QuoteReplyTopic: Greatest Battles that the Romans Fought Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 11:30
I understand that i overestimated the initial shock of the parthians in
the roman way of war, but the eastern influence can't be limited to the
eastern roman empire. First because at the III century, when the
revolutionary Cataphracts units was extended the roman army was one and
only one (eee ok excluded palmyriens and gauls )
and because in the V century the western army was too an army where the
most important units was the heavy cavalry, with many horse archers
(the units under the command of the Magister Equitum of the West):
Althougt the romans say that if was possible the javelin shoud be leave
and the composite bow adopted (i can get the sources errgg) in fact you
was correct when said that the archers and the HA never displaced to
the others auxiliars (at least before VI century).
That isn't true, if you think about the changes in the later roman empire you will see that the arrival of Heavy Cavalry, Horse archers and oriental foot archers provoked a great revolution in the roman way of war that can be see in the byzantine armies, the pinacle of this change. Althougt during the early empire this units was mainly in the eastern front we can say, if we follow the evolution of the roman army, that they were in the vanguard of the roman warfare.
bye
Hmmm ... well .... if you're going to bring the Eastern empire into this equation as "Rome" I'll have to agree, I was framing things in terms of the Western empire. The Western Empire was much more strongly influenced by Germanic, Celtic, and Iberian warfare than by anything in the Near East (apart from the use of a few auxiliaries, and yes, as you mention, they were used around the Empire - but so were all elite auxiliaries, after the creation of the comitatensis). A few influences can be detected in the late armies, but as nothing compared to changes wrought by the defeat at Allia, the wars in Iberia, or the campaigns against the Marcomanni - all these completely revolutionized the arms and tactics of the Romans, prompting a total overhaul of forces not just in a local area or front but of all forces, everywhere.
Eastern empire though ... yes ... definately influenced strongly by the armies of the Near East.
Because the romans need fight with the
parthians, they used massivelly oriental archers with composite bow
(that arrive to the west with the parthians...) and horse archers in
their main campaigns.
Only their main campaigns in the Near East, which was
completely typical - they were hiring natives as auxiliaries. You take
what you can get. This was not an empire-wide reform of the Roman
legions themselves - auxiliaries are a different thing altogether.
Althougt not was a deep change was very important, and the horse
cavalry was used too in other fronts, as Dacia and frica. That if we
talk about the Principate, with the Dominate there are horse cavalry in
all fronts.
Well, why do you think that the romans enlisted now, in
their elite armies, horse archers and cataphracts? But not like
auxiliars, now at the same level as the legions or superior, because
now with the elite troops as reserve armies the movility of the cavalry
was crucial.
The majority of the horse archers were found in auxiliar
palatines - which were indeed elites (as elite as auxiliaries can be,
anyway), but most of the auxiliar palatines were made up of Germanic or
Gaul infantry. The elite cavalry were organized in the vexillations -
in which there were no horse archers.
Well, when i say that the HA were enlisted in the elite armies i was
thinking in comitatensis, not foreign allies or secundary role like the
limitanei. As you say the majority of these units appear in the Auxilia
Palatina (and the limitanei) but they were enlisted too in the
Vexillationes of the Comitatensis, according to the Notitia Dignitatum,
an example of Comitates army (only cavalry, see "Equites Sagitarii"):
Sub
dispositione viri illustris magistri militum per Thracias : Vexillationes palatinae tres : Comites Arcadiaci. Comites Honoriaci. Equites Theodosiaci iuniores. Vexillationes comitatenses .... : Equites catafractarii Albigenses. Equites sagittarii seniores. Equites sagittarii iuniores. Equites primi Theodosiani.
But in this military question, i have very clear that the
rise of archers, heavy and horse cavalry must be ascribed to the
eastern influence, to a response of the roman to new enemies i think is
impossible refuse this.
Heavy cavalry actually originates from Alexander's
Companions, not from the East. It was adopted by the Hellenic armies
such as the Parthians, but also by the Romans after their war with
Pyrrhus.
