The Senate would choose two consuls to lead the Roman army in a given year. To what extent were these consuls allowed to make decisions about how the army would be used? Would the Senate say something along of the lines of, "We're going to conquer Region X this year, and you, Consul Y, are assigned for the job"? Or was it more like, "Consul Y, you're in charge of the army this year. Go out and make a name for Rome"?

This kind of gets at a bigger question as to whether or not there was what we might call "civilian oversight" of the army. I also wonder about the difference in short-term interests and long-term interests. Maybe multiple consuls might've tried to cultivate a relationship with a foreign nation over many years, only for it to be squandered by one reckless consul. Was this ever something to be considered?

So yeah, did the Senate assign consuls with a certain policy, or did consuls pretty much do whatever they wanted?