It seems Romans never developed professional officer corps above centurions until 3rd centry around Diocletian era when equestrians were employed to command legions. So, Romans entrusted their legions to amateurs for a longer period with successful outcome. For officers above centurin, they employed senatorial class exclusively until they were replace by equestrians and senatorial class never devoted their entire career to military posts alone.

I see Romans valued men of versatile and all-around ablilites, but it strikes me rather odd since apparently some commanders never had or thin military experience before taking command of legion. Cicero once wrote of Lucius Lucullus that 'And so he spent the entire voyage partly in inquiring from experienced men, partly in reading the achievements of others, and arrived in Asia a commander, although he had been ignorant of military affairs when he left Rome.'
We can guess that Cicero exaggerates, but the general idea of an amateur approach to military commands remains.

Also, Sallus mentions borrowing mouth of Marius that 'I know some men, citizens, who after their election as consul began to read up history and Greek military handbooks. They got things the wrong way round. You can carry out the duties of an office only after you have been elected to it, but practical experience and action should come first.'

So, clearly consular legates and military tribunes were amateurs with no or little military experiences while proconsuls who took overall command of legions may have some previous military experiences although they were no professionals either by any standards.

That said Roman military achieved tremendously and that tells their way did work. But, how and why? Would they have worked better should they have had professional officer corps from ealier on? And, when did they really start to deply professional officers above centurions?

I see your point, but I think that, even though before Diocletian centurion is the highest commision, the system is more advanced than most other civilizations at the time. I don't believe that anyone cared about pure-blooded senators or tribunes. Anyone, really, could be a centurion. But, if my knowledge is correct, there were different ranking centurions, which were ranked according to the century/company that they were leading. That said, I think (and correct me if i'm wrong) that men of high family starting a military career began at this post.

Roman Patricians grew up, and spent all their childhood training for two pursuits: politics and the military. They grew up reading Livy, Ptolemy, Polybius, Homer, Thucydides, Herodutus, Virgil and many other books completely lost to us. Also, all commanders of legions had some prior military experience, including Crassus. Young men of Patrician blood who came of age were sent to serve as tribunes in the Roman legions. Tribunes would serve as staff or field officers at the descretion of the commander of the legion. They must serve, I believe, two years as a tribune in order to gain any political rank. Also, during all war councils the centurions were present to give advice, which I assume was taken into account. The second-in-command of every legion was the first centurion of the first cohort. He would thus be able to give advice to the commander of the legion. So, in summary every legion was commanded by a veteran officer, with a seasoned veteran as second in command.

Saying that Roman commanders were amateurs isn't true. Caesar only served for a few years before becoming consul, that's almost nothing compared with modern generals, who serve up to thirty years before becoming general. Caesar wasn't a true politician nor a general, this may seem very weird. In our modern society, politicians use you diplomatic/political talents and generals their military talents. That looks much better than the Roman system, but you have to realise that there wasn't a seperation between the army and state throughout the republic and imperial period.

In the third century, we see the rise of the equestrian professional generals and patrician professional politicians, one of the factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire. In the republic, a consul was both a politician and a general, and the soldiers were also citizens. Many patricians saw army service as nothing more than a step in their road to the office of consul, and they ruled as consul over the people and the army. If Augustus had made a seperation between generals and politicians, the former would rise thanks by merit, thus by the will of the emperor. He wouldn't be responsible for the people to: he wouldn't give anything about the civilians and politics. The Senate wouldn't be able to resist against those men, because they had no power over the army and there were no senators with experience on the field.

A seperation between politics and the military would be very unhealthy for the stability of the empire, with the legions making and breaking emperors. This happened in the 3th and 4th century: many emperor became ruler because of their successes on the battlefield and their talents as commander, but they had little to no experience with administration, politics and management.

Spartacus, you say that patricians started as centurions. Also not true.

Plebs (the poor people) could only join the legions as auxiliaries or legionaries (if they were citizens). They could rise to the rank of centurion by showing their courage and leadership in battle, but also adminstration skills. So there was a small meritocracy for plebs, but also for the equestrians and patricians: the men with the best skills rose through the ranks. Some centurions became first centurio (primus pilus), becoming equestrians after their service.

Equestrians (richer people) could join the legions as centurio's and decurio's (commander of 30 horsemen). Like with the plebs, they could eventually become commander of a regiment cavalry , tribune or prefect. Some of them even became governor of a small province in the empire. Especially in the later period, they were seen as more professional and less corrupt than senators, but as I said earlier, they were loyal to their general/emperor, not the people of Rome.

