>giving control of your army to two career politicians who

>>2933627
Because it worked
>inb4 muh Cannae

>>2933627
Because political and military careers were deeply intertwined for most of the republican period, and you basically had to do your time in every rank of the army before election to consul: a youth's career starts with military service, then there's the tribunate of the soldiers, then there's the cursus honorum where quaestorship, praetorship and consulship all imply military duties at various ranks.
People like Cicero weren't a thing until the late republic, most career politicians were by default veteran field officers.

>>2933627
Romans during the early and mid republic really really really didn't want to become a monarchy again.
That's why control of everything was limited, it's hard to make yourself dictator if you only have a year to rule as consul, it's hard taking control of the military if you share command with another consul.
Also, politicians were commanders of armies in antiquity all the time, get used to that idea. Most of them were born rich and trained to fight since they could walk

>>2933627
It was kinda the other way around

It's more like giving political positions to two generals

they had to alternate because if your leader is out fighting the war then who is going to actually run the country (which was the problem the later emperors faced).

>>2933671
>Because political and military careers were deeply intertwined for most of ancient and medieval times

ftfy

rarely in those periods were those positions distinct

>>2933853
The jobs were intertwined, but not really the careers. You don't really have political careers in feudal societies outside of the bureaucracy, which is not necessarily linked with the military (it's usually ennobled merchants and burghers).
Medieval republics also weren't very big in letting their executives lead armies. Venice for example had very few doges go into battle while in office, from the late middle ages onward.