12-11-2008, 06:54 PM
I didn't want to single out Varus but I had just been re-reading the account of his disaster and it made me think of this question. In at least two accounts, the authors suggest that Varus was not an experienced military man but was known as an able administrator and that was the reason he was chosen for the assignment. He was sent to pacify a couple of minor tribes and 'colonize" the area. It was not deemed to be a a major military expedition.
What really got me wondering is that Varus committed some major and unprofessional errors that contributed to his downfall. Errors that a junior officer likely would not have made. One he failed to scout ahead of his line of march and two he split his legions up with the slower moving baggage trains and camp followers.
A more telling situation and one that's hard to understand is that his second in command deserted with the cavalry early on in the conflict. In addition, Varus, along with many of his officers committed suicide and seemingly left their troops to it. All acts of paniced and inexperienced men. Not at all what you would expect of battlehardened Roman officers who felt themselves superior to all races, especially barbarians.
I know they were not all inexperienced but from my readings, it seems, however, that many commanders had little experience other than a few short tours as a tribune interspersed with many more in civic duties before their first major command. I recognize that they would likely have had on-going dealings with the legions in their civic capacities but that would hardly make them seasoned battlefield commanders.
It is very likely that in major assignments their second in command would have been an experienced man, likely a legate but they were still the guy giving the orders. Its not inconceivable that they really didn't know what they were doing and made some serious errors like Varus.
It would be interesting if anyone could shed more light on just how experienced these general officers would have been.
Thanks for all information.
Pict.
What really got me wondering is that Varus committed some major and unprofessional errors that contributed to his downfall. Errors that a junior officer likely would not have made. One he failed to scout ahead of his line of march and two he split his legions up with the slower moving baggage trains and camp followers.
A more telling situation and one that's hard to understand is that his second in command deserted with the cavalry early on in the conflict. In addition, Varus, along with many of his officers committed suicide and seemingly left their troops to it. All acts of paniced and inexperienced men. Not at all what you would expect of battlehardened Roman officers who felt themselves superior to all races, especially barbarians.
I know they were not all inexperienced but from my readings, it seems, however, that many commanders had little experience other than a few short tours as a tribune interspersed with many more in civic duties before their first major command. I recognize that they would likely have had on-going dealings with the legions in their civic capacities but that would hardly make them seasoned battlefield commanders.
It is very likely that in major assignments their second in command would have been an experienced man, likely a legate but they were still the guy giving the orders. Its not inconceivable that they really didn't know what they were doing and made some serious errors like Varus.
It would be interesting if anyone could shed more light on just how experienced these general officers would have been.
Thanks for all information.
Pict.
Andrew son of Andrew of the family Michie, of the clan Forbes highlanders to a man from our noble forebears the blue painted Pict, scourge of the legions.
