# 31. Roman Generals were never punished with Extreme Severity for their Mistakes; nor yet were they ever punished for Ignorance or Bad Judgement even though it caused Harm to the Republic

The Romans, as we have said in an earlier discourse, were not only less ungrateful than other republics; they were also more considerate and more careful in punishing the commanders of armies than was any other republic. For even if they had made a mistake with evil intent, their punishment was still humane; while, if it was due to ignorance, the Romans did not punish, but rewarded and honoured the person concerned. This mode of procedure met with their approval because they held it to be of supreme importance to those who commanded their armies, that in mind they should be free and unembarrassed, and should not have to concern themselves with irrelevant matters in arriving at their decisions, for they did not wish to add fresh difficulties and dangers to what was already a difficult and dangerous task, since, were they thus encumbered, there would be none who would ever act virtuously. Take, for instance, the army they sent against Philip of Macedon in Greece,24 or against Hannibal in Italy, or against the peoples whom first they conquered. The commander who was put in charge of such an expedition had enough to do with the cares attendant upon such a grave and highly important undertaking. Now, if to such cares had been added the recollection of cases in which the Romans had crucified or otherwise put to death those who had lost the day, it would have been impossible for a general, with such a prospect in mind, to give his whole attention to the matter in hand. It was held, therefore, that to such men the ignominy of having lost would be a sufficient punishment, so they preferred not to alarm them by imposing other and greater punishments.

Here is an example of an error which was not committed through ignorance. Sergius and Virginius were encamped before Veii, each in charge of a section of the army. Sergius was on a route along which the Tuscans might come to attack him. Virginius was on the other side of the city. What happened was that, when Sergius was attacked by the Falisci and other tribes, he let himself be put to rout rather than ask Virginius for help; and, on his part, Virginius, anticipating Sergius’ humiliation, preferred to witness his country’s dishonour and the destruction of Sergius’ army rather than come to his assistance. It was a case of obvious misconduct of which notice must be taken, and one that would give a bad impression of the Roman republic if neither of the two commanders had been punished. Actually, whereas any other republic would have inflicted capital punishment, Rome imposed on them a fine. This was not because their offences did not merit a greater punishment, but because the Romans preferred in this case, for the aforesaid reasons, to abide by their ancient customs.

Of errors due to ignorance there is no finer example than that of Varro, owing to whose rashness the Romans were routed by Hannibal at Cannae, whereby the freedom of that republic was endangered. None the less, because he was guilty of ignorance, not malice, not only did they not punish him, but they honoured him, and everyone of senatorial rank went to meet him on his return to Rome. Since on the battle they could scarce congratulate him, they congratulated him on his return and on his refusal to regard Rome’s situation as desperate. When Papirius Cursor wanted to put Fabius to death for having engaged the Samnites contrary to his orders, among other arguments used by Fabius’ father to combat the dictator’s obstinacy, he urged that when defeats had been incurred by their commanders, the Roman people had never done what Papirius wanted to do on the occasion of a victory.