For my Roman Civil War rules under development, I am trying to categorise generals. Based upon the attributes listed below do you think Jacquerie is likely to result from my choices for the generals viewed in this way? Are there any obvious examples I have missed (that I should use as well/instead of)?
Poor tactical sense. Indecisive and irresolute, cowardice; does not inspire the confidence of his men:
Corbo, Nero, Varus
Competent commander. Steady, personally brave:
Octavian, Cleopatra, Mark Antony, Maxentius, Zenobia
Very good commander with no obvious weaknesses:
Pompey, Agrippa, Diocletian
Military Genius. Possessed of Strategic and Tactical sense, respected by the officers and adored by the men:
Sulla, Caesar, Vespasian, Aurelian, Constantine
Magnus Maximus? Agricola? Thrax? Julian? Are we looking just for historical generals that fought civil war actions or just fairly successful generals that could be involved in hypothetical civil wars?
Historical generals that fought in Roman Civil Wars (other than the really rubbish Nero who faffed about rather than actually fight in the Civil War he started...)
Is there a 'had stomach pains, went to the litter, delegated command to Agrippa' category for Octavian? :D
More seriously, I think you want to keep the descriptions bare-bones because person might be steady and competent, but not personally brave. Another might be a commander of genius, but feared rather than loved. Similarly, another might be a very good commander, but with a weakness. So poor, competent, good, superb (or genius if you want to use a noun) + sample commanders at each level might be good enough to make your categories clear.
Incidentally, Phil Sabin's system of 4 levels plus two types, leader (gets involved in the fighting) or commander (generals from further back), works pretty well, and timid as an extra classification for those who are particularly averse to personal danger.
Aaron
While there is not an explicit 'went to the litter' rule there is a mechanism specifically for Octavian...
I did look very closely at Sabin's model but I chose not to adopt it for two reasons. First I wanted my rules to be as simple as possible and wanted to go to one level of abstraction higher than Sabin is operating at, and second I am not as good a rule writer as Phil so wanted to avoid my rules being compared with his...
Good suggestions that I will incorporate... Thanks
That all sounds good, Tim. Am looking forward to seeing these. Best of luck!
Indeed. Best of British with this and look forward to seeing them when ready
Depends what you are going to do with it.
I don't see how you avoid equating genius with success, in which case you're just assuming success was dependent on some leader trait called genius.
Nicholas, good question. What I am going to do is take what contempory/near contempory Roman authors record about the abilities of the generals and turn that into rating that will impact upon how the battle is fought. I am aware that this will introduce elements that are both subjective and exposed to a large amount of bias. It is a deliberate design decision to present the battles how Roman authors say they were and, yes that will introduce '(the assumption that) success was dependent on some leader trait called genius'.
This has triggered me to ensure that I make it clear in the design notes.
Thanks
Tim
Quote from: Dangun on October 21, 2018, 01:48:20 PM
I don't see how you avoid equating genius with success ...
Genius is also how you handle failure. Caesar was beaten at Gergovia and Dyrrhachium and yet managed to turn both campaigns into stunning successes. Yes, success is the ultimate criterion at the end of the line, but the genius lies in getting there from an unpromising interim position.
I support Tim's approach with the caveat that the best-in-period is indeed relative: although Vespasian might have been top of his mid-1st century AD class, he was nowhere near the league of Caesar or even Pompey. Standards in that particular period, when Otho, Vitellius and Antonius Primus represented the competition, were more modest. Similarly, in an absolute scale, Constantine was no Caesar, just head and shoulders above a set of mediocre opponents. But he was the best in his particular time.
Hence, while I would be tempted to make Vespasian 'Competent' and Constantine (and Mark Antony*) 'Very good', and rate their opponents accordingly, it is Tim's game.
*
Neither Octavian nor Agrippa wanted to get into a land battle with him. This raises the question of whether leaders should have different ratings for sea and land; Antony might be 'Very good' on land but only 'Competent' at sea. Agrippa might be the converse. Octavian ... was generally better off leaving things to Agrippa. By himself, his record in the field was closer to that of Carbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnaeus_Papirius_Carbo).
Big fan of Corbulo, but Nero at least acted the part of a great but tragic general on the stage (or so he said). There's a lot of Roman commanders to choose from. The advantage of the professional Roman army and military system was that even an average commander could win with it. Training, logistics, numbers and being able to campaign longer and harder or simply buy off annoying pests has a lot to be said with respect to "successful" generalship.
Your list of Roman commanders could be quite extensive, but you would also have to rank and rate their opponent's performance.
Patrick
It will be land battles only, will make that clear.
