Battle Scenarios

[Legionnaire]

Try this: one poster posts a fictional battle scenario, including details about troops, landscape, time of day, location, enemy, and era. The next poster describes how he/she would command the Roman soldiers in battle, and, after responding, creates a new confrontation.

 

I thought this would be a great idea to test and gain knowledge about battle tactics and the Roman army throughout Roman history.

 

Let's begin with a fairly easy one.

 

It is the fourth century BC, and a Roman legion, with a cavalry force of 300 men, has encountered an equally sized Samnite contingent on a flat field flanked by hills covered with a light forest. It is early morning, the field is still damp with dew, and the sun is rising. The Samnites are approaching from the east, with the sun at the backs; you and your legion are facing the sun. The location is in territory between the two nations, therefore giving no one combatant any advantage in terms of support. What would you do?

 

Enjoy,

 

Legionnaire

[Furius Venator]

Form line of battle and drive straight at 'em. Not very elaborate but it worked for the Romans very well...

 

I might wait till later in the day to avoid the disadvantage of the sun in my troops face but not if the enemy looked like withdrawing, or indeed if they looked like doing anything other than standing still.

[Gaius Octavius]

It depends on what you mean by support. Do you mean more troopers instantly? I'll assume not.

Furius is probably right. But the Samnites were a testy lot. So, assuming that the legion consisted of 3,000 men and the hills were north and south and about a mile apart, I would divide the legion equally and occupy the opposing hills. The Samnites could: 1. Do nothing. 2. divide their forces, and attack each hill. Or. 3. attack one hill.

In either event they would be at a disadvantage. In: 1. they are potentially flanked. 2. they are going up hill and attacking fortifications. 3. They expose their rear.

I would not wait until the sun was high but only until the dew was dried off and then attack from two directions, holding my cavalry in reserve unless my flanks were attacked by the enemy's.

But first I would check the Sacred Chickens and pay attention.

[Furius Venator]

I understand your thinking Gaius but I think dividing your forces in the face of the enemy is pretty much a cardinal sin unless you have very very good reason to do so. You risk being defeated in detail rather than flanking your opponent.

 

Also in the 4th century BC, the Romans were a lot less flexible than they were later on IIRC they were not too far vremoved from the hoplite era at that stage.

[Gaius Octavius]

I understand your thinking Gaius but I think dividing your forces in the face of the enemy is pretty much a cardinal sin unless you have very very good reason to do so. You risk being defeated in detail rather than flanking your opponent.

 

Also in the 4th century BC, the Romans were a lot less flexible than they were later on IIRC they were not too far vremoved from the hoplite era at that stage.

 

I agree very much with you, Furius. But then the question was 'What would I do?". Dividing ones forces is not always a blunder. When one attacks a fortified position, the number of attackers might have to be 10:1 or so. In any case, they would have to outnumber the defenders, who have not climbed a hill. If a smaller force were left in the plain, the Romans, from the opposite hill could deal with it. If the entire Samnite force attacked one hill, they would have their backs to the Romans from the other hill.

My object is not to attack the enemy, but to get him to attack me.

Remember the Alamo and Monte Casino. Caesar actually did divide his forces at Alesia by constructing the double vallum surrounding the hill.

Keep your objections up and we will get at the Sabine women soon.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Legionnaire]

Remember, there are cavalry as well. Perhaps the best option would be to use the hills to outflank the Samnites with a combination of cavalry and infantry. Considering the tenacity and ferocity of the Samnites, perhaps a full frontal charge would not be as effective. If I were the commander, I would use the classic tactic used by the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon: by placing the weakest soldiers at the centre of the formation, the Greeks were able to draw the Persians into the midst of their army and attack them from the flanks. In between the hills, a similar strategy could work; by placing soldiers on the hill, the number of soldiers in the field is reduced, and therefore, the centre of the formation is weaker. As the Samnites and Romans clash, the larger Samnite force would gradually drive the Romans backward. This would expose the Samnite flanks to cavalry and infantry attacks from the hill.

[Gaius Octavius]

Remember, there are cavalry as well. Perhaps the best option would be to use the hills to outflank the Samnites with a combination of cavalry and infantry. Considering the tenacity and ferocity of the Samnites, perhaps a full frontal charge would not be as effective. If I were the commander, I would use the classic tactic used by the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon: by placing the weakest soldiers at the centre of the formation, the Greeks were able to draw the Persians into the midst of their army and attack them from the flanks. In between the hills, a similar strategy could work; by placing soldiers on the hill, the number of soldiers in the field is reduced, and therefore, the centre of the formation is weaker. As the Samnites and Romans clash, the larger Samnite force would gradually drive the Romans backward. This would expose the Samnite flanks to cavalry and infantry attacks from the hill.

 

Sounds very much like my battle plan except for the center. I did consider the cavalry.

Maybe Hannibal got and used your related idea at Cannae.

[Germanicus]

If I were a Samnite general and I saw you dividing your forces, I'd hasten to one hill with my entire force immediately.

