The article raises the problem of correlation between literary and figurative representations of military leadership and a real practice (pragmatics) of a general’s personal participation in battle. The analysis of historiography reveals discrepant assessments of the background, particularity and significance of generals’ immediate participation in fighting. There are only few studies, which point out discoursive peculiarities of corresponding narratives and analyze historical patterns (original or borrowed from the Greeks), traditions and other socio-cultural factors that determined the general’s role in battle. Without considering these factors, it is impossible to understand Roman military leadership as a whole, in the unity of its pragmatic and ideological components. All this makes it necessary to deal with these issues once again and to read our sources, including figurative ones, more closely. As the analysis of the statements of ancient military theoreticians shows, in the fourth century B.C., a thesis was formulated about the need for the generals to be very cautious when taking part in combat directly. Nevertheless, for many Hellenistic and Roman generals this heroic style of leadership was of great value, primarily because of Alexander the Great’s model. Hence, certain duality is re-vealed in the opinions on this subject of such authors as Polybius and Onasander.
|