Rating will be how contemporary Roman sources record them - I suspect that is all relative but it will be so. However nothing is set in stone, if I can't get historical results things will be changed; might even end up with what you have suggested...
Mr N.
Training/Quality and numbers will be a much bigger influence than leadership.
The list of Roman commanders will be quite long as I have over 100 battles to consider in scope, against their historical opponents. There will be scenarios initially. There MIGHT be army lists at some future point but only for actual campaigns where there was a Roman Civil War.
And...
There will be a Devotio rule...
Quote from: Tim on October 22, 2018, 07:17:30 PM
Rating will be how contemporary Roman sources record them - I suspect that is all relative but it will be so.
Beware of panegyricists. ;D
I think you will get a feel for the levels of generalship, Tim, and as you say, it comes down to what works. Something like this is always a useful learning experience.
:D
Tim,
I think it's a good idea to give generals different traits for a game. I would also add impulsiveness (thinking DBM knights) or commitment (like DBM allied generals).
But I get a bit twitchy about the history.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 22, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
Yes, success is the ultimate criterion at the end of the line, but the genius lies in getting there from an unpromising interim...
I see this approach as problematic because it's defined such that only a winner can be a genius. I might be recycling an argument but there were probably some genius Polish generals in 1939 but we have just defined them into oblivion.
And it's a tangent because I know we were talking about the Roman Civil War, but Romans get over-represented on lists of genius generals... which suggests that it's something peculiar to Rome which drives the success and not individual genius.
Quote from: Dangun on October 23, 2018, 12:12:06 PM
And it's a tangent because I know we were talking about the Roman Civil War, but Romans get over-represented on lists of genius generals... which suggests that it's something peculiar to Rome which drives the success and not individual genius
Actually, I'd think the primary reason for the over-representation is that the rise of Rome is well-attested and well-known.
(If you browse the DBMM list for "Brilliant" (approx. = genius) and "Inert" (basically = bad) generals, you'll find that both are over-represented in Roman and English lists. This tells you, I'm sure, more about the interests of Phil Barker than anything peculiar to Rome or England.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 23, 2018, 12:33:56 PM
Quote from: Dangun on October 23, 2018, 12:12:06 PM
And it's a tangent because I know we were talking about the Roman Civil War, but Romans get over-represented on lists of genius generals... which suggests that it's something peculiar to Rome which drives the success and not individual genius
Actually, I'd think the primary reason for the over-representation is that the rise of Rome is well-attested and well-known.
(If you browse the DBMM list for "Brilliant" (approx. = genius) and "Inert" (basically = bad) generals, you'll find that both are over-represented in Roman and English lists. This tells you, I'm sure, more about the interests of Phil Barker than anything peculiar to Rome or England.)
I've always felt that all armies that lasted any length of time ought to have the right to 'generic brilliant' and 'generic inert' generals
The problem is that this would of course handicap those armies we know more about as their brilliant or whatever generals suffer because they might only have access to some of the troop types on the list
:-[
I dont mind as long as the different levels of 'brilliantness' are costed out in terms of a points system. I would rather see inert rather than bad generals as being the bottom level and costing no points and then as you increase in ability and bonuses etc, you pay more and more points out of your allowance
Quote from: Holly on October 23, 2018, 06:58:55 PM
I dont mind as long as the different levels of 'brilliantness' are costed out in terms of a points system. I would rather see inert rather than bad generals as being the bottom level and costing no points and then as you increase in ability and bonuses etc, you pay more and more points out of your allowance
ADLG does something like that, an "Ordinary" general costs no points, and you can upgrade them to "Competent", "Brilliant", or "Strategist" at progressively increasing cost. You can also get a few points back by making a general unreliable or permanently attached to a unit.
(You always have three generals, so no you can't get infinite points by picking an infinite number of unreliable or attached generals. The total cost of your commanders
can be negative however.)
The "Strategist" level is only available to particular named generals listed in army lists. Interestingly, at least one historical commander - Tigranes the Great - is a Strategist in ADLG but Inert in DBMM! Any army can have Competent or Brilliant generals, but the total amount of command competence is limited by each army list.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 23, 2018, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 23, 2018, 06:58:55 PM
I dont mind as long as the different levels of 'brilliantness' are costed out in terms of a points system. I would rather see inert rather than bad generals as being the bottom level and costing no points and then as you increase in ability and bonuses etc, you pay more and more points out of your allowance
ADLG does something like that, an "Ordinary" general costs no points, and you can upgrade them to "Competent", "Brilliant", or "Strategist" at progressively increasing cost. You can also get a few points back by making a general unreliable or permanently attached to a unit.
