Categorising Roman Generals

[Tim]

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

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Tim]

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...)

[Prufrock]

Is there a 'had stomach pains, went to the litter, delegated command to Agrippa' category for Octavian? 

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.

[Tim]

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

[Prufrock]

That all sounds good, Tim. Am looking forward to seeing these. Best of luck!

[Imperial Dave]

Indeed. Best of British with this and look forward to seeing them  when ready

[Dangun]

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.

[Tim]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[stevenneate]

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.

[Tim]

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...

[Tim]

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...

[Patrick Waterson]

Rating will be how contemporary Roman sources record them - I suspect that is all relative but it will be so.

Beware of panegyricists.

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.

[Tim]