Cimbrian War- Under Rated.

[Arvioustus]

Did Caesar ever have result where by so few Romans were killed given the huge odds against him? Gaius does live in the shadow of his nephew to be sure but is it justified?

 

 

 

Two main battles: Approx. casualties

Battle of Aquae Sextia====over 110,000Germans against 40,000Romans

results- 90,000 Germans killed, 20,000 captured and less than 1000 Romans killed!

Battle Of Vercellae ---over 200,000 Germans againt 50,000Romans

results: 140,000 Germans killed ,60,000 captured..under 1000 Romans killed!

 

These results speaks volumes about the abilty of the Roman fighting force.

(This is hand to hand not bombs....much stabbing had to occur, where the Germans stabbing each other?

 

How many Roman battles ever had this amount of success? Not many, how about anyone remembering Roman battles where they lost over 100,000 men, think Crassus did in Parthia, not sure of many more.

 

 

Source: wikipedia

Edited January 27, 2006 by Arvioustus

[Honorius]

Did Caesar ever have result where by so few Romans were killed given the huge odds against him? Gaius does live in the shadow of his nephew to be sure but is it justified?

 

 

 

Two main battles: Approx. casualties

Battle of Aquae Sextia====over 110,000Germans against 40,000Romans

results- 90,000 Germans killed, 20,000 captured and less than 1000 Romans killed!

Battle Of Vercella ---over 200,000 Germans againt 50,000Romans

results: 140,000 Germans killed ,60,000 captured..under 1000 Romans killed!

 

These results speaks volumes about the abilty of the Roman fighting force.

(This is hand to hand not bombs....much stabbing had to occur, where the Germans stabbing each other?

 

How many Roman battles ever had this amount of success? Not many, how about anyone remembering Roman battles where they lost over 100,000 men, think Crassus did in Parthia, not sure of many more.

 

 

Source: wikipedia

 

 

Im no expert at Caesar, Gaius or their battles.. but those numbers seem a bit over the top..and as seen before wikipedia isnt to reliable as a source

[Primus Pilus]

(Note that all figures are questionable)

 

And you left out previous Roman losses at Noriea under Carbo (numbers unknown) around 113 or 112 BC

 

Marcus Junius Silanus lost perhaps as many as 30,000 men in Narbonensis at about 109 BC

 

Longinus at Tolosa or Burdigala in 107 BC lost his army and his life (again numbers are unknown) but a reported 4,000 survivors managed to return.

 

To top them all, before Marius finally crushed the Cimbri at Aquae Sextiae, at Aurasio in 105 BC the Romans lost perhaps some 80,000 men. While the numbers seem ridiculous (losing a couple hundred thousand men in a few short years), there is no argument about the outcome of the battles.

 

These previous losses added to the glory of Marius' eventual victory, and hence his being named as the 'third founder of Rome'.

[Arvioustus]

(Note that all figures are questionable)

 

And you left out previous Roman losses at Noriea under Carbo (numbers unknown) around 113 or 112 BC

 

Marcus Junius Silanus lost perhaps as many as 30,000 men in Narbonensis at about 109 BC

 

Longinus at Tolosa or Burdigala in 107 BC lost his army and his life (again numbers are unknown) but a reported 4,000 survivors managed to return.

 

To top them all, before Marius finally crushed the Cimbri at Aquae Sextiae, at Aurasio in 105 BC the Romans lost perhaps some 80,000 men. While the numbers seem ridiculous (losing a couple hundred thousand men in a few short years), there is no argument about the outcome of the battles.

 

These previous losses added to the glory of Marius' eventual victory, and hence his being named as the 'third founder of Rome'.

 

Answers.com has the same results in the battle of Vercellae....even the losses of less than 1000 Romans. well maybe the Romans lost 2000 in this battle. Still amazing. Amazing how so few want to recognize the Roman soldier here. No trap here,just kicking Barbarian butt while not getting losses. This should be looked into. Strange how some do not like these Roman victories but never dispute Roman losses in which they lost. Peculiar. Maybe we should believe what Tacitus says, don`t think so. Many sources , many different stats to be sure. Even Caesar however gave huge numbers of Geramanic tribes, I do believe him, a bit.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Arvioustus

[Primus Pilus]

Answerrs.com has the same results in the battle of Vercellae....even the losses of less than 1000 Romans. well maybe the Romans lost 2000 in this battle. Still amazing. Amazing how so few want to recognize the Roman soldier here. No trap here,just kicking Barbarian butt while not getting losses. This should be looked into. Strange how some do not like these Roman victories but never dispute Roman losses in which they lost. Peculiar. Maybe we shoub believe what Tacitus says, don`t think so. Many sources , many differnt stats to be sure. Even Caesar however gave huge numbers of Geramanic tribes, I do believe him, a bit.