Patricians (richest people, senators) started as first tribune in a legion, second man behind the legatus. Usually they served 3 to 10 years, with civil jobs between those years. If they had showed that they were worthy officers, they could enter the senate and begin their cursus honororum. This meant being governor of an unimportant province with no legion in their first term, later a province with one legion and if they were really good, a large province with many legions (in Britannica, Germanica, Syria or Dacia for example).

Reading books and having practical experiences are two completely different things.

Furthermore, the evidence of the career inscriptions of senators does not support any idea that in the imperial period there evolved a bureaucratic system to train future military commanders. The careers of consular relates in general show no particularly significant military emphasis and it is very difficult to see any deliberate attempt to prepare them specifically for military duties.

While absence of professional army officers was not disastrous, it clearly affected the outcome of battles against professional commanders such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal.

And, I believe military tribunes served only one year until the concept of promotion in tribunal ranks was systematically practiced around Claudian era.

Marcus Trajan said:

While absence of professional army officers was not disastrous, it clearly affected the outcome of battles against professional commanders such as Pyrrhus and hannibal.

And, I believe military tribunes served only one year until the concept of promotions in tribunal ranks was systematically practiced around Claudian era.

Click to expand...

Roman armies didn't need tactical genii to win, they relied on the organisation and discipline of their legions. Leadership was important, but thanks to the centurio's and tribunes, the army could function quite well under a mediocre general. Carthaginian armies often needed a very skilled commander to keep the bunch of different troops together, the Roman army didn't need one to be succesful.

Tribunes had to serve 3 years, but this rule was not strictly enforced. Some, like Traianus, served over ten years before commanding a legion, other quitted after a year to focus on becoming lawyer or such. Not all senators had to be generals: Claudius had no military experience but was the first good emperor since Augustus.

Yes, with excellently equipped and desciplined army, average commander can achieve much. Arrian's account of his expedition against Alini gives an excellent picture of conservative tactics of Romans', well-organized peparations and engineering skills, and meticulous planning of an amateur but shrewd senatorial commander. His type of commanders served the empire well as far as they encountered equally mediocre and unimaginative commanders whereas against superior foes they often met disastrous results.

But, I have to agree that combination of civil and military posts in one's career contributed a lot to stability of Roman society...

Marcus Trajan said:

When did they really start to deploy professional officers above centurions?

Click to expand...

Legion Command Structure:(Highest rank to lowest)

• Legatus legionis: Usually a former Tribunus though sometimes an Equestrian who had served in the auxilla as Tribunus cohortis (or Praefectus Alae) became Legatus. Almost universally had former military service.

• Tribuni Laticlavii: Patrician who was generally inexperienced and was second-in-command of the legion.

• Praefectus castrorum: This camp commandant, typically a former Primus Pilus, was in charge of a host of tasks. Of equestrian status, he was third in the chain of command, though in special circumstances this officer functioned as agens in vice legati, acting in place of a legate. This usually occurred when the Tribunus Laticlavius was considered too inexperienced to lead.

• Tribuni Angusticlavii: 5 Equestrians who were career officers with several previous commands over auxiliary foot regiments.

• Primus Pilus: The most senior centurion who was granted entry into the equestrian order after completion of his service.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auxilla Command Structure:(Highest rank to lowest)

• Praefectus Alae: Commander of a quingenary(500 men) cavalry regiment. Third term for Equestrians.

• Tribunus cohortis: Commander of a unit originally raised from Roman citizens or of milliary (thousand) strength. Second post for Equestrians.

• Praefectus cohortis: Commander of a single unit, infantry or infantry with organic horsemen. Usually the first post for Equestrian career officers, it was equal status to the legionary centurionate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not convinced the Republican Legion should be considered commanded by amateurs. Of the above, only the Tribunus Laticlavius was inexperienced and of high rank; furthermore, when he was vastly inexperienced, the Praefectus castrorum was granted command (this became standardized in Aegyptus during the Principate). As far as consular command, they held council with the Legati on a regular basis and presumably took the the more experienced commanders opinions in most cases. Keep in mind also, that many consuls had held service as Tribuni Laticlavius and/or Legatus Legionis before being consuls. Caesar for example, earned the Corona Civica as a Tribuni Laticlavius long before he ever became consul.

Additional notes:
Patrician Tribunes served six month tours and Equestrian Tribunes served 2-4 years per tour (dependent on province and rank) and the fourth tour was considered very rare and very prestigious, the militia quarta.

