09-25-2010, 07:15 PM
As I am reading about Julius Caesar and the Roman civil war the battle of pharsalus has always interested me.
Looking at the battle we see that Julius Caesar knew he was outmatched in cavalry and offset the problem by deploying a line of infantry behind his cavalry to stiffen their resolves and support them. When the battle begins Caesar's cavalry is defeated by Pompeys cavalry but then the line of infantry drive Pompeys cavalry off the field.
To me this seemed to be what the Romans should have done long before at the battle of Cannae against Hannibal. Of course Caesars battle came later so no learning from the future.
But what about the other way around? How was military science studied in ancient Rome. I'd Caesar likely to have read accurate reports of Cannae and thus had an opportunity to consider in advance and learn from Romes old mistake? Or were battles not studied like that back then?
Looking at the battle we see that Julius Caesar knew he was outmatched in cavalry and offset the problem by deploying a line of infantry behind his cavalry to stiffen their resolves and support them. When the battle begins Caesar's cavalry is defeated by Pompeys cavalry but then the line of infantry drive Pompeys cavalry off the field.
To me this seemed to be what the Romans should have done long before at the battle of Cannae against Hannibal. Of course Caesars battle came later so no learning from the future.
But what about the other way around? How was military science studied in ancient Rome. I'd Caesar likely to have read accurate reports of Cannae and thus had an opportunity to consider in advance and learn from Romes old mistake? Or were battles not studied like that back then?
Timothy Hanna
