Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 3rd October 2008
We all know that the Roman Empire lasted over centuries and it overcame a host of less disciplined enemies, like the Germanic tribes to its North, Britons, Egyptians, Syrians, Eastern Europeans, and a host of other foes.
There must have been some fundamental tactics in the way they fought that must have made them immune to such war-like foes as they had to fight. I know they had Cavalry but I believe their primary fighting force was their infantry; what was it that kept the Roman infantry so disciplined and so motivated?
Can anyone tell what it may have been. Was it just heir great discipline? What was it that made the Roman armies victorious time and time again? Also why did not their foes emulate the Roman tactics?
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 2
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd October 2008
Tas
My friend the roman tactic did naturally change,over the years.
The legions that fought against Chartage,didnt use the same tactic as those in Gaul under Ceasar. In the late days like under Aetius against the huns was it the cataphract(heavy cavalry)wich was the most important,this tactic was also used by East Rome(Byzans).
To give an short maybe not scientific answer.
Dicipline,will to fight and a diplomatic doctrin.
Diciplin goes with out saying a army without dicipline is just a mob.Many of the roman enimies was brave but whitout any real battleplan,leadership etc.
Will to fight.Jughurta of Nubia did complain you beat a Roman army ,you cant have a victory feast before another arrive.This is another key point the opponents did learn that the Romans come back again and again.The only two exeptions are against the Saasanids where logistic was a Roman nightmare and Germanica after Varus defeat.
Diplomatic doctrine the Romans put the whole state behind to cruch their foes.
Never are this more seen as again Carthago wich essentialy was a merchant empire,in the first Punic war did Carthago fold up long before it was actualy beaten because it wasnt good for busines.
In the second did the Carthagian counsil refuse reinforcment to Hannibal when he had the Romans on the run,because it would strengthen the Barca family position(the second Punic war would more correctly bee the Barcas versus Rome).
The Romans was the first in the west to fight modern warfare,in that they where fully prepared to wipe out populations and totaly erase cities and kindoms to gain there means,in other worlds total war.A thing totaly out of tought for the basicly hellenistic powers around the meditarrian.
Y friend
Hasse
Your friendLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 3
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 3rd October 2008
My dear friend Hasse,
It is so nice to converse with you again through the aegis of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ message board. You know that my former wife had a degree in history.
She once told me about a lecture from one of her favorite professors on Classical History. I don't recall what classical period he was talking about, but he said in that lecture, that during an infantry charge each soldier moved a little to his left to get additional protection from the shield of the neighboring soldier. So they were all protected by a phalanx of shields. He also joked that sometimes instead of the charge being forward, it was charge to the left at a slight diagonal angle. He said that is why most of the Classical battles were fought near some kind of barrier to the left to keep the soldiers from charging at a slant.
I remember both me and my wife laughing out loud thinking about a charge when the two armies charge at a slant and miss each other completely.
I suspect the huge Roman infantry shield played an important part in their tactics as well as those short, straight Roman swords.
Do you know about the Battle Philippi, between Marc Antony and Octavius on one side and Brutus and Cassius on the other. Did either side use their Cavalry well?
With fond regards and best wishes,
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 4
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd October 2008
Tas my friend
Its always a pleasure to talk to you.
Your wifes proffesor has naturaly right but this statement is about the greek phalanx,not the roman legion.
Since the phalanx also neded good ground to advance is their actually some remarks of earlier greek warfare between the minor Polis(city states) that Phalanges actually did miss each other.
This movement to the left by a not fully displined oponent was taken advantage of by the Spartans and after the Peloponesian wars the Thebans with their"super phalanx".
The Romans did often use auxiliary horse,but at Phillipi had at least Octavianus and Mark Anthony most bowmen as auxilary.
Since Philipi was fought in a marchy area part of it a swamp would cavalry be rather useless.
Anthony and Octavianus was losing the battle untill a more or less bersek attack by Anthony and his legions(the great rage) turned the tide.
No my friend it a quarter past five here time for a small drink before dinner.
Lev vΓ€l
HasseLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 5
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Friday, 3rd October 2008
Hi Tas,
I can recommend two very good books; 'The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire' by Lawrence Keppie, and 'The Imperial Roman Army' by Yann LeBohec. The first one explores the origins of the Roman Army when it was known as legio and was raised at the dilectus, to its transformation under Augustus 500 years later. The second concentrates on the Imperial Roman Army after Augustus.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 6
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 3rd October 2008
Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:06 GMT, in reply to Tas in message 1
Tas, might I suggest a book to you? Ross Cowan, 'Roman Battle Tactics 109BC - AD 313'.
Unfortunately, once again I find the English Channel and a substantial lump of the south of England separating me from my copy. However, the Roman Army were not, by and large, great innovators. As with their equipment, they adopted and perfected the tactics of their enemies, altering them to suit themselves. They also changed tactics to suit the situation.
Where possible they used the ground to their advantage - for example, at the defeat of Boudica, where forcing the Britons to attack uphill, and funnelling them into the clearing in the tree line helped to negate their numerical superiority. Field artillery, archers, slingers and assorted skirmishers could be used to thin the enemy ranks before contact was made. Cavalry could harry the enemy's flanks, and pursue a broken army.
Faced with an infantry charge, the pilum - heavy javelin - would break up the momentum. The shield was used as an offensive weapon to punch, then the short sword was ideal in close combat for finding its way under your opponent's guard.
In attack, the 'wedge' (Cowan suggests this was more like a small assault column than a true wedge) was simply a blunt instrument to punch into the enemy lines, breaking up their cohesion so that groups could be isolated and destroyed.
There was certainly no concept of 'playing by the rules' - there WERE no rules. The Romans were quite happy to fight dirty, using any trick in the book to win. And, when it comes down to it, discipline, training and ruthlessness were the keys.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th October 2008
I have already presented in the other thread my fundumendal opposition to the idea that the Roman army had any impressive tactical capabilities if taken aside its traditional numerical superiority (not necessarily in 1 specific battle but certainly throughout all their wars) and Rome's unbelievably superb external affair politics and the "divide and conquer" only imitated by Konstantinople (actually, the same state) and much later England and beyond them no-one else.
Roman army was just a presentable pre-gunpowder army. Never a loser army but never the "macedonian" style army that could go inside the enemy at a numerical inferiority of more than 1/10 ratio and win battles within 1-2 hours with killings/losses ration of 10/1! Romans chose the copious way: throw in masses, way too often the "bam boum kiofte" way (i.e. clash of barbarians) which are battles with many losses from all sides that clearly aim at wearing numerically down the enemy and not letting him have any more will to fight another day. If ever Romans found themselves in clear numerical inferiority in one battle, either they lost or they won but over a largely untrained, badly armed and half-unconscious tribal-style army. And Romans from the times of the Etruscan conquests they had the luxury to do fight in such a wasteful way because 1) in ALL wars they had at least a double size total army than their enemies so they did not care much for 1-10-1000 dead more 2) battles were too often mainly fought by allies, so they would not care much either if 1-10-1000-10,000 foreign recruits died along the way: the army served the greater strategic scope.
However, while Romans had not the best pre-gunpowder army in purely military terms they had one of the best armies in strategic terms given its numerical and political context. So if one searches for strong points he has inherently to move out of the purely military point. I.e. apart from their overall numerical superiority one has to mention the excellent politics behind, a highly capable military-financial management that was set from the beggining by striving for relative tactical uniformity (2-3 simple and working strategies) and cheap/effective solutions for arming and equiping a style of army that most certainly had to operate under specific conditions such as only through a developed system of provisions, alliances, known territory etc. etc.
If I have to remain to the purely military point (and I think the question was that), Romans have not much to present other than their constant process for adaptation and transformation that Anglo-Norman correctly mentioned above - which was a main power-tool, Romans never ceased to evolve (but then so did others from Greeks to Persians even to your average barbarian - e.g. Bulgarians coming down from Ukraine a couple of centuries later than Ukrainian Goths were light-years ahead of your rather simplistic Goth both in terms of tactics as well as equipment).
In Carthagenian wars, they won simply with superior numbers and politics (their invasion of Africa was only enabled by using Greek navy and of course the treason of the local traditional mercenaries of Carthagenians (Numidian cavalry - too often a key tool of Carthagenians in Hannibal's campaign). But other than their good politics, there was no superiority of Romans in terms of tactics, rather the opposite: tactically Hannibal had been far ahead of them but politically and strategically far behind them since he could not find any more local allies in Italy to have any more army to attack Rome: Romans had 4 times Hannibals army and finally had allies even just next to Carthage.
