08-27-2005, 08:12 AM
I think the issue is distinguishing between intelligence and brilliance. Military historians are in love with brilliance as a rule. Hannibal, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel are their darlings (Quiz time: What do all of them have in common? They were eventually defeated by a plodding but consistent enemy).
The Roman army is short of brilliant leaders. Not as short as all that - when you look hard enough - but they lack their Hannibal, their Alexander, their Lysander. Caesar's legend shines so brightly because he is such an exception (we think - above all, he got to tell his own story). When we think of Roman commanders, we think of people like Vespasian, taking years to methodically subdue an insurrection, or Marius, patiently outmaneuvering the enemy. It isn't grand like the vast Alexandrian sweeps across the map, it isn't imaginative and it usually doesn't appeal to the average 18-year-old male very much. All of that tends to make us forget how much work, forethought, planning and training goes into this tick-tock model of warfare. The Roman army was not a good instrument for inspired warlordism, and the political scene of both the Republic and the Empire were designed to keep down overambitious commanders (think about it - in about a century when this was not the case, Rome had Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Anthony and Agrippa. Not bad for stupid.) The complex interlinking machine of the legions, auxiliaries, fleet, commissariat and allies is not as mobile as the mercenary armies of Hannibal or the companions of Alexander, but it requires intelligence and skill to use.
I think it is best summed up in the words of Marius, the most brilliant of plodders. Entrenched in a fortifoied position he was taunted by the enemy: "Marius, if you claim to be such a great general, come out and fight!". His reply: "If you are, make me."
The Roman army is short of brilliant leaders. Not as short as all that - when you look hard enough - but they lack their Hannibal, their Alexander, their Lysander. Caesar's legend shines so brightly because he is such an exception (we think - above all, he got to tell his own story). When we think of Roman commanders, we think of people like Vespasian, taking years to methodically subdue an insurrection, or Marius, patiently outmaneuvering the enemy. It isn't grand like the vast Alexandrian sweeps across the map, it isn't imaginative and it usually doesn't appeal to the average 18-year-old male very much. All of that tends to make us forget how much work, forethought, planning and training goes into this tick-tock model of warfare. The Roman army was not a good instrument for inspired warlordism, and the political scene of both the Republic and the Empire were designed to keep down overambitious commanders (think about it - in about a century when this was not the case, Rome had Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Anthony and Agrippa. Not bad for stupid.) The complex interlinking machine of the legions, auxiliaries, fleet, commissariat and allies is not as mobile as the mercenary armies of Hannibal or the companions of Alexander, but it requires intelligence and skill to use.
I think it is best summed up in the words of Marius, the most brilliant of plodders. Entrenched in a fortifoied position he was taunted by the enemy: "Marius, if you claim to be such a great general, come out and fight!". His reply: "If you are, make me."
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
