severity for Misconduct; and where loss resulted to the Republic merely
through their Ignorance or Want of Judgment, were not punished at all_.
The Romans were not only, as has been said above, less ungrateful than
other republics, but were also more lenient and more considerate than
others in punishing the captains of their armies. For if these erred of
set purpose, they chastised them with gentleness; while if they erred
through ignorance, so far from punishing, they even honoured and
rewarded them. And this conduct was well considered. For as they judged
it of the utmost moment, that those in command of their armies should,
in all they had to do, have their minds undisturbed and free from
external anxieties, they would not add further difficulty and danger to
a task in itself both dangerous and difficult, lest none should ever be
found to act with valour. For supposing them to be sending forth an
army against Philip of Macedon in Greece or against Hannibal in Italy,
or against any other enemy at whose hands they had already sustained
reverses, the captain in command of that expedition would be weighted
with all the grave and important cares which attend such enterprises.
But if to all these cares, had been added the example of Roman generals
crucified or otherwise put to death for having lost battles, it would
have been impossible for a commander surrounded by so many causes for
anxiety to have acted with vigour and decision. For which reason, and
because they thought that to such persons the mere ignominy of defeat
was in itself punishment enough, they would not dishearten their
generals by inflicting on them any heavier penalty.
Of errors committed not through ignorance, the following is an
instance. Sergius and Virginius were engaged in the siege of Veii, each
being in command of a division of the army, and while Sergius was set
to guard against the approach of the Etruscans, it fell to Virginius to
watch the town. But Sergius being attacked by the Faliscans and other
tribes, chose rather to be defeated and routed than ask aid from
Virginius, who, on his part, awaiting the humiliation of his rival, was
willing to see his country dishonoured and an army destroyed, sooner
than go unasked to his relief. This was notable misconduct, and likely,
unless both offenders were punished, to bring discredit on the Roman
name. But whereas another republic would have punished these men with
death, the Romans were content to inflict only a money fine: not
because the offence did not in itself deserve severe handling, but
because they were unwilling, for the reasons already given, to depart
in this instance from their ancient practice.
Of errors committed through ignorance we have no better example than in
the case of Varro, through whose rashness the Romans were defeated by
Hannibal at Cannæ, where the republic well-nigh lost its liberty. But
because he had acted through ignorance and with no evil design, they
not only refrained from punishing him, but even treated him with
distinction; the whole senate going forth to meet him on his return to
Rome, and as they could not thank him for having fought, thanking him
for having come back, and for not having despaired of the fortunes his
country.
Again, when Papirius Cursor would have had Fabius put to death,
because, contrary to his orders, he had fought with the Samnites, among
the reasons pleaded by the father of Fabius against the persistency of
the dictator, he urged that never on the occasion of the defeat of any
of their captains had the Romans done what Papirius desired them to do
on the occasion of a victory.