(You always have three generals, so no you can't get infinite points by picking an infinite number of unreliable or attached generals. The total cost of your commanders can be negative however.)
The "Strategist" level is only available to particular named generals listed in army lists. Interestingly, at least one historical commander - Tigranes the Great - is a Strategist in ADLG but Inert in DBMM! Any army can have Competent or Brilliant generals, but the total amount of command competence is limited by each army list.
thanks Andreas. The system certainly has something going for it in my opinion
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 23, 2018, 07:15:34 PM
The "Strategist" level is only available to particular named generals listed in army lists. Interestingly, at least one historical commander - Tigranes the Great - is a Strategist in ADLG but Inert in DBMM! Any army can have Competent or Brilliant generals, but the total amount of command competence is limited by each army list.
I suspect the ADLG list maker was seduced by the appellation 'The Great', whereas Tiggy seems to be one of those who definitely had greatness thrust upon him; his actual performance against Lucullus would appear to be responsible for his DBMM rating.
Quote from: Dangun on October 23, 2018, 12:12:06 PM
Tim,
I think it's a good idea to give generals different traits for a game. I would also add impulsiveness (thinking DBM knights) or commitment (like DBM allied generals).
But I get a bit twitchy about the history.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 22, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
Yes, success is the ultimate criterion at the end of the line, but the genius lies in getting there from an unpromising interim...
I see this approach as problematic because it's defined such that only a winner can be a genius. I might be recycling an argument but there were probably some genius Polish generals in 1939 but we have just defined them into oblivion.
And it's a tangent because I know we were talking about the Roman Civil War, but Romans get over-represented on lists of genius generals... which suggests that it's something peculiar to Rome which drives the success and not individual genius.
Nicholas, once again valid points.
Impulsiveness won't be there and I don't plan to add commitment unless further reading of the sources tells me Romans thought it was a concern in the Civil Wars. Not saying these are unimportant, far from it but I don't want to overload the game.
Yes, the history can be a problem. However if Roman authors have someone down as brilliant but unlucky or betrayed they will still be rated so. Hannibal lost Zama - does it mean he would be rated worse than Scipio were he in scope? Most certainly not as I would try to take a wider reading. Will I get it right all the time, probably not. Will I get it right most of the time, I hope so.
As for Roman generals being over represented, this won't be too much of a problem as it is Roman Civil Wars I am modelling. However I am trying to keep in mind Syme's maxim that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some of the allied generals may be better or have been in more battles than I will allow simply because they are not Roman.
All
When I get to the points system I will look at the relative cost of generals. The Ordinary ones will probably end up being free. Initially I will be providing battle scenarios and every modelled general will be named.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Tim
If one wished to add a further layer of uncertainty into leadership, you could adopt the WRG 16885-1840 rules. There, the different nationalities had varying probabilities of producing Cautious, Bold and Rash generals.
Failing that, you could simply follow Bernanrd Cornwell's classifications:
Killing Officers get you killed by accident.
Murdering Officers go out of their way to get you killed.
Quote from: NickHarbud on October 25, 2018, 04:53:41 PM
Failing that, you could simply follow Bernanrd Cornwell's classifications:
Killing Officers get you killed by accident.
Murdering Officers go out of their way to get you killed.
"He's a cheery old card," said the men at the back
As they marched off to Carrhae with pilum and pack.
But he did for the lot by his plan of attack.
(With apologies to Siegfried Sassoon.)
Completely out of period, but I am still trying to work out a satisfactory classification for Braxton Bragg in my ACW rules.... :-[
I am sure you love a challenge. :)
Nick, ACW generals are even more difficult rate, especially if you don't know which whiskey they drank...
Quote from: Tim on October 20, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
For my Roman Civil War rules under development, I am trying to categorise generals. Based upon the attributes listed below do you think Jacquerie is likely to result from my choices for the generals viewed in this way? Are there any obvious examples I have missed (that I should use as well/instead of)?
Poor tactical sense. Indecisive and irresolute, cowardice; does not inspire the confidence of his men:
Corbo, Nero, Varus
Competent commander. Steady, personally brave:
Octavian, Cleopatra, Mark Antony, Maxentius, Zenobia
Very good commander with no obvious weaknesses:
Pompey, Agrippa, Diocletian
Military Genius. Possessed of Strategic and Tactical sense, respected by the officers and adored by the men:
Sulla, Caesar, Vespasian, Aurelian, Constantine
Replying to this without reading the other replies:
I think you need another category between 1&2 (with 1 being Varus and co). Very big leap between a disastrous General and a competent one. Conversely i don't see much, if any, difference between cats 2 & 3.
