How good of a general was Belisarius?

[cupoftea]

Belisarius doesn't seems to get alot of attention on these forums, why I ask you. During the 6th century he regained much of the former roman empire, even reconquering Rome itself, from the Goths. He had to do this with maybe even one or two legions, and almost no support from his superiors. Eh, sorry if I'm wrong about anything here, don't know much about the man, but I do think he was a very good strategist/ tactician.

[jo the greek]

And even less know is Narses

Well i know that in Militairy schools as they study Hannibal Great Alexander and Ceasar their tactics and etc

They also they study Belisarious and the so called small force theory.
To fair Belisarious possesed the nuclear weapon of his time the Nomads in his army
combined with Roman dishipline this made wonders

But here is a battle of his


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...battleplan.png

[hellheaven1987]

Belisarius - bastard who would endager his soldiers just to save his wife.

[jo the greek]

Belisarius - bastard who would endager his soldiers just to save his wife.

Werent all bastards

[konny]

And even less know is Narses

This is in general a periode that is not well recived, at least in Europe. In most popular descriptions of military history the focus would jump from Adrianopolis directly to Hastings and the crusades, may be by briefly mentioning Tours and the Vikings. Works with a focus on Byzantine history would more likely stick with Justinian and his administrative reforms and would pass by the wars, often without even mentioning Narses. So, that's realy a specialists' topic.

[Claudius Gothicus]

This is in general a periode that is not well recived, at least in Europe. In most popular descriptions of military history the focus would jump from Adrianopolis directly to Hastings and the crusades, may be by briefly mentioning Tours and the Vikings. Works with a focus on Byzantine history would more likely stick with Justinian and his administrative reforms and would pass by the wars, often without even mentioning Narses. So, that's realy a specialists' topic.

Quite stupid if you ask me, especially considering that the famous feudal system that would rule Europe for hundreds of years was determined by the events of the 500-1000 era.

[Entropy Judge]

This is in general a periode that is not well recived, at least in Europe. In most popular descriptions of military history the focus would jump from Adrianopolis directly to Hastings and the crusades, may be by briefly mentioning Tours and the Vikings. Works with a focus on Byzantine history would more likely stick with Justinian and his administrative reforms and would pass by the wars, often without even mentioning Narses. So, that's realy a specialists' topic.

True; the only reason I know about Belisarius (aside from the AoEII unit, and maybe a few mentions in history books) is from BH Lidell Hart's book on Grand Strategy (which turned, I think, to be more-or-less a waste of money, but that's off-topic), which had a chapter that focused mostly on him.

[hellheaven1987]

This is in general a periode that is not well recived, at least in Europe. In most popular descriptions of military history the focus would jump from Adrianopolis directly to Hastings and the crusades, may be by briefly mentioning Tours and the Vikings. Works with a focus on Byzantine history would more likely stick with Justinian and his administrative reforms and would pass by the wars, often without even mentioning Narses. So, that's realy a specialists' topic.

I disagree. From academic view Justinian's reign is quite well-study, largely because his Italy and North Africa campaign. Hence, both Belisarus and Narsas were quite famous, at least for people who know Byzantium.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

its because although he was very good he was not great (ie not a Sicipio,Julius or Trajan) he was defeated a couple of times only but this is enough to stop people from remembering you, also his conquests were short lived.

[jo the greek]

its because although he was very good he was not great (ie not a Sicipio,Julius or Trajan) he was defeated a couple of times only but this is enough to stop people from remembering you, also his conquests were short lived.

As alexander

[Blarni]

I agree Belisarius is a very interesting and unclear subject. I've seen him described as one of the greatest, even the greatest, general, relative to what he achieved with how many soldiers he had. Others dismiss him, though without clear explanation. I would be very interested to see the arguments either way.

And does anyone know any good sources on his army, especially his cavalry?

[jo the greek]

I agree Belisarius is a very interesting and unclear subject. I've seen him described as one of the greatest, even the greatest, general, relative to what he achieved with how many soldiers he had. Others dismiss him, though without clear explanation. I would be very interested to see the arguments either way.

And does anyone know any good sources on his army, especially his cavalry?

Well they exist i have read many info on his battles surely you can find in google

We say Belisarious isnt very know but either was Narses
who knows narses???

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Obviously one of the greatest figures when it comes to the warfare of the Medieval period. Adept in troop potitioning, selection of ground to engage in battles, achieving results with limited resources, deception, and tactical maneuvering.. We can also say he prefered to wage defensive fights even if he proved successfull in offense as well.

Belisarius isn't as well known because frankly one can attribute a lot of defeats to him as well. While Daras was impressive, it was his only victory during that 1st war (during the reign of Justinian) with Persia. And there is the defeat at Calinicus (spelling?) on the next one.
His greatest issue though is discipline on his sub ordinates. Most of his failures tend to be attributed on that. Beeing disliked by the empress Theodora also proved disastrous for him.

