A General Or Emperor's Personal Proficiency In Arms

[Tobias]

G'day all

 

Did the commanders of Roman armies necessarily have high skill in weaponry i.e. expert in swordsmanship etc.? I know that, for example, commanders that have won the corona civica have proven their bravery and skill on the battlefield in the front line, but did all Roman commanders have high personal skill in weaponry? Otherwise, where there many Roman commanders who couldn't handle a sword to save their lives, but were still effective commanders? What are some opinions out there?

Edited January 21, 2006 by Tobias

[Neos Dionysos]

I would think that at a young age, those who would go on to command troops would be well trained to weild a sword on horseback and be combat proficent.

[Lost_Warrior]

I'd imagine most would be extremely proficient in the use of weapons, at least I would hope they were. But of course, there were always those who got their posts through purely political means, and were not necessarily the best fighters. Even then, it's almost certain they had some skill.

 

It is possible to be good at strategy and such without having the best weapons skill, though I don't know how often that happened in the legions.

[Tobias]

there were always those who got their posts through purely political means

 

That's what i was thinking of - it wouldn't be too helpful if a person with no combat experience or skill gained a position of responsibility in the legions for purely political reasons.

[P.Clodius]

Most romans were trained in the military arts at an early age, so it wouldn't be unthinkable to assume so. Caesar was suppossed to be proficient. Marius drilled regularly with his troops as did Corbulo. The last general to win the Spoila Opima was M. Claudius Marcellus against a gallic chieftain in the late 220'sBC.