If you want think that, right, but the roman army didn't take
superheavy cataphracts until the middle of the II century (sarmathian influence), and under
the influence of the sassanid army the Catafracta become the core unit
of the army.
Archers and horse cavalry never formed a signifigant element
of Roman doctrine, except as native auxiliaries - and in this they
aren't any more notable than any of the other native auxiliaries, and
certainly not as numerous. It wasn't something that the Romans
themselves adopted. Clearly they are an Eastern phenomenon, but they
didn't cause any sort of "RMA" (revolution in military affairs) for the
Romans' own forces.
That isn't true, if you think about the changes in the later roman
empire you will see that the arrival of Heavy Cavalry, Horse archers
and oriental foot archers provoked a great revolution in the roman way
of war that can be see in the byzantine armies, the pinacle of this
change. Althougt during the early empire this units was mainly in
the eastern front we can say, if we follow the evolution of the roman
army, that they were in the vanguard of the roman warfare.
Because the romans need fight with the parthians, they used massivelly oriental archers with composite bow (that arrive to the west with the parthians...) and horse archers in their main campaigns.
Only their main campaigns in the Near East, which was completely typical - they were hiring natives as auxiliaries. You take what you can get. This was not an empire-wide reform of the Roman legions themselves - auxiliaries are a different thing altogether.
Well, why do you think that the romans enlisted now, in their elite armies, horse archers and cataphracts? But not like auxiliars, now at the same level as the legions or superior, because now with the elite troops as reserve armies the movility of the cavalry was crucial.
The majority of the horse archers were found in auxiliar palatines - which were indeed elites (as elite as auxiliaries can be, anyway), but most of the auxiliar palatines were made up of Germanic or Gaul infantry. The elite cavalry were organized in the vexillations - in which there were no horse archers.
But in this military question, i have very clear that the rise of archers, heavy and horse cavalry must be ascribed to the eastern influence, to a response of the roman to new enemies i think is impossible refuse this.
Heavy cavalry actually originates from Alexander's Companions, not from the East. It was adopted by the Hellenic armies such as the Parthians, but also by the Romans after their war with Pyrrhus.
Archers and horse cavalry never formed a signifigant element of Roman doctrine, except as native auxiliaries - and in this they aren't any more notable than any of the other native auxiliaries, and certainly not as numerous. It wasn't something that the Romans themselves adopted. Clearly they are an Eastern phenomenon, but they didn't cause any sort of "RMA" (revolution in military affairs) for the Romans' own forces.
Romans began not only to enlist
massivelly the horse archers but foot archers from the eastern
provinces.
Well, that's true, but you're talking about the auxiliaries
here - in the all periods and places of the empire, they utilized
aboriginals in their standard gear for the native auxiliaries, on every
frontier. Nothing special about that.
Nothing special but both the archers and the horse archers will take
the first place in the auxiliar system, while other auxiliars as
slingers, javeliners and archers with simple bow lost (with time) the
site. Because the romans need fight with the parthians, they used
massivelly oriental archers with composite bow (that arrive to the west
with the parthians...) and horse archers in their main campaigns. A
roman army of ten legions and a few slingers from the II century BC is
totally different to the post Trajan armies of thousand spearmen,
archers and cavalry, at least equal to the number of legionnaries.
The arrive of the cataphracts to the battlefields (please
don't compare with previous cavalry units) change the entire roman
army
Right, but Pyrrhus was actually using real cataphracts, not
just cavalry, just as he was using elephants and slingers. The Romans
did adopt a small number of heavy cavalry from the Pyrrhic War. It
should be mentioned that cataphracts were not at all unique to the
Parthians - they were a feature of the Hellenic armies and were present
in all Ptolemaic/Seleucid/Macedonian/Pyrrhic armies.
The cataphracts contingents of the sassanid armies was very much
strong, as you know the legions could deal with the hellenistic armies,
but in front of the sassanid army they was crushed and must changed the
legion way of war to a phallanx type.
