Odd Topic - Romans as leaders and managers

[Scipio Bristolus]

Hi,

As part of a postgrad course I have to cover varying styles of leadership behaviours and decision making in a project management situation. The lecturer, apart from covering the Flight Director of the Apollo 13 mission, also covered the personalities in the run up to the battle at Hastings. This gave me the idea to do something based on the Romans......

What I'm after is a defined leader/manager undertaking a defined, or clearly bounded task. It needs enough known about the person and what they did, and the task they organised. Something a bit different or more complex than a one-off battle though. I've though about Octavian/Augustus' rise to power, or possibly Caesars Gallic campaign and subsequent career.

Can anybody suggest anything less obvious, more interesting or where enough is known about what they were thinking when they did what they did (Caeser fits the bill here because of his writings). Maybe Cicero?

Any thoughts gratefully received!

Thanks,

[Epictetus]

Maybe Pompey versus the pirates? That was a very large endeavour spread out over a huge geographic area. He was given extraordinary powers and had to delegate tasks and responsibilities in ways that had hitherto been completely unheard of. This was indeed a huge managerial undertaking, not simply a military campaign.

[Jona Lendering]

What I'm after is a defined leader/manager undertaking a defined, or clearly bounded task. It needs enough known about the person and what they did, and the task they organised.

Try Pliny the Younger's stay in Bithynia. Two good sources (Pliny's own letters + Dio Chrysostom) and conventiently summarized here - the article itself, though, starts here.

[Tarbicus]

The obvious one to spring to mind is Julius Caesar. His management style on the battlefield seems to have been very hands off, except where the battle was going against the Romans and he would enter the fray as a morale booster, and also (seemingly) to take command at a microlevel during an emergency. Otherwise, he seems to have outlined the goal and left the execution to his subordinates, relying on their abilities and experience, as well as initiative. Indeed, he would gauge the mood of his men before entering into battle, or not engage if he thought they weren't up for it that day. Ceasar is well documented from his own biographies, although you need to filter out his exaggeration (the books were very self-promoting) from the actual management style he employed. Caesar would also give an example of an indivdual with both short term goals and wider, far more encompassing, goals in mind.

On a broader timescale, we see instances of subordinate officers (centurios) even going so far as killing their superior when the situation gets out of hand, after the unfortunate tribune freezes or endangers the men and the outcome through indecision. The centurio would take command and reverse the situation. There is one particular incident where the centurio was rewarded for his intiative after such an action.

The ability for the Roman army to adapt and control the situation at a small level of individual unit size is commented on by Josephus, who remarks on how their training enables every man to be a commander when needed. Signifers (standard bearers) and other officers have been documented as throwing the unit's standard into the enemy when his unit was breaking and falling back, as the loss of a standard was a source of great shame to the unit. This action proved to be successful, and the unit would increase its efforts to advance.

Perhaps a study of centurios is a good place to start? Don't think of them as NCO's, as some ranks of centurio would probably be comparable to a Colonel today.

I highly recommend Ross Cowan's 'For the Glory of Rome' as a place to start. From there you could whittle it down to a particular group, or individual, or even period perhaps. At least it would give an insight into the variety of practices they had covering a large span of Roman history. Initially they were more akin to American Revolutionary militia, eventually becoming a professional standing army:
http://www.amazon.com/Glory-Rome-Histor ... 511&sr=1-1

[sonic]

What about Belisarius? You could focus either on the reconquest of Africa, or, possibly of more value, the reconquest of Italy and Belisarius' methods of man-management, especially with regards to his so-called subordinates.

Hmmm ... that actually gives me an idea for an article!!

[Narukami]

Many good suggestions here already...

Just to add to them I would put forward Titus and the siege of Jerusalem.

You have a defined activity (taking a major walled city)
Control & Management of different resources (4 Legions + auxiliary forces) logistics, etc.
And the outcome: Did it meet Roman Needs? Did it meet Titus' expectations and hopes? Was it an unqualified victory?
What were the results of the battle: on Judea, on Rome, on Titus and his father, and on the Jewish people?
Take for example the need for wood to construct the siege engines used in the battle and how far afield the troops had to search to find enough.

As for sources, well, these are limited as we all know, but that has not deterred modern authors from writing on the topic and there are several good books.

Beyond a good translation of Josephus you might consult:
Apocalypse - The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73 by Neil Faulkner
Rome and Jerusalem - The Clash of Ancient Civilizations by Martin Goodman
In The Name of Rome - The Men Who Won The Roman Empire by Adrian Goldsworthy
Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy

This list is not exhaustive, just a place to start your research.

What every topic you choose -- Good Luck!

:wink:

Narukami

[Scipio Bristolus]

Wow! Lots of responses already. Thanks all.

I have some of the books mentioned (Goldsworthy, Caesers Gallic Wars, the Clash of Civilisations one which I bought at the Hadrian exhibition). I think I have the Cowan book that Tarbicus refers to, as the title seems familar.

I'm less familar with the variations in Centurios roles though - can someone enlighten me as to this, their training, career path, background etc? Or should I jsut buy the book!?

Are there any contemporaries of Caeser worth a read? (looking for a more neutral view than things written afterwards). I like the idea of Pliny as he is more obscure.....

Narukami raises a very good point about what was success meant to look like (for the individual and other stakeholders), because funnily enough we went over that too. Another set of angles to judge someones performance from.

[richsc]

You might try looking at Peddie's "Conquest: Roman Invasion of Britain" chapter 3, the Roman army and its logistics, to get an idea for the type of planning involved in such a huge invasion. I don't recall if it was Peddie or someone else who postulated the existance of a 'general staff' that would have the knowledge to plan and coordinate all the various units and functions.

[Magnus]

May I also recommend a book?

In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire, by Adrian Goldsworthy. I think it may be right up the alley for your what you're looking for...I've just started reading this book, and Goldsworthy again is fantastic. Here's the synopsis:

Adrian Goldsworthy has received wide acclaim for his exceptional writing on the Roman Empire—including high praise from the acclaimed military historian and author John Keegan— and here he offers a new perspective on the Empire by focusing on its greatest generals, including Scipio Africanus, Marius, Pompey, Caesar, and Titus. Each chapter paints a fascinating portrait of a single general, offering in-depth insight into his leadership skills and victories, as well as each one’s pioneering strategies, many of which are still used today. In the process, this absorbing, reader-friendly history tells the complete story of Roman warfare, from the bitter struggle with Carthage in the 3rd century BC to the last desperate attempt to win back the Western Empire in the 6th century AD.

This book can be had for under $10 as well, plus you can skip to the chapter devoted to each general, if you are pressed for time.

[Epictetus]

Are there any contemporaries of Caeser worth a read? (looking for a more neutral view than things written afterwards).

You can't beat Cicero. Depending upon what exactly you choose to do, his letters or some of his speeches could be helpful. His letters are probably more truthful in regards to what he actually thought. His speeches were often (always?) very rhetorical. He knew which way the political winds were blowing at any particular point in time and his speeches reflect this.

[Lepidina]

If you want a civilian view, I'd look at the building of the Colosseum in Rome (aka the "Flavian ampitheater". Caesar's bridge might be a good one too. Civilian projects might have more concrete records than military campaigns.

And when you are done, could you send me a copy of your paper? I work for a DoD university in the program management department and have been itching to do a paper on Roman program management. This might be the motivation I need to get it done.

[Scipio Bristolus]

Lepidina / Deb

I will once it's done. It'll only be a 3000 worder.

It's more aimed towards the management/leadership style and behaviours, so that's what I need the info on.