In wars against Greek states, Romans did not present any specific tactical-military superiority, only number superiority and of course vastly a political superiority (having taken on their side more than the 80% of Greek aristocracies in all states including within those of their enemies!!!). Still the most important battles were won with the use of treason rather than being based on their military capability. If anything, even "Roman legions" were to a large extend all about local Greek hoplites armed and fighting their own style. When Romans had finished (after 2 centuries, not 10 years or something!!!) with the Greek states, then they had no other serious opponent. Hence, speaking about Roman tactical superiority in comparison to the fragmented and largely tribal Gauls and Germanics is not exactly proper, at least in most cases - Dacians were presentable and you see Romans had to send 150,000 soldiers, built bridges and spend decades when any real effective army would have cleared the situation with a high maximum 40,000 soldiers and 2-3 years (others more capable with 20,000 and 6 months). If anything, the only highly capable army of those times was Parthians and then Persians and hence Romans had a rather average success against them. In the end, they transformed their army largely to the Persian example (style of armour and weaponry, tactics etc.).
All the above do no imply that Romans were incapable in war and "illiterate" in terms of tactics. There are examples of battles where they fought well and smartly. They had their own tricks in battle like the turtle-march, the smooth alternance between pilums and short-swords though the latter also was responsible for the bam-boum-kiofte appearence in battle, responsible for the high death rates). For a western army, they would bring also some battle-eqquipment like small catapults and crossbows however no comparison to the earlier impressive hellenistic high-technology weaponry (20-storeys siege towers with central automatic hydraulic controls etc.) for the simple reason that they largely faced tribal warfare and rarely sieged cities - most often cities opened to them from the inside (obviouly a far superior strategy than making war).
Romans proved much more smart than others. They knew were the real power was and they had not the various complexes that others had. Their army was a force for maintaining power, it was never any a specialty force. 10,000 Romans legionaires would move 10-15km/day in Asia, camp somwhere safely and stay there to wait for supplies and reinforces. 10,000 hoplites would just cross half of Asia in no time and fight enemies vastly superior. It is difficult to make comparisons and speak about any tactical superiority of Romans.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 8
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 4th October 2008
Tas
There cannot be one single answer to why the Roman army was so successful over such a long period. The verity of foes and the different challenges of climate, logistics and internal conflict offer maybe one simplified answer and that is adaptation.
The Romans adopted and adapted innovations of their allies and opponents, normally more successfully than the original inventors of the tactics. The Roman learnt much from the wars against the Latins, the Samnites, the Etruscans, the Gauls and Pyrrhos of Epeiros. But the greatest lessons were learnt fighting the Carthaginians and particularly Hannibal.
The Punic wars taught the Romans many lessons, usually in defeat but the lessons were well learnt. The Roman tactics changed after each war, the system was adapted and improved. In fact to such an extent than when Rome decided to take on Macedon the improved Roman legions swept the previously unchallenged pike phalanxes from the field with ease.
As you rightly pointed out the primary strength of the Roman army in its early organisation was its heavy infantry. Originally these would have been equipped and trained much like Greek hoplites, but very early on they progressed to their legionary style of warfare. Citizen infantry trained to fight in multiple ranks with sword and shield rather than a spear.
This was the classical three rank system of Hastati, Principes and the Triarii (actually the Triarii were equipped with long spears much like the hoplites, just to confuse the issue!). The tactics were based on flexibility through the Maniple and Century, with every soldier able to fight in the front rank.
The three rank system gave the Romans the ability to exchange exhausted ranks with ranks further back, or to broaden their front or switch to a flank the other unengaged lines. These tactics made them superior to the rigid ranks of the Hellenistic pike phalanxes.
But the Romans learnt a great deal from the Macedonians and they seem to have had a great deal of respect for Hellenistic warfare.
This constant change in organisation, tactics and equipment meant that there can be no defining Roman army principle other than high levels of training and flexibility.
The constant changes led to the dropping of the three rank system to a universal Cohort system for the legions and the growing numbers of cavalry needed to combat differing enemies from Africa, Asia and northern Europe.
The importance of cavalry grew constantly until eventually the infantry became just support for the elite cavalry.
The success of the Roman army was its ability to change, to drop old tried and tested systems and adapt new systems, not just in equipment but also in training and tactics.
It helped a great deal that the Romans army was around long enough to adopt these changes, they came very close to losing everything against the Carthaginians, but they survived long enough to learn how to beat Hannibal.
So to answer your question, what made the Roman army victorious time and again? Well unlike their enemies the Romans were not tied down to one style of fighting, they adapted and relied on flexibility, something that most other nations found it impossible to do. Whether it was due to social systems such as in Persia where the ruling eliteβs could not permit the populace to be trained into an efficient fighting force. Or ignorance of other fighting methods such as the different tribes of Gauls or Goths who had one style of fighting, whether it was successful of not.
Ultimately there was not one Roman tactic that made them successful but over the space of 1,000 years they learnt enough from everybody else to normally come out winners.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 4th October 2008
Hi Nick, Hi Englishvote,
Thank you for your detailed analyses both.
Nick, perhaps you can expand on the tactics used by Alexander the Great. I remember one particular account of him beating the Indian Raja Paras, on the banks of the Indus,when Paras had fielded an army of about 100,000 and many elephants. Alexander not only beat him but performed one of the most gallant gestures of ancient times: When Paras was brought, his hands and feet bound, as a prisoner before Alexander, he asked him, "What kind of treatment do you expect from me?" to which Paras replied, "As one king treats another." Alexander was so moved by this proud answer that he allowed Paras to keep his kingdom as a vassal.
Englishvote, from your account of what helped the Romans prevail, it seems it was the same thing that makes modern armies prevail; a readiness to learn from others and to be flexible in ones tactics.
Was subterfuge ever a part of the Roman tactics? I remember reading an account of what tactics were used by the Mongols of Chengiz Khan against the vast armies of Khwarizm Shah. The Shah fielded an army of over 100,000 well equipped men, to the Mongols 60,000. What the mongol cavalry did was to pretend they were beaten and retreating, as the cavalry of the Shah chased them. The Mongol army lead them into a well-prepared ambush; they turned around and with their mounted archers, decimated the Shah's army.
Was subterfuge ever apart of Roman tactics? If so, can you give an example?
Thank you each for a very comprehensive and nice analyses.
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 10
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 4th October 2008
Hi Tas
from your account of what helped the Romans prevail, it seems it was the same thing that makes modern armies prevail; a readiness to learn from others and to be flexible in ones tactics.
Μύ
The same principles apply to any well trained army, flexibility, adaptability and above all else cohesion. There is very little point in being flexible to a point where the unit cohesion falls to pieces.
Was subterfuge ever apart of Roman tactics?
Μύ
Subterfuge was never a big part of Roman tactics, politics yes but not battlefield tactics. In actual fact the Romans fell victim to subterfuge repeatedly, they seem to have had no real thought for tricks and were repeatedly walking into ambushes.
During the Samite wars the Roman consuls Titus Veturius Calvinus and Spurious Popstumius (no rally that was his name!) led the Roman army into a trap at the Caudine Forks, eventually they were forced to surrender and pass βunder the yokeβ, very embarrassing for the early Rome.
But they did not learn from this lack of reconnaissance and during the Second Punic war the Roman Army walked into another ambush at Lake Trasimene, this time they were slaughtered rather than just embarrassed.
Again in 9AD Varus led three legions to destruction in an ambush, Varus thought the Germans were on his side!
Poor officers, political generals and above all an abundance of arrogance ensured that Roman armies thought that they were unbeatable and need not worry about simple things like ambushes or tricks.
But the Roman army did like gimicks and gadgets, they were always eager to adopt field defences and artillery even in open battle.
Faced with Pyrrhos use of elephants, which the Romans at this time did not have, they invented anti-elephant carts. A bit like an early tank with four wheels and spikes, spears and incendiary baskets on poles. Apparently they did not work that well.
Next they tried sending pigs against he elephants, but first of all they set the pigs alight with oil to get them squealing, thankfully for animal lovers all over the world and indeed for pigs the tactic did not work.
Eventually the Romans got their own elephants and used them successfully for a while, against the Macedonians in particular.
Caltrops were used extensively, darts became another missile weapon later in the 4th century. Crossbows were used long before the armies of medieval Europe reinvented them. Staff sling, composite bows and heavy horse armour were all adopted from their enemies.
Every legion had its own artillery, much like a modern division has its own artillery support. This was used on the battlefield and not just in sieges, this was probably a lesson learnt form the Greeks and Macedonians.
