How would you rate pompey the great as a general history forum gas exchange in the lungs is facilitated by

########

Click to expand…No one is surprised that Sertorius, 20 years Pompey’s senior and a lifetime soldier was going to tactically outsmart Pompey on a number of occasions. However, as Plutarch did, you’re highlighting such instances to make up for the fact that Sertorius never decisively routed Pompey in battle, nor Metellus, and later on in the war, our more unbiased source Livy even states that Pompey was winning against Sertorius. No one is denying that Sertorius could trick Metellus and Pompey on a tactical and operational level, but these instances were few and far between during the eight year war, and as Spann pointed out Sertorius was unable to inflict any REAL losses on his enemies. Lauro appears to have been the pinnacle of Sertorius’ ambushing tactics where he cuts up over a legion – or else Plutarch certainly will have mentioned it.

Although I don’t think Sertorius could have ultimately won the war against Rome itself, it’s easy to, as Plutarch wrote it, claim that Sertorius was leagues above his opponents, but was in an unwinnable situation. I don’t buy it, if he was a better tactician he would have won the battle of Sucro, if he was a better strategist he would have inflicted such heavy losses on Metellus and/or Pompey to permanently cripple them and keep them on the coast. He initially took advantage that both generals operated independently, but once they started working together, Sertorius had no chance. Moreover, in the best and most detailed work on the Sertorian War, Spann points out that Metellus and Pompey were just as stricken for resources as Sertorius was. You’d also be hard-fought trying to explain how 120,000 foot were in Spain before Pompey

You claim he didn’t inflict any "real" losses during the phase of the war Pompey was involved in, yet we know that to be plainly false. He lost a full legion right at the start of the war at Lauro, and Sertorius killed 3000 men at Calagurris (some of whom might have been Pius men). Appian describes Pompey as losing 6000 men at Seguntia, at Scuro there was "heavy slaughter on both side", your buddy Orosius (whose credibility you lauded) tells us that outside Celtiberia Pompey lost another 10,000 men. e85 gas stations florida Those losses combined amount to 24,000, not including the Scuro’s "heavy slaughter on both sides" (which may, or may not, be the 10,000 Orosius is referring to; assuming we take him seriously). That would be 24,000 men against a total army of 30,000 men (though obviously he was reinforced by a further 10,000 later in the war). To call those not "real" or "meaningful" losses is an amazing claim. You’ve been wrong in your assessment of this war all the way down the line, with a series of factual errors that frankly make your input impossible to take seriously at this point. Sertorius is also said to have won "many battles" against Pius, with some cited. gas kush The characterization that Sertorius was afraid to fight Pompey and Metellus, together or separately, and that they were comparable generals to him, is simply wrong.

You claim he didn’t inflict any "real" losses during the phase of the war Pompey was involved in, yet we know that to be plainly false. He lost a full legion right at the start of the war at Lauro, and Sertorius killed 3000 men at Calagurris (some of whom might have been Pius men). Appian describes Pompey as losing 6000 men at Seguntia, at Scuro there was "heavy slaughter on both side", your buddy Orosius (whose credibility you lauded) tells us that outside Celtiberia Pompey lost another 10,000 men. Those losses combined amount to 24,000, not including the Scuro’s "heavy slaughter on both sides" (which may, or may not, be the 10,000 Orosius is referring to; assuming we take him seriously). That would be 24,000 men against a total army of 30,000 men (though obviously he was reinforced by a further 10,000 later in the war). To call those not "real" or "meaningful" losses is an amazing claim. You’ve been wrong in your assessment of this war all the way down the line, with a series of factual errors that frankly make your input impossible to take seriously at this point. Sertorius is also said to have won "many battles" against Pius, with some cited. The characterization that Sertorius was afraid to fight Pompey and Metellus, together or separately, and that they were comparable generals to him, is simply wrong.

-I’m not talking about "real losses", I’m talking about army breaking losses. In the two battles of the war (Sucro and Saguntum/Turia) where everything was on the line, Sertorius came out the strategic loser. He never was able to decisively break either Metellus or Pompey in a single battle. There are examples of decisive battles in this war though. electricity year invented Pompey completely routed the concentrated armies of two of Sertorius’ lieutenants, and Metellus decisively defeated Hirtuleius twice, in the second instance he employed an Illipa/Cannae like maneuver and, according to Orosius though obviously inflated, inflicted 20,000 casualties. If Sertorius was leagues above Metellus and Pompey, one would wonder why he failed to trash their armies in battle; and as Spann points out Sertorius had no lack of resources or manpower at his height. Hell, in less than a year after coming back to Spain he had gathered enough resources in the winter months to give 20,000 soldiers to Hirtuleius for a separate front. Moreover, as pretty much any work by historians on the Sertorian War concur on, Pompey and Metellus certainly did not have as many legions as the pro-Sertorian Plutarch would have us believe.

I’m not even going to reply to most of the errors in that post, because the issue my last post disputed was your claim that Pompey "didn’t suffer any real losses", yet your own (non-source) calculation in the post above has Pompey losing "only" 22,000 men. Pompey went to Spain with 30,000 men. Losing 22,000 men is a huge, huge loss. Without reinforcements and help from Pius he’d have been totally unable to continue campaigning. In any event, 22,000 men is most of his initial army, and more than half the total army he possessed (even if we grant he got both of the 2 replacement legions we know about). To claim a loss of most of your army is not a "real" loss is inherently misleading; which is the point I was making! Whether Sertorius (or more accurately his subordinates) lost more or less men than Pompey (and I don’t agree with the above calculations at all btw) is totally besides the point. It has nothing to do with the claim you made that Pompey suffered no "real" losses.

