Categorising Roman Generals

[Dangun]

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.

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.)

[Jim Webster]

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

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Tim]

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.

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.

[Tim]

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

[Nick Harbud]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.)

[Nick Harbud]

Completely out of period, but I am still trying to work out a satisfactory classification for Braxton Bragg in my ACW rules.... 

[Patrick Waterson]

I am sure you love a challenge.

[Tim]

Nick, ACW generals are even more difficult rate, especially if you don't know which whiskey they drank...

[eques]

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!