Rome (the TV series)

[Victor1234]

Incidently, that's why the Romans lost the battle of Adrianople; Emperor Valens had marched his Romans nearly 10 miles without water and led the charge right in the heat of the day against Gothic warriors who had been resting in their camp all morning.

One would think the fact that the Romans charged to attack a fortified camp on top of a hill, and the timely arrival of the Gothic heavy calvary, would have had more to do with the loss than whether the Romans marched 10 miles to the battle and attacked during the heat of the day or not.....

[Rotondom1]

One would think the fact that the Romans charged to attack a fortified camp on top of a hill, and the timely arrival of the Gothic heavy calvary, would have had more to do with the loss than whether the Romans marched 10 miles to the battle and attacked during the heat of the day or not.....

I'm not saying that tactical blunders didn't factor in, but consider that it wasn't entirely unknown for Roman soldiers to take a camp or to fight against considerable odds. In Caesar's Gallic Wars, he mentions soldiers actually having to climb a steep incline in order to reach the enemy. I'm not saying that the Romans were invincible, though they at times certainly thought they were, and Valens had probably counted on the Romans to take the camp before the Gothic cavalry returned, something that wasn't going to happen, given that the Romans were already tired by the time they were facing fresh Goths. I'm not saying that there were not other reasons for the loss, I'm not trying to be difficult because I agree with you, I am merely suggesting that morale plays a significant, albiet subtle, role on the battlefield.

I doubt that this was really the way the fighting was done. First of all it would have been impossible to be done with a classical Greek phalanx, and most of the armies around the Mediterranian were based on the classical phalanx in one or the other way. Battles between these armies were more a "pushing match", according to what we know about it. It can also be excluded to be a kind of special Western European style of fighting (Celtic-Roman), because the Celts in particular were known to break if the first assault was not successfull.

Greek Hoplites were specifically designed to be pushing matches, making them the exception to the rule. Furthermore, Macedonian phalanxes were designed to pin the enemy in place so that the cavalry could smash into their side and do the real damage. But when faced with Romans, at least at the battle of Cynoscephalae, Phillip V ordered his pezhetairoi to use their swords instead of their sarissas, indicating that Romans perhaps were not as vulnerable to the pinning/pushing motion of the phalanx as eastern soldiers might have been. This suggests at least some form of fluidity on the Roman's part.

And the image of Celts tiring easily and retreating quickly is a fallacy. Celts were tremendous warriors (later in the Empire's history, almost the entire army were composed of Gallic-Romans and Illyrians). The reason that Romans were more likely to win a prolonged conflict was because of the triplex acies system which constantly replenished fatigued troops with fresh soldiers from the reserves, while the Celts had no such system. However, there were many battles between Romans and Celts that were prolonged, such as the Battle of Bibracte during the Gallic wars, which according to Caesar started around noon and lasted until nightfall.

Armies in hand-to-hand combat seprating and reforming would also require some kind of "gentlemen agreement" that the party who had the upper hand would not pursue the enemy while he falls back and keeps up the fighting. Not to mention a very high degree of discipline, because soldiers that once started retreating can only be made to advandce again with severe difficulty - if at all.

Does the undescribable horror of the melee which keeps the soldiers of both armies on the knifes edge of panic count for anything? It's not necessarily two sides tipping their hat to each other and walking away. battles were more fluid than that. It would have been simply breaks in the combat line where troops were having to muster their own courage to recommit to the fray. There were battles that were described as being a crush, when the soldiers of either side were being literally pressed up up against one another (which is why the Romans prefered the short sword, I'm not saying that they didn't exist!), which also suggests that because these battles were specifically mentioned for their intense melee (I forget which ancient writer's quote that is, I'll look it up later) a crushing pushing match may not necessarily have been the inevitable outcome

[konny]

Greek Hoplites were specifically designed to be pushing matches, making them the exception to the rule.

The first Hoplites' phalanx was certainly not designed to push the enemy because that would have required facing other phalanxes on the battlefield. The pushing was a result of the Hoplites later usually only facing other Greek phalanxes or non-Greeks that were either fighting in the Greek way or employing Hoplites as mercenaries.

Furthermore, Macedonian phalanxes were designed to pin the enemy in place so that the cavalry could smash into their side and do the real damage.

That is also a conclusion out of the later usage of it, not the original intention behind it: The forerunner of the Makedonian phalanx was the Iphikratian phalanx. It was built around the Athenian military that was completly lacking heavy cavalry able to provide the hammer in an Alexandrian style. The prupose was to give lighter armoured Hoplites with longer pikes an advantage over heavyer Hoplites with classical weapons. The "Hammer & Anvil" with long-pike phalanx and heavy cavalry was only made possible in Makedonia because the Makedonian nobility prefered to fight mounted.

And the image of Celts tiring easily and retreating quickly is a fallacy. Celts were tremendous warriors (later in the Empire's history, almost the entire army were composed of Gallic-Romans and Illyrians).

It has nothing to do with beeing of a certain ethnicity but with using specific methods of fighting. A Celt drilled and deployed in a Roman Legion would fight the same way an Italian, Spain, Syrian or whatever, would do in the same army.

Does the undescribable horror of the melee which keeps the soldiers of both armies on the knifes edge of panic count for anything?

You can't have both at a time. Either the soldiers were brave attacking the enemy time and again - in this case there was no need to hesitate in the moment the enemy falls back, what is after all the purpose of the drill. Or they were frightened, anxious and carful not to get into physical contact with the enemy - in this case a cycle "advancing - fighting - falling back - advancing again - fighting" would be impossible for most of the times.

There were battles that were described as being a crush, when the soldiers of either side were being literally pressed up up against one another (which is why the Romans prefered the short sword, I'm not saying that they didn't exist!), which also suggests that because these battles were specifically mentioned for their intense melee (I forget which ancient writer's quote that is, I'll look it up later) a crushing pushing match may not necessarily have been the inevitable outcome

These "mercyless slaughters" were not limited to Ancient times. They always happend when the "inferior side" could not give way before the clash. For example, siege battles (i.e. assaults on fortifications) worked that way. That is the reason why a defender forcing the attacker to take the position "by storming hand" was always regarded as an act that justifies the attacker to not give quarter.

[kekailoa]

It has nothing to do with beeing of a certain ethnicity but with using specific methods of fighting. A Celt drilled and deployed in a Roman Legion would fight the same way an Italian, Spain, Syrian or whatever, would do in the same army.



Konny, I think you're taking it out of context. In no way am I disagreeing with you, but aren't we supposed to be breaking stereotypes in this mod? True, the Celts did rely on a ferocious head-on charge, but the notion that they were so high-strung that they broke if the enemy withstood them is a little (not to be offensive) ignorant. You're probably one of the best historians on this forum, but I disagree with you on this one.

[konny]

Konny, I think you're taking it out of context. In no way am I disagreeing with you, but aren't we supposed to be breaking stereotypes in this mod? True, the Celts did rely on a ferocious head-on charge, but the notion that they were so high-strung that they broke if the enemy withstood them is a little (not to be offensive) ignorant.

By stating this you are assuming an interpretation that I didn't make: It is an observation by the Ancients that the Celts (given the choice!) prefered to withdraw when their first assult was not successfull. Coming to the conclusion that they did so because of lack of discipline, organization or even courage would be feeding a cliche. I didn't do so. What I did was explaning this behaviour according to the combat system that I have expalined on the previous page: They were experinced and organized enough to not seek pitched battle in a situation that favoured the enemy, knowing that when he did not gave way before the first clash, he would more likely force the Celtic soldiers to do so once, or short before, the fighting would seriously start.