Allia River

[Rameses the Great]

One of the fascinating things I find is the sack of Rome by Gauls in 390 BC. Now why did the Romans lose? Many point out that they panicked and ran at the site of the barbarians. It was said even though Rome did not have the military system we know today at that time, they were still a lot more organized than the Gallic army. If they lost their composure at that battle how did they become so dominant over the once 'superior' Gauls? Did they learn from their mistake, or did they just become more organized?

 

The way I see it is if the Romans had a better army, better equipment, and organization they majorly lacked something. The question is what?

[DecimusCaesar]

Perhaps the Senones weren't the unwieldy horde that they are made out to be. Livy says that the Celtic soldiers approach to Rome from Clusium was discplined and that they did not attack any village on the way there, saying that their wrath would be directed towards the Romans.

 

The Hoplite army was still in use by the Romans at this time and as a result it was not the flexible fighting army of the later Republic. The Celts also made use of Cavalry which would have been deadly to the Roman hoplites, especially if they used throwing javelins. Livy says that the Senones army was very large and numbered several thousands, if this were true then maybe an all out charge by a large band of Celtic warriors might have broken the Roman line. Perhaps the Romans lost because they were outnumbered.

[Rameses the Great]

In the battle, the numbers were 40,000 men each. So I can assure you, they lost from some other reason.

[Primus Pilus]

In the battle, the numbers were 40,000 men each. So I can assure you, they lost from some other reason.

 

Or so goes the story. Keep in mind that Livy is most likely writing almost purely from his own conjecture and word of mouth legends. I'm not suggesting that the stories aren't based in fact, but Livy certainly takes some liberties with the details.

 

At any rate, as I recall, Livy states that the Roman flanks were overwhelmed. Considering that the center of the line was generally considered the most important at this time in ancient warfare, these flanks were probably occupied by the weakest most ill-equipped Roman troops. An outflanked and surrounded army, no matter how supposedly superior the Roman center may have been, would've had little chance to recover in the midst of a pitched battle.

 

A weakness of the early Roman phalanx system I suppose.

[P.Clodius]

4 consular legions took part in the battle, this would put the roman side at 16-18,000. If the allies supplied their standard contingent, this would put the number at 8 legions or 32-34,000.

[roman wargamer]

In the battle, the numbers were 40,000 men each. So I can assure you, they lost from some other reason.

At any rate, as I recall, Livy states that the Roman flanks were overwhelmed.

yes, if the flanks were ovewrhelmed the whole frontal line deteriorate,

and normally leads to losing a battle, unless corrected, but communication on that

era is not yet that advance for the Roman Legiones to control the rotating manipular line.

 

A weakness of the early Roman phalanx system I suppose.

if you will closely study the early Roman Legio as hoplite were very different

to the later one when the Roman are beginning to arise as military power house.

[barca]

 

A weakness of the early Roman phalanx system I suppose.

 

 

What about the Galatians and their battles with the Hellenistic world? Some battles were won by the Celts, but at least as many were won by the Greeks.

 

There appears to be conflicting information on the development of the Roman Manipular System. Some authors say it was as a consequence of their defeat by the Gauls at Allia, and other that it was the Samnite wars. Any original sources on this issue? Are there any descriptions of the Battle of Allia other than Livy?

Edited December 5, 2010 by barca

[Pompieus]

It wasn't until 362 BCE or so that the Roman army was split into 2 legions, and not until around 311 that each consul commanded an army of 2 legions plus allies. In 390 the "legio" was the entire levy, perhaps 6000 infantry and 1800 horsemen (?). Livy says the Romans were badly outnumbered and outflanked (v.38)

[barca]

Livy states that the Roman flanks were overwhelmed. Considering that the center of the line was generally considered the most important at this time in ancient warfare, these flanks were probably occupied by the weakest most ill-equipped Roman troops. An outflanked and surrounded army, no matter how supposedly superior the Roman center may have been, would've had little chance to recover in the midst of a pitched battle.

 

 

 

I came accross a Wikipedia article on the Battle of Allia that suggested that the Romans learned the testudo from the Celts:

 

...the Senones were part of the much larger culture of Celts (or Gauls) that had more advanced iron-working and close-quarter combat techniques. Specifically, the Celts/Gauls used heavier long swords and full body shields, which allowed them to interlock shields for greater defense (a tactic later named "tortoise" in the Roman histories).

 

Wikipedia usually gives a good overview, but we all know that their information can be suspect. It is generally accepted that the Gauls fought in open order so that they could swing their long slashing swords.

 

Here's the entire article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia

[Melvadius]

I came accross a Wikipedia article on the Battle of Allia that suggested that the Romans learned the testudo from the Celts:

 

...the Senones were part of the much larger culture of Celts (or Gauls) that had more advanced iron-working and close-quarter combat techniques. Specifically, the Celts/Gauls used heavier long swords and full body shields, which allowed them to interlock shields for greater defense (a tactic later named "tortoise" in the Roman histories).

 

Wikipedia usually gives a good overview, but we all know that their information can be suspect. It is generally accepted that the Gauls fought in open order so that they could swing their long slashing swords.

 

Here's the entire article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia

 

I suspect the Wikipedia testudo origins suggestion is based on the quote in the on-line version of Livy (from 1905) which is referenced at the end of the section:

 

[5.43]For some days the Gauls had been making useless war merely upon the houses of the City. Now that they saw nothing surviving amidst the ashes and ruin of the captured City except an armed foe whom all these disasters had failed to appal, and who would entertain no thought of surrender unless force were employed, they determined as a last resort to make an assault on the Citadel. At daybreak the signal was given and the whole of their number formed up in the Forum. Raising their battle-shout and locking their shields together over their heads, they advanced.

[barca]

Raising their battle-shout and locking their shields together over their heads, they advanced.

 

 

 

OK, locking shields over their heads does seem like a testudo. Can the Gauls be credited as the first to use this formation?

[Melvadius]

Raising their battle-shout and locking their shields together over their heads, they advanced.

 

 

 

OK, locking shields over their heads does seem like a testudo. Can the Gauls be credited as the first to use this formation?

 

Personally I wouldn't like to take bets on who first thought up the idea of putting their shields over their heads while someone was dropping rocks and other missiles on it.

 

The question is possibly more properly whether soldiers were actively trained to do so and the description by Livy is unclear on this point but to me somehow suggests more of an ad hoc reaction than a pre-planned manouver.

[barca]

The question is possibly more properly whether soldiers were actively trained to do so and the description by Livy is unclear on this point but to me somehow suggests more of an ad hoc reaction than a pre-planned manouver.

 

Good point.

 

Are there any similar recorded instances of the Greeks or Macedonians doing the same during a siege?

[GhostOfClayton]

The key word in Livy seems to be 'Locking'. By 'locking', does he mean holding them close together, or just in general over their heads with a fortunate degree of ovberlap to help with protection by reducing the chance of a gap?

 

If they all just stuck their shields in the air for (as Melvadius suggests) protection from aerial bombardment, then it can't be a Testudo. If it was a premeditated action, then surely it could be subject to consideration for an early Testudo.

[Virgil61]

 

Personally I wouldn't like to take bets on who first thought up the idea of putting their shields over their heads while someone was dropping rocks and other missiles on it.

 

It was probably their version of our Darwin Awards jokes.

 

During the siege Tiberius looks up the wall inquisitively and exclaims: "Hey Clodius those sure are big rocks!"

 

Clodious (muffled voice from under his shield): "What's that Tiberius?...[big *PLONK* sound]...Tiberius?...Tiberius?..."