Cicero is was prone to repeating rumours. Lucullus had already served as Quaestor in 88 BCE and was the only Tribune of Sulla's that supported Sulla's march on Rome and thus was early on given a great deal of command. So there is no reason to think that in 74 BCE during his consulship that he was incapable and his military record supports this. At the time of his writing, Cicero was still a friend of Publius Clodius. Publius Clodius is the same man that masterminded the insurrection against Lucullus. As such, Cicero's view is rather slanted. To give you some idea of Clodius's sway with Cicero during this period, Cicero's wife accused Clodia (Publius Clodius's sister, she and her brother lived together) of seducing Cicero.

As to Marius's speech in Sullust's The Jugurthine Wars; I think Marius had to attack his opponents military acumen because Marius, being a new man, only had his military career to credit for his success in the political arena. It's still a fair analysis of the consulship as military leaders but I think your source is overemphasizing the importance of the speech.

Mimirswell said:

I'm not convinced the Republican Legion should be considered commanded by amateurs. Of the above, only the Tribunus Laticlavius was inexperienced and of high rank; furthermore, when he was vastly inexperienced, the Praefectus castrorum was granted command (this became standardized in Aegyptus during the Principate). As far as consular command, they held council with the Legati on a regular basis and presumably took the the more experienced commanders opinions in most cases. Keep in mind also, that many consuls had held service as Tribuni Laticlavius and/or Legatus Legionis before being consuls. Caesar for example, earned the Corona Civica as a Tribuni Laticlavius long before he ever became consul.

Click to expand...

We have to agree on the fact that consuls were pretty unexperienced when they took up their command, but they weren't amateurs. Years of studying and training (often given by retired centurions) prepared them for a post as first tribune. In Republican times, the next step was often the office of qaeustor/praetor (sometimes giving them the ability to led minor armies) and after that the office of consul. So in comparison with modern generals they were pretty inexperienced. But we have to compare it with other generals. Most princes and kings first led their own army on a young age: they were often inexperienced and led to defeats. Roman consuls were usually in their forties or fifties, thus quite experienced in politics and also in the military. Especially in the Principate, men had to serve for over a decade before leading several legions: first as tribune, later as legate, and much later as proconsul.

As Mimirswell said, the Roman legates didn't led their legion(s) without any advice from their subordinates. They often used the experienced of the equestrians, who could also lead cohorts or vexillationes. Often, when the commander was killed or somehow unable to lead the army, the more experienced prefect took over the command and with the other officers he prevented chaos in the army.

A senatorial class started his career in his late teens as a junior magistrate. In his early twenties he became triibunus laticlavius in one of the legions. Usually he served minimum one year although in some minor cases he served more than one year. Around 24, he would be formally enrolled in the Senate and might gain quaestorship. The next military post would be a legatus legionis, commander of a legion achieved around 30. Average service period as legatus legionis was three years.

So, that means commanders of Roman legion only had around 1-4 years of service under their belt. It depends how you define an amateur but I see a man with this kind of military experience as an amateur.

If you see equestrian officers, they served as auxiliary unit commanders and one of five tribuni angusticlavii. Equestrians also served as camp prefect. They were clearly more experienced than senatorial officers, so they could compensate lack of experience of their seniors.

Still, I think inexperienced tribunes and legion commanders hamstrung legion's effectiveness in a few cases although it was not disastrous thanks to more experienced lower level officers.

Marcus Trajan said:

Still, I think inexperienced tribunes and legion commanders hamstrung legion's effectiveness in a few cases although it was not disastrous thanks to more experienced lower level officers.

Click to expand...

Absolutely it did in a few situations, Cannae foremost among them. However, how different really is the Consul from the President of the US or UK. He has a very capable staff to advise him but he's typically inexperienced in war, though still it's de jure leader. The Tribuni Laticlavius on the otherhand was usually inconsequential, the Legatus above him was experienced and the Praefectus castrorum below the same. It's nothing more than command with training wheels to prepare them for Legatus or Consul.

RedBaron is also right that comparitively, the Roman generals had the equivalent experience of the large majority of their adversaries, oft times more.

Marcus Trajan said:

Around 24, he would be formally enrolled in the Senate and might gain quaestorship.

Click to expand...

I think you mistyped that. Quaestor was the prerequisite for entering the Senate, not the other way around. It's why after the Conscriptions of Sulla, Sulla doubled the number of Quaestor(10 to 20) to help fill the ranks.

As usual though Marcus Trajan, your topic is very insightful

Mimirswell said:

I think you mistyped that. Quaestor was the prerequisite for entering the Senate, not the other way around. It's why after the Conscriptions of Sulla, Sulla doubled the number of Quaestor(10 to 20) to help fill the ranks.

As usual though Marcus Trajan, your topic is very insightful

Click to expand...

