Amateurs in command?

[Pict]

I've been wondering how the legions were generally so successful in their campaigns if they were often led by amateurs like the ill fated Varus.

I know the centurinate were the best of the best and were the backbone of the legions but what about the tribunes and even the legates themselves. There were definitely many talented commanders but it seems to me that most were short timers on special appointments ( unlike the centurions and rankers). How could they gain the knowledge and experience to be successful?

The more I read, the more I wonder.

I'd be interested in knowing more. Can anyone shed more light for me?

Cheers,
Pict

[M. Demetrius]

Varus was no amateur. He was betrayed by his guide, who led his armies into a well-fortified ambush, catching the Romans strung out down a long distance, miles, probably, and causing them to rout into the forest where there were other Germans waiting to take them down.

Perhaps in hindsight, he should have known that Arminius wasn't what he seemed to be, but that's how hindsight is, isn't it?

[Tarbicus]

Perhaps in hindsight, he should have known that Arminius wasn't what he seemed to be, but that's how hindsight is, isn't it?

I thought Arminius' brother, who was also a cavalry officer, made repeated attempts to warn Varus of his brother's plan, but Varus refused to believe it?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think it was either an uncle, or even their father, Jim, at least an elder who was loyal to Rome, who tried to warn Varus! He prefered to keep his trust in Varus for some reason.

[Timotheus]

Roman legionary commanders were not amateurs. Sure they were not full time generals but they were public servants who alternated time in public office with time in the field in various posts in the legion.

Does anyone know off hand how many different posts in the legion a Senator would have held between public office before gaining command of an entire legion?

[Marcus F.]

I think it was either an uncle, or even their father, Jim, at least an elder who was loyal to Rome, who tried to warn Varus! He prefered to keep his trust in Varus for some reason.

It was Segestes a rival among the Cherusci and father of Thusnelda (Arminius married her agianst the will of her father).

[Pict]

I didn't want to single out Varus but I had just been re-reading the account of his disaster and it made me think of this question. In at least two accounts, the authors suggest that Varus was not an experienced military man but was known as an able administrator and that was the reason he was chosen for the assignment. He was sent to pacify a couple of minor tribes and 'colonize" the area. It was not deemed to be a a major military expedition.

What really got me wondering is that Varus committed some major and unprofessional errors that contributed to his downfall. Errors that a junior officer likely would not have made. One he failed to scout ahead of his line of march and two he split his legions up with the slower moving baggage trains and camp followers.

A more telling situation and one that's hard to understand is that his second in command deserted with the cavalry early on in the conflict. In addition, Varus, along with many of his officers committed suicide and seemingly left their troops to it. All acts of paniced and inexperienced men. Not at all what you would expect of battlehardened Roman officers who felt themselves superior to all races, especially barbarians.

I know they were not all inexperienced but from my readings, it seems, however, that many commanders had little experience other than a few short tours as a tribune interspersed with many more in civic duties before their first major command. I recognize that they would likely have had on-going dealings with the legions in their civic capacities but that would hardly make them seasoned battlefield commanders.

It is very likely that in major assignments their second in command would have been an experienced man, likely a legate but they were still the guy giving the orders. Its not inconceivable that they really didn't know what they were doing and made some serious errors like Varus.

It would be interesting if anyone could shed more light on just how experienced these general officers would have been.

Thanks for all information.

Pict.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I didn't want to single out Varus but I had just been re-reading the account of his disaster and it made me think of this question. In at least two accounts, the authors suggest that Varus was not an experienced military man but was known as an able administrator and that was the reason he was chosen for the assignment. He was sent to pacify a couple of minor tribes and 'colonize" the area. It was not deemed to be a a major military expedition.

My personal belief here is it didn't matter all too much if a legat was abel or not. Decisive was more the terrain, the tactical disciplin and professionality of the legionaries/centurions. This isn't to suggest that the legat and his tribunes were useless, but they had to be extraordinary stupid or geniuses to change the outcome of a battle.

What really got me wondering is that Varus committed some major and unprofessional errors that contributed to his downfall. Errors that a junior officer likely would not have made. One he failed to scout ahead of his line of march and two he split his legions up with the slower moving baggage trains and camp followers.

