11-09-2014, 05:23 PM
Very often it was a question of leadership. Romans were seldom outfought but they sometimes got outgeneraled. No matter how disciplined and expert your army is, if your commander is a fool and the enemy is capably led, you're going to lose. This was especially true of the Republic, with its amateur political generals who had to surrender their commands after a year. On top of that, propraetors and proconsuls had many duties besides the military, and were distracted by the need to conduct courts and colonial administration. Only in the last century of the Republic, with the rise of virtual warlords who spent many years with their legions, winning their confidence and loyalty, did this begin to change, though at some cost to the Republic itself.
But the political nature of these armies was also a strength. The Romans were the first people to understand warfare as an extension of politics. Their victories over the "barbarians" were as much political as military. They spent more time negotiating alliances than fighting. Caesar's conquests were never a matter of Romans against Gauls. They were about Romans and their Gallic allies against other Gauls. Romans always tried to fight in alliance with other nations and peoples. At the end of the game, it was always the Romans who picked up all the marbles. This was the triumph of politics.
But the political nature of these armies was also a strength. The Romans were the first people to understand warfare as an extension of politics. Their victories over the "barbarians" were as much political as military. They spent more time negotiating alliances than fighting. Caesar's conquests were never a matter of Romans against Gauls. They were about Romans and their Gallic allies against other Gauls. Romans always tried to fight in alliance with other nations and peoples. At the end of the game, it was always the Romans who picked up all the marbles. This was the triumph of politics.
Pecunia non olet