If it was me I'd have something like:
1) disastrous (varus)
2) weak (darius iii)
3) competent (scipio aemilianus, fabius cunctator)
4) excellent (pompey, agrippa, marius)
5) genius (caesar, scipio africanus)
I know this is not the point but I'd quibble over some of your classifications too. And Pompey had plenty of obvious weaknesses!
Harry
Thanks for the input. 5 categories rather than 4 might be the way to go once I playtest, I will give it some thought. 2 and 3 are there so Octavian has a reason to handover to Agrippa and so Agrippa is better than Mark Antony. The majority of Roman generals will be in that band.
For Pomeny I will think of another wording.
I would be especially interested in know more when you wrote 'I know this is not the point but I'd quibble over some of your classifications too'. As I am taking this from contemporary Roman sources. if the classifications are incorrect I will be assigning generals the wrong rating.
Regards
Tim
Of course, you could turn the whole thing on its head and name your main general types after pre-eminent individuals and then invite players to fit the others into those characters where they think it most appropriate.
I mean, is Germanicus a veritable Vespasian or more of a Marius?
To play Devil's Advocate. Given the circumstances I'd put Varus low but not persay lowest.
Many generals would have trusted their auxilia scouts too...
Gens Varus collectively get in the category reserved for all generals worse than Octavian...
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on November 09, 2018, 02:53:44 PM
To play Devil's Advocate. Given the circumstances I'd put Varus low but not persay lowest.
Many generals would have trusted their auxilia scouts too...
In response to the Devil's Advocate: :)
I would rank Varus very low for two reasons. First, ignoring a credible warning from Segestes about the treachery of Arminius. Second for a lack of leadership when the ambush was sprung. Compare that to Caesar when he was surprised by the Nervii while his army was making camp. Caesar grabbed a shield, pushed his way to the front lines, called on trusted centurions to restore order, encouraged his soldiers, and held off the attack until reinforcements arrived. There is nothing to indicate that Varus showed that type of leadership.
Hmmm, I haven't heard of any rules that have an option for the CinC to grab his shield as an explicit action, let alone one that is dependant upon his leadership qualities.
Indeed, the only example I can recall of a wargame where the commander acted so selflessly was a Peninsular War scenario where a British force was attempting to evacuate across a bridge whilst heavily pressed by arriving French. The game's umpire played the Officer of Engineers in charge of rigging demolition charges on the said bridge. At some point the umpire signalled that all was ready for the General to give the order to blow the charges, which a couple of turns later with nearly all his troops safely on friendly bank, he duly did. "As you are, sir?" asked the Offcer of Engineers. "Yes, do it right away!" snapped back the reply. "Very good sir. The fuse is lit." At this point the British player noticed that his command element was sitting on the middle of the bridge... :-[
Of course, in the best traditions of such officers, the subsequent dice rolling proved conclusively that God does, indeed, look after drunks and idiots. The General emerged from the clouds of smoke and dust with barely a scratch. ;D
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 12, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Hmmm, I haven't heard of any rules that have an option for the CinC to grab his shield as an explicit action, let alone one that is dependant upon his leadership qualities.
Good point. Caesar was personally brave but all Romans were supposed to be. If he'd been killed during the battle, we'd not have put him at the top of the pecking order. As I've remarked before, heroic leadership tends to be more appreciated if you win. Perhaps more important in terms of Caesar's leadership quantities in the battle is his dynamic response (he's no bunny in the headlights) and his judgement calls on where to intervene and where to let his experienced subordinates and veteran troops do their thing. Abstracting these things in how yor generals impact on the battle is more important - and more challenging.
Incidentally, the whole concept of a general grabbing a shield may be flawed.
I remember reading that all self-respecting Roman generals had a shield-bearer who carried a double size scutum and whose sole purpose during the battle was to interpose this object between the great man and any incoming deadly objects.
Admittedly my source for this gem is one of Alfred Duggan's historical novels that tells the story of the 2nd Triumvirate from the viewpoint of Lepidus who, according to the author, was so lacking in leadership qualities that not only did his legions all desert him, but his loyal shield-bearer felt the only honourable thing to do was fall on his sword. :-[
Perhaps someone who is more learned can offer an opinion on the existence and equipment of these vital assistants.
In the meantime, grabbing one's lackey and sheltering behind his oversize shield does not have quite the same ring to it.
Caesar as always is a special case, but his interventions seem to be to reassure and inspire the troops, to show that he is in command and that they can rely on him, to issue orders personally when he feels a hands-on approach to tactics is required, and to try to prevent panic spreading.
Of course a certain amount of that may be massaged for propaganda purposes, but he did have a reputation.
