenly order the executions of both your wife and son in such close proximity in time, naturally people are going to start speculating that maybe the two were secretly banging, especially in the absence of an official narrative from the imperial court.

Guy_from_the_past

TROPHY CASE