The Roman navy invented the corvus, basically an assault platform with a large spike to pierce the enemy ships deck. They also invented something called Greek fire, an incendiary weapon used extensively at sea (but also sometimes on land) during the βByzantineβ part of the Roman Empire.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 4th October 2008
Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:04 GMT, in reply to englishvote in message 10
There is one possible act of subterfuge on the part of the Romans that I can think of. Tacitus records that at the Second Battle of Cremona (AD69), which was part of the Civil War between supporters of the Emperor Vitellius and would-be usurper Flavius Vespasianus, the Flavians were getting the worst of it, having fought all night. Exhausted the two armies withdrew for a breather. At this point, dawn broke. Some of the Flavian troops had been based in the East, and adopted a Solar Cult - this, as was their custom, they turned to salute the rising sun. The Vitellians, believing them to be hailing reinforcements, began to retreat. Meanwhile the rumour spread through the Flavian ranks that there were indeed reinforcements, and were encouraged. The tide of battle was turned, and the Flavians won the day. Tacitus suggests that the whole saluting the sun thing was a deliberate ploy on the part of the Flavian commanders, though admits the situation is far from clear.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 12
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Tas
Contrary to my earlier statement that the Romans were not really into tricks and deceptions on the battlefield there is of course a Roman history work by Frontinus called The Strategemata. It deals with tricks and subterfuge and is basically one long list of underhand deception that had been used throughout history.
Most of the tricks are not actually Roman in origin, but some are and obviously the book was written for Roman consumption. How true many of the tricks are is of course open to debate, but most do sound sensible. Whether any Roman general ever used this history as a reference during a battle or campaign is of course pure conjecture.
A full English translation can be found here, along with the Latin text. Apparently the copyright has lapsed on the translation so it is free.
Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 13
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
I think the Roman armies, at the peak of their power, had two major advantages over most of their opponents.
A major factor -- after the reforms of Marius -- was the ability of Rome to maintain a large, professional and well-disciplined army in all seasons. The organization behind this army ensured that the men were fed, paid, equipped, given treatment for wounds and diseases, and trained. Thanks to good sanitation, they didn't suffer much from epidemics.
Some of Rome's enemies could put large armies in the field, but these were seasonal armies, with a large component of farmers and herders who could absent themselves from home only for a limited time, with perhaps a small core of professional soldiers. Or, like the huge Persian armies of Darius I, Xerces and Darius III, they would consist of a small core of reliable men with a large body of auxiliaries on who the commander could only rely as long as things went well.
This was also true for most medieval armies, and I think you have to wait until Maurice of Nassau (1567-1625) to see the recreation of a well-supported professional army rivalling the Roman organization. As late as the 18th century, large armies might just melt away through disease and starvation.
The other strength was the Roman ability to actually control these large armies in battle. Their organization was sophisticated enough that a Roman commander could exert some control over his forces even when the battle had been engaged. He would have reserves to commit, and men to bring him information from other areas of the battlefield.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
And a third huge advantage which they enjoyed, Mutatis_Mutandis, was their establishment as a central power geographically when they acquired dominion over the Mediterranean Sea. Until Carthage was out of the way Rome was subject to circumvention, famously by Hannibal overland and Carthage itself many times by sea, but to a significant degree with more regularity by anyone with a half-decent naval ability.
After the Punic Wars the geo-political atlas of their world shifted fundamentally with them roughly at its centre, and the most likely origin of threat to that geo-political reality, the powers that lay to their east, could then be concentrated on.
It is significant that Roman navies played a crucial role in prosecuting this and other policies for centuries and it has even been argued that the considerable military strength it could always deploy would have counted for nothing had Rome's situation, or its "ownership" of "Our Sea" not been exploited as successfully as it was at a crucial juncture in its history.
By making themselves not only dangerous, but also central to all strategies pursued by all powers in the region, they bought themselves the luxury of deploying their armed forces offensively and with ease compared to the ability of their neighbours to reciprocate. This made them a tough nut to crack, even on those occasions when internal political divisions, poorly thought out campaigns and inefficient military command should, by right, have spelt their doom as top dog.
Their survival through these tribulations lent a lustre to their military prowess that perhaps sometimes it didn't deserve, to the point that they acquired an aura of invincibility (despite the evidence on occasion to the contrary). But any military commander will have acknowledged that this aura, even if undeserved, when properly managed and conveyed to the enemy was almost as good as having extra legions to hand. In fact it often meant just that - the raising of auxiliary forces was rarely a problem in any theatre of war they fought in, and such would not have been possible if they had not successfully established themselves as "the winning side".Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 15
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Mutatis,
As usual, it is a pleasure to read your well-expressed and lucid message. I thank you for an excellent contribution to my question.
I was just thinking that the Romans lasted for a very long time; they must be doing something right.
I was also looking at a program on Roman Engineering, and that was a delight as well.
It is amazing that so long ago the Romans solved so many problems and created in the classical period a fairly sophisticated civilisation.
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 16
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
What was that Roman infantry formation called where they marched towards the enemy about 50 abreast covered with shields at the front and holding shields over the heads?
It looked like a giant tortoise approaching apparently but it was devastatingly effective.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 17
Posted by flipacross (U9997641) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
George
As none of or experts on the Roman military seem to be around at the moment I'll throw in one of the few things I know.
It looked like a giant tortoise approaching apparently but it was devastatingly effective.Μύ
And that is indeed what it was called, or rather some Latin word like testudos. For all their fine qualities, the Romans were still johnny foreigners and couldn't get the hang of the Queen's English.
PhilLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 18
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:18 GMT, in reply to flipacross in message 17
Almost - testudo.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 19
Posted by ex4thhussar (U520216) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Testudo indeed.
Have a look at our old friend Wikipedia:
RonLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 20
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Monday, 6th October 2008
It looked like a giant tortoise approaching apparently but it was devastatingly effective.
Μύ
The Testudo formation was first used in battle against the Macedonians in 200 BC. But the formation was mainly for siege warfare to protect the troops from missile fire while they advance to the walls.
The formation had practicly no offensive power, the troops could not effectively use their weapons while in the formation.
Other than in 200 BC I cannot think of another time that it was used on the actual battlefield.
The Wikipedia article about the testudo makes some very debatable statements about it being used at Carrhae in 53 BC. I find this doubtful and contrary to the historical evidence as well as to normal Roman tactics.
When the testudo is mentioned in 200 BC it is formed by just 60 men and was made up of five ranks.
The wiki article seems to imply that the entire Roman army adopted this formation at Carrhae, which can only be utter nonsense.
Historical sources describe the Roman formation at Carrhae as a hollow square, or several hollow squares forming βfortβ like formations.
The legionaries interlocked their shields to provide protection from the Parthian arrows, but this implies the troops closed up into a tighter formation reducing the usual one yard between each man.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 21
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 6th October 2008
Hasse,
Jughurta of Nubia did complain you beat a Roman army ,you cant have a victory feast before another arrive.Μύ
Actually, Jugurtha was king of Numidia, not Nubia.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 22
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 6th October 2008
Roman army was just a presentable pre-gunpowder army. Never a loser army but never the "macedonian" style army that could go inside the enemy at a numerical inferiority of more than 1/10 ratio and win battles within 1-2 hours with killings/losses ration of 10/1! Romans chose the copious way: throw in masses...Μύ
The army that defeated Boudicca was probably outnumbered by around 10 to 1 (about 10,000 Romans vs 100,000 Britons). Dio put the figure at nearer 23:1, but was probably exaggerating. Roman losses were small, Britons vast - Tacitus says one source claimed 80,000 dead.
In the case of this battle, the Roman tactic was to turn this outnumbering to their advantage, luring the Britons into a hemmed-in area where they could not easily manoeuvre, and could only really confront the Romans with numerical parity at any one time. In a crowded battle field, the Roman short sword was a far more useful weapon than the heavy, two-handed swords favoured by the Britons, which were typically swung around and therefore needed more space to be effective - and the Romans used heavy javelins at the start of the engagement to great advantage.
When the Romans were finally in a position to advance, the Britons found themselves hemmed in from the rear by their own families who had been stationed around the field in a ring of wagons as a last line of defence. The result was total devastation.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 23
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 6th October 2008
I was looking at the list of all the Roman Emperors, and it was really surprising how many of them died violent deaths. Many were poisoned, forced to commit suicide, murdered, or killed in battle. only a hand full died in bed.
It seems violent death was an occupational hazard for Roman Emperor. If they were not forced out by the Praetorian Guard, they were poisoned by members of their own family.
I used to think Robert Graves was exaggerating in his two-volume novel I Claudius and Claudius the God, but it seems to be true.
The other thing that comes out of all this is that the worst of the Emperors got their job through heredity; the best ones were either Generals or or some how got into the job, like Claudius.
I think none of them ever reached the stature of Julius Caesar, who was not an Emperor but almost!