 

Ok the bit is getting old, but I'm in a mood so here goes...

 

Most ancient battles report staggering numbers of losses on one side with far fewer for the victors. Was this because the ancients reported the size of the army that lost 'as killed' rather than simply as having run away? Is it ridiculous speculation on their part? Is it embellishment? Is it truth?

 

For the most part we can't know any of it for sure even though there certainly must be some truth within all the reports. I've always had a gut feeling that the ancients reported losses based on the destruction of the army, and not necessarily men killed on the battlefield. For instance, if an army of 50,000 was beaten and it fled, dispersing into the countryside, this may have been reported as 50,000 men killed. Perhaps only a fraction of these were actually killed, but once the rout was on, many armies did not reassemble, so for all practical purposes the 50,000 man army was destroyed. But of course, I have no way to prove this theory and it is pure conjecture.

 

But since we're obviously heading back to this Roman physical superiority thing again, how do you explain the Germanic victories prior to Marius? Was it simply sheer numbers? Was it bad Roman leadership? Why could the Romans defeat them at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae but not at Noreia and Arausio? The number disparity was certainly there in all 4 examples, why does the supposed Roman superiority only come into play when they win and there must be some other excuse when they lost? Maybe it truly was the genius of Marius (as well as Sulla at Vercellae), including tactics, training and discipline, (along with the cavalry ambush Marius set at Aquae Sextiae) and not physical superiority that is really whats important. Hannibal was outnumbered at Cannae but he still won. Was it because Celts, Celtiberians, Numidians and Carthaginians were physically superior to Romans or was it because Hannibal was a genius? Surely the physical superiority of Romans would win out over the poor generalship of Paullus and Varro?

 

For a guy who wants to hype Roman superiority over other cultures, I don't think that you realize by downplaying the excellence of Roman legions and their training, discipline and resiliency etc., you are actually discrediting one of the reasons that Rome was indeed great enough to conquer Europe (except Germania of course) and the Mediterranean. Are you truly trying to suggest that all armies were relatively equal in skill and only the physical superiority of Romans made the difference?

[Arvioustus]

I am saying that is a possibility ,yes. Analyzing the battles it seems that Roman losses ussaully contribute to poor leadeship and/or inability to cope with cavalry. However, even in loss they inflict severe casualties on th enemy while being outnumbered greatly with Hannibal being the exception on this. When victories they sometimes take such little loss that some conclusions have to be made. The Romans also had a great desire for slaves so I am sure those numbers should be fairly accurate.(they had to bring prisoners back)

 

Hannibal is such an interesting exception on this but does not counter my theory on the individual Roman superiority as I will expalin. Romans for the first and perhaps only time outnumberd their oppostion and still lost. I can explain how they lost so many battles to Hannibal because the legions were not what people think they were, brilliant fighting machines. No, they were led by polticians not military men ussually. ( oppostion ussually had military men as leaders) It would be nice to think their discipline and training is the answer to their success , as it may have helped , but it seems that the legions were ussauly bumbling around and being outmanuevered by all. Caesar even was severly outmanuevered by the Celts and Germans. They lost because they did what Hannibal didn`t , engage the Roman infantry totally. (When Hannibal did it was a guise) I do feel that the Celts and Germans would have beaten the legions with better use of their cavalry and just do not engage the Romans directly. Why? Caesar,Marius, Geramanicus and others inspired them to beat the odds, doing so against such great numbers, leadership with questionable motives and/or amazing confidence about their mens superiorty? What leader would tell their troops lets attack these 200,000 Celts/ Germans with our 50,000 man army, we have the advantage. Ridiculous! This is not strategy regardless of the outcome. The Romans did this not with brilliant manuevers or traps just but with just relying on the infantry. Great generals would not do this. Arrogant and charismatic leaders perhaps would. The oppostion did not use their numbers and cavalry effectively, if they did Roman loss would have always occured. Even though I feel the Celts and Germans had inteligent and clever miltary leaders they did not grasp how to beat them as Hannibal did obviously. I can understand why though, their sheer numbers would convince any general, how we can lose?

