Login

06-12-2004, 07:29 PM

During a battle, does a general stay in front of his troops, or does he comand the forces from the rear? 
in the movie "Gladioator" he led the cavalry himself, at the beginning of the movie...would that have happened in real life tho? 
 
sorry for a noob question, im just beginning with my roman history. 
 
 
just had to put this rolling smiley 
 
thank u

Vincula · 06-12-2004, 09:17 PM

Generals often observed the battle from a vantage point, so that (nr. 1) the troops would fight better (knowing that their general was watching) and (nr. 2) the general could spot the heroes and reward them afterwards.

06-13-2004, 12:58 AM

Of course, that is by no means an absolute principle. Some generals really did prefer to lead "from the front." The most famous example, of course, was Alexander, who commanded his right wing cavalry in what he generally expected would be the decisive blow. "Gladiator" may have been playing on this image. On the other hand, since the emperor, the commander-in-chief was present as well and leading from the back, so Gladiator actually shows both approaches. (Actually, combining both approaches by having a star unit commander or an XO command a decisive strike force is also a common tactic which sort of splits the difference; Jackson and Lee did such things, most famously at Chancelorsville: check it out as a great "archetype battle.") 
 
There are I'm sure other completely different approaches as well. Just a few thoughts... 
 
Aaron

L C Cinna · 06-13-2004, 10:54 AM

As the others said. I think it depends on the battle. Caesar for example did both. At Bibracte and Pharsalus he probably just controlled, against others (against the Nervii or in Civil war in Spain, for example) he was fighting with his troops or rather running around trying to make his fleeing troops turn and fight on, in Thapsus he wasn't there at all (probably because of his epilepsy). I also read that in some battles he concentrated on leading the new not so experienced troops because the veterans were able to operate themselves.

06-14-2004, 09:37 AM

It seems to depend on the battle and the general. 
 
Vespasian was hit in the foot by an arrow during the siege of Jotapata, and was in the thick of the fighting at the storming of Gamala.

06-15-2004, 06:28 AM

As were a lot of the Generals with Consular powers in the old days.. according to LIVIvS..... 
 
M.VIB.M. 
V COH II 
LEGIO X GEMINA 
EX GER INF

06-15-2004, 10:21 AM

Once Rome moved from the small city state of it's early days when battle was still somewhat "heroic" in ethos the Roman general was usually expected to refrain from getting involved in the combat. They usually moved up and down the battle line observing and adjusting troops as they thought necessary. Only very occasionally did they get involved in close combat, however, their position of observation was often close enough to the combat for them to be injured with missiles. 
 
Goldsworthy covers this well in his recent book on Roman generals.

06-21-2004, 08:00 PM

Goldsworthy also covers the point pretty thoroughly in a chapter from his classic The Roman Army at War, 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. 
 
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 virtus (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. 
 
Aaron

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me