What Varus *especially* did to facilitate the disaster or not is not clear IMO and I doubt that somebody else had faired better. He may have had good reasons for his decisions and he wasn't known as an autocrat, so if his experienced subordinates (at least the camp prefects) had felt strongly insecure about his decisions they'd probably convinced him to be more careful. 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. If these scouts were those very auxilliaries who betrayed him or simply didnt notice the enemy who certainly did all efforts to hide is not known either.

A more telling situation and one that's hard to understand is that his second in command deserted with the cavalry early on in the conflict. In addition, Varus, along with many of his officers committed suicide and seemingly left their troops to it. All acts of paniced and inexperienced men. Not at all what you would expect of battlehardened Roman officers who felt themselves superior to all races, especially barbarians.

Suicide under such circumstances was thoroughly acceptable for Romans and in fear of the certain torture by the barbarians for me understandable. His remaining men scattered over dozens of sq miles were lost either way at this point of time no matter what Varus had done. I think most didnt even notice their commander was dead. Further officers weren't professionals (in comparion to the centurions), but had as you said merely become tribunes as a means of making career in the senate.
Im also not sure that Romans had such thoughts of racial superiority. The line was rather between cilivised and not civilised.

I know they were not all inexperienced but from my readings, it seems, however, that many commanders had little experience other than a few short tours as a tribune interspersed with many more in civic duties before their first major command. I recognize that they would likely have had on-going dealings with the legions in their civic capacities but that would hardly make them seasoned battlefield commanders.

It is very likely that in major assignments their second in command would have been an experienced man, likely a legate but they were still the guy giving the orders. Its not inconceivable that they really didn't know what they were doing and made some serious errors like Varus.

Again I'm not so sure, that Varus (and his officers) are to be blamed alone or at all. Caecina who is considered a good general was by far better prepared, when he later battled the Germans had more men and no civilians with him and expected the enemy was nearly overrun at least at one oppurtunity as well and only luck saved him.

hope this helps,

Carsten

[Pict]

Thank you Carsten. You bring forward some interesting points and this comment got me thinking again

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? 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. 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.). 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)?

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.

Its another interesting question just exactly how did the officer corp interact with one another was there freedom of thought and exchange of idea or was it more autocratic? I think, with the almost constant desire for personal advancement and enrichment as a subtext to everything in daily Roman life, it was likely quite autocratic.

The deeper you dig, the more you learn and the less you really know. Fabulous stuff!

Cheers all,
Pict.

[D B Campbell]

It would be interesting if anyone could shed more light on just how experienced these general officers would have been.

Every senator served a tour as legionary tribune around the age of 20, then he'd command his own legion around the age of 30, before progressing to the administration of his own province in his early 40s. Some provinces were more "high profile" than others. For example, we would hope that anyone entrusted with the four-legion garrison of Syria would have been a "sensible fellow". At least he had plenty of advice, not least from the four legionary commanders and their respective staff officers, as well as from his own staff. And he was, after all, only following the orders given to him on his appointment by the emperor.

[Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus]

Ummm....Varus was the governor of Syria before getting the German posting.

[sonic]

Thank you Carsten. You bring forward some interesting points and this comment got me thinking again

Furthermore sending scouts and such military details did not belong to his tasks.

Well if not his responsibility then whose?
Cheers all,
Pict.

Actually, this is slightly missing the point. Varus was leading his troops through friendly territory escorted by friendly tribesmen. Why should he send out scouts?

The main failing of Varus was his failure to heed the warnings and, at least, be more cautious. However, to send out scouts would have been insulting to his guides!!

[M. Demetrius]

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

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

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think it was either an uncle, or even their father, Jim, at least an elder who was loyal to Rome, who tried to warn Varus! He prefered to keep his trust in Varus for some reason.

It was Segestes a rival among the Cherusci and father of Thusnelda (Arminius married her agianst the will of her father).

Thanks, I almost got to that .... :roll: :oops:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A more telling situation and one that's hard to understand is that his second in command deserted with the cavalry early on in the conflict. In addition, Varus, along with many of his officers committed suicide and seemingly left their troops to it. All acts of paniced and inexperienced men. Not at all what you would expect of battlehardened Roman officers who felt themselves superior to all races, especially barbarians.



Pict.

I personally feel this was the response of a Roman who realizes he has been totally drawn in by an enemy, realizing he listened to the wrong(barbarian) person(s), and has lost his dignatus and his army, entirely without hope of restitution.

Not the sign of an inexperience commander, but one who realises he made gross errors of judgement. His world has just collapsed around him,
so you could say it was a bit more than a 'bad hair day'!