Amateurs in command?

[L C Cinna]

to send out scouts would have been insulting to his guides!!

...whom he trusted, for reasons we don't fully understand.

We have the hindsight problem here. Imho the better question would be to ask "Why shouldn't he trust them?"

Arminius was a respected commander, partly brought up in Italy and he had fought for Rome before, his brother for example stayed loyal to Rome even after the ambush.
The only thing we hear is that Arminius father in law (who disliked him for marrying his daughter without permission) warned Varus. Why should Varus believe him and not Arminius? Maybe he thought it was just an atempt to put a disliked son in law in a bad light?

Varus trusted one of his commanders who had served Rome for years to lead him through friendly territory. He probably didn't expect someone even daring to attack 3 Roman legions on Roman land.

Could he really have expected his guides to betray him? I think not

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Furthermore sending scouts and such military details did not belong to his tasks as legat and regardless of that I think its safe to assume that scouts indeed were ahead since this is a standard procedure for a legion on the march which Varus had no business changing.

Well if not his responsibility then whose?

Strictly speaking you are right and in formal sense, it is his responsibility. At least he is the governor. And all primary sources, except Florus blame indeed solely Varus (Florus blames mainly Augustus IIRC). But I think it's too easy to tie the disaster to a single individual or even a group of people, when probably any other governor had suffered the same defeat.

I would think that the legate, as any good field commander, should know whats being done by his subordinates even if he didn't issue the direct order himself.

Varus was not just a legionary legate in Germania. He was the governour (legatus auguste pro praetore) and most likely far more concerned with civilian / political / administrative matters than military issues. And this makes sense. Germany was basically considered pacified back then. This was a general shared assesment and may be a reason why Varus was sent at all. So running the legions was probably routine work which he could leave to his lieutenants.
But to come back to the original question, even as a legionary legate with a pure military order he would have used his staff - correctly IMO - to keep the routine work away from him.

Surely he would have compiled and issued standards of march himself or in consultation with his senior staff ( i.e. scouts to always ride x miles to the front and or wings of the column etc.).

Without doubt he could have done all this, but my understanding is that the organization of the screening in enemy territory was kind of a simple standing operations procedure that didn't need the legate's counsel.

@Ian: I'm not sure he sent no scouts for I think at least after hearing of the revolt it was clear that they had to expect the enemy at some place.

As over all commander, it behooves him to know in order to correctly assess the tactical situation. Is my understanding of the legates duty incorrect. Is he not comparable to a general officer in a line position comparable to a battalion or divisional commander or higher (depending on command of one legion, several or an army group)?

I don't think Varus' post can be compared to the posts you mentioned. But even for a "simple" legionary legate, once the battle had begun and especially in confusing terrain the possibilies to act tactical from the HQ are limited at best. The more the battlefield grew in size, the more responsibility shifted to the centurions and there's no way for the legate to arrange the troops while in battle. He sat in the midst of a thin 20 miles column and had no idea what happened at the ends nor any means to give orders in time.
The only chance for Varus and his officers to make plans was while still in camp and here he had to face strict tactical limitations. He a) had to follow small ways which prompted long poorly guarded flanks, b) had a big civilian train which had to be protected and c) was *forced* to cross a basically unknown/ undeveloped territory with d) an uncertain number of enemies. One could say here he's guilty for allowing bad reconnaissance to take its toll but e) he had to act swiftly and may be couldnt wait. So he made a decision to trust the false people which as others have pointed out we can't blame him for.

In Varus' case, I see him as a divisional commander of sorts and while he may not have had responsibility in the day to day workings of each individual legion, he did hold responsibility for the overall enterprise and I can't see how he would have abrogated this to others. I think he must have been the guy giving the orders and perhaps his subordinates, in an effort to stay on his good side or curry favour, didn't fight him on decisions. I would have to think that Roman armies are no different from modern ones where the attitude is often "go along to get along". The much more experienced may have grumbled but marched on anyway.