Cheers,
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 24
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
Tas,
I think none of them ever reached the stature of Julius Caesar, who was not an Emperor but almost!Μύ
Julius Caesar didn't need to be 'Emperor' - emperors took his name.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
Hi Tas. There have been some interesting additions below your message, nontheless I just wanted to answer your msg9 but I will first by-pass with the long story below:
Alexander's army (or more accurately Philip's/Parmenion's army) among the knowledgeable in military history is by far (hands down, behind the back and hand-cuffed) the top pre-gunpowder army in terms of tactics, fighting capacity and overall effectiveness. A core of 30,000 (there were of course local recruits in later times to replace the dead/retired ones that rose the army up to something more than 50,000) that conquered in 11 years more lands than what Rome conquered in the 400 years of its long and arduous expansion facing opponents that presented overall numbers counted in millions and not a few 10s of 1000s.
After Alexander's army, a close match is that of Jenkis Han - another great leader. In just the double time of Alexander and with an army of something between 100,000 and 200,000) he had managed to conquer even more lands than what Alexander had done winning over enemies that numbered again in millions.
A third successful army, Imperial this time, is the Eastern Roman. With a mere standing army of around 50,000-80,000 it fought against the largest number of enemies ever fought by one army - each of its enemies usually over-numbering it and being highly offensive, most often way too capable than your average barbarians of Roman times and also fanatically aggressive, too often attacking at the same time. This army had been largely defending and presents no particular conquests, however that does not prevents a few specialists to name it the best pre-gunpowder army even above that of Alexander's and Jenkis' Han - personally though I admit that was tactically the most accomplished and complex army before gunpowder (and the first to have university-level school training for higher officers) I would rank it third since in its long history it faced also some painfull defeats (mainly from Arabs and Bulgarians, the rest of defeats came largely if not singlehandedly due to inner ugly political games).
Even comparing these armies with the Roman when talking about military effectiveness is innappropriate while mentioning the longetivity of Roman Empire is of no use in such a discussion on military effectiveness. If anything the last thing that will create and hold together an Empire is an army! The first is politics and the declared will of at least an important part of the "conquered ones" (say the aristocracies) to be part of the Empire. To give you an example, when Rome started winning over Carthage, it had alredy "half of the Mediterranean" (kind of saying) as allies despite its spectacular defeats that normally should frighten everyone (there you understand the real power of politics). When Alexander or Jenkis Han went in Asia they had absolutely no-one: they convinced some only after crushing repeatedly their main enemies.
Hence, the longetivity of an Empire is purely a political matter and has less to do with its partiular effectiveness.
Military effectiveness is measured in "size of army" vs. "size of conquests" vs. "numbers and quality of opponents" vs. "overall time needed for conquests". Another measure in parallel is "numbers and quality of opponents faced" vs. "victories" vs. "defeats".
Now afterall that long prologue I can go on and explain myself on what is the best strategy to make a successful army : that is...Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
... that is very simple: to be fair with your soldiers. It is the common point of both Alexander and Jenkis Han but it is something that was most often missing from the Roman army. However fought alongside Alex or Jenkie made money, and I am talking about serious money. Whoever fought alongside Romans most often had to deal with rewards of the style 1-2 cheap gifts (pillaging was even more intense, 10 times more than what Alexander did but it was fully controlled and went in the pockets of a few Roman aristocrats)... and 1 average woman for every 25 soldiers (sorry for being explicit, these were the realities)... imagine that Macedonian soldiers did not feel even the urge to rape too much, they were so much satisfied with their lifes that they were much more often getting married there than trying to rape local grls (something rarely seen from an invading force)! If anything few Roman leaders had ever claimed to had taken their soldiers from the status of animal skin wearing goatkeepers to raise them to become the ruling class dressed in porphyras.
Jenkis had taken it to another level rewarding people according to achievements and not social/ethnic origins. If you had the skills you had some future there.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
Coming down now to the tactics stuff that obviously interests you more than my above "moral" examples, the army of Alexander, essentially Philip's army had been unique and one-off example.
Philip when he rose in power, the Macedonian kingdom was a shadow of its not very glorious anyway past, having been successfully invaded by everyone and from all sides. The Macedonian army up to then was fighting archaic-style, ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔric style - you found 8-shapes shields and such!!! while that helmet described as "Phrygian helmet" because of its particular conical shape (that reminds us, and reminded then people the Phrygian leather hat) was nothing more than the well known Mycynaean helmet style (found intact as well as presented clearly in drawings). Even worse, this ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔric army was under complete collapse.
Hence, Philip along with a few faithful ones (cos Philip was not a proper king but a vice-roy and ex-hostage in Thebes) like Parmenion they decided to do something out of that desperate situation. They gathered the remnants of Macedonians, gave them the hope of liberation on the basis of building a strong army. Philip and Parmenion knew that the will to get liberated would convince Macedonians to fight hard but that could then not even work against northerner Dardanians that already utilised expertly phalanx warfare even before the feudal-like Macedonians. They needed some plan, a good plan and some expert training.
The Macedonian phalax did not come out of any particular existing tradition but it came out of military research and continuous testing. Philip was a hostage in Thebes during its military heyday and hence he got a taste of the training methods and tactics, especially the famous "unbalanced" Theban phalanx. However, such a phalanx (as well as most other types of phalanxes) demanded increased budget per soldier (only the thorax costed as much as all other weapons together). On the other hand you cannot easily fight a phalanx with archers that do little damage against a bronze clad army or even light-armed peltasts who can be extremely usefull if used as a special force but in no sense as the main military corps.
Hence, the advent of long spears. Equipping the army with long spears, in theory on the one hand you could keep the opponent's phalanx at a greater distance where his spears did no harm, on the other you could do with less protective armour (expensive armours and shields), more simple helmet designs (thus more cheap) etc. etc. What does that mean? That with the same money Thebans equipped 5,000 soldiers Macedonians equipped 20,000!!! The sarissa pike could be produced in mass-production fashion and according to the best standards relatively easily in comparison to other complex weaponry.
However, being something new, it was not certain that it could work. Before using it in battle Philip spent years of training his army on top of the few mountains that rested from what was once the kingdom of Macedonia, reportedly testing different strategies, different lengths for the sarissa (resulting in the 6-7 meters one) and famously taking his army in training marches of 50km per day (explaining why Alexander's army, practically to a large extend the very same men!) could cover easily 30km per day in unknown lands, crossing with all that equipment of theirs unbelievable mountains (that today even climbers fear) and long desserts. Imagine that these very same men went on to fight battle even at the late age of 60 and not only be respectable but actually their team win against an army that beat their side, in practice the only truly unbeatable army ever!Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 28
Posted by romantrip (U13041382) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
The Roman army has created the Roman Empire at the top of the sward.But the Romans were great strategies.they were in able to deny their victory in the name of the security.For example the conquer on the Balkans , then Moesia and Dacia.
When they conquered Moesia they located their legions along the Danub river and put the LIMES. i.e. armed boundary.
Then they built the teritory as the imade of Rome; the very one imagination they had had in their mind.Also they civilized the tribes over there giving them school education on latinian languages.Such way Roman conquered new teritories.
Later they planed another war opperation farer And went to the North, making Dacia .
But there they were face at a danger - no where to put a new defended bondary like a Danub limes, that they could observe.Dacia was another thing - high Mauntaines and wise heath - no where to hide.
So no matter they have already settle themselves on and built that teritory, they go back to the Sauth, behind the old limes of Moesia, that was surely defended
ROMANTRIPLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 29
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
Hi Nik
I see that you are still trying to promote the Macedonians as equals of the Roman army, and ignoring the facts as ever!
Other than beating a weak combined Greek army at Chaironeia Philip hardly had any need for the Macedonian pike phalanxes. He mainly used light infantry and cavalry to cover the distance between Greeks cities quicker than the lumbering heavy infantry.
Most of Philips light infantry and much of his cavalry would probably have been mercenaries anyway.
Alexander was also a great user of mercenaries, it is suggested that over his campaign he used around 60,000 mercenaries. In fact the Alexander hired every mercenary available in the entire eastern Mediterranean.
He was no real fan of his own countrymen either, killing generals and forcing the entire army on to a death march just because they wanted to go home with their vast horde of loot.
Alexander started to replace Macedonians with Iranians in the pike phalanxes, they were just as good without the constant whinging about βcan we go home now?β
He planned to replace all the Macedonian troops with eastern soldiers, and the army that would have returned to Greece would have been in effect a Persian army, if he had lived of course.
Far from being a great army the Macedonian army was good enough to beat Greeks and under Alexander they beat the Persians. Of course if a genius of the calibre of Alexander had commanded an army of Celts they would also have beaten the Persians.
Alexander was the great commander, the Macedonian army was a useful tool for him but pretty mediocre, against the Roman legions without Alexander they were brushed aside.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 30
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
White
Naturally are you right. My mistake.
HasseLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
Englishvote set aside your personal preferences: it will not be me or you that will tell which army was better but pure mathematics:
Alexander enterred Minor Asia leading a 35,000 core army. 11 years later he was in India and China having conquered an enormous area into Asia without even using the sea. His army (keeping always that core of Philip's army reached up to 60,000 using local recruits mainly in the late stages in order to replace the whatever losses). During those 11 years this army had beaten everything that moved on earth fighting from grassalands, to rivers, to tall mountains against highly capable armies - armies whose later fragments gain only so much pain to Romans that presented inferior military capabilities.
Romans on the other hand, went where it did not have many enemies striving to face 1 at a time (i.e. 1 main enemy every 50 years or something!!!) despite having the hugest armie ever of the Mediterranean and one of the biggest armies of pre-19th century history and also in alliance with some 60-70% of aristocracies around the Mediterranean - yes they a sea also to move around. Yet it took them 300 years to expand and set an Empire. Their armies were slow, only a bit trained (you just cannot train expertly 700,000 men otherwise they could easily reach Japan with such an army... them they had it seems problems some 50km-100km more east than the Mediterranean. They rarely liked to climb mountains, go where there were too many foreign armies, leave their place without povisions, without having local alliances etc. etc. 500 years they took it step by step. And good thing they did, that is the correct way of course. However there is not the slightest proof of any military capacity there.
Reminding me the Roman-Greek battles once again you fail to discuss on my points I presented you earlier. So you think that the Macedonian kings were not betrayed by local aristocracies? So why did in 2 consecurive battles the cavalry not intervened? Maybe because they were too much afraid by the... retrieting Romans? Unimaginable. It is more than obvious that the Macedonian army was far better than the Roman one from the mere fact that between 200 B.C. and 148 B.C. final defeat of Macedonia, there passed 50 years where an army of more than 300,000 Romans (that had largely cleared off with Carthagenians) had to fight 1 and only main enemy, the Macedonians that hardly managed 50,000: they had 80% of Macedonians' neighbours to their side plus all the nautical powers like Rhodes while Macedonians had no navy and no allies of any worth. Even neighbouring Thessalians were against them. Yet it took Romans 5 decades (i.e. 5 times the time of the campaign of Alexander), an immense mobilasation, 2 battles won by internal treason within the Macedonian camp and yet they had generals that suffered from psychological traumas... still while they had destroyed the Macedonian kingdom they could not do any better than lose terribly in two more battles by a macedonian army briefly assembled from the remaining bits and parts, obviously because the usurper Andriskus himself did not suffer much from treason and finalyl they had to mobile a vastly superior in numbers army to give an end. Mind you, Roman writers have hidden much of what bashing they had eaten.
... it is largely unimaginable all what you say. Facts like Time and Numbers speak better!Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
I think the nightmares of Flaminius sums it up for everyone that thinks that the Macedonian phalanx was finished-off when Alexander died.
However and since discussion was "polluted" with innaccurate information (as if Alexander's army had not any Macedonian citizens in it and it was all about mercenaries), and since Tas wanted to know more about tactics (that I find of secondary importance when talking about wars and battles) I will have to remind my friend englishvote that Alex's army was essentially the very same men of Philip's army, the very same army that his father 10 years earlier had trained up in Olympus with marches of up to 50km per day and dog-fights and pike-length testing, timing of cavarly attacks etc. etc. Men that might had been 18-20 years old when joined Philip's army, when they continued with Alexander they were at their best fighting age, i.e. around 30. Already seriously battle hardened having beaten the best Greek armies (actually the best equipped/trained armies of the world at the times) and whatever best had Ilyrians and Thraecians to show (two largely warrior cultures), they were ready to take on whatever army at whatever numbers it presented.
Alexander's army was basically the core of the Macedonian kingdom's army. About 35,000 (+5,000 non military ones, specialists, chartographers, technicians and servants) out of which 5,000 cavalry (impressive for a Greek army that rarely had many horses). Half of that was Macedonian the other half obviously of Thessalian origin, at least the horses but then I give you some 2500 Thessalians cavalry men. The army included also 5,000 hoplites from other Greek cities as well as around 3,000 mainly Thraecian mercenaries, mainly peltasts, archers and slingers, many of them from the tribe of Agrianes (that means the wild ones!) who were obviously mainly used for special missions rather than as a core battle unit. That means that around 25,000 soldiers were still Macedonians... and I think there will be nobody who will say it was not them but the others the core part of the army!!! They conquered half the world in 11 years but of course for Englishvote this was not a great army, it was Romans who were losing 50,000 soldiers to Hannibal who had been introduced into strategics by his father who had been briefly trained by second-rate Greek freelance strategists cos Carthagenians alike Romans had not any better armies in the past and thus needed to use huge armies of 300,000 or more soldiers to enter Sicily but were bashed off by a Syracusean army at maximum 1/3 smaller than theirs. Unimaginable.
Now that macedonian army was the first specifically trained to combined arms warfare army utilising much more complex techniques than the "march forward" thingie we think of hoplites holding pikes. In fact, that "supposedly slow" phalanx was not that slow: men were trained to change direction in seconds, to change density, to change angle of pikes when receiving arrows and other missiles as well as to leave the pike and take out the sword and fight - it is just that they would not need much of that... however do not think that for all those sieges Alex "hired per day" locals! It was Macedonian phalanx men that carried them out showing the high versatility of that specific army. Name your best Roman legion and it will be lightyears behind that performance. Just think of how many battles and what types of enemies did they fight?Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Tas regarding that famous river battle along the river Hydaspis against Poros a local Indian king, the story is really interesting. But first you have to put things in context. The Greek army had 3,5 years before (do not remember exactly now) finished with the Persian Empire, the main opponent. Men had already their names "in history", their "bank accounts" were already filled, from goat-keepers they had already become the porphyra-clad higher-caste of Asia, the most rich continent in the world (to tell things in their name), they felt really on the top of the world.
However instead of enjoying their success they were dragged for the following 3 years into a seemingly endless struggle against rebels in the eastern borders - the intermediate regions of Afganistan not being certainly so rich and developed as Middle East, we are talking about the Afganistan mountaines inhabited by the very same tough Perso-Pakistano-Afganis USSR and US soldiers fought recently, and Greeks back then did not have the luxuries of helicopters and massive chemical bombing (that both USSR and US carried out when "necessary"): they had to do it by marching (put there your Romans and I tell you!).
And that was the real value of that army, that even having won so much, it was never so "weakened" but its own success and the riches it had won and it still fought well against so numerous and so tough enemies in a guerilla type of warfare against which it was not used at all despite the fact that it had little to nothing to win out of that apart protecting the eastern borders of the Empire that their leader wanted to create.
And naturally to fight off guerillas the soldiers became very tough (thus orders for burning revolting cities and massacring population would be willngfuly carried out - I bet) - there is the basis for those who believe Alexander was a slayer. Well yes but it is funny to accuse Alex of such when we keep forgetting (even Indians) that a colonial power let 20,000,000 people die of hunger to sell grains more expensively in Europe (cos that was happening in India just 100 years back). 10 Alexanders attacking would be more welcome than this disgusting attack!
However, if anything in the end that army - I repeat, the army that had already gained the top place of the world - was one of the very few armies that in only 2-3 years cleared of that mountainous area of Afganistan and placed some order according to the wished of its leader when "others" would need some 200-300 years and 80% of local aristocracy with them while waiting for reinforces...
And there this army arrives in the doors of India, that was practically a collection of quite rich kingdoms, some very rich, very populated, in fact too much populated for even Middle Eastern standards, let alone Greek ones. Poros in fact had been king in a relatively smaller kingdom. However, the right mix of constant warfare among Indian kingdoms, the high culture and the riches flying around between these countries meant that these guys had developed very capable armies and well armed ones. It is known that Greeks were quite impressed by the army of Poros no matter if it had been smaller than theirs. Also, the Indian army had elephants (and well fed ones and with expert trainers on them, not the few hungry cold poor animals suffering of flu that Hannibal dragged along him in the Alpes). Let alone that "others" would certainly lose a battle with fewer new things for them to face than what the Greeks faced there.
