Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Dislike of Tactics/Ambushes etc?
#1
I don't mean history itself, as an in examination of tactics (but feel free to ask) but I mean in terms of historiography and rhetoric. Do we have any passages which suggest a dislike of tricks and ambushes on behalf of the Romans? I know we have plenty of evidence of Roman cleverness, I'm looking for evidence of attitudes.

Incidentally its easy to find an aversion to being callidus in poetry and drama, I'm literally only interested in historigraphy and warfare though and I figured you guys must have came across something once or twice.
Jass
Reply
#2
Hmm... well generally speaking in Late Antiquity, there was dislike of battle altogether, many commanders preferred to lay siege and outmaneuver a foe than engage one. There was a significant lack of citizens willing to join the army though.

Aetius however had a particular affinity for ambush and surprise attacks, likely because a large number of his professional troops were of Barbarian descent, and also likely because he had large numbers of Foderati or Bucellarii. Merobaudes records that in the Battle of Mons Colubrarius in 438, Aetius surprised, attackeds and routed the Goths before they could form up for battle, slaying around 8000 (that number could be feasible if it accounts for the wounded and the slain)

Litorius also surprised the Goths before they could break the siege and draw up for battle outside Narbonne in 436.

Aetius and (then Comes) Majoran made a suprise attack on the Franks at Vicus Helenae in 444.

Can't say the same for other commanders though, I Know some Romans like Julian preferred pitched battle.
Reply
#3
All that springs immediately to mind is the passage in Ammianus Marcellinus, 28.5, about the ambush of a party of Saxon raiders as they returned home, which he suggests might be called 'treacherous and disgraceful'.

Crucially, however, these Saxons had previously agreed to a truce. "But when they, being now freed from all fear, were preparing to return, some of our infantry were sent forward, who secretly laid an ambuscade in a certain hidden defile, from which they would easily be able to attack them as they passed."

The Roman ambush is sprung too soon, and only the arrival of the cavalry saves the day and allows the Saxons to be slaughtered en masse. "And although an impartial judge will blame the action as treacherous and disgraceful," says Ammianus, "still if he weighs all the circumstances, he will not regret that a mischievous band of robbers was at length destroyed when such an opportunity presented itself."

So it would appear that the treachery and disgrace in this case were due to the breaking of the truce, rather than the ambush itself. I'll have a look around for more, and perhaps better, examples.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#4
Quote:I don't mean history itself, as an in examination of tactics (but feel free to ask) but I mean in terms of historiography and rhetoric. Do we have any passages which suggest a dislike of tricks and ambushes on behalf of the Romans? I know we have plenty of evidence of Roman cleverness, I'm looking for evidence of attitudes.

Incidentally its easy to find an aversion to being callidus in poetry and drama, I'm literally only interested in historigraphy and warfare though and I figured you guys must have came across something once or twice.
Humh, I am away from my library at the moment, and not a Romanist. Nothing in Sallust comes to mind. Perhaps Rufus' story about Alexander telling off Parmenion before Gaugamela? (4.13: 'Latrunculorum', [rex Parmenioni] inquit, 'et furtum ista sollertia est, quam praecipitis mihi, quippe illorum votum unicum est fallere.' etc.) Nepos seems impressed by the tricks of Datames. Perhaps Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts has something? Or you could look for sources on the incidents which Frontinus picked out.

I haven't worked through the Latin of Vegetius 3 yet.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#5
I haven't checked Vegetius... I have an abridged version and might be able to find something.
Reply
#6
In the Greek sources (and by this I mean those written in Greek, not by Greek authors), I have to say that I have come across many enthusiastic praises for generals who use such stratagems, so I would suggest that it is actually the opposite that is the truth. Pompeius Magnus, Marcus Antonius, Sulla, Sertorius, Viriathus, Decebalus and many more generals, Roman or of their enemies, are praised for such tactics.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#7
Rome: Total War has taught me to love set-piece battles. 8+)
Reply
#8
This is a very interesting topic, Jass. I decided to check Fronto for such rhetorical displays, because he was a master at this stuff.

He disparages deceit (personified by a goddess):
Quote:Truly laughter... has now changed round to such a depth of malice and guile that those who laugh with sinister intent hide even their lips. This goddess, true woman that she is, who gets most worship from women, is Deceit...

Fronto to Domitia Lucilla, Loeb Fronto v. 1, p. 151

However, he mentions ambushes in regards to the Parthians during Lucius Verus' war, but makes it sound entirely respectable:
Quote:The Parthians alone of mankind have sustained against the Roman People the role of enemy in a fashion never to be despised...an enemy of old, resolved and dangerous, and prepared to meet the Romans, trained in wars verily from ambush...

Fronto to Lucius Verus, Preamble to History, Loeb Fronto v. II p. 203, 205

So according to the master orator Fronto, I would say that ambushes - in rhetoric - are considered part of the rules of war.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#9
Quote:Do we have any passages which suggest a dislike of tricks and ambushes on behalf of the Romans?
You definitely need this book. Everett Wheeler has published other interesting observations on the subject of ancient trickery and subterfuge (e.g. here).
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#10
Quote:I haven't worked through the Latin of Vegetius 3 yet.
See Veg. 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.19, 3.22. Vegetius constantly stresses the desirability of ambushing the enemy or otherwise catching him unawares, when he can be engaged with the advantage on the side of the attacker, as opposed to a pitched battle, when both sides fight on equal terms.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Infantry Tactics by M. J. Taylor antiochus 14 3,882 02-18-2015, 04:04 AM
Last Post: Michael J. Taylor
  Late Roman Tactics Anonymous 38 9,190 11-07-2008, 09:38 PM
Last Post: PMBardunias
  Aelian and Roman Tactics 100AD? Anonymous 15 4,507 07-18-2007, 03:04 PM
Last Post: ywanell

Forum Jump: