Nepos and Generalship: Nepos’ Biographies of Foreign Generals

Rosemary L. Moore (University of Iowa)

Nepos’ lives of foreign generals, arranged in rough chronological order, focus primarily on Greek generals of the 5^th and 4^th centuries BC, with a second edition adding lives of the Persian Datames, the Carthaginians Hamilcar and Hannibal, and a short chapter about kings as generals. Nepos’ intent was to retell the lives of outstanding foreign commanders for a Roman audience, with no apology or justification made for non-Roman customs (praef. 1.1), as well as to suggest a comparison between foreign and Roman generals, whose lives were set out in the following (non-extant) book (Hannibal 13.4). Nepos meant for his lives of foreign generals to fit on one scroll, and in order to achieve this, he narrated very briefly or even omitted various parts of generals’ lives (Epam. 4.6, Pelop. 1, Hann. 5.4). He frequently chose to emphasize his subjects’ personal qualities over their military achievements, the extreme case being Aristides, whom Nepos himself admits was more praiseworthy for his character than his generalship (Arist. 2.2). This strategy did not result in consistent focus or organization. For this reason, as well as Nepos’ implicit recognition of changes in the role played by the general in the Greek military, a comprehensive view of Nepos’ vision of generalship is difficult. However, rather than criticize Nepos for not articulating an overarching definition, it is more useful to view his work as one that accurately represents changes in military structure over time. Scholars should focus on his value as an ancient author and historical source rather than on the fact that Nepos would, like many of us, have benefited from a good editor.

The earlier lives have primarily dry accounts of achievements with little comment on specifically military virtues. Some generals, such as Themistocles, are praised as much for their political work as anything, suitable for a period of warfare when generalship per se was subsumed by statesmanship. These generals were praiseworthy simply because they were present at great victories, and benefited from the role of fortuna in the outcome of battles. Later generals, for example Iphicrates, begin to be praised for their military virtues, particularly experience, diligence, prudentia, and a corresponding oversight of military training and discipline, as would suit an age of increased military professionalism and specialization. Good generals were masters of stratagems, ruses that enabled resourceful and experienced commanders to overcome unfavorable odds (e.g. throughout Eumenes). Yet even in this section Nepos sometimes chose to present character rather than achievement, for example in his emphasis on Epaminondas’ eloquence and generosity rather than his innovative hoplite tactics. Missing almost entirely from the collection are any remarks on the psychology of military morale, to which other Roman authors such as Caesar, Livy, and Tacitus devote considerable attention. Also practically absent is any reference to the topos of the “good general,” used extensively by both Greek and Roman authors. This topos overlaps to a great extent with attention to morale. Why Nepos did not address such matters is difficult to understand; perhaps it may be due to the short length of his biographies or his attention to the outcome rather than the mechanics of his generals’ victories. Whatever the reason, his focus provides a window for speculating on how broadly held any one view of generalship was during Nepos’ period. It is unfortunate that his lives of Roman generals are lost, for it would have contributed to a more precise understanding of Roman approaches to military leadership.