Ambushes

[Pantagathus]

"The Romans are never caught unexpectedly by an enemy."

This of course is balderdash...

 

The Iberians, Lusitanians and Ligurians seemed to have been very adroit at laying ambushes, in fact it also seems to have been their primary tactic in fighting the Romans. I would argue that is why Hispania took so very long to fully passify.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

I suppose that any guerrilla force in the Roman world (and beyond it), from the Jews to the Picts, would have tended to be very adroit at laying ambushes.

[Klingan]

"The Romans are never caught unexpectedly by an enemy."

This of course is balderdash...

 

The Iberians, Lusitanians and Ligurians seemed to have been very adroit at laying ambushes, in fact it also seems to have been their primary tactic in fighting the Romans. I would argue that is why Hispania took so very long to fully passify.

 

Of course that's not true, argue that ti is would just be stupid. However someone who knew a lot about the Roman war machine did write that some 2000 years ago and therefor I get the feeling that ambushes wasn't as common as they may seem when you see a chart of battles during a millennium.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Because Rome was such a formidable fighting machine many of their enemies already knew that beating them in an open battle was pretty much impossible, so I'm sure that they would have considered every trick in the book in order to give themselves a slight advantage over the Romans and by laying traps like ambushes etc would give them the chance to catch the Romans unawares and give them a vital few minutes to press their advantage before the Romans got themselves together and re-grouped.

[Pantagathus]

Of course that's not true, argue that ti is would just be stupid. However someone who knew a lot about the Roman war machine did write that some 2000 years ago and therefor I get the feeling that ambushes wasn't as common as they may seem when you see a chart of battles during a millennium.

Or more particularly they weren't common to the Romans in the Levant & Near East which was Justin's real sphere of experience?

[Klingan]

Or more particularly they weren't common to the Romans in the Levant & Near East which was Justin's real sphere of experience?

 

I don't know when he wrote this book, but he was living in the city of Rome herself both before the revolt 66 AD and after. Of course, he had more experience of the Levant and Near East then other areas, but considering he was a friend of Poppaea, Nero's second wife, he obviously in the middle of it all and had a good chance to find facts/rumors/books about just about any other previous war. I would guess that he knew what he was talking about, at least to a certain limit.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Was Trebia and ambush or a "strategic trap" during a battle?

Salve, K.!

I think you have a valid point; we must distinguish between these two very different kind of military manoeuvres.

Certainly, I would consider that Trebia was a "strategic trap". As such, it would not pertain to this thread.

[Ingsoc]

After Cestius Gallus retreat from his siege on Jerusalem during the first year of the Great Revolt (66), he passage at Beth Horon where the Jewish warriors manage to use the narrow passage and the fact they knew well the place to ambush the Romans and destroy the 12th Legion.

 

From Cassius Dio description of the Jewish rebel in the Bar Kochba revolt we may assume they use to ambush the Roman army:

 

"To be sure, they did not dare try conclusions with the Romans in the open field, but they occupied the advantageous positions in the country and strengthened them with mines and walls, in order that they might have places of refuge whenever they should be hard pressed, and might meet together unobserved under ground; and they pierced these subterranean passages from above at intervals to let in air and light."

[Klingan]

This subject would probably need another thread, but does anyone have a list of the battles during the first Jewish revolt?

[Ingsoc]

This subject would probably need another thread, but does anyone have a list of the battles during the first Jewish revolt?

 

As a war the Great Revolt was very unimpressive, many Jews collaborated with the Romans and fought among themself and there were only a few serious battles against the Roman army.

 

66: Battle of Beth Horon, the Jews defeat and destroy the 12th legion, Cestius Gallus barely escape with his life.

 

67-68: The campain in Galilee, Vespasian arrive to Judea with 3 legions (the 5th, 10th and 15th) most of the cities surrendered to his except Jotapata and Gamla.

 

There were also neval battle with the Roman fleet around May-october 67 in Jaffa.

 

70: Siege of Jerusalem, the major battle of the war. after fierce fighting Titus manage to occupy the city and destroy the Jewish temple.

 

The rebellion would rage for another 3 years, however there is no real military importance to it after the fall of the capital, we know of a major battle in the forest of Yardis (location unknown) and ofcourse the famouse batlle of Masada.

