One of these generals will lead your army, the others will try to kill you

One of these generals will lead your army, the others will try to kill you.

Who do you pick?

How would a fight between Caesar and Scipio/Hannibal look anyway?

Caesar is good but Aurelian might fuck us up because he has never lost a battle.

Does everyone know what everyone else's tactics are like?

I'd have to go with Hannibal

Hannibal Vs Caesar would probably be a clash of the titans desu

I'll take Caesar, only because I like him the most as a person.

Pyrrhus

t. Hannibal

Sulla is my pick.

>muh elephants man
>muh caesar
come at me and my senator bros

OP, it's *whom* you fucking moron.

The madman never lost or even drew a battle, it was always total victory. Based Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.

Sulla didn't do shit that was impressive. His biggest accomplishment was putting a blowhard past his prime on full tilt.

>OP, it's *whom* you fucking moron.
God damn this has to be the most fucking pedantic thing I've ever read on here. While you're technically correct, 'who' is more than acceptable in casual speech and writing, which this certainly is, you feel me desu senpai tbqh family

Pyrrhus unironically

Unless Ramesses is in full god mode and can effortlessly slaughter entire armies on his own, Hannibal is the only one who stands a chance against the rest.

If you haven't read about Orchomenus then get out of my face. Also he regularly destroyed or (more constructively) won over enemy Roman (civil war) armies. He was a master of cucking his political opponents out of their own armies.

But am I wrong though.

GAIUS

>A little lucky cunt
His only strategical victory was Cannae, and the Romans were inexperienced. He had literally only embarrassments and no loyalty from anybody after that, proving he was a crap general

He was a one trick pony really, the Cannae envelopment was a copy off Ecnomus and he depended on environmental exploits otherwise.

If he didnt get to choose his battlegrounds he would be fucked, Caesar would play 4D chess around him.

Caesar can build a fort around me and then build a fort around the guys trying to kill me. Checkmate, those guys.

they're all dead so it doesn't matter who i choose

*whom*

Assuming each general has his own army, I'm fucked.
Assuming each side has an army, I could pick any general and be safe. Too many cooks spoil the broth, the opposing army would be nearly paralyzed.

>implying those figures are the least bit accurate
>implying we have any archeological evidence of Orchomenus
>implying he would sue for peace on such lenient terms with Mithradates if he was so complete in his victories
>implying Archelaus would've been given such a fanfare by Sulla if he was a weak adversary

The entire first and third Mithradatic Wars were a means for churning out propaganda. There's little in the way archelogical evidence for these battles and Mithradates VI life has been extraordinarily romanticized.

Just because they lead my army doesn't mean they won't still try to kill me

Yeah? Them and what army?

>Aurelian
>Caesar
>Scipio
This is truly a hard choice.

How could Sulla not offer such lenient terms? Shit was deteriorating in Rome and he was running out of funds. Time was against him and Mithridates's resources were still deep and wide. Praising Archelaus was a (successful) ploy to get paranoid Mithridates to either get rid of talented Archelaus, or drive him to Rome's side.