It is true that Alexander had moved there with him an army of more than 60,000 soldiers while Poros' whole army was half of it. However in the battle Alexander was with half of it (around 35,000) while Poros was with his best 25,000, cool, not so pressed to attack but kept his nice position on the other side of the river, therefore the pressure was on the Greek side that could not exploit their somewhat numerical superiority. Moreover the Greek army was barely Greek since by then most were local recruits of unknown quality and/or compatibility of training, let alone talk about motivation. There was a maximum of 20,000 Greeks (high maximum of 1 in 3) remaining from the original campaign (10 years older, most of them by then reaching the age of 40-45... imagine that these were the very same guys trained at the slopes of Olympus some 6000km away 20 years back by Philip, ...then still an ex-hostage and vice-king of a failed state!!! One has just to count their path till there - talking about military achievements anymore? I'd rather talk about mythical achievements. Howeber, Poros and his Indians were very cool guys and not at all afraid of those westerners that came from far no matter if they were considered defeatless. Hence they clung to the other side of the river moving up and down each time Greeks tried to cross it, and then they had along some 200 elephants to cater for keeping the Greek cavalry away from the Indian infantry and if possible to attack the macedonian phalanx - a charge of heavily armoured elephants being one obvious solution to reaking the long pikes of the phalanx and disarranging the lines. And when Alexander managed to pass on some cavalry to the other side that is exactly what had happened:
The cavalry gave some space to the rest of the Greek army to cross (though not all of the army managed to cross on time - thus the numerical superiority was not much of use for most of the battle during which Indians had the main advantage - and exploiting it proficiently - note that Indians also fought for the first time against a hoplite-style army (and the best ever one!), that is a proof of their fighting capacities. Alex there used another trick seing that his cavalry was not able to cause any trouble to the elephant-armed enemy (horses kept distances from elephants, it was not just 1 but more than 200) and thus he chose to sent first the Persian horse archers to provoke the enemy to move and then sent the phalanxes and light-infantry to sort out the difficult task of clearing the elephant and the mass of Indian soldiers behind them - a practically impossible task since the 200 elephants would just break completely the Greek lines... in anyway it is not difficult to predict the end result, chaos, elephants marching over soldiers and crushing them, killing 1 elephant meant some 10-20 men killed below it (often Indians also). Epic battle on an epic scale, at the end Alexander had lost 8,000 Asian light infantry, 4,000 Macedonian phalanx men, and only a handful of cavalry that largely wathced the battle, but in exchange they had killed an equal number of Indians (12,000) and taken prisoners the rest of 10,000 men, proving that phalanx-men knew how to fight without their sarissas and just next to elephants.
That was a special battle since rarely armies fought by Greek armies ended in such a bloodshed (phalanx style is harsh, very harsh but in fact ends up in battles with fewer dead), and it was a special battle fought by two excellent armies, proficiently equipped and with highly developed tactics led by excellent leaders and generals, yet it ended up in pure slaughter, to the extend that it disgusted so much Greek soldiers that they refused to continue when they learnt that Poros was just a king of a rich but rather smaller kingdom of the area while there were other kingdoms next to his that had not 25,000 soldiers, 1000 chariots and 200 elephants but each of them around 200,000 soldiers, 5,000 elephants and 10s of thousands of cavalry and chariots. Following such an epic battle against the former army and listening to the sizes of these eastern kingdoms really is quite an argument and it was enough to make people say "make love not war".
And that is what is amasing of that army. They said no after the battle, but were there t ofight it: they could as well stand back and leave during it, perhaps it was just that these guys are one of the very few humans ever (or they only ones) that had passed to the sphere of myth even when they were alive, even before that battle! Note that 20 years later (40 years after Philip's training courses on the Olymp!!!!) these guys ("argyraspides", the special forces) were around 60-65 years old and still fighting battles so proficiently to win their part in a battle where their side had lost against another Greek army!!!
Ok... I mean if we say that army was average then I wonder what garbage bin do I have to open to throw in the whole Roman army from 600B.C. to 400 A.D.?Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 34
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your complete account. I had read a little about it in my lessons in Indian Classical History.
Just when Alexander invaded Western India there was the Indian Empire of 'Magadha' to the East and it was a big Empire. Apparently Alexander wanted to invade that Empire, probably regarding it as a worthy opponent. However, just about then, his soldiers insisted that they wanted to go home; they had had enough of conquests.
As far as I can recall from my history lesson, Paros was not a minor King and Paros' army was larger than Alexander's; perhaps an Indian exaggeration, and he had a large elephant corp that he fielded, just as you say.
The interesting point of the story for me was the interesting behaviour of the two commanders as one confronted the other, one as prisoner and one as master.
The response that Alex gave marked him as far above the average conqueror, and that has increased his esteem in my eyes.
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 35
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
How many of Alexanderβs troops dated back to Philips initial army is of course open to debate. But looking at some of the dates and numbers involved the number must be small.
In 353 BC Philip of Macedon was defeated by the Phokians under Onomarchos, how many of these Macedonian troops who ran from the battle survived to fight against Thebes and Athens 15 years later at Chaironeia in 338 BC?
By the time of Hydaspes in 326 BC and after crossing the entire Persian Empire, just how many would have been left of the original troops trained by Philip? Not many I would suggest.
In any event large numbers of reinforcement came from Macedonia and Greece throughout Alexanderβs campaign, and even more troops were recruited locally. Troops were constantly being garrisoned in areas to control them and given grants of land, thus reducing the number of ethnic Greeks and Macedonians in the army.
Iranians were serving in the elite Campanion cavalry regiments and Scythian horse archers were almost certainly mercenaries, as they had been under the Persians before. As I said before I have seen the figure of 60,000 mercenaries serving with Alexander, in total of course and not all at one time!
After Hydaspes large numbers of Indians served in the Macedonian army, which of course by now was Macedonian in name only.
After leaving India Alexander increased the number of Persians in his army, probably because he lost the services of the Indian troops and he had lost any faith in the Macedonian troops.
In 324 BC 30,000 troops were recruited in Persia to fight as Macedonian style pike men, they were called the βinheritorsβ for obvious reasons.
Later another 20,000 Persians were given to Alexander and he tried to mix them within the Macedonian phalanx to give it more firepower, he obviously noticed the intrinsic weakness of the pike phalanx.
By the time of Alexanderβs death the so called βMacedonianβ army was anything but. Its best troops were now Persian.
By the way according to most sources Alexanderβs losses at Hydaspes were pretty low at around 1,000 in total, cavalry and infantry combined.
The Indian army was no real match for Alexander, but the elephants did pose a problem to friend and enemy alike.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
englishvote you want to speak about history and then you say such jokes as "ethnic greeks and macedonians". Macedonians were merely a Greek tribe. The kingdom of Macedonia was the result of the union of earlier smaller kingdoms. Macedonians were the tribe out of which Dorians split and descended conquering the falling Mycenaean kingdoms. Macedonians retained even to later times than Alexander, archaic customs making them more Greek than any other Greek. Hence I cannot have you hear trying to talk history and not being able to realise that if Macedonians were not Greek, at least the likes of Persians and Indians would have noticed it, at least the 1000s of writings we found here and there would be in another language... The day you come to me and show to me a single, one, una, ein, une, ena word of that hypothetic Macedonian language I will agree with you. Till that time (and that will be in another, fantasy world) let me by-pass anyone that tries to speak history and is not capable of grasping the basics.
Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Are you sure, Nik? Even contemporary commentators went to great lengths to specify "macedonian" over "greek". Can you give us even one contemporary or near-contemporary comment that identifies macedonian as just another bit of greek?
No?
I thought not.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 38
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Now considering how many soldiers could be there out of the initial Philip's army I bet they were many and while 2/3 of the army were by then local recruitments, most certainly it was not an almost Persian army there, otherwise the revolt of "macedonian soldiers" would not had taken place and Alexander would not had called for an army council (such a greek custom! amazing! there! at the top of the world!) in order to make a speech to convince them like a proper Greek king who (while having sat on the top throne of the world) was not much more highly above and not more respectable than even the last of these soldiers... if it was mostly Persians that revolted he would had had them killed.
Now during the battle, had Alexander's losses been only 1000 men, i.e. the average losses for a harsh battle between armies of 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers out of which 1 fights hoplite style (dense formations etc.) means that soldiers would not had had such a bad time against Indians thus if they had revolted they would had revolted for another reason and not out of "being disgusted with all that slaughter" - and Alexander would not had been so admiratif of the capacities of Poros.
While I am not pretending here to know the exact losses I think the numbers of 10-12,000 dead men are rational as they account for the 1/2 of each of the two armies and for some 1/5th of the total Alexander's army at those times.
Of course you are entitled to have your own opinion about the fighting capacities of Indians, permit me to have a different view. Out of the very few things I know about Indians is that they are one of the oldest (if not the oldest) advanced cultures and they were living just next to warrior cultures like the Afgani and Turkic tribes (the real ones), not to mention the continuous wars among the Indian kingdoms. That environment should had created some very capable armies. I think in the bharanas (or how it is called, indian mythology) it gives some brief descriptions of some complex army tactics. In any way India was always a very rich place, one of the places to be in the ancient world, it hosted extremely populated and extremely rich kingdoms and perhaps the only reason that these kingdoms did not expand to the east and to the north was that they had no reason to do so, especially if they were in continuous war with each other. 99% of Greek states did not even try to expand 1 km out of their territory, that does not mean that their armies were all crap - not thinking of course that all Greek states had good armies anyway.