Diocletian's reforms actually resulted in a weaker military,
but one more easily subject to political control. Despite a few early
gains, after Diocletian's reforms, the Roman military is generally in a
defensive stance against Germanics after this, and eventually begins to
falter and crumble. Plus, Diocletian's reforms did not substantially
change the arms or doctrines of the Roman army, which were evolving
into a more or less Germanic form - chainmail, oval shields, etc -
rather, they simply reorganized Roman forces, making most units smaller
and reducing the power of commanders.
Diocletian didnt do a military revolution (in the field of doctrine)
because the roman armies had change greatelly sice their contact with
the eastern peoples specially parthian-persians, the work of Diocletian-Constantine
was organization and the assumption of the new circumstances because
the ancient system didn't work well.
add the rise of the achers and the horse archers to the
level of Comitatensis in the military reforms of Diocletian
Hmmm .... the comitatensis was a Diocletian invention ... it
just means the field army as opposed to the militia garrisons of the
border. There were plenty of native auxiliaries in the comitatensis,
African spearmen, Gauls, Germans. I don't see anything special about
the Parthians being there too. All of the auxilia palatina were
attached to the new comitatensis.
Well, why do you think that the romans enlisted now, in their elite
armies, horse archers and cataphracts? But not like auxiliars, now at
the same level as the legions or superior, because now with the elite
troops as reserve armies the movility of the cavalry was crucial. Do
you know? The parthian-persian and
other oriental peoples (like the sarmathians) influence...
Don't confuse with me man, i'm not one of those orientalist that saw east in all the things of this live .
But in this military question, i have very clear that the rise of
archers, heavy and horse cavalry must be ascribed to the eastern
influence, to a response of the roman to new enemies i think is
impossible refuse this.
Romans began not only to enlist massivelly the horse archers but foot archers from the eastern provinces.
Well, that's true, but you're talking about the auxiliaries here - in the all periods and places of the empire, they utilized aboriginals in their standard gear for the native auxiliaries, on every frontier. Nothing special about that.
The arrive of the cataphracts to the battlefields (please don't compare with previous cavalry units) change the entire roman army
Right, but Pyrrhus was actually using real cataphracts, not just cavalry, just as he was using elephants and slingers. The Romans did adopt a small number of heavy cavalry from the Pyrrhic War. It should be mentioned that cataphracts were not at all unique to the Parthians - they were a feature of the Hellenic armies and were present in all Ptolemaic/Seleucid/Macedonian/Pyrrhic armies.
Diocletian's reforms actually resulted in a weaker military, but one more easily subject to political control. Despite a few early gains, after Diocletian's reforms, the Roman military is generally in a defensive stance against Germanics after this, and eventually begins to falter and crumble. Plus, Diocletian's reforms did not substantially change the arms or doctrines of the Roman army, which were evolving into a more or less Germanic form - chainmail, oval shields, etc - rather, they simply reorganized Roman forces, making most units smaller and reducing the power of commanders. Few tactical changes resulted, rather the change was more strategic, basically adopting a defensive stance.
add the rise of the achers and the horse archers to the level of Comitatensis in the military reforms of Diocletian
Hmmm .... the comitatensis was a Diocletian invention ... it just means the field army as opposed to the militia garrisons of the border. There were plenty of native auxiliaries in the comitatensis, African spearmen, Gauls, Germans. I don't see anything special about the Parthians being there too. All of the auxilia palatina were attached to the new comitatensis.
Roamns feared and respected the fighting skills of Hannibal and the Parthins only.