[Gaius Octavius]

If I were a Samnite general and I saw you dividing your forces, I'd hasten to one hill with my entire force immediately.

 

That is assuming that you beat me to the hill. If I saw you beating me, I would bait you to get there, but never engage you. Once you were at the top, I would re-group and surround you at a short distance off from the bottom. I would set up my forces in three groups with pickets between and scouts at your door step. You have three days worth of supplies at most and cannot be re-supplied as my cavalry will make short work on any attempts. I can be re supplied. I can 'see' you. I have no intention of attacking you. You must do something. Time is on my side now. The longer you stay, the weaker you become. You are concentrated but cannot exit your position in a mass from a 'lightly' wooded hill and keep your organization. You would be subject to frontal feint and flank attack.

 

Your turn.

[caldrail]

I would want to have my cavalry attack the rear or flanks at least, with the intention of breaking up their advance rather than a head-on melee. After that, go get 'em boys. Nice and simple.

[Germanicus]

That is assuming that you beat me to the hill. If I saw you beating me, I would bait you to get there, but never engage you. Once you were at the top, I would re-group and surround you at a short distance off from the bottom. I would set up my forces in three groups with pickets between and scouts at your door step. You have three days worth of supplies at most and cannot be re-supplied as my cavalry will make short work on any attempts. I can be re supplied. I can 'see' you. I have no intention of attacking you. You must do something. Time is on my side now. The longer you stay, the weaker you become. You are concentrated but cannot exit your position in a mass from a 'lightly' wooded hill and keep your organization. You would be subject to frontal feint and flank attack.

 

Your turn.

 

 

I wouldn't have even begun to move my force until your already divided one was separated by at least 200 yards. Needless to say, I'd attack you as soon as either force made a move to meet up with the other. The hill was never my objective - attacking half your force was.

[Legionnaire]

Gaius,

 

I did like your thinking, so I expanded on it. Formations similar to the one used at Marathon have been used successfully so many times throughout history, such as at the Battle of Cannae.

 

 

Germanicus,

 

If you did attack my divided forces with your entire army, that would be a good strategy. However, you would expose your flank to attack by the other two Roman forces. Another however: these forces would be storming uphill. So your strategy might work, unless I was able to intercept your forces towards the bottom of the hill, striking with all three units - that is what I would try to do. Gaius Octavius' strategy of surrounding the hill could work as an effective counter but the Samnites still have the advantage of height.

[Furius Venator]

I doubt tyhe legion of that era is flexible enough to divide as you suggest.

 

Other than Scipio at Ilipa, can anyone recall fancy tactics employed by the legions? I can't (though that's not to say there aren't any).

 

Whilst the later legions were quite flexible in their formations, that seems to have been used to aid reinforcement of the line and so on rather than fancy flanking.

 

Form them up and leave them to it generally worked very well for the Romans, attempts to tinker (eg Cannae possibly) generally didn't work out too well. The better Roman commanders used their reserves well, the superb ones (eg Caesar at Pharsalus) used there reserves in unexpected ways. But Roman infantry could be trusted to break almost any foe in head on collision (Hannibals centre was destroyed in each of his victories). To my mind, it's the poor Samnites who need to do something clever (like laying down their arms and pleading for terms- I'm prepared to be generous...)

[Gaius Octavius]

Furius, once again, (if I am not in great error), the question was: What would "I" do in the 4th century B.C. I am alive and a time machine is transporting "me" back in time. So I really don't want two mobs hacking away at each other else, why bother with the question?

I agree with your last sentence, but I would not be generous.

 

Legionnaire, my intention is not to attack initially, but to get the Samnites to attack.

 

Germanicus, would you really attack one of the divided elements when they are 600 feet apart? We don't know how distant the opposing armies are at the outset. So, I am asuming that I have room and time enough to manouver. You are reacting to my efforts. Our camps would not be within arrow range of each other. In any event, I would be on your backside or flank with my other force. I want you to attack me, and that is what you are doing. The Romans are masters of the situation. (Something like the Cunctator on my part.) If you take one hill with your entire force, you are welcome. If you divide and take both hills, I will withdraw to a line west of the hills, and my cavalry and a small force of infantry will make certain that you are eating bark in a day or two.

If you do nothing or withdraw, we'll have at you from two sides tomorrow. I will make certain that I can always 'see' you. You will not get away with a night march through the valley and have your way with my town.

Your turn.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Furius Venator]

Please don't misunderstand me, you could obviously give orders as you pleased. All I meant was that the troops might well not have the training to follow them through correctly. I don't think heavy infantry, especially the Romans of the 4th century are mobile enough to do as you suggest. and I don't think that battles are exactly 'mobs hacking away' either., but I take your point, simply saying, 'Form line of battle chaps and get after them!' isn't what we consider good generalship, so obsessed are we with flash tactics. I'd far rather win in grand, sweeping style so future historians could marvel at my adroit handling of troops. But, if your putting me in command of a Roman legion (of any era) I'm going to stick to tried and tested (I'd rather be boring than defeated).

 

How will you maintain communication with your subordinate commander who has half your force and is perhaps a mile away?