But Alexander's army was top of the top (and yes its phalanx had its weak points but certainly these were not revealed by Romans otherwise with their massive army they would had needed much less than 50 years, 2 treasons in 2 battles, even the Thessalians as allies to win over them and then other 3 battles to press down "a rebellion" in order to completely conquer them). And since Alexander's army was top of the top, the fact that Poros and his army could give such a resistance says a lot about the capacities of Indian armies of the time. And if Poros kingdom was just a border kiggdom between the eastern (most often loosely controlled and a bit more barbaric) borders of Persian kingdom and the western Indian kingdoms and not any Maghada kingdom with 10 times the ressources of Poros, that says a lot about the military capacity of Indians and why Macedonian soldiers convinced their leader not to proceed to such a movement - good thing they did.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 39
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
What amazes me is that you seem to ignore the most blatant things like that 300 years after Alexander, as far as India ALL the kingdoms created by Macedonians still spoke Greek (and do not tell me that it was southern Greeks only that went there and colonised or that it was Macedonian noble men learning foreign languages... how many of them existed anyway?)... hence you have the weird phenomenon that a non-Greek tribe conquers the whole known world but manages in 10 years to lose to Greeks it had just won over and get vanished from the face of the earth not leaving a single word of its own language.
Nordmann whom "contemporary" you trust? Demosthenis? Or perhaps Roman writers who wrote 300 years later? Get serious. We are talking about history no Cosmopolitan here!
50 years earlier than Demosthenis ALL Athenians considered Macedonians as rural Greeks and thus applauded comedies entitled "Macedonians" that made jokes about how bad was the accent of Macedonians and these comedies had everyday people not kings or something. Now can you imagine that these Macedonians were any foreigners?
Or Roman writers? Who hated Macedonians and had a love-hate relationship with Alexander (and thus all the lies about his persona...)?
You want to know about Macedonian language, please, go read the katadesmos and then come back for more.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 40
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
The Pella Katatdesmos, if accurately dated, demonstrates what had already been deduced - that a crude version of Doric Greek was being used in Macedonia in the 5th to 3rd centuries BC as the preferred medium for inscription. This was later replaced by Koine. It therefore raises more questions than it answers. While indicating a preference for Greek amongst the literate it fails to contribute to an understanding of Macedonian etymology as evidenced by reference to placenames and personal names which cannot be associated with Greek. In other words it confirms a gradual subsumation of Macedonia into the Greek cultural sphere but explains nothing about its people's identity or sense of origin.
That Alexander used Greek is a given. That his army used Greek as their lingua franca is also a given. It is therefore no surprise at all to find that his conquest left Greek speaking communities in its wake.
That Alexander's reign was typified by concerted efforts on the part of the Greeks (first Spartan-led, and then Athenian-led) to extricate themselves from what they regarded as foreign domination is also a given. And never once were the Macedonian overlords referred to as "country cousins" or even "Greek" by the protaganists, unless of course you've found something that two and a half thousand years of historical analysis has failed to uncover hitherto.
So now Nik, let's see that source you have found which demonstrates that the Greeks regarded the Macedonians as "rural Greeks".
It's a bit like calling the modern day USA "rural English", isn't it?Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 41
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Honestly, Nordmann what placenames are you talking about? Regions like Aridaia or Eordaia or cities like Pella or Argos Orestikon (a city older than the Argos in Peloponesus anyway!) or... mountain Olympus (you know... Zeus the thunderer!?) sound too un-Greek for you? Unimaginable! I mean no Greek ever saw the fact that just north of Olympus (including this holy mountain) live foreigners? Only professional liar Demosthenis saw it and it took him 3 speeches against Philip (not so much Macedonians as a nation) to half-convince Athenians (from which 35%-45% wanted Philip to unite all Greeks - nice! a barbarian perhaps?) with accusations of the like "he drinks, he has 80 women, he speaks Greek badly... in comparison to the Attic accent that was never the most correct Greek dialect anyway other wise we would call "Thalassa" "Thalatta" today... so much for Athenian navy anyway....
Yourself admit that the Macedonian language between 5th and 3rd century was a crude Dorian (whatever crude is for you, for me its a more original version of Dorian taking for granted that the most obvious origin of Dorians are Macedonians as admitted by both Macedonians and Dorian Argives in Peloponesus). And it is a fact that the katadesmos is in coherence with any other finding we find on Macedonian dialect and pronounciation like that funny Athenian comedy "Makedones" where the Macedonian villager (and not any "foreign-languages learning nobleman" speaks with the same Dorian-like (with hints of Aeolian) dialect.
Then you speak about "Koini" and you say that Macedonians were hellenised gradually... now that is weird! I mean if they were gradually hellenised why then they had to pass first from a crude form of Dorian while they were not neighbours of any particular Dorian but of Aeolian Thessalians and Athenian colonies (I do not refer to Epirotes cos I doubt you would have any clue anyway).
1+1=2 Nordmann. You realise the things you mention just do not make sense. You views are more based on whatever political agendas rather than real history. If you do not like Macedonians speaking for themselves then at least show some respect for the intellect of Persians who wrote that Macedonians were Greeks and who used their king as an ambassador to Greeks in order to use "a Greek king" to speak to "other Greeks". I mean so idiots were the Persians or so blind? Trust me had they sent a barbarian or even a Greek king ruling over barbarians pretending to "be Greek", Alexander the I (who was a king of a poor failed state) would be killed instantly before managing to commence his speech. 10 years earlier Athenians had killed Persian ambassadors for insisting - while being barbarians - in speaking Greek... 1+1=2.
It is funny that 2 centuries later (and so much about koini language) Macedonian kings strived to built alliances with Aetolians on the basis of common origins, dialect and customs. Hmmm..; Aetolia is just 100km diagonally south of Macedona (2-3 days walk distance!). Were Aetolians so deaf or blind or never got our of their perimeter? 2+2=4. You realise that ccording to your weird theories we have to consider Aetolians as barbarians also.
5+5=10 and 9/3=3. Isn't it more convenient to stay to the facts than say whatever?Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 42
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Speaking of sticking to facts, Nik - where's that source I asked you for?
That Macedonia and Doric Greece overlapped culturally in the centuries before the period we are talking about is not a surprise given their proximity. One would even expect some ethnic overlap, though the assertion that the Macedonians were in their entirety a proto-hellenic people is not based on observation of evidence.
That Greece, as a collective of states united by a common tongue and several centuries of political integration, often violent, regarded Macedonia as outside the definition is however supported by their own accounts.
You sidestep important criticisms of your assertions and stick to repeating those assertions at length. No one can deny that Macedonia insinuated itself rather dramatically into the Greek world at a point in its history, but to use evidences from that period to back-date Greek hegemony over Macedonia smacks more of modern Greek political motives than a desire to get at the historical truth - which is a people on the perceived periphery of the Greek world, influenced by that world, and eventually subsumed into it. But never part of "the gang" as it were - in their own eyes or in the eyes of contemporary Greeks. Assertions to the contrary require something more than a third century BC Doric curse to substantiate them. The last thing they need are to be "supported" by even more unsubstantiable assertions posing as deductions from evidence.
Now, maybe you'll provide that source I asked you about?Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 43
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Ee? Is it me that speak without facts? I told you the katadesmos and you could only admit that indeed it shows Macedonians spoke a Dorian-like Greek dialect. So? What beyond that fact?
So you keep refering to 1-2 writers/rehtors that did not consider Macedonians as Greeks - I suppose the likes of Demosthenis? And I answer by laughing of course because that is no serious discussion. I only need to mention that the - besides that - rather more serious Thoukidides had a general dislike for Aetolians and Akarnanians and a special contempt for Eyrytaneans and while he was speaking derogatory for the former, he was asking that the latter "be taken out of the notion of Greek nation" on the basis of having crude manners, no culture and speaking Greek badly (sounds familiar?). I mean the very guys that habitated next to te Delphi...!!! If we make the list of states accused of being "barbarians" it is endless and it includes of course the likes of Athens also!!! I mean it is highly ridiculous to even talk about such things. Of course for you it is more convenient to remain to propagandist Roman or Romanophile writers with a particular agenda to write against Macedonia and write more about compliant cities like Athenians, Rhodes or Pergamon that by no means were any definition of what is Greek or not so we reached the sad point today thinking that Greek culture started ad ended with Athens (Athens gave birth only to theater, nothing else - it was not even the biggest or strongest and never the most important Greek state).
I only need to mention to you the words "Olympus" and you avoid even to discuss the obvious lack of reference on barbarians habitating around the mountain. Perhaps 1 reference from Thessalians who most often were enemies of Macedonians but largely failed to enter that propaganda. Perhaps a reference from Spartans that allied with Macedonians? Did they consider them as "barbarian allies"? Perhaps a reference from Euripides, was he hosted in a barbarian state? When he was organising theatrical plays in front of 10,000 people in Macedonia did he have subtitles? Or Macedonia had indeed 10,000 noble-men that wanted to be hellenised or indeed even Macedonian middle-men did foreign languages courses? Unbelievable!
