05-30-2013, 02:38 PM
Macedon wrote:
Maybe, but it was never defeated and, although there are no extensive descriptions of the battles, you should know that even at Beneventum, it was the Romans who fled towards their camps and Pyrrhus lost the battle when his elephants, who had attacked the Roman palisade charged their own lines in frenzy, while at the first action, Manius defeated the van of Pyrrhus' marching column as it approached from a night march.
"Manius, however, since the sacrifices were propitious and the crisis forced action upon him, led his forces out and attacked the foremost of the enemy, and after routing these, put their whole army to flight, so that many of them fell and some of their elephants were left behind and captured. 4 This victory brought Manius down into the plain to give battle; here, after an engagement in the open, he routed the enemy at some points, but at one was overwhelmed by the elephants and driven back upon his camp, where he was obliged to call upon the guards" Plut. Life of Pyyrhus, 25
To me, this says that the first part of the battle at Beneventum resulted in the routing of Pyrrhus' entire army, starting with his vanguard. Afterwards, in the second part, the Romans were driven back by the elephants, not the phalanx. After which, the elephants attacked their own lines, resulting in a complete route of Pyrrhus' forces.
Macedon wrote:
According to Polybius, the Macedonian phalanx is unbeatable as long as it retains its cohesion.
"What then is the reason of the Roman success, and what is it that defeats the purpose of those who use the phalanx? 2 It is because in war the time and place of action is uncertain and the phalanx has only one time and one place in which it can perform its peculiar service. 3 Now, if the enemy were obliged to adapt themselves to the times and places required by the phalanx when a decisive battle was impending, those who use the phalanx would in all probability, for the reasons I stated above, always get the better of their enemies; 4 but if it is not only possible but easy to avoid its onset why should one any longer dread an attack of a body so constituted? 5 Again, it is acknowledged that the phalanx requires level and clear ground with no obstacles such as ditches, clefts, clumps of trees, ridges and water courses, 6 all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation. Every one would also acknowledge that it is almost impossible except in very rare cases to find spaces of say twenty stades or even more in length with no such obstacles. 8 But even if we assume it to be possible, supposing those who are fighting against us refuse to meet us on such ground, but force round sacking the cities and devastating the territory of our allies, what is the use of such a formation? 9 For by remaining on the ground that suits it, not only is it incapable of helping its friends but cannot even ensure its own safety. 10 For the arrival of supplies will easily be prevented by the enemy, when they have undisturbed command of the open country. 11 But if the phalanx leaves the ground proper to it and attempts any action, it will be easily overcome by the enemy. 12 And again, if it is decided to engage the enemy on level ground, but instead of availing ourselves of our total force when the phalanx has its one opportunity for charging, we keep out of action even a small portion of it at the moment of the shock, it is easy to tell what will happen from what the Romans always do at present" Pol 18.31
Macedon wrote:
Is suddenly Caesar a part of our scope?
If you can bring up Arrian, I can mention Caesar...Besides, what other source specifically mentions centurions by name?
Macedon wrote:
If you think that the Romans encouraged single action or action outside the Roman line let it be so.
Encouraged openly? Not always. One Consul executed his own son for fighting in single combat. But others awarded such initiative. Above all, the Romans respected bravery and virtus. How did that work in real life? If you break ranks for some action and it succeeds, you are honored. If you fail, you are punished. Just like today's military organizations, where it is commonly believed that there is a fine line between being given an award for bravery verse receiving a court martial. I recommend you read Ross Cowan's For the Glory of Rome.
Antiochus wrote:
Another point is everyone takes reference from all time periods and then tries to impose this information onto another time period to get an understanding of the Roman legion. I do get a giggle watching you guys mix and match your references concerning the legion’s organisation. Let me ask you a question, when do the primary sources start mentioning prior and posterior centuries?
Ding ding ding, we have us a winner. The Republican era Roman army was a conscript citizen army. Every fit male citizen had to serve 16 years in the infantry or 10 years in the cavalry, including those of the Senatorial ranks. Rarely is training ever mentioned. Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianus, Q. Caecilius Metellus, Gaius Marius and P. Rutilius Rufus. As far as I can tell, these are the ONLY Consuls of the mid Republic period that were mentioned in the sources, out of all the many others Consuls who commanded armies, who actually bothered to institute training in their armies. The fact that the sources go out of there way to mention it is indicative that the Roman didn't put that much of an emphasis on training. Notice the names I provided, all but two are still widely known as great war leaders who also used innovative tactics to win. Also notice that Scipio Aemilianus was the grandson of Scipio Africanus; both Marius and Rutlius Rufus served with Scipio Aemilianus in Spain and both were legates under Caecilius Metellus. Oh, and Sulla initially served under Marius. And Marius was Caesar's uncle. There seems to be some sort of pattern here. Interesting...
Since the average Roman army didn't spend months or even weeks training their armies, and seemed to include no training once the campaign season started, their tactics had to have been simple and quick to learn. Coupled with bravery, discipline and virtus, along with manpower to replace armies lost through incompetent leadership, that is why the Romans always won. It was only in the first century BC, when legions where under arms for a full 16 years before discharged en mass, and then later after Augustus' reforms, when legions were permanent, that the Romans truly had a professional military. Before that, nope. Just a conscript army of farmers.