So I tend to agree with Chuck's assessment of Varus. He got dealt a bad hand, but he didn't play it well either.
A triviality, but might one point out that what Caesar does in Gallic War II.25 is the foillowing:
"... having therefore snatched a shield from one of the soldiers in the rear (for he himself had come without a shield) ..."
So in this particular instance, and by implication in this particular campaign, Caesar seizing a shield from a soldier indicates his lack of a shield bearer. Perhaps he was not yet of sufficient importance to qualify for one, assuming that a personal shieldbearer did indeed come with the highest level of promotion.
Evidence of a shield-bearer for high-ranking Romans is offered in Plutarch's
Life of Brutus 52.1, when Second Philippi has been well and truly lost and Brutus is contemplating suicide:
As the night advanced, Brutus turned, just as he sat, towards his servant Cleitus, and talked with him. And when Cleitus wept and made no answer, Brutus next drew
Dardanus his shield-bearer (hupaspistēn) aside and had some private conversation with him. Finally, he spoke to Volumnius himself in Greek, reminding him of their student life, and begged him to grasp his sword with him and help him drive home the blow. [2] And when Volumnius refused, and the rest likewise, and some one said they must not tarry but fly, Brutus rose and said: 'By all means must we fly; not with our feet, however, but with our hands.'
Quote from: Prufrock on November 13, 2018, 05:12:40 PM
So I tend to agree with Chuck's assessment of Varus. He got dealt a bad hand, but he didn't play it well either.
Agreed, and well put.
Quote from: Prufrock on November 13, 2018, 05:12:40 PM
Caesar as always is a special case
So what you are trying to tell me is that leadership quality is inversely proportional to shield dimension? In other words, size really does matter? ???
It makes sense. I mean, Viking berserkers who reputedly fought with no shield always seemed to be at the front, leading the rest of the hairy band into action.
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on November 10, 2018, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on November 09, 2018, 02:53:44 PM
To play Devil's Advocate. Given the circumstances I'd put Varus low but not persay lowest.
Many generals would have trusted their auxilia scouts too...
In response to the Devil's Advocate: :)
I would rank Varus very low for two reasons. First, ignoring a credible warning from Segestes about the treachery of Arminius. Second for a lack of leadership when the ambush was sprung. Compare that to Caesar when he was surprised by the Nervii while his army was making camp. Caesar grabbed a shield, pushed his way to the front lines, called on trusted centurions to restore order, encouraged his soldiers, and held off the attack until reinforcements arrived. There is nothing to indicate that Varus showed that type of leadership.
Says Caesar, who was never a shameless self-promoter.. no, never..
Quote from: DougM on November 16, 2018, 12:25:30 PM
Says Caesar, who was never a shameless self-promoter.. no, never..
:)
But at least his
modest reticence has left us with a few of his inspirational leadership examples so we can spot the kind of actions which the likes of Varus conspicuously did not attempt or achieve in challenging situations.
Quote from: DougM on November 16, 2018, 12:25:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on November 10, 2018, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on November 09, 2018, 02:53:44 PM
To play Devil's Advocate. Given the circumstances I'd put Varus low but not persay lowest.
Many generals would have trusted their auxilia scouts too...
In response to the Devil's Advocate: :)
I would rank Varus very low for two reasons. First, ignoring a credible warning from Segestes about the treachery of Arminius. Second for a lack of leadership when the ambush was sprung. Compare that to Caesar when he was surprised by the Nervii while his army was making camp. Caesar grabbed a shield, pushed his way to the front lines, called on trusted centurions to restore order, encouraged his soldiers, and held off the attack until reinforcements arrived. There is nothing to indicate that Varus showed that type of leadership.
Says Caesar, who was never a shameless self-promoter.. no, never..
Certainly a self-promoter, but equally a brave man. He won the Civic Crown at Mytilene, and the kinds of things he talks about doing are not outrageous. He's not boasting about cutting off the heads of his enemies and turning the tide of battle single-handedly. He leaves that to fellows like Gaius Crastinus...
Further reading of Tacitus has forced to revise my opinion and remove Vespasian from the very best category. Not quite sure where he ends up...
Personally I would suggest competent/average/3 out of 5. He was reliable and effective but not inspired.
If we consider Caesar as 5 and Pompey/Sulla/Marius as 4, Vespasian would rate a 3, but no lower. (I would also not rate Vitellius or Otho above 2.)
Antony might be 4 on a good day - on land. Sertorius at least 4, perhaps pushing 5 (on the one hand he was occasionally defeated; on the other, he beat Roman armies with armies consisting principally of Spaniards).