메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
부산경남사학회 역사와경계 역사와경계 제62집
발행연도
2007.3
수록면
131 - 159 (29page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
One of the characters of the roman army was that there wasn't a systematic curriculum for giving military experiences to a commander. The generals without combat experiences could command the army, this point is the reason why was criticized that the roman commander was an amateur commander in comparison with centurions. But from early days, the senators and the equites had studied a military theory with war histories and strategy books, had trained individually swordmanship and spearmanship, and had exercised a collective field training through a mock battle. And they had went often to the battlefield following unofficially a commander because of individual intimacy, or for getting combat experiences.
Whereas a commander could grasp the situation of soldiers in a garrison, centurions got familiar with living of garrison and were on intimate terms with soldiers because it were centurions who soldiers made contact every day for training and fatigues. But because a commander had an imperium, he could indicate training and fatigues to soldiers and could punish all of the soldiers including centurions. From the viewpoint of the order of ranks and an imperium, the opinion that the success of the roman army was ascribable to the influence and long-pending experiences of centurions might be reconsidered. It was the battlefield where the roles of a commander and centurions could be discriminated plainly. Centurions could give a commander advice about a military formation and the utilizing method of the configuration of the ground, but if a commander ignore the advice, it was meaningless. It was a commander who could decide the deployment method of military formation and the point of time of attack and retreat. Though a commander instructed a wrong formation and an inadequate attack, centurions had not a means of being able to check him.
The long-pending experiences and training of centurions were a valuable property to the roman army. It was true that the centurions who fought a battle in the front played a decisive role in a victory of the roman army. But if we give consideration the order of ranks and the whole aspect of a battle, we will understand the point that the role of centurions was limitary. The old and experienced centurions participated in all of defeated wars and successful wars. Nevertheless, the reason why the result of war was different was because of the difference of the capacity of a commander, not because of the difference of the influence of centurions.

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 군사령관의 군사적 경험
Ⅲ. 전장에서 군사령관의 역할
Ⅳ. 맺음말
【Abstract】

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-016683002