If Roman Generals Were Not Polticians?

[rvmaximus]

Can you imagine if Roman generals were not polticians and became military leaders ability? I think many losses would not have occured such as Crassus in Persia...etc. Also, civil wars between each other would have ceased. These civil wars have to had a huge drain on Roman might that many overlook. Some experts say Rome's largest losses have occured from other Romans.

Of course I am skeptical of the numbers they claim, just seems to me the losses are too large for the day. Rome after all was just a small city state with a few satelite tribes,until they recruited the Gauls and Germanics. But the civil wars did not include many of the new comers at the time I understand.

So many puzzeles concerning the Romans that the more you read the more questions you have.

[Primus Pilus]

Of course I am skeptical of the numbers they claim, just seems to me the losses are too large for the day. Rome after all was just a small city state with a few satelite tribes,until they recruited the Gauls and Germanics.

 

A couple of imbedded links regarding the population of the empire...

 

Empire population distribution

[M. Porcius Cato]

Can you imagine if Roman generals were not polticians and became military leaders ability?

 

Everything before the "and" made sense, so I'll address that (is English not your first language?)

 

Abolishing the politician general would have been a great reform. Generals make lousy politicians, and politicians seldom make decent generals. Still, I don't see how this reform could have worked in the Roman context.

[rvmaximus]

Can you imagine if Roman generals were not polticians and became military leaders ability?

 

Everything before the "and" made sense, so I'll address that (is English not your first language?)

 

Abolishing the politician general would have been a great reform. Generals make lousy politicians, and politicians seldom make decent generals. Still, I don't see how this reform could have worked in the Roman context.

 

Spanish

[Ursus]

Can you imagine if Roman generals were not polticians and became military leaders ability?

 

Hard to imagine as one of the central cultural traits of Rome was for the politicos to gain prominence through honor and glory, the most potent expression of which was military victory.

 

But it is very true that some of the politicos made lousy generals. Reading between the lines on Livy's history of the Second Punic War, it seems Hannibal was not quite the super genius he's made out to be, it's merely that most of the Roman politicians at the time were not the brightest military leaders.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cicero really, really tried to change the system so honors were bestowed for good statesmanship. Unfortunately, he ended up looking like a braggart in doing so. I do think his efforts were in the right direction though.

[jbs1114]

As many scholars have said before, the fact that Roman generals were politicians led to the rapid expansion of the republic and its ascension as a Mediterranean heavyweight. A politician in the republic was looking for maximum glory during their short tenure as praetor, consul, propraetor, or proconsul. This led to wars against foreign enemies which may not otherwise have been waged, and, like it or not, these wars lined the treasuries coffers, and the conquered land expanded Rome's influence far beyond the Roman heartland. True, there were a few Carrhaes which might have been avioded if such a competitive spirit was not present among Rome's leaders. But the civil wars did not result from politicians being generals at all. Mariuses, Sullas, and Caesars caused turmoil because they overstepped their role as politicians and became solely liable to their armies. When the system worked, politicians had to answer to the Senate for any wrongdoing. In other words, civil wars resulted from generals with no respect for the senate (something a politician would seek to serve in, not destroy or destabilize), while foreign conquests were carried out by Rome's politician-generals, with much success.

[Sextus Roscius]

Personaly, I think its a good thing and a bad thing. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a person to go into the army, make their rank upto a a generals assistant or something of the sort, a legionary comander persay, and then to go into politics still at a young age. This allows the person time to gain experiance in politics, but in making their political decisions they know the horrors war can bring better than any of the pure politicians, but they also know their effect on the world politics and the situation back home that many pure generals just don't have a decent grasp on. I think its the problem of the pure politicians decideing to become generals, or vice versa.

 

A prime example of this problem is Hitler in WWII, he tried to comand his troops down to the battalion level, like a comander or general, rather than giving a general goal and guidelines, which is the only thing a pure politician should do.