Hamilcar Barca Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 Varro and Valens. Maybe their intentions weren't bad but the repercusions of the actions were disastrous. Worst personality award goes to Nero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 Worst politician? Incitatus perhaps? Although actually as senators go he probably did a better job than some. Heh. The choice between horse or sheep eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Sylvestius Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 It's times like this when you can see where Caligula was coming from with that appointment. It wasn't his madness that made him promote his horse but rather a big political statement. A horse is more capable and more loyal than the senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 As great as he was in the military field when it came to the political arena, Scipio was clueless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Orbis Furius Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Ave! Orestas and by extension his ineffectual, puppet Emperor son Romulus Augustus, in my opinion are the worst politicians and generals. A dubious distinction indeed, however, by temporal positioning (474-476 AD)they are clearly prime candiadates for the "Worst Failure Of All Time" award. To be the Roman Emperor to yield to Odacer, a vile German, to be the General to cede the Western Empire to these offensive barbarians, to be ruler at this time and fail to forestall the fall, must, to me, qualify for worst Roman leader ever. Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted November 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Ave! Orestas and by extension his ineffectual, puppet Emperor son Romulus Augustus, in my opinion are the worst politicians and generals. A dubious distinction indeed, however, by temporal positioning (474-476 AD)they are clearly prime candiadates for the "Worst Failure Of All Time" award. To be the Roman Emperor to yield to Odacer, a vile German, to be the General to cede the Western Empire to these offensive barbarians, to be ruler at this time and fail to forestall the fall, must, to me, qualify for worst Roman leader ever. Pax Going well on your way to freedom Pax? Anyways, I must agree with you, they were clearly a bit of the legions of thigns that caused the empire to collapse. Ironic is it not that "Romulus" was the first Roman to rule rome (by legend) and that "agustus" was the first empereor that the last emperoer would bare the same name as those two. Purpose, or concidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Africanus Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Well from what I do know I would have to say the worst military leader goes jointly to the two consuls in 216 BC that were in split command leading the army against Hannibal. I dont even know their names off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Orbis Furius Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Yes, Sextus my friend, I am doing well in my quest for freedom, I am FREE! There is another leader that was awful, while not a general but a centurian, who surely deserves mention, old "Fetch me another" (cedo alteram). A centurion so nicknamed by his men, and so horrible and petty (in modern military terms, he was definitely chicken sh*t) that his soldiers murdered him. Fed up with with his habit of whacking his hastile (staff of office) over their backs and then calling out for a volunteer to continue the flogging, they lynched him. So unique is this occurrence, or perhaps due to his amusing nickname, Tacitus mentions Fetch me another! in The Annals. Pax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Well from what I do know I would have to say the worst military leader goes jointly to the two consuls in 216 BC that were in split command leading the army against Hannibal. I dont even know their names off the top of my head. Good call Africanus! The old Republic is replete with a great many failed military commanders who got into their positions simply because of their family name. Lucky for them there were also as many great commanders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Africanus Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Ya 50,000 Romans dead because of overconfidence and bad leadership is nuts. Facing Hannibal on the field of his choosing is about as stupid as it gets, regardless of the number advantage you have over him. If Hannibal would have beseiged the capital after Cannae history could have been vastly different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespasion Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 If Hannibal had succeded in taking Rome yes history would have been very different however realisticly Hannibal taking Rome would have been a miracle; My reason for this that every citizen in Rome would fight to the death even though Hannibal would have had battle hardened veterans this is nothing if you compare it to the population of Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 I agree with Vespasion, Roman ideals during the Punic Wars were very different. Those ideals would have certainly made the Romans fight to the very last. Which is also another reason why the other city states rarely went over to Hannibals side. But also, you must not forget that Lucius Marcellus had cut off aid to Hannibal by conquering Sicily while Scipio was conquering Spain. So Hannibal really didn't have the resources to launch a siege or attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 Ya 50,000 Romans dead because of overconfidence and bad leadership is nuts. Facing Hannibal on the field of his choosing is about as stupid as it gets, regardless of the number advantage you have over him. If Hannibal would have beseiged the capital after Cannae history could have been vastly different Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro were the two consuls. Don't be to hard on Lucius Paullus, he'd tried to talk Varro into avoiding battle knowing that the Roman army wasn't trained up to speed (according to Polybius) and wary of Hannibal's generalship. But according to the consular system it was Varro's day to command. Varro fled the battle to "warn Rome", while Lucius Paullus stood and fought (and was killed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro were the two consuls.... Past is prologue. In 1942/43 at Stalingrad the german 6th Army was surrounded and crushed by the Soviets using the double envelopment manouver first used by Hannibal. The german commanders name was Von Paulus. Paulus wasn't to blame for Cannae, Varro was. The romans chose to go for depth in formation as opposed to frontage. If they'd have gone for frontage they would have outflanked Hannibal on his right(his left was protected by the Aufidus). Hannibal read the roman tactics right and exploited it to its fullest, hats off to him I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backfire22 Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Maximin Thrax, a usurper and traitor who killed a legitimate and respectable Emperor (Alexander Severus). The story of the first barbarian emperor is compelling and if at all possible I would like to compile more information on his Dacian expeditions and his siege of Aquelia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.