You might well be right here, but I'm not convinced that his mil./civ. staff opposed his decision or that any other Roman commander had escaped the trap, except with luck. Therefore Varus failure is for me the failure of his staff / administration and the Roman Germany policy as well. Varus was sent and followed a task, which I see no chance he could fulfil.

best,
Carsten

[Pict]

Thank you all for the input. I wasn't really looking to spank poor old Varus again and maybe he's not the best example.

What I was actually trying to question was what military training did these legates have to to command ( at that job level). Were they indeed trained (and experienced) military men or more like 18th century gentry who bought their commissions and , for the most part, played at soldier. Did they actually accumulate time in job ( post tribune) as Mr. Campbell suggests and if so, on average, how much? Also was there a schedule as he also suggests? Did the Senate sit down once a year and say, " these 10/12/15 young senators are due for legion command time so Julius is off to the 12th, Marcus can take the 5th send Lepidus off to the Batavians etc. etc. or more of a hit and miss affair? Did all senators have to go through this or just the more athletic or at least physically fit?

In re reading the ascension of Augustus, he was apparently in Greece at a military school of sorts when uncle Julius was killed. Would this have been a staff college of some type? I read somewhere that such a school or schools existed but can't find anymore info. Anybody know?

cheers all,
Pict

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Possibly in Athens or Sparta?

[Francois]

In re reading the ascension of Augustus, he was apparently in Greece at a military school of sorts when uncle Julius was killed. Would this have been a staff college of some type? I read somewhere that such a school or schools existed but can't find anymore info. Anybody know?

I wondered too about the formation of the Roman generals and citizens, as I am working on the logistics of the Roman armies...
If you leave aside the generals like Caesar or Pompey, who were brilliant military leaders, you must admit that the others were not so bad... Men like Cato, Cicero, Varro, Salustius and others, could show some skill in the art of war, and even defy the greatests sometime...

So was it because of the quality of the "tool" they had ? Or was their "basic" formation quite efficient ?

Octavian was in Apollonia with Agrippa, and we could think that they followed the same teachings... If the following wars showed how brilliant was Agrippa as military commander, Octavian, was as bad a some may think...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Cato and Cicero? He really didn't do very much, just sent his troops out to deal with rebels, but was not faced by a full blown invasion by Parthia.

What exactly did Cato manage to do?

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I wasn't really looking to spank poor old Varus again and maybe he's not the best example.

It won't hurt him anymore. and I'd actually say his civ./mil. conduct is quite representative for by far the majority of commanders. Not extraordinary off the norm. (I know this sounds bit of ridiculous in face of his disastrous defeat, but I've yet to be convinced others had done better)

What I was actually trying to question was what military training did these legates have to to command ( at that job level). Were they indeed trained (and experienced) military men or more like 18th century gentry who bought their commissions and , for the most part, played at soldier.

From that I've seen probably a mixture of both with a tendency toward the latter. Basically their practical military knowledge formed during they served their tour. Learning by doing, although they would - if they were smart and not too arrogant- heavily rely on their first centurions and the camp prefects experience. Additionally they would have read military works as part of their education, though I've never heard of an Roman military academy.

Did they actually accumulate time in job ( post tribune) as Mr. Campbell suggests and if so, on average, how much? Also was there a schedule as he also suggests?

Jonas article will give you further information on this schedule (cursus honorum) and ... you can trust Duncan on this ;-) )
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cursus/cursus_honorum.html

Did the Senate sit down once a year and say, " these 10/12/15 young senators are due for legion command time so Julius is off to the 12th, Marcus can take the 5th send Lepidus off to the Batavians etc. etc. or more of a hit and miss affair? Did all senators have to go through this or just the more athletic or at least physically fit?

I've come to see the senate as a number of old boy networks which allied or opposed each other (I don't mean the optimate-popular thing here) constantly arranging and bargaining the filling of vacant posts. It boils down to that if you had no lobby, you'd get no post.
Unless you're heavily disabled physical fitness would play no role. Regardless of that most weak childs died before the age of 5, so most people in the senate probably were fit enough.

