Roman commanders underestimated?

[Raphia]

We all hear about how wonderful the Roman legions were (sometimes their martial prowess is overstated). However I feel that the Roman officers, commanders are very understated because with out these guys and there ability to organize the legions and command them in battle, Rome would never have made it into an empire. What do you guys think?

[Valion]

I dont think they are understated..... what made you think so? almost all roman generals were once only officers in the army even the patricians that were appointed to command them by the senate served in the army before as tribunes.

[QuintusSertorius]

A lot of Roman generals were pretty pedestrian and ordinary. The system meant that usually they'd have to be howling incompetents to actually lose, especially given the aggression of their command style in dealing with problems immediately.

But it took actually gifted commanders to achieve great things. So no, I don't think they're underestimated. The good ones are noted, because they were good. But there were plenty of mediocre and just not-bad ones.

[machinor]

Didn't usual Roman battle strategy more or less consist of steamrolling the enemy army with the infantry mass? IIRC it was that strategy that Hannibal exploited in the Cannae.

Also, one has to keep in mind, that most of the higher rank served in the army only for a relatively short term. So the real veterans were the soldiers and lower rank officers like the centurions. A wise commander would rely on them and their experience instead of his own dubious military knowledge.
After all, there is a reason, a military commander would be pronounced 'Imperator' by the legion and not by the senat or the generals.

[Wausser]

Didn't usual Roman battle strategy more or less consist of steamrolling the enemy army with the infantry mass? IIRC it was that strategy that Hannibal exploited in the Cannae.

Yeah the Romans used the same strategy over and over again. Hannibal noticed it and created a successful strategy against it.

[machinor]

Not to mention that "throw everything at 'em!" isn't that much of a sophisticated strategy. ;)

[Ca Putt]

Imo one of the advantages of the Roman army was the dicipline, which would make the lower officers very important who have to ensure that the formation stays intact. which is why i would not say roman commanders deserve more recognistion but rather the Centurions, decurions etc.

[Wausser]

Yeah, the lower officers held the troops together

[Dodge_272]

Not to mention that "throw everything at 'em!" isn't that much of a sophisticated strategy. ;)

It is if you have more to throw than the person you're fighting. :beam:

[machinor]

Even then it isn't really that much sophisticated. You don't need no Caesar, Scipio or Hannibal for that. ;)

[polluxlm]

I think he may be hinting at the fact that Roman commanders received no formal education as opposed to his meditaranian counterparts.

In that regard I would say that the many commanders obviously would often be flunkies that received the position on behalf of their birth.

The advantage of course was their organization, but something that may have been more important was the openness of the system. Whereas in monarchich societies you have a very set system of who is to do what. In Roman society you still had an elite occupying the positions, but being a democracy this elite was a lot greater in numbers, and would of course produce a fresher and more diverse set of commanders for their armies.

[Pontius Pilate]

We all hear about how wonderful the Roman legions were (sometimes their martial prowess is overstated). However I feel that the Roman officers, commanders are very understated because with out these guys and there ability to organize the legions and command them in battle, Rome would never have made it into an empire. What do you guys think?

Actually I think it is the other way around. The commanders get all the attention but the lower officers like centurions and the soldiers don't get much attention. But then again it would make more sense for people to praise Gaius Julius Ceasar then well, a bunch of centurions. History remembers Generals, not soldiers. Except if you're Achilles, lol. Am I the only one who saw the movie?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

IIRC it was the more decentralized system in the Roman legions that made them effective. Everything in Rome was made more or less so they couldn't rely on a single gifted man all the time, except for the Dictatorship.

The system worked fine: on one hand even if they couldn't match the tactical genius of troops under men such as Hannibal it did not take extraordinary competence to fight with them as much as with a Carthaginian mercenary band.

[SwissBarbar]

History remembers Generals, not soldiers. Except if you're Achilles, lol. Am I the only one who saw the movie?

Lol, no. "maybe the kings were too far behind to see. The soldiers won the battle" "History remembers kings, not soldiers. Tomorrow we will batter down the gates of troy. I'll build monuments to victory on every island of Greece. I'll carve "Agamemnon" in the stone. " "Be careful king of kings. First you need victory"


i know this conversation by heart. i like the movie, altough it has NOTHIG to do with historical research and authenticity :laugh4:

[Pontius Pilate]

Lol, no. "maybe the kings were too far behind to see. The soldiers won the battle" "History remembers kings, not soldiers. Tomorrow we will batter down the gates of troy. I'll build monuments to victory on every island of Greece. I'll carve "Agamemnon" in the stone. " "Be careful king of kings. First you need victory"


i know this conversation by heart. i like the movie, altough it has NOTHIG to do with historical research and authenticity :laugh4:


same here!:yes: I love movie too. It's just so epic and gives you a nostalgic kind of feeling and... I don't know,there is just something about it that I just enjoy. And yeah it completely goes against the original Illiad by Homer...Agamemnon dies at the end, lol.


EDIT: wow, sounds like I'm describing my dream girl or something.

[SwissBarbar]

same here!:yes: I love movie too. It's just so epic and gives you a nostalgic kind of feeling and... I don't know,there is just something about it that I just enjoy. And yeah it completely goes against the original Illiad by Homer...Agamemnon dies at the end, lol.


EDIT: wow, sounds like I'm describing my dream girl or something.

maybe briseis or helena is your dream girl? ^^

actually i like the idea of showing the war without copious quantities of gods and other mythic creatures interfering the battles. :inquisitive:

and yeah, if the ilias ended this way, goethe could never have written Iphigenia in Tauris :idea2: poor agamemnon :shame:

[machinor]

The problem with that movie was not the non-involvement of gods 'n stuff. The problem was that even the no-god-parts (which are the main parts... the gods are not that much directly involved in the essential plot elements; it is an epic about humans and human flaws) were completely rubbish. The Iliad was turned into a soap opera with some stylish(?) fantasy fighting. That is the problem most people, who know the original, have with that film. And even without the Iliad background the dialogue and acting was just plain ridiculous for the most part.

Going off-topic here...