 

I know this takes the the Roman miltary system down a notch but I think it should be. Hannibal used intelligence and superior use of cavalry. I know some German tribes had cavalry (Caesar used some , I think for economy and Roman lack) but they were not the Numidian cavalry. The Goths later proved the effect of cavalry with sheer numbers against Roman infantry. Goths proved to be the most effective German tribe against the Romans through cavalry and brilliant leadership.This is how you beat men that are superior to you are with hand to hand, cavalry can easly outmnauever and cause havoc and greatly weaken the infantry giving your infantry better odds. Hannibal did this. Everyone who was effective against the Romans did this, from the Atlantic to the Black Sea!

 

Looking at Hannbals battles he did all he can to nullify the superiority of the Roman infantry. Hannibal proved that the Roman fighting machine was not adaptable and can be outmanuevered easlily. Hannibal did humiliate the Romans more than anyone ever in their history, just because he lost in the end is meaningless to me. He showed that the Romans can be beaten by strategy and cavalry and not going against their infantry. Why, because these infantry men had to be amazing physical specimens with hand to hand abilty that was fierce. Those of you who are trained with hand to hand knife skills know what I am talking about. Being outnumbered you have to have great agilty to avoid and the best get cut up.( All people of that time were trained in hand to hand) Also, abilty to take many wounds for sure; no matter how good you are.

 

This is theory only: take heart those who love the Roman military machine. Perhaps I am wrong , at least that I am open minded on matters that happened 2000 years ago. It just seems so logical looking at all their battles in totality and how the opposition feared their infantry. I understand this takes the brains out of the Roman war machine in favor of the braun. Just want people to consider all possiblities, that is all. Too many are just so opinionated that they can be blinded to the obvious.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Arvioustus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why could the Romans defeat them at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae but not at Noreia and Arausio?

 

Were Noreia and Arausio fortified as Aquae Sextiae was? Broader question--did any Celtic or Germanic army ever manage to sack a fortified town? Without siege works, how could they?

[P.Clodius]

Arausio was a battle where the Romans or the Senate employed a double consular army. Problem was, the consuls hated each other and refused to cooperate and were thus massacred piece-meal.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Arausio was a battle where the Romans or the Senate employed a double consular army.

Yes, I think there was a Servilii Caepiones involved in some funny business there. But, were there fortifications involved?

 

Seems to me that the Celts and Germans were no good when attacking walled cities. But I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[Tobias]

Might i suggest, Arvioustus, that it is usually the victors that write the histories. To enhance a national or personal prestige, what historian or general wouldn't be tempted to add a few thousand to the number faced or subtract a number from their personal losses? We are led to believe by historians that Julius Caesar himself added a few more fantasy soldiers to the numbers he faced in battles (unless was a particularly bad estimator of numbers).

 

But to analyze and define the skill of Rome's enemies by merely interpreting numbers is absurd.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Tobias

[P.Clodius]

The Cimbri kept detailed numbers via a census of how many took part in the migration and this is where Marius, or the primary sources got their numbers from. Don't always asume the Gauls/Germans to be illiterate savages, they were in fact budding civilizations that had cities, industry, etc..And were well on their way to a "nationhood" that would have presented a serious challenge to Roman power.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Cimbri kept detailed numbers via a census of how many took part in the migration and this is where Marius, or the primary sources got their numbers from. Don't always asume the Gauls/Germans to be illiterate savages, they were in fact budding civilizations that had cities, industry, etc..And were well on their way to a "nationhood" that would have presented a serious challenge to Roman power.

Nice rebuttal. Where did you come across this fact?

[P.Clodius]

The numbers I think are treated in Plutarch or some secondary source, and the proto-nationhood thing I got from a documentary on Alesia

Edited January 31, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

I meant where did you get the information that the Cimbri kept a census?

[P.Clodius]

Like I say, either Plutarch or some secondary source, can't remember. I'll see if I can find it.

Edited January 31, 2006 by P.Clodius