In re reading the ascension of Augustus, he was apparently in Greece at a military school of sorts when uncle Julius was killed. Would this have been a staff college of some type? I read somewhere that such a school or schools existed but can't find anymore info. Anybody know?

That's interesting, but I don't know about such military schools. My guess is that military matters (i.e. the by then military classics) were to a greater or lesser extend treated at every academy.

[Francois]

Cato and Cicero? He really didn't do very much, just sent his troops out to deal with rebels, but was not faced by a full blown invasion by Parthia.

What exactly did Cato manage to do?

Of course, they were not great military leaders and History will not remember them this way...

But when Cicero took command of his province, who could know what would happen ? The region was not quite safe during the previous decade and during the following years... What I meant is that a man like Cicero had to be able to face any danger with his own legions and military skill... Facing a Parthian invasion, would he have done worst than Crassus ?

About Cato, I think his role during the Civil War may have been underestimated. He had to guard the main bases of the Republican armies in Dyrrachium, then in Uttica. When you know the importance of such strategic bases in the logistic system, we are allowed to think that it must have been a task for able men... A good Roman commander was above all a good organizer (That's what JFC Fuller denied to Caesar, exageratly I think).

Men like Cato or Cicero may not have been great field officers/leaders, but they surely have to show some knowledge and skill about the preparation of a military campaign and the organisation of the logistic.
The role of a governor was also to be a general, so they had to be prepared to face any kind of military action...
To be a bad commander could certainly put an end to your career...

it brings back the question of the military formation...

[D B Campbell]

Jonas article will give you further information on this schedule (cursus honorum) and ... you can trust Duncan on this ;-) )

Thank you, Carsten! :wink:

Did the Senate sit down once a year and say, " these 10/12/15 young senators are due for legion command time so Julius is off to the 12th, Marcus can take the 5th send Lepidus off to the Batavians etc. etc. or more of a hit and miss affair? Did all senators have to go through this or just the more athletic or at least physically fit?

It's actually a fascinating system, when you get down to studying it. Each year, the emperor permitted twenty young men to embark on a career that would lead them into the Senate. (Quite how the twenty were selected, we don't know.) But hundreds of individual careers can be tracked, showing the progression of posts that each man held. In many cases, the effects of patronage can be seen, as young men filled vacancies on the staff of their friends and relatives. And yes, all senators had to go through the system, to a greater or lesser degree, because entry to the senate depended upon having held certain posts.

[Fl. Aetius]

Some authors believe there was a class of "viri militares" which had a special cursus. The emperor would have relied on these men for important military positions. I have doubts about this theory and not everybody accepts it. Check these to make your own opinion:

A.H.M. Jones, Augustus, Londres, Chatto & Windus, 1975, p. 85-87.

Frézouls, E. « Le commandement et ses problèmes », in Y. Le Bohec, La hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire Paris, De Boccard, 1995, p. 160-162.

R. Syme, « The Friend of Tacitus » Journal of Roman Studies, 47 (1957) p. 134-135; « Consulates in absence » Journal of Roman Studies, 48(1958) p. 2.

B. Campbell, « Who were the ‘Viri Militares’ » Journal of Roman Studies, 65 (1975) p. 11-31.

A.R. Birley, « Senators as Generals » in Alföldy, G., Dobson, B., Eck, W. Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, 2000, p. 97-119.

Y. Le Bohec, L'armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire, Paris, Picard, 2002 (3e éd.), p. 37-38= The Imperial Roman Army= Die Römische Armee= L'esercito Romano.

Campell thinks that there was nothing like a class of viri militares and that Roman officers were mostly amateurs, Frézouls has a similar opinion. Le Bohec argues that every senator's son was actually training himself and reading military manuals, something which I find hard to believe. I'm not saying they were all lazy and incompetent but the quality of the officers must have varied greatly because there was no military academy like others have said.

