This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This list appears to have no particular purpose or definition. Every commander of a Roman army and/or province, and his senior subordinates, strictly rate as Roman generals, but since the source material is heavily skewed towards military action and adventure, and all the senior Roman public offices included military as well as civic command duties and powers, such a list would constitute the majority of attested Romans about whom more than a few lines of information is known.
I'd suggest, just as a starting point for discussion, that there should be other lists for senior magistrates and officials and provincial commanders, and that the generals list should be confined to men who were notable in some way as military commanders. As a rule of thumb I'm thinking of Cicero, who certainly (eventually) commanded a province and army and was even hailed imperator, but was no general. On the other hand most of his legati in the Cilician command were, including his brother Quintus, who is notable as one of Caesar's leagti in Gallia. Some reasonable "qualification" categories for the Republican period would be a) the viri triumphales, b) attested viri militares of the upper classes, c) anyone else who was an eminent commander in some way but doesn't fit into the a), b) categories. Appietas (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
My long term aim would be to differentiate between generals who have notable "generalship" victory/losses and other notables, who by virtue of the circumstances above, had also been generals. MacStep (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