The truth is that the history of this place is one of the best monitored if not the best monitored history in the world. There are no grey points. It is clear that Macedonians were as any Greek as any other and that was clear to everybody from Greece to Persia and India!!! Only guys that failed to see was Demosthenis who like Thoykidides asked Eurytaneans out he asked them to be out as if to be Greek was some short of Pemier League and Romans who obviously imitated better the Attic accent than Macedonians for the very simple reason that Romans learnt it with teachers as a foreign languages and thus them barbarians were more popular among the losers Athenians than Macedonians who gathered the envy of the whole Greek world.
I will be waiting for that fantasy language that is attributed to Macedonians. Obviously eternally...Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 44
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
More assertions, Nik. Greeks giving Greek names to places and people outside of Greece proves nothing.
Now, that source please? After all, most of your assertions depend on it. You must know what it is.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
hehe, and what exactly assertions you refer to? Do you imply that Macedonians had other names for themselves and their cities and that "others" later changed them? Because that is a new thing for me! Haha!
I gave you already one source (and what a source!), the katadesmos. You failed to comment (or obviously do not want to comment). I asked you to name 1-2 writers that considered Macedonians as non-Greek and also asked you if you consider also as non-greek the Olympus-based gods, the Eurytaneans or the Aetolians along with the Delphi and so on...
you just have no idea to what idiocy you are letting yourself into... this is no history you present but whatever bulls' waste.
Keeping to the facts: we dig western India and China and find only Greek. Till the time you come to me with hard facts that there existed another language and another culture there and another people there is no point to try to say anything else. However as you know I will always respond when I see "whatever" enterring a history discussion, no problem, and take it easy - no hard feelings!
PS: You can as well go to south FYROM where local archaiologists have a hard time, there are too many Greek writings and they cannot scratch them off all, they need some help! If not you can as well join other Slavic historians who did the following:
In Macedonia we have found several 1000s of (I think only 20 years ago there were gound some 30,000 graves or something dating from late archaic times - at a time when Pella was getting organised as a city - to post-Alexander dates. All the names identified were Greek. And these were common people graves. However some graves had their names erased through time. so slavic historians said that these erased names were the true Macedonians... the others being the hellenised ones...
... I mean with that logic you cannot say anything more... you just sit down and admire the stupidity that always overcome the logic and science.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 46
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
... and of course all those Macedonians that went to India and western china and some even progresses further into India and left behind them only Greek and nothing else... for you like for FYROMians they were all foreign language learning noble-men Macedonians no commoner Macedonians there!!!
I mean how many noble men did Macedonia have at last? 50,000s? I wonder if there was any commoner living in Macedonia anyway? Perhaps they were all noble-men!!! Hahahaha... aaaaaaaaaamammmazing!!!Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 47
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Last time I ask this, Nik.
You alluded to a source upon which you based your assertion that the Greeks, in the time before the rise of Macedonia as a power in the region, regarded Macedonians as "rural Greeks". Who said this and in what context?
If you can't answer this simple request then your entire argument is worthless beyond its value as hypothesis, and that value appears to me to be one appreciated only in a modern context where the ethnicity of Macedonians has become a political issue the discussion of which leads to wild unsubstantiated assertions on both sides of the debate. If that is your agenda too then you are on the wrong messageboard.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 48
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Hi Nik
Now during the battle, had Alexander's losses been only 1000 men, i.e. the average losses for a harsh battle between armies of 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers out
Μύ
Average loses for a battle? Just where are you getting this from Nik? Average losses for the loser was normally huge and very light for the winner, unless of course the winner was Pyrrhos. But even Pyrrhos did not managed to lose 12,000 men in his βPyrrhicβ victories.
If your sources are correct then it does not reflect well on Alexanderβs qualities as a leader of the strength of Macedonian arms.
I prefer Arrian as a source, I have no idea which sources you subscribe to.
Arrian Book 5 chapter 18
βOf Alexanderβs forces, about 80 of the 6,000 foot-soldiers who were engaged in the first attack were killed,; 10 of the horse-archers, who were also the first to engage in the action; about 20 of the Companion cavalry, and about 200 of the other horsemen fell.β
Not my translation of course, it is from .
More modern speculation of the battle tends to give figures of around 1,000 Macedonian casualties. Of course wikipedia, that well known oracle of truth much similar to the temple of Delphi in regards to speculation, does indeed quote 12,000 Macedonian casualties.
Of course you are entitled to have your own opinion about the fighting capacities of Indians, permit me to have a different view
Μύ
I do not have a view one way or the other on Indian fighting capabilities, and I never suggested anything of the sort. I leave it to you to assign numerical ordering of fighting capabilities. Greeks 1st class, Dacians 3rd class warriorsβ¦β¦..utter tosh!
What I did say was that the Indian army (at Hydaspes) was no match for Alexander. The fact that Indian had a long and proud culture and history is completely irrelevant, the same way that the Chinese army was no match for the Japanese during the 1930βs is no reflection of the quality of Chinas history or culture.
But Alexander's army was top of the top (and yes its phalanx had its weak points but certainly these were not revealed by Romans otherwise with their massive army they would had needed much less than 50 years, 2 treasons in 2 battles
Μύ
Alexander was a genius on the battlefield, the Macedonian army was good but needed mercenaries and Greek and Persian quality troops to make it a great tool for the aspirations of Alexander. Take away Alexander and the Macedonian army is just a run of the mill Hellenistic army.
You again mention treason for the defeats against Rome, but we have discussed this before and there is no evidence of treason, just a better Roman army defeating the Macedonians every time they met in battle.
In the major battles fought between Rome and Macedonian, all of which resulted in Roman victory, the Macedonians had more men in their army, and still lost!
The Legion was just better than the pike phalanx, whether it was a Macedonian pike Phalanx or a Seleucid pike phalanx, the Roman legion was better because it was more flexible.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 49
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Hi Nordmann, Hi Nick,
I read your entire interesting debate.
I just want to ask a question that has bothered me ever since my early classical Indian history classes. Perhaps you know the answer, it is not a very tough question, probably just shows my ignorance:
I think the Parthians were the descendants of Alexander in Western Asia. Who were the Parthians and how did they come about?
Another question: Do you know where the Macedonia of the period of Philip and Alexander was geographically located? There is I believe a Greek province called Macedonia and also a part of the old Yugoslav federation called Macedonia; which is the real Macedonia?
I met a proud Macedonian a long time ago in Toronto; he was the owner of a Restaurant. It never occurred to me to ask him then.
TasLink to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
-
Message 50
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
English vote, I am not here to magnify the qualities of Alexander, neither those of Philip. However when you tell me things like the macedonian army was a run of the mills and that is was Alexander that made it great I have to laugh. I mean Alexander had a prΓͺt-Γ -porter army made by his father and a dream-team of generals and higher officials like Parmenion, Ptolemey, Crateros and so on... Alexander was never a general, he was a leader. Yes he provided the right leadership of course but it was not him that made great battles.
The average of 1000 dead men comes out of the mere fact that phalanx style of warfare too often ended in harsh battles but with fewer especially for the victorius side - do I need to explain why (dense formations, 2st two lines bearing the trouble, those in tha back only pushing etc.). That was a general observation. I think that if only 1000 men died during that battle, macedonian soldiers would not even discuss about it, they had lost for example 3000 men during battles with Persian generals here and there like some years back with Ario Barzan (the Persian Thermopyles?).
The fact that Alexander always won at the end does not mean he was doing it easy all the times - and the battle of Hydaspes was much harsher than the 3000 dead against Ario Barzan. Hence the final reaction of soldiers when they heard that Alexander wanted to proceed further against the Nanda empire despite having faced so much trouble with just a rich and well organised maybe but still a smaller border Indian kingdom. The higher numbers come from Diodorus I think, though I agree with you that Arrian generally is more reliable - still he wrote 2 centuries after the events so he could have jsut used the wrong detail or since he liked so much Alexander he might had preferred the lower estimate or the estimate that includes only the losses among the Greeks and not the local mercenaries.
However permit me to have a higher estimate for Alexander's losses and I am not interested at all if that is "lowering" his or his army's capacity. In fact, it does not, quite the opposite, it just shows how capable and reactive was that army against such an organised army, that of king Poros.
And yes, while it is not exactly appropriate to divide armies into 1st class, 2nd class it is 100% valid to say that the often unorganised Gauls and Dacians that Romans fought (and often found so difficult and needed 150,000 soldiers to proceed 10km into enemy ground) did not have as good armies as the civilised and organised Indian kingdoms had who had armies that were 100% a match for anyone's army, including that of Alexander. The fact that they lost in that battle means little as they lost in the details - them also fighting for the first time such a type of army.Link to this forum: Does anyone know what were the main Roman tactics?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.