generalship and leadership

[eugene]

Are there any researches which explain the precise meaning of the terms "generalship" and "leadership" according to military history?

[Megas Alexandros]

Well, the terms are, in military sense, actually the same. Civilian duty and military are intevened in roman sense. There are some minor differences, but nothing important.
There must have been some modern articles, but the best way to explore the meaning of these terms is to consult Polybius, Livy, Cornelius Nepos and other ancient sources.

[Vindex]

Well, the terms are, in military sense, actually the same. Civilian duty and military are intevened in roman sense. There are some minor differences, but nothing important.
There must have been some modern articles, but the best way to explore the meaning of these terms is to consult Polybius, Livy, Cornelius Nepos and other ancient sources.

Not sure I would agree that leadership and generalship are the same.

There is a distinct difference between the practitioners of these terms. A military man can show leadership and generalship. A politician/statesman can only show leadership.

[JeffF]

The book Cannae Experience of Battle in the 2nd Punic War by Gregory Daly has an excellent chapter on Command that explains the difference. John Keegan's the Mask of Command is entirely about the subject.

Leadership in battle is the motivation of men to accomplish their leader's will. This is best accomplished by leaders who fight alongside their men and provide encouragement and are an example for the men. Generalship is best executed in a centralized location to the rear where the General can observe and react to battlefield events or cause the enemy to react to his own maneuvers or actions. The two are not mutually exclusive, Alexander and Caesar both would switch between the two as necessary. Alexander most often would conduct his generalship prior to battle in the deployment of his forces and then revert to personal leadership of the decisive force of his army. Caesar would become a battlefield leader when the situation was critical and the troops required his personal intervention.

[Megas Alexandros]

Well, the terms are, in military sense, actually the same. Civilian duty and military are intevened in roman sense. There are some minor differences, but nothing important.
There must have been some modern articles, but the best way to explore the meaning of these terms is to consult Polybius, Livy, Cornelius Nepos and other ancient sources.

Not sure I would agree that leadership and generalship are the same.

There is a distinct difference between the practitioners of these terms. A military man can show leadership and generalship. A politician/statesman can only show leadership.

I have to disagree. A politican is by all means a general also, if he is called upon a certain duty. There are a lot of examples of statesmans who are called upon a military duty. They have to combine those two qualities as leading men of Rome. Cicero, Caesar, Pompey, Sertorius, Cato, and many others, they all were statesmans who in a certain point had to show abilities as generals, or generals who had to show leadership. Two examples - Pompey the Great showed excellent military capabilities but as a statesman he was very poor, cause of which Plutarch, Caesar, Suetonius and other contemporary sources say that he didn't rise as far as he could. Cicero and Cato are another example, both primary politicans who had to, in a certain point, show their abilities as generals. They were moderately good, but enough to show the plebs that they were the kind of people to whom would they might turn in a very dangerous situation. They must cherish pietas, 'dutifulness', natural way of things, and that is to lead by your voice when talking to your fellow citizens, and to show by example your courage in battle, to lead them as if you were on the Forum.
There are a lot of mistakes when historians of modern age try to understand the way roman society functioned. Today there are distinct differences between a statesman and a general, but in ancient times, there are no such differences. One can be a bad politican and a great general (like Pompey), or great politican but a very bad general (Augustus, that's why he had Agrippa), or he could be both, and be remembered as one who had it all, like Caesar.

[popularis]

I have to disagree. A politican is by all means a general also, if he is called upon a certain duty. There are a lot of examples of statesmans who are called upon a military duty. They have to combine those two qualities as leading men of Rome. Cicero, Caesar, Pompey, Sertorius, Cato, and many others, they all were statesmans who in a certain point had to show abilities as generals, or generals who had to show leadership.

As a refinement to your argument, may I point out that when Roman magistrates were elected (with the exception of tribuni plebis and aediles), the Roman people were also electing their military commanders. If a man stood for election as a consul, then the electors would expect that, in that year or the next, he would be commanding an army. Not merely were there, as you rightly argue, no differences between statesmen and generals, but the two roles were directly amalgamated in the Roman system: a consul was as much an elected general as he was an elected politician.

Cicero and Cato are another example, both primary politicans who had to, in a certain point, show their abilities as generals.

Cicero is an exceptional case, although it's worth noting that he was very eager to be granted a triumph for his war in Cilicia. But I wouldn't describe the younger Cato (and certainly not the elder) as a politician who had to show his abilities as a general. He didn't get the chance, due to his youth, to command armies as a consul; accounts of his military tribunate (no doubt accentuated by the writings of Cato's friends) show him as a competent and ambitious soldier, and a good leader of men:

9: when he reached the camp, where there were several legions, and was appointed to the command of one of them by the general, he thought it a trifling and useless task to make a display of his own virtue, which was that of a single man, but was ambitious above all things to make the men under his command like unto himself. He did not, however, divest his power of the element which inspires fear, but called in the aid of reason; with its help he persuaded and taught his men about everything, while rewards and punishments followed their acts. Consequently, it were hard to say whether he made his men more peaceful or more warlike, more zealous or more just; to such a degree did they show themselves terrible to their enemies but gentle to their allies, without courage to do wrong but ambitious to win praise. Moreover, that to which Cato gave least thought was his in greatest measure, namely, esteem, favour, surpassing honour, and kindness, from his soldiers. For he willingly shared the tasks which he imposed upon others, and in his dress, way of living, and conduct on the march, made himself more like a soldier than a commander, while in character, dignity of purpose, and eloquence, he surpassed all those who bore the titles of Imperator and General.

12: With the time of Cato's military service came to an end, he was sent on his way, not with blessings, as is common, nor yet with praises, but with tears and insatiable embraces, the soldiers casting their mantles down for him to walk upon, and kissing his hands, things which the Romans of that day rarely did, and only to a few of their imperators.

An interesting distinction here, by the way, between the "leader as a soldier", and the "leader as a commander". The leader as a soldier shares the hardships of his men, while the leader as a commander displays 'character, dignity of purpose, and eloquence'. It also shows, as you point out, that eloquence and rhetoric were as important in the field as they were in Rome - the ability to inspire men was an absolutely key attribute of military command in the ancient world (not saying it isn't now, of course).

blue skies

Tom

[Vindex]

[There are a lot of mistakes when historians of modern age try to understand the way roman society functioned. Today there are distinct differences between a statesman and a general, but in ancient times, there are no such differences. One can be a bad politican and a great general (like Pompey), or great politican but a very bad general (Augustus, that's why he had Agrippa), or he could be both, and be remembered as one who had it all, like Caesar.

One has to remember the context of the histories which where written extolling the virtues of politicians, and Emperors as well.

There isa quote which I am still trying to locate whereby Marius, I think, gives his credentials for being a leader of men in the field. Triumphs were a publican recognisition of sucess and "good genralship" which is why, perhaps, Octavian never got his becasue he was fighting fellow Romans in a civil war at the time.