Hi!
I recently watched the first episode of a BBC series about Imperial Rome. This was concerning the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In this film, it depicted how Caesar concealed his infantry movements by just having them hunch over behind the lines in the battle of Pharsalus. Is this accurate? Are there any other instances in Roman history of this occuring?
Sorry if this question seems foolish, I don't really know much about Rome.
Yet
:wink:
Athena
I'm not aware of any other instances when the Roman used this technique, but it was used fairly often by most armies in northern Europe.
From personal experience at a Pennsic many years ago, I know that the shield wall is filled with lots of little movements and "fidgets", and people moving behind the line in a crouch blend in easily with this motion. We were flanked quite easily when the enemy shifted about 60 men from their left reserves across their lines and into a gulley on their far right and emerging behind our own line. I don't think our archers even knew what was happening before they were overrun.
Just using infantry to conceal other troops or any body of troops to obscure the movement and disposition of formations behind the front?
The BBC programme depicted Caesar weakening his centre ranks by removing every third man and moving them to the right flank where Caesar predicted Pompey would deploy his cavalry (under the command of Labienus who was previously with Caesar in Gaul prior to Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon). The soldiers in question withdrew from the ranks to the rear (unobserved by Pompey) and positioned themselves so that they could fall upon the rear of Pompeys cavalry as they attempted to outflank Caesar's line.
A slight variation on Hannibal's tactics at Cannae?
Cannae was a well planned encirclement from the outset, as were most of Hannibals battles in Italy. using the weaker center to draw in the bludgeon of the roman heavy infantry, the heavy troops on the wings of hannibals army flanking the legions, then the relurning calvary hammering in from the rear! A real meat grinder.
I think Alexander used calvary movement to blur his dispositions from the persians, if that counts any, possibly at Guagamela?
I think Caesar actually took whole centuries from his rear lines in the triple acis, but i could be wrong! Seems to me the rear ranks were used to supply the fourth oblique line any way, while the front formations were left intact ot preserve the image of normality.
Ceasars formations were thiner regardsless, because of the numerical differences between his and Pompays armies, as his were veteran legions on the whole, and many of Pompays were green.
Hope I make some sense here! And Welcome to the forum Athena btw!
A very good greek name that!
The BBC programme does not show Caeser taking whole centuries from his rear lines.
Guess I'll have to check out my Appian tonight for details of Pharsalus?
Didn't Caesar simply placed infantry behind his cavalry on his right flank? And Pompeius predicted only to face the cavalry resulting in a classic cavalry battle not knowing that there was in fact an infantry unit concealed behind the cavalry.
That is pretty much what the BBC programme depicts.
IIRC, Caesar actually deployed the cohorts of his third line obliquely behind his right flank, and armed them with the hasta as opposed to the pilum.
When Caesar's cavalry retired in the face of Pompey's, these hasta-armed cohorts then routed Pompey's cavalry, which was the start of the general rout that occurred among the Pompeians.
Edge
Quote:Hope I make some sense here! And Welcome to the forum Athena btw!
A very good greek name that!
Thanks! :wink: I do find it funny that I have taken an interest in Greco-Roman history, as when I was little my name meant nothing to me!
What caused Pompeys infantry to rout? I realize that it must be demoralizing to see ones cavalry force repulsed, but Pompey still outnumbered Caesar 2 to 1. Was there already general dissention in Pompeys force already? Was Caesars infantry line fighting particularly well? Or perhaps did the soldiers of Pompey not know that they had quite the numerical advantage that they did?
I guess it just seems odd to me that the numerically superior force would rout like that.
Athena
Oh yes, and did particular units always fight together? In the BBC program it showed every third man taken from the line and then joined together. Were soldiers (as they do in modern armies) typically fighting in the same century every battle?
Or, like the German Kampfgruppe (battlegroups) would soldiers from different units sometimes be thrown together to fullfill a specific role? The film suggests that this is the case.
Madam,
Romans were very practical people and they were not averse to form battle groups. Well not only Romans. Good combination of units and use of the terrain was the characteristic of successful commanders.
One good way to shield your manuvrs in the ancient times was to use light infantry to harass the enemy and keep them occupied.
Troops shielding themselves from missiles would be concerned first with their immediate safety and less with watching enemy movements.
And war is mostly a psychological game were the threat of violence and intimidation worth more than violence itself.
It is enough to watch a group of people to go back in disorder to throw the multitute into panic.
An example: In 1207 Byzantine emperor Vatages was loosing a battle with the Seljuks but when he killed the Seljuk emir, the up to then victorious Sljuks fled.
Kind regards
I seriously doubt that Caesar took every third man from the legions deployed across his center when he reinforced his cavalry wing. Small unit cohesion would suffer severely under this condition, as he would have been mixing men of different centuries, cohorts, and even legions in his new formation. Fighting with comrades you know and trust is the sine qua non of small unit cohesion. It is far more likely he took whole cohorts or centuries and moved them intact to reinforce his cavalry. That is also my recollection of the way the battle is described.
German WWII kampfegruppen (?) were a related phenomenon, as they were generally made up of small units which were transferred intact into a new command; not men pulled out of their small units and expected to make up new ones.
I think the Roman army were far more flexible than that, and able to change tactics and adapt to many situations. If the men were already in formation imagine the effect of pulling entire groups from the line. For a start, Pompey's forces may well have easily realised that something was going on. By pulling every third man the others could just adjust position to pad out the lines.
When it comes to how the men would feel, they were effectively owned by Caesar, and their oaths were to him and not to their units. If he decided it would be so then it happened, no questions asked.
There is another example of potential disruption when the forerunner of the lanciarii was made by taking the most fleet of foot and young men to form an ad hoc unit, to ride tandem with the cavalry. A centurion reportedly had the idea during a siege to counter the enemy's successful sorties. Whole units weren't used for the new units, but individuals.
I feel pretty certain they would have been able to cope at Pharsalus, as much as if every third man had been killed in normal combat. They just weren't there anymore, so you got on with it.