Worst Roman Generals?

[Viggen]

maty, thats a fantastic addition to the list of "loosers" , really remarkable

[caldrail]

 

 

Losing a battle means that the other guy was a better general, not that the loser was a bad one

Losing a battle is circumstantial. Whilst one general might have better command skills, better charisma, better experience & training, and so forth, that might not apply to the men at his command. Further, it's a mistake to assume that ancient armies were as adept at dynamic command on the battlefield as say the napoleonic era. Armies in the ancient world relied heavily on intelligence, because otherwise the enemy commander has the initiative, chooses the battlefield, and prepares a plan ahead of time. So much depended on who had the initiative in ancient times - when does the battle commence? It matters because the sun might blind the enemy or reflect off youir own armies equipment, and so on. Once the battle begins, arm ies rely on prepared ideas. If the army did not have one because it arrived later, was ambuhed, or the leader was careless in finding in foe, then things likely would go bad for them, and evenb talented generals can be caught unawares.

[Thurinius]

I'm currently reading up on the siege of placentia in 69 ad and it reads almost like a farce.

Caecina the general has marched tens of thousands of hardened German soldiers to take Rome from Otho and deliver it to Vitellius.

Only his superior numbers and troops seems to have gone to his head.

His first attempt to take placentia is a dismal,failure after he decides to attack the fortified town without any siege equipment and post dinner, the suggestion from Tacitus is that everyone was a little bit drunk. The Germans strip to the waist and attempt to beat down the towns gate with their fists.

Eventually they have to admit defeat and slope off spending the night constructing siege towers etc.

 

They still don't take the town.

Over confidence can be fatal.