Neither the Parthians nor Hannibal ever made any momentous
impression on the Roman way of war, there were no major changes in
Rome's tactical doctrine afterwards (though they did cause changes to
strategy). In contrast, Brennus' victory caused the Romans to abandon
the phalanx and adopt the legion, along with Celtic arms - the helms
they wore, the pilum, and the gladius, and to begin using cavalry. The
Marcomanni Wars, far less succesful than the Punic Wars, occasioned
further reforms of the Roman military and the adoptation of Marcomanni
arms - chainmail, the round shield, and so on. Besides the Germans and
Celts, the other major influence on Roman military doctrine was
the Greeks. The phalanx was originally used because they shared a
common cultural link, and combined with other influences to create the
legion, but also Pyrrhus occasioned the adoptation of
cataphracts (not, as commonly presumed, the Parthians). What unique influence
did Parthian armies ever have on the nature of the legion? Did
they start using mounted archers? Elephants? The only thing the Romans
ever did with elephants was capture those of their enemies and display
them, or use them in the arena as a spectacle. They either
prevailed against these forces or simply were never seriously
threatened in Italy, so there was no reason to adopt the tactics of
such peoples as the Parthians, who could defend themselves but were
too impotent to threaten an invasion of Rome itself. The Romans
adopted the tactics of people who gave them a bloody nose in Italy
itself, or who were a potentially direct threat to Rome itself.
Romans began not only to enlist massivelly the horse archers but
foot archers from the eastern provinces. In fact, the parthian threat
changed the roman way of war althought the most strong change came with
the sassanid armies, strong in all types of cavalry and infantry, but
specially in heavy infantry. The arrive of the cataphracts to the
battlefields (please don't compare with previous cavalry units) change
the entire roman army: adoption of phalanx, adoption of heavy cavalry,
add the rise of the achers and the horse archers to the level of
Comitatensis in the military reforms of Diocletian and you will see
that the military influence of parthian-sassanid was the more powerful.
The Celts or Germans never attacked the Romans unless they had huge numbers on their side.
While this is true, the strength of their forces at the point of engagement was almost always far less than that of Roman legions in formation - men per square footage of front and all that.
Roamns fighting without weapons even(broken swords) and handling the so called northern barbarians.
Obviously a stirring image, for propaganda purposes. A guy fought with a broken sword ... so what ... it really doesn't say much. It isn't like an entire army all happened to have broken swords. And I don't think it is at all comparable to fighting stark naked!
Their are so many accounts of Roman victories while being outnumberd, including the anhiliated Tuetones and Cimbri.
And as many accounts of their annihilation, as well. The Cimbri annihilated the Romans in two major battles and were defeated in the third, after wandering the empire unchallenged for a decade, putting Caesar's brief romp on the far side of the Rhine in true perspective.
The slashing sword style the Celts/Germans utilized were dealt with by Roman soldiers quite easily.
Here you have a misconception. Among the Celts, such as the forces at Allia, it is not a mass of men swinging swords, but a front of swordsmen with shields behind a screen of javelineers, with cavalry forces in reserve. The Romans at this time were using the phalanx, and more or less adopted the tactics of Brennus' forces (cavalry, and the use of skirmishers) and merged them with concepts of the phalanx to produce the legion.
Germanic forces did not utilize the sword much at all, only their elites used it. More typical weapons for the mass of Germanic forces were hunting weapons and tools adapted to war - the spear, the bow, the axe.
The favored and most successful gladiotors were Roman and Greek. Celt and Germanic were considered quite inferior.
True, but then gladiatorial combat was not of the same nature as combat in war. Romans and Greeks may have made good fighters in the games, but in the real world, they were certainly not in very high demand as mercenaries.
Roamns feared and respected the fighting skills of Hannibal and the Parthins only.
It is a simple fact, that neither of these forces prevailed against Rome. Rome was only ever defeated by Celts and later by various Germanic groups. Why would the Romans fear the people who lost all their wars, and not fear those who actually conquered Rome itself on multiple occasions? The notion is absurd! The Parthians won a few battles, but nobody fears an enemy who can only win battles but cannot threaten invasion or conquest.
As far as Hannibal - are you saying the Romans feared only Hannibal, but not his army (which was primarily made up of Celtic mercenaries)? What did they think he was going to do without it?
