Categorising Roman Generals

[Tim]

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

[Nick Harbud]

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?

[Darthvegeta800]

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...

[Tim]

Gens Varus collectively get in the category reserved for all generals worse than Octavian...

[Chuck the Grey]

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.

[Nick Harbud]

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. 

[Erpingham]

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.   

[Nick Harbud]

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 2^nd 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.

[Prufrock]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.'

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.

[Nick Harbud]

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.

[DougM]

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..

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Prufrock]

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...

[Tim]

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...