# CHAPTER 31 — Why Roman Commanders Were Never Excessively Punished for Errors They Committed, Nor Were They Ever Punished When Their Ignorance or Poor Decisions Resulted in Harm to the Republic

The Romans, as we explained above, were not only less ungrateful than other republics but also more compassionate and respectful in the punishments of their army commanders than any other republic. Even if a commander’s error was committed out of malice, they punished him humanely, and if it was committed out of ignorance, they not only avoided punishing him but they rewarded and honoured him. This method of proceeding was carefully thought out by them, because they judged it to be of such great importance for those who commanded their armies to possess a free and ready mind, unhindered by irrelevant matters in making decisions, that they did not wish to add to something already difficult and dangerous in itself new difficulties and dangers, believing that if they did so, no commander would ever be able to take skilful action. For instance, suppose they sent an army into Greece against Philip of Macedonia or into Italy against Hannibal or against those peoples whom they had conquered earlier: the commander placed in charge of such an expedition was distressed by all the concerns that such enterprises involve, concerns that are serious and extremely important. Now if to those concerns were added additional examples of Roman commanders who had been crucified or otherwise put to death when they had lost a day’s battles, it would be impossible for that commander, beset by so many suspicions, to make courageous decisions. Judging, therefore, that the disgrace of having lost was more than enough punishment, the Romans did not want to demoralize their commanders with other penalties.

Here is one example of an error that was not committed out of ignorance. Sergius and Virginius were encamped at Veii, each in charge of one part of the army; Sergius was situated so that he might encounter the Etruscans and Virginius was on the other side. It happened that when Sergius was attacked by the Faliscans and other tribes, he allowed himself to be routed and driven away before sending to Virginius for assistance. On the other hand, since Virginius was waiting for Sergius to humiliate himself, he preferred to see his native city dishonoured and that army ruined rather than march to its aid. This is certainly a very wicked case, one likely to be remembered, and to leave a bad impression of the Roman republic if one or the other of the commanders had not been punished. It is certainly true that where another republic would have imposed capital punishment on them, Rome punished them with monetary fines. This came about not because their sins did not deserve greater punishment but rather because in this case the Romans wanted, for the reasons already given, to maintain their ancient customs. As for errors committed out of ignorance, there is no finer example of this than Varro, whose rashness caused the destruction of the Romans by Hannibal at Cannae which endangered that republic’s liberty, but because it was a matter of ignorance and not malice, they not only avoided punishing Varro but they honoured him, and the entire order of the senate went out to greet him upon his return to Rome, and since they could not congratulate him on the outcome of the battle, they thanked him for having returned to Rome and for not having despaired of the republic’s affairs. When Papirius Cursor wanted to put Fabius to death for having engaged in battle with the Samnites against his orders, among other arguments Fabius’ father set forth against the dictator’s obstinacy was that, after their losses, the Roman people had never treated their commanders as Papirius wanted to do after a victory.