Generals of the Roman Empire

Leading men in battle was one of the most hallowed and honorable professions in ancient Rome - Romulus himself, if he existed, would have been the rougish war-chief of a Bronze Age warband. In the days of the Roman Republic, generals were indeed the most illustrious, influential, and potentially dangerous citizens of the rising empire. From Fabius Maximus and Scipio Africanus, to Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, some of the greatest Romans in history were generals, or built their political careers on the foundation of an extensive military career.

A leader of soldiers under the Principate established by Augustus, however, found himself on a shorter leash. Under the Republic, victorious generals were treated to the triumphalia-a decadent parade in his honor; triumphal honors were (rarely) conferred on Imperial generals, but never included such glamorous displays of his success. Only the emperor was to be glamorized with a parade.

In ancient Italy, victorious soldiers would hail a particularly accomplished leader as "imperator". From Augustus onwards, this title was the reserve of emperors, and for soldiers to call their general this was paramount to treason. The career of many an imperial usurper began with his admiring legionaries declaring him "imperator", with their hero subsequently making his claim less out of ambition and more out of resignment to what fate had thrust upon him-or out of fear of the slanderous observations of informers in the ranks.

The emperor, too, played a dangerous game when he gave any man command over a legionary army. Give him too small an army and he may not achieve his objective, give him too large an army and his ego may dangerously expand with it. A quick glance at the careers of many a usurper in the 3rd Century reveals the danger of placing a talented man in command of an army.

Imperial generals were often provincial governors, and therefore typically had one or two legions and a similar number of auxiliary units at hand. Legionary legates could also command forces not limited to the ranks of their legion. Senior centurions sometimes took up command of an army that was in dire straights due to the death or incompetence of its general. Some generals, particularly in the later Empire, were allied kings and barbarian warlords. We must also not forgetpolitical appointees and members of the imperial family, given their power based on connections or perceived loyalty rather than merit or experience. Clearly, the potential quality of Roman generals varied immensely.

Though it was relatively rare before the 3rd Century, the emperor himself also took the role of general upon himself, especially for wars of conquest (Trajan in Dacia) or against particularly rapacious foes (Marcus Aurelius against the Germanic tribes). Maximinus Thrax (235-238 CE) seems to have been the first emperor to fight in battle personally, though Cassius Dio claimed that Trajan sometimes fought personally in Dacia. Many generals certainly went out in a blaze of glory. Varus in Germania (9 CE), Cornelius Fuscus at Tapae (86 CE), and Furius Victorinus at Aquilea (168 CE) all perished with their armies; Victorinus died leading an assault.

A look at the Bar Kochva Revolt of Hadrian's reign reveals that in times of peace quality generals were hard to come by. Hadrian called S. Julius Severus, then serving as governor in Britain, all the way to Judea to surpress Jewish rebels. Apparently Hadrian felt there was no one closer to the problem area who was up to the task! This was the embarrassing price of the Pax Romana, it would seem.

In his generals, the Roman emperor had to balance talent with loyalty. It was a balance few emperors maintained past the reign of Septimius Severus, at the cost of thousands of good Roman soldiers.