The Romans didn't fear that the Parthians would destroy Rome, only that they would block Roman expansion in the East. Hardly the same thing, as the kind of fear Hannibal's army inspired, and not even close to the memory of Allia - a day which was commemorated ever after in Roman history by the closing of all shops and public places, a national day of mourning. The Parthians never made the Romans take up one of those. Caesar himself speaks of tribes like the Belgae as being quite formidable; they feared the Marcomanni, they feared the Celtiberians, and they feared the Cimbri until Vercellae (or they wouldn't have let them romp around among their vassals and allies, looting at will, for a decade). Name a Roman historian, and he evinces the fact that the Romans greatly feared other groups - be it Caesar, Polybius, Livy, etc. What evidence do you have to dispute these histories? Gut feelings, I suppose?
Neither the Parthians nor Hannibal ever made any momentous impression on the Roman way of war, there were no major changes in Rome's tactical doctrine afterwards (though they did cause changes to strategy). In contrast, Brennus' victory caused the Romans to abandon the phalanx and adopt the legion, along with Celtic arms - the helms they wore, the pilum, and the gladius, and to begin using cavalry. The Marcomanni Wars, far less succesful than the Punic Wars, occasioned further reforms of the Roman military and the adoptation of Marcomanni arms - chainmail, the round shield, and so on. Besides the Germans and Celts, the other major influence on Roman military doctrine was the Greeks. The phalanx was originally used because they shared a common cultural link, and combined with other influences to create the legion, but also Pyrrhus occasioned the adoptation of cataphracts (not, as commonly presumed, the Parthians). What unique influence did Parthian armies ever have on the nature of the legion? Did they start using mounted archers? Elephants? The only thing the Romans ever did with elephants was capture those of their enemies and display them, or use them in the arena as a spectacle. They either prevailed against these forces or simply were never seriously threatened in Italy, so there was no reason to adopt the tactics of such peoples as the Parthians, who could defend themselves but were too impotent to threaten an invasion of Rome itself. The Romans adopted the tactics of people who gave them a bloody nose in Italy itself, or who were a potentially direct threat to Rome itself.
Actually the ancient historians (esp. Ammianus Marcelinus) says 55 000 died as a whole in this battle, which probably means about 20-30 000 for each army. However this was a serious strike for roman military power and very much weakened it.
The way your phrased, made it sound like you were saying 55,000 died on EACH side, ammounting to 110,000, simple misunderstanding.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
And especally in the middle of the 4th century when the manpower for
the army was impossibe to be found inside the empire.If truly 55.000
people died then it was really a major Roman civil war battle.
It seems more probable that the loser has taken most of the
casualties,since in ancient battles many soldiers fled and
died in the pursuit and not in the battle itself
Actually the ancient historians (esp. Ammianus Marcelinus) says 55 000 died as a whole in this battle, which probably means about 20-30 000 for each army. However this was a serious strike for roman military power and very much weakened it.
The Romans wernt strangers to surrendering theres the famous Roman surrender of 137bc when the Romans were humiliated by the Numantines. Only thanks to Gracchus was a massacre of the Romans prevented, instead a treaty was signed and the Romans were forced to bend down below two spears with a bar over it, a sign of subservience.
However I do think this whole idea that the Romans were poor individual fighters is totally baseless, to fight in formation as a team it is still required that every soldier in that team be fully proficient with his weapon. There is absolutely no use whatsoever in a formation if those within it are useless with a sword, the Romans trained for a reason and I dare say they were more than a match for the average barbarian fighter, no matter how brave or how big his axe was.
Totally totally baseless, as is the idea that all barbarians were experts with their own weapons individually, like as soon as they picked up a sword they were somehow became proficient with it. Across the board a well-trained Roman soldier was superior to the barbarians he could expect to fight, certainly before the barbarians closed the gap on the Romans in regards to order, tactics and technology.
Decius Meridiam.