There are other errors and missteps above, but it’s unnecessary to get into them. You’ve just demonstrated again how you can’t be taken seriously because your positions never stay consistent. You just change your position every time you’re proven wrong. electricity electricity goodness Having been shown you were completely wrong in claiming he suffered "no real losses" in the war, you now want to change the topic to talk about how many men Sertorius (or rather his incompetent subordinates) lost, as though that has any bearing on the initial error and point you made. Embarrassing.

I’m not even going to reply to most of the errors in that post, because the issue my last post disputed was your claim that Pompey "didn’t suffer any real losses", yet your own (non-source) calculation in the post above has Pompey losing "only" 22,000 men. Pompey went to Spain with 30,000 men. Losing 22,000 men is a huge, huge loss. Without reinforcements and help from Pius he’d have been totally unable to continue campaigning. In any event, 22,000 men is most of his initial army, and more than half the total army he possessed (even if we grant he got both of the 2 replacement legions we know about). To claim a loss of most of your army is not a "real" loss is inherently misleading; which is the point I was making! Whether Sertorius (or more accurately his subordinates) lost more or less men than Pompey (and I don’t agree with the above calculations at all btw) is totally besides the point. It has nothing to do with the claim you made that Pompey suffered no "real" losses.

There are other errors and missteps above, but it’s unnecessary to get into them. You’ve just demonstrated again how you can’t be taken seriously because your positions never stay consistent. You just change your position every time you’re proven wrong. Having been shown you were completely wrong in claiming he suffered "no real losses" in the war, you now want to change the topic to talk about how many men Sertorius (or rather his incompetent subordinates) lost, as though that has any bearing on the initial error and point you made. Embarrassing.

Click to expand…Where in the page linked by did I claim that Pompey didn’t suffer real losses to begin with anyway? Of course a general is going to lose a lot of troops in a campaign that goes over years and involves heavy warfare. Anyway, of course Pompey lost a lot of troops in this time period, what I’m talking about is that Sertorius failed to inflict a decisive defeat that crushed either Metellus or Pompey completely. Sure, every now and again he could ambush one of them and take out a legion or so, but these were pretty few and far between considering the examples we have and the huge expanse of the war, which went for eight years. If we look at the Social War, we have Nola and Asculum, if we look at Sulla’s Civil War, we have Colline Gate, if we look at Caesar’s Civil War, we have Thaspus, Pharsalus, Munda. Where in the Sertorian War was there any tactical victory that routed Pompey or Metellus? My point is that Sertorius never routed Metellus or Pompey, something surprising considering how amazing he’s made out to be, and considering that Sertorius had a lot of resources.

So yeah, Pompey lost 22,000 or so troops in the first couple of years, but this was stretched over a very long time. There was no decisive point where Sertorius routed Pompey, which should have happened if Sertorius was as good as you claimed. He had plenty a chance at Sucro, but he failed to do anything than force a stalemate with maybe a slight advantage to himself.

The casualty ratio between these two generals in battle through these three battles is about 2:3 or moderately better for Sertorius. Heavy losses for Pompey specifically, yes. No doubt Pompey was raising replacements from the populace and also had various auxiliaries and cavalry. Metellus was clearly the stronger force during this time period and probably throughout the rest of the war. 9gag Again, not surprising, Sertorius was two decades Pompey’s senior and a lifetime soldier. Pompey just hadn’t been accustomed to fighting opponents of a skill level around or above his own. Though he appears to have learnt a lot.

If we contrast Pompey and Sertorius when Pompey entered Spain, we see a lot of differences. Sertorius was about 50 years old, had lived a career as a soldier in the Roman legions and distinguished himself on many occasions, and had even gone up against generals like Strabo, and fought alongside Marius. In contrast, Pompey was in his late twenties and, although successful, had never really been tested. It’s the typical story of a young, talented individual who is overconfident and has a chip on his shoulder going up against a guy that is significantly older and more experienced who can teach a lot of lessons.

Again; I don’t agree with the figures presented above, or their attribution as "Sertorius" losses given the way the sources describe those battles; but it’s also irrelevant because the specific point was not about who lost more men, but whether Pompey suffered "real" losses. gas x and pregnancy He did, you were wrong, and no wall of text trying to redefine what you meant is going to obscure that error. The point of contention was not "who lost more men", it was about whether Pompey suffered "real losses" in the war. He did. You were wrong. You were also wrong in your characterization of Lauro as a one off, when at least two other battles have higher casualties. I could of course look further, and point out 1) I don’t agree with your "rounded" figures, 2) Sertorius wasn’t commanding the parts of the armies that performed poorly, or 3) you’d expect him to lose more men given his men were of a lower quality with less experience. I’m not going to though, because you would just shift positions again as you’ve done for hundreds of pages of threads on these subjects.

It is a total distortion of what "real losses" means to try and retrospectively redefine it as "he was able to continue fighting the war". That is not what any reasonable reading of the phrase means, and it’s obvious I wasn’t making a point that an abnormal reading would apply to; because when you replied that "he suffered no real losses" the post you were replying specifically clarified that I understood Sertorius never routed their armies, and that was not the point being made, and that it was not evidence of inferior generalship. Pompey lost, conservatively, more than half his army during the war. By no stretch can it be said he "suffered no real losses" as you claimed.