Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Sextus Roscius

Worst General Or Politician In Roman History

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Sextus my friend, I am doing well in my quest for freedom, I am FREE! :P

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×