Maybe, but it was never defeated and, although there are no extensive descriptions of the battles, you should know that even at Beneventum, it was the Romans who fled towards their camps and Pyrrhus lost the battle when his elephants, who had attacked the Roman palisade charged their own lines in frenzy, while at the first action, Manius defeated the van of Pyrrhus' marching column as it approached from a night march.
"Manius, however, since the sacrifices were propitious and the crisis forced action upon him, led his forces out and attacked the foremost of the enemy, and after routing these, put their whole army to flight, so that many of them fell and some of their elephants were left behind and captured. 4 This victory brought Manius down into the plain to give battle; here, after an engagement in the open, he routed the enemy at some points, but at one was overwhelmed by the elephants and driven back upon his camp, where he was obliged to call upon the guards" Plut. Life of Pyyrhus, 25
To me, this says that the first part of the battle at Beneventum resulted in the routing of Pyrrhus' entire army, starting with his vanguard. Afterwards, in the second part, the Romans were driven back by the elephants, not the phalanx. After which, the elephants attacked their own lines, resulting in a complete route of Pyrrhus' forces.
Macedon wrote:
According to Polybius, the Macedonian phalanx is unbeatable as long as it retains its cohesion.
"What then is the reason of the Roman success, and what is it that defeats the purpose of those who use the phalanx? 2 It is because in war the time and place of action is uncertain and the phalanx has only one time and one place in which it can perform its peculiar service. 3 Now, if the enemy were obliged to adapt themselves to the times and places required by the phalanx when a decisive battle was impending, those who use the phalanx would in all probability, for the reasons I stated above, always get the better of their enemies; 4 but if it is not only possible but easy to avoid its onset why should one any longer dread an attack of a body so constituted? 5 Again, it is acknowledged that the phalanx requires level and clear ground with no obstacles such as ditches, clefts, clumps of trees, ridges and water courses, 6 all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation. Every one would also acknowledge that it is almost impossible except in very rare cases to find spaces of say twenty stades or even more in length with no such obstacles. 8 But even if we assume it to be possible, supposing those who are fighting against us refuse to meet us on such ground, but force round sacking the cities and devastating the territory of our allies, what is the use of such a formation? 9 For by remaining on the ground that suits it, not only is it incapable of helping its friends but cannot even ensure its own safety. 10 For the arrival of supplies will easily be prevented by the enemy, when they have undisturbed command of the open country. 11 But if the phalanx leaves the ground proper to it and attempts any action, it will be easily overcome by the enemy. 12 And again, if it is decided to engage the enemy on level ground, but instead of availing ourselves of our total force when the phalanx has its one opportunity for charging, we keep out of action even a small portion of it at the moment of the shock, it is easy to tell what will happen from what the Romans always do at present" Pol 18.31
Macedon wrote:
Is suddenly Caesar a part of our scope?
If you can bring up Arrian, I can mention Caesar...Besides, what other source specifically mentions centurions by name?
Macedon wrote:
If you think that the Romans encouraged single action or action outside the Roman line let it be so.
Encouraged openly? Not always. One Consul executed his own son for fighting in single combat. But others awarded such initiative. Above all, the Romans respected bravery and virtus. How did that work in real life? If you break ranks for some action and it succeeds, you are honored. If you fail, you are punished. Just like today's military organizations, where it is commonly believed that there is a fine line between being given an award for bravery verse receiving a court martial. I recommend you read Ross Cowan's For the Glory of Rome.
Antiochus wrote:
Another point is everyone takes reference from all time periods and then tries to impose this information onto another time period to get an understanding of the Roman legion. I do get a giggle watching you guys mix and match your references concerning the legion’s organisation. Let me ask you a question, when do the primary sources start mentioning prior and posterior centuries?
Ding ding ding, we have us a winner. The Republican era Roman army was a conscript citizen army. Every fit male citizen had to serve 16 years in the infantry or 10 years in the cavalry, including those of the Senatorial ranks. Rarely is training ever mentioned. Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianus, Q. Caecilius Metellus, Gaius Marius and P. Rutilius Rufus. As far as I can tell, these are the ONLY Consuls of the mid Republic period that were mentioned in the sources, out of all the many others Consuls who commanded armies, who actually bothered to institute training in their armies. The fact that the sources go out of there way to mention it is indicative that the Roman didn't put that much of an emphasis on training. Notice the names I provided, all but two are still widely known as great war leaders who also used innovative tactics to win. Also notice that Scipio Aemilianus was the grandson of Scipio Africanus; both Marius and Rutlius Rufus served with Scipio Aemilianus in Spain and both were legates under Caecilius Metellus. Oh, and Sulla initially served under Marius. And Marius was Caesar's uncle. There seems to be some sort of pattern here. Interesting...
Since the average Roman army didn't spend months or even weeks training their armies, and seemed to include no training once the campaign season started, their tactics had to have been simple and quick to learn. Coupled with bravery, discipline and virtus, along with manpower to replace armies lost through incompetent leadership, that is why the Romans always won. It was only in the first century BC, when legions where under arms for a full 16 years before discharged en mass, and then later after Augustus' reforms, when legions were permanent, that the Romans truly had a professional military. Before that, nope. Just a conscript army of farmers.
