06-21-2004, 08:00 PM
Goldsworthy also covers the point pretty thoroughly in a chapter from his classic <em>The Roman Army at War</em>, which I just finished reading. He seems to think that in the Roman army of the late Republic and early empire, the most typical position was sort of a compromise one, in which they were very close to the front directing and encouraging units in the thick of the fighting, but usually on horseback (which would allow them to move to wherever he felt most needed to either bring up reserves or buck up the morale of his men), and yet not actually wading in with their own swords.<br>
<br>
What I especially liked about the chapter is that he pointed out how the Roman concept of a general's role was heavily shaped by their culture and class structure. Romans seemed to have expected their commanders to display <em>virtus</em> (manliness, courage, virtue), not necessarily to be brilliant masters of the subtle tactic, and yet not necessarily emphasize individual skill with arms, either. The idea was generally that he, generally a patrician, was "born to lead," but not necessarily a military specialist. He points out that when a cultural idea of the general is more that of the brilliant tactician, a general usually commands from the rear, and where the generals own prowess with arms is considered important, he is often in the thick of the fighting. But then, Rome's military culture was complex enough that all three of these basic "types" of generals can be found.<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>
<br>
What I especially liked about the chapter is that he pointed out how the Roman concept of a general's role was heavily shaped by their culture and class structure. Romans seemed to have expected their commanders to display <em>virtus</em> (manliness, courage, virtue), not necessarily to be brilliant masters of the subtle tactic, and yet not necessarily emphasize individual skill with arms, either. The idea was generally that he, generally a patrician, was "born to lead," but not necessarily a military specialist. He points out that when a cultural idea of the general is more that of the brilliant tactician, a general usually commands from the rear, and where the generals own prowess with arms is considered important, he is often in the thick of the fighting. But then, Rome's military culture was complex enough that all three of these basic "types" of generals can be found.<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>