How did this work in the Principate? In the Republic, a man could only hold the office for one year. In the Principate this changed, with (pro)consul and (pro)praetors commanding a single province for several years. Was the Quaestor still his second in command, serving in the legions as tribunus laticlavius during his term as quaestor? Was he appointed for several years instead of one?

Mimirswell said:

I think you mistyped that. Quaestor was the prerequisite for entering the Senate, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Of course you're right, Mimirswell. My bad.

How did this work in the Principate? In the Republic, a man could only hold the office for one year. In the Principate this changed, with (pro)consul and (pro)praetors commanding a single province for several years. Was the Quaestor still his second in command, serving in the legions as tribunus laticlavius during his term as quaestor? Was he appointed for several years instead of one?

Click to expand...

I believe they continued to be elected by the Senate annually. And, as you said Quaestor acted as second-in command to governor. But, I don't think Quaestor served as Tribunus Laticlavius as the same time. Tribunus Laticlavius was appointed by the Emperor or the Senate in separate from Quaestor. Tribunus Laticlavius served minimum one-year and sometimes served more than one. After that he would seek Quaestorship and induction to the Senate.

And, it seems as time passes other duties were added to Quaestorship. For example, during the reign of Claudius, Quaestors began to be obliged to give gladiatorial games to the people at their own expense.

Some Quaetors were called Quaestores Candidati Principis. They were named directly by the emperor without election and their only duty was to read in the senate the communications which the princeps had to make to this assembly.

To address many of these questions involving Quaestors:

The quaestor originally served only to disburse the spoils of the campaign, one accompanying each Consul. By the reformation of Marius, the Quaestors also kept the funds of the army, which they had received from the treasury at Rome, and gave the soldiers their pay. Quaestors were also assigned to provinces where in addition to the duties of the Quaestors armybound, they had to levy those parts of the public revenue in the province which were not farmed by the publicani, to oversee the publicani, and to forward the sums raised, together with the accounts of them, to the aerarium (state treasury of Rome). Also, they functioned as replacements for the proconsul or propraetor. This included complete command of the legions and it was not uncommon for the Quaestor serving as paymaster to suddenly end up in overall command. Last, quaestors had the same duties as the curule aediles at Rome.

During the time of the principate, Quaestors were chosen by lot (a practice that had begun after Marius but before Augustus), and if the number of quaestors elected was not sufficient for the number of provinces, those quaestors of the preceding year would go in their stead. In some cases, the Quaestor might serve for five years in the same province. Provinces controlled directly by the Emperor had no Quaestors however.

Under Augustus, two Quaestors were added who bore the title of candidati principis, and their only duty was to read in the senate the communications which the princeps had to make to this assembly. This position likely had involved out of the two Quaestors who had accompanied the consuls, known as Quaestura Urbani.

In Rome there was also the Quaestura ostiensis (raised to four in Caesar's time, he doubled Sulla's number of Quaestors). This Quaestor had the duty of distributing the corn and was a very prestigious position (also chosen by lot.)

What do you mean by 'chosen by lot'? Because as I understand, Quaestors were elected by the senate during the time of the principate. What was indeed chosen by lot was assignment of provinces.

If the provinces controlled directly by the Emperor had no Quaestors, who performed the duties of Quaestors? Procurator?

And, wasn't Quaestura ostiensis abolished by Claudius?

Marcus Trajan said:

What do you mean by 'chosen by lot'? Because as I understand, Quaestors were elected by the senate during the time of the principate. What was indeed chosen by lot was assignment of provinces.

Click to expand...

Right, I just wasn't clear.

Marcus Trajan said:

If the provinces controlled directly by the Emperor had no Quaestors, who performed the duties of Quaestors? Procurator?

Click to expand...

Correct. A procurator who oversaw the publicani and deposited the funds directly to the Emperor instead of the aerarium.

Marcus Trajan said:

And, wasn't Quaestura ostiensis abolished by Claudius?

Click to expand...

Essentially. It was replaced with the procurator portus Ostiensis. This was done to alleviate the situation created by a shortage in Quaestors. This is more interesting given that Claudius forced Quaestor to support gladiatorial games, limiting the position to only the wealthiest. In my opinion, Claudius made a power play to move the corn supply from the Senate's authority to his.

Mimirswell said:

In my opinion, Claudius made a power play to move the corn supply from the Senate's authority to his.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The real Claudius seemed not so Repulican than as depicted in "I, Claudius".

Now here's a thought, what if the Roman Army had developed a professional officer corp? What if, Legionaries who distinguished themselves for leadership on the field of battle were selected for some kind of officer training course, what if they were professionally trained for leadership by dedicated instructors who were also veteran of the Legions. How far would the Romans of gone with professional officers to lead their armies?