He also seemed to be extremely unfortunate with his wife who was completely unfaithfull to him. But that has little to do with his ability as a general, or does it?

[hellheaven1987]

Beeing disliked by the empress Theodora also proved disastrous for him.

He also seemed to be extremely unfortunate with his wife who was completely unfaithfull to him. But that has little to do with his ability as a general, or does it?

1. From my past study regarding Belisarius, it seems that Emperess Theodora had no real personal issue against him; rather, it might be his highly successful campaign, which brought him high reputation, that triggered Emperess' paranoi. It is notable that, Theodora never really tried to execute him, and when Belisarius's wife, Antonina, asked Theodora to pardon Belisarius (Antonina was good friend of Theodora), Theodora would follow that advice most time.

2. About the affair between Antonina and Belisarius' Godson, Theodosius, should be highly impossible from my personal view. Consider Antonina was twenty years older than Belisarius, it is quite impossible that a young man would have relationship with a 50 years old woman... (well, not for my taste)

3. I do, however, agree that Belisarius loved his wife too much, with quite a few sources to support that claim. Either way, it was highly possible that Antonina acted as a link between Belisarius and Royal palace, as Antonina's link with Theodora was quite unusual. It might be possible that both sides found advantage to maintain that link, hence Belisarius always brought his wife to campaign - to prove his loyalty, and Antonina could act as an agent of royal family to assure her husband's loyalty.

[John I Tzimisces]

who knows narses???

He's my favorite Armenian-Eunuch-General of all time

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

He's my favorite Armenian-Eunuch-General of all time

What? ...

There are so many good ones to choose from, I'm finding it hard to believe you can make up your mind

[frontier-auxilia]

A very competent general who will be the last man who give the Roman the last possible chance of reuniting their empire.

Nevertheless he's not the almighty indestructible warlord blessed full of Julius Caesar/ Alexander the Great's Greatness. Not known to many, he suffered 2 defeats at the hand of Kavadh of Sassinid Persia. One at the battle of Callinicium 531 A.D where he's leading a superior force and another in Nisibis (sources are very vague on this one).

[Monarchist]

Oddly enough, another Belisarius anniversary takes place on this very day in history. December 15, A.D. 533 is one of his greatest triumphs, in fact!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ticameron

[jo the greek]

One thing that impressed mee is the way Byzantine generals like Belisarious and Narses used overflanking and defensive positiong to deal with the enemy
Especially they way they dealt with Gothic headghog was impresive.

[FliegerAD]

Justinian's time is well studied, Belisarius is not - even in scholary publications. This is precisely why Ian Hughes new book was peer reviewed, even though the book is aimed for undergraduates and thus not really academic. It fails to close the gap which the study of Belisarius' life is from an academic point of view, although it is a very nice book for the target audience.

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin...nen/2009-3-116
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-10-08.html

Belisarius as a general is an odd figure. He is appraised for things not worth appraising while his actual great deeds are often overlooked. I found only one thing as amazing as said: his ability to gain the strategic initiative. His use of small detachments creating diversions to weaken a numerically superior enemy in Italy was nothing short of brilliant. Additionally he excelled at siege warfare.

However the Gothic army was not as numerous as Procopius said, 20.000 to 40.000 in total, of which Belisarius faced roughly the half (the rest was facing Mundus and the Franks). His quick success here was aided by the Italian side sweeping and the incompetence of the Gothic kings. Theodahad did not even want to fight but rather betray his people to get estates from the Emperor, and Vitiges was more than mediocre. His unimaginative tactics show how cunning Belisarius really was.

His success in field battles is massively overrated though. He never won a field battle against the Goths, actually lost the only one; his record against the Persians is negative as well, failing in two out of three battles. The two victories against the Vandals depended much on chance, the Vandal leaders being killed and Gelimer loosing heart each time.

When he returned to Italy his resources were low, but not lower than in his glorious years (4000 men plus the garrisons in Italy, usally numbering 1000 in larger cities, and what was left of the 12.000 strong field army defeated by Totlia at Faventia, later some additional 4000 soldiers plus an unknown number of reinforcements with John arrived).
In turn the Gothic army had much deteriorated using slaves and defectors to bolster the lines. Before this, Totila had 5000 men plus garrisons left. So the numbers were balanced, if the Gothic numbers are not inflated.
But this time Belisarius failed. Again the side sweeping of the Italians, this time to the Goths, and the Gothic leadership was decisive. Totila was actually a capable general and so Belisarius was denied success, although he put up a fight at least.

A much underestimated quality of Belisarius is his capability to inspire loyalty among his men and the local population. Especially in a period when side-sweeping was rather common this is a vital trait. The incompetence of his successors in Italy to do the same again illustrates Belisarius’ worth.