[ASCLEPIADES]

This subject would probably need another thread, but does anyone have a list of the battles during the first Jewish revolt?

Salve, K! The problem with such a list is that there was much more guerrilla warfare than formal battles. You should check Josephus; THIS MAP is a nice graphic description of that campaign.

[Kosmo]

The first Tapae battle was a roman disaster when the dacians made some type of ambush, but the next two Tapae battles were roman victories. They learned their lesson.

[caldrail]

"The Romans are never caught unexpectedly by an enemy."

This of course is balderdash...

 

The Iberians, Lusitanians and Ligurians seemed to have been very adroit at laying ambushes, in fact it also seems to have been their primary tactic in fighting the Romans. I would argue that is why Hispania took so very long to fully passify.

 

Of course that's not true, argue that ti is would just be stupid. However someone who knew a lot about the Roman war machine did write that some 2000 years ago and therefor I get the feeling that ambushes wasn't as common as they may seem when you see a chart of battles during a millennium.

 

The romans wrote propaganda as much as we do, so lets treat roman descriptions of their success with a pinch of salt. Ambush is a tactic used since we wore furry swimming trunks and used flint axes. The romans, despite their military acumen, suffered ambushes just as much as anyone else. I would suggest reading Josephus's account of the Siege of Jerusalem, in which the jewish defenders took advantage of roman indifference and counter-attacked, even coming close to killing Titus himself at one point. In fact, Titus was so exasperated at his officers failure to contain the jews that he nearly had the lot executed, being swayed by the soldiers demonstrating their support for their leaders. Anyone - and I mean anyone - can be ambushed if they drop their guard or become distracted. Ancient armies were very good at that sort of thing, and in fact, many battles were ambushes on a larger scale.

[Ingsoc]

The romans wrote propaganda as much as we do, so lets treat roman descriptions of their success with a pinch of salt. Ambush is a tactic used since we wore furry swimming trunks and used flint axes. The romans, despite their military acumen, suffered ambushes just as much as anyone else. I would suggest reading Josephus's account of the Siege of Jerusalem, in which the jewish defenders took advantage of roman indifference and counter-attacked, even coming close to killing Titus himself at one point. In fact, Titus was so exasperated at his officers failure to contain the jews that he nearly had the lot executed, being swayed by the soldiers demonstrating their support for their leaders. Anyone - and I mean anyone - can be ambushed if they drop their guard or become distracted. Ancient armies were very good at that sort of thing, and in fact, many battles were ambushes on a larger scale.

 

You are correct but let's not forget the big picture, althought the Roman could suffer great losses in ambushes it's never change the basic power balance who was in favour of the Romans.

[caldrail]

You are correct but let's not forget the big picture, althought the Roman could suffer great losses in ambushes it's never change the basic power balance who was in favour of the Romans.

 

Since you bring the point up, it is true that the massive recruitment base of the romans was one of their fundamental advantages. Time and again an enemy found that if the defeated the romans, they only met more coming down the road. That doesn't detract from roman success on the battlefield - they did win plenty of battles - but lets not forget they lost quite a few too. Far from being invincible, roman soldiers could often be indifferent and unwilling soldiers. Leadership - so vital to success in ancient warfare - was another issue. Rome favoured safe sensible commanders who wouldn't take risks nor return with political ambition and an army to back it. Agricola was prevented from completing his campaign in scotland for thjat very reason. Domitian feared he would become a rival. Sensibly agricola realised he was in danger and refused the triumph he was offered. Perhaps part of this was to prevent another Julius Caesar, another risk taker with plans to take power. Of course such people still emerged. A good example is Septimius Severus, who took advantage of the weakened government in Rome to return with an army and a well executed coup detat. The balance of power may have favoured Rome but it was never inevitable. They failed to conquer certain regions, namely Germania or Parthia, to name two examples. In fact, an ambush in the right place and time could easily have caused Rome a very nasty defeat. After the Varian Disaster, Arminius had the opportunity to wreak havoc on the german frontier. I suspect he didn't have enough control over the tribes to keep a coherent army together on campaign against Rome, or possibly he understood the stubborn resilience of Rome. Nonetheless, that was one ambush that really could have caused the romans a serious reverse.