Can you be sure those figures are accurate? I very much doubt the Roman empire could of afforded (and survived) the loss of 110,000 men in 1 battle, easily 1/4 or 1/3 of its entire army. I can't believe casualties were that enormous at 55,000 each.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Edgewater has very lttle knowledge of Roman warfare and is talking about things on the ridiculous level. Roamns lacking in hand to hand...so ridiculous. So many accounts of Romans handling all even when scattered. Roamns fighting without weapons even(broken swords) and handling the so called northern barbarians. The Celts or Germans never attacked the Romans unless they had huge numbers on their side.Their are so many accounts of Roman victories while being outnumberd, including the anhiliated Tuetones and Cimbri. Romans trained for hand to continuously and themindividual soldier was expected to perform much physical training and heavy marching. The slashing sword style the Celts/Germans utilized were dealt with by Roman soldiers quite easily. The Romans didn`t surrender much at all,( Spartns were heroes in the Roman world)while the Celts/Germans surrendered in masse often. The favored and most successful gladiotors were Roman and Greek. Celt and Germanic were considered quite inferior. Roamns feared and respected the fighting skills of Hannibal and the Parthins only.
One of bloodiest battles in roman history is The battle of Mursa (in modern Croatia) between Western Roman Empire (emp. Magnentius) and Eastern Roman Empire (emp. Constantius II) in 351 AD.
Casualties of both sides were about 55 000 roman soldjers and barbarian mercenaries.
Originally posted by King Kaloian of all Bulgarians
Are you sure about the figures of the army number?200 000 Cimbres or 180 000 Gaul soldiers?Do you think that historians don't exaggerate the number of the armies?
If you're talking about Arausio, I think that number is probably quite accurate. The Romans didn't exaggerate their own numbers, so the figure of 120 000 for the Roman army is almost certainly correct. It is not really conceivable that a Cimbri army of any less than 200 000 could have utterly wiped out that entire force (10 survivors, apparently!), so there's no reason to doubt that figure.
Are you sure about the figures of the army number?200 000 Cimbres or 180 000 Gaul soldiers?Do you think that historians don't exaggerate the number of the armies?
Ill have to agree with Ahmed the Fighter on this one. Not exactly the most romantic battle for classical Roman fanatics, but all the battles mentioned, Alesia, Magnesia etc. were battles Rome could have lost but still regained in the end. Chalons was different. Had it lost then everything might have crumbled at that point on and medieval history could have been shaped very very differently.
Sure, the Germans had heavy casualties at Teutoburger, but again, it is no evidence for heavy Cimbri losses at Arausio.
Neither is Vercellae. The two battles were obvioulsy quite different. Cimbri had previously defeated Romans in all engagements, eg at Noreii, where they did not even hold a very signifigant numerical advantage. The Romans apparently feel their losses were so insignifigant as to be not worth mentioning (unlike Teutoburger, in which German losses are in fact mentioned as being at least noteworthy).
The great strength - and the great weakness - of Roman forces was their adherence to command. In situations where their formations were fragmented and command disrupted - such as in the rout at Arausio - Roman forces were next to useless, because they had no skill at individual combat.
I checked all sources..there is not any known number of Cimbri losses. However, you have to conclude given the ease of Vercallae ,which ended this arguement, (Cimbri annihilated) , Cimbri losses were high, as tGerman losses at Tuetunberg. American Army historian visited there and is rasing serious doubts about the outcome. He insitss that German forces fled once they obtained standards. Many strange deatails point out to misleading evidense from German historians he feels and backs it up with evidence.His evedince is such that burial mounds were done by Romans at the exact time. He has convinced me that the German/Celts were in reality very poor fighters in this day. Battles proved this out. As he stated, Vercallae,Aquae Sexitae, Allesia proved how poor they are. Less than 1000 Roman dead in each of the first two battles in which great numbers of barbarians outnumbered the Romans. ' 200,000 plus thousand American boy scouts with army knifes would have fared better'.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum