Roman Winter Campaigning

[Eleatic Guest]

Hello,

I am new to the board and have a few questions concerning Roman winter campaigns:

Did the Romans often wage war in the winter and did they do it deliberately or only when really forced to?

Are there occasions when Roman armies deliberately attacked in the winter time as an element of surprise (like much later the Mongols with their winter attack on Kiev in 1240) ?

And, considering the potential advantages of winter surprise attacks, what logistical and other difficulties prevented Roman armies from campaigning regularly in the winter?

And, finally, could we make a comprehensive list of significant Roman winter campaigns?

Note that I have also opened a thread about Greek Winter campaigning here.

Eleatic Guest

[Jona Lendering]

Did the Romans often wage war in the winter and did they do it deliberately or only when really forced to?

This is hard to answer. The early, middle, late Republic are different from the early, middle and late Empire.

Are there occasions when Roman armies deliberately attacked in the winter time as an element of surprise (like much later the Mongols with their winter attack on Kiev in 1240) ?

Yes. Germanicus' attack on the Germanic tribes in 14 was timed to coincide with a winter festival, perhaps Yule.

[Robert Vermaat]

Did the Romans often wage war in the winter and did they do it deliberately or only when really forced to? And, considering the potential advantages of winter surprise attacks, what logistical and other difficulties prevented Roman armies from campaigning regularly in the winter?

Not too often, winter campaigns usually mean you have to take all the food for your horses with you (I think it's more or less a rule that the campaigning season starts when the grass starts growing) and of course camping out at night can become risky.

Are there occasions when Roman armies deliberately attacked in the winter time as an element of surprise (like much later the Mongols with their winter attack on Kiev in 1240) ?

Yes, I know of a deliberate winter campaign by the commander Arbogast somewhere in the 5th c. (have to look that up later) against the Germans east of the Rhine. It's mentioned that the season was chosen to prevent the enemy from hiding in the forests.

Eleatic Guest, could you add your real name to your signature please? Forum rules.

[Theodosius the Great]

It depends on which part of the Empire and which era you're talking about, like Jona said. On the Eastern frontier (i.e. fighting the Persians & Parthians), I think winter was the standard campaigning season for obvious reasons. Even the US tried to invade Iraq during the winter. I've been reading the Historia Augusta and learned that's when Marcus Aurelius chose to invade Parthia.

[Praefectusclassis]

I think winter was the standard campaigning season for obvious reasons.

Yes, but apart from climate, logistical reasons, the availability of harvested grain in storage was an important consideration as well in the ancient world. Does it say when exactly Verus went east?

[Theodosius the Great]

I think winter was the standard campaigning season for obvious reasons.

Yes, but apart from climate, logistical reasons, the availability of harvested grain in storage was an important consideration as well in the ancient world. Does it say when exactly Verus went east?

Sorry, it wasn't MA, rather it was Severus. I've been reading this for about a week and I'm currently on Heliogabalus (aka Elagabalus) :roll:

Anyhow, it says : "When the summer was already ending, therefore, he [Severus] invaded Parthia, defeated the king, came to Ctesiphon, and took it. It was almost winter - for in those regions wars are better carried out in winter, although the soldiers live on the roots of grasses and contract diseases and sickness as a result."

Hmm...what can we make from this ?

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, I'd say he departed in fall, but there wasn't enough grain available locally and the storages the Romans would usually build before a campaign had run out/the army marched out of their range.

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes. I wonder if his departure was deliberately timed to avoid winter, but I doubt it.

My book ends with Heliogabalus, but in the book "The Roman Emperors" by Michael Grant, it says that Severus Alexander (not to be confused with Septimius Severus I mentioned earlier) invaded during winter.

It was a three-pronged attack : one in Armenia, another in Northern Mesopatamia and another in the Southern part.

Grant says " It seems while the first column was sucessful, and pressed on into Median territoy - though suffering severly from the winter cold on its return journey - the second, under the emperor's personal command, failed to get moving (perhaps because of the torried climate), and the third was annihilated on the Eurphrates. All the same, the Roman province of Mesopatamia was recovered."

I can keep going, but the best time to read about eastern campaigns is, of course, the eventful third century.

[Kate Gilliver]

According to tradition (Livy 5.2 ff) pay was originally introduced in the Roman army to recompense soldiers being forced to spend the winter on the siege lines at Veii in the late 5th century BC; usually they went home for winter to get on with their lives / tend their farms etc.
The campaigning season had to fit in with the agricultural year and availability of supplies, particularly during the Republic when you're essentially dealing with a citizen militia drawn (ideally) from the property-owning classes (even if that means a field with a hut in the corner Spurius Ligustinus fashion). Even with the move towards a standing army in the late Republic, there is a preference for campaigning in the summer since winter campaigning in most of the areas where they're doing stuff is frequently difficult - Caesar battling through snow-drifts in the massif central at the beginning of book 7 being a nice example.
Roman magistrates took over their offices in the winter so they could then take their armies out on campaign in the summer; as overseas provinces became established, 'winter quarters' were often established for the legions even in places like N.Africa, partly I suspect because provincial governors would leave and new ones arrive during that time (and I guess even Roman soldiers need a holiday sometime!), and it was unlikely there'd be much if any campaigning in the absence of the provincial governor.

[Jona Lendering]

Please note that Livy's account of the siege of Veii is considered to be unreliable; see commentary of Ogilvy. One aspect is the use of tunnels, a tool that not even in military advanced Greece had become really popular, give or take two or three exceptions like Plataea.

In my opinion, payment for soldiers was indeed introduced ten years before the capture of Veii, and later historians asked why. Assuming that winter campaigns took place, they created a nice war that lasted ten years, like the Trojan War. As webmaster of [url:2oc78dw0]http://www.livius.org[/url] I like Livy very much, but on this point, I disagree with his account.

[Kate Gilliver]

Aw, Jona, I did say 'according to tradition'! I certainly don't believe everything Livy wrote, though I do think Ogilvie's over-sceptical on occasion (not necessarily this one!).
What the Livy account implies is that winter campaigning was considered a particular hardship which was going to cause difficulties to soldiers who therefore needed recompense. Cornell puts the introduction of pay down to a re-shuffle in the political and military organisation of the Roman state; Louis Rawlings has mused privately that it may have been partly due to concerns about the availability of mercenary employment elsewhere in the late 5th century.

The tunnel thing about Veii is interesting, and I suspect draws on the prevalence of cuniculi in Etruria: there's another siege about the same time were the Romans are supposed to have captured the place in exactly the same way (sorry, can't remember details).