About the careers and experience of the legionary legates, check G. Alföldy's Die Legionslegaten der römischen Rheinarmeen, Cologne, Epigraphische Studien, 3, 1967 and Th. Franke's Die Legionslegaten der römischen Armee in der Zeit von Augustus bis Traian, 2 vols., Bochum, 1991

[Francois]

Le Bohec argues that every senator's son was actually training himself and reading military manuals, something which I find hard to believe. I'm not saying they were all lazy and incompetent but the quality of the officers must have varied greatly because there was no military academy like others have said.

I think Le Bohec's idea is quite interesting... of course, all senators' sons were not perfect students... but they were not supposed to all become the new Caesar or Pompey ! But I just think that they had to follow some sort of a basic military education, because of the military carreer they could follow (and no one knew what could happen then...).

[sonic]

I think the main difficulty in this topic for me lies with the fact that, generally, all Roman commanders are denigrated for their 'amateur' status. This holds true for all generals of all nationalities until the introduction of military academies in the last 300 years.

Therefore, for over 3,000 years of recorded history the leading generals were amateurs. This includes Sargon, Nebuchadnezzar, Pericles, Epaminondas, Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio, Attila, Ghengis Khan, etc. etc. etc.

The Roman cursus honorum helped to establish in the minds of the aristocracy which of their fellows were the most suitable to hold major military positions. On the whole, this was because they had performed well in the tasks of the lower leaders, especially with regard to leading smaller numbers of men and their grounding in logistics and man-management.

Although this could backfire - often in spectacular fashion (Cannae, Carrhae etc) - on the whole it produced leaders who were more able than the leaders of the opposition. To decry the Roman generals as 'amateurs' is, therefore, to completely misunderstand the situation and rely upon anachronistic values with little merit.

After all, modern, 'professional' generals have been responsible for some of the most expensive mistakes in military history. One of my most treasured books is 'The Indecisiveness of Modern War' (1927) in which the author claims that any war after WWI would end in a similar stalemate! Whoops!!

It's a shame that Hitler/Manstein et al didn't read it!!

[D B Campbell]

Some authors believe there was a class of "viri militares" which had a special cursus.

Basically a misunderstanding, I believe. Tacitus uses the phrase to refer to primipilares (time-served centurions who had risen to the post of primus pilus before embarking on a higher equestrian career). These were definitely the "military men" of the empire.

The main problem is that we have no idea whether any system of selection was applied at any stage of the senatorial cursus. There certainly doesn't seem to have been any selection, in the sense that we would apply it today. On the contrary, the emperor's legates were gentlemen officers (like Wellington and Marlborough) who were expected to be naturally talented. Some were. Some were not.

[Pict]

I am currently reading Adrian Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" which presents information on the more famous and or successful generals including all the noteables. Interestingly, he confirms what many have said that in the Republic and early Principate these men, by enlarge, were of senatorial rank checking their boxes on their cursus if you will. There is no evidence of schools and they gained their knowledge and skills from reading the histories of prior successful leaders and by stints as junior officers usually in the employ of relatives or family friends. Given time and some exposure to conflict, they were expected to know what to do and if fortunate, given an opportunity to prove it. Of course, if successful they gained enormous power and prestige as we all know.

It seems to have changed by the time of Marcus Aurelius who started to appoint equestrians to the senior ranks. This trend continued with Severus who did away with legates in at least three of his legions and appointed prefects instead. The thought is that these men, coming from equestrian ranks would have been long term soldiers and more in the vein of experienced professionals. In addition, as Imperial appointees they would have been more loyal to the throne and less likely to rebel as had the senatorial generals who, most usually schemed to advance themselves and usually at no little cost to the Empire itself.

I haven't read far enough into the book to see if this trend continued but with the smaller legions of the latter days of the Empire I would hazard a guess that it did and they were altogether more professionally led.

Very interesting to follow this evolution.

Thanks to all for the excellent input.
Cheers,
Pict.