Battle of Vercellae

[Monkey Boy]

Hello. I

[Primus Pilus]

Welcome to the forum Monkeyboy!

 

You are in luck as there are a couple of ancient sources that provide some detail on Vercellae.

 

Plutarch provides considerable detail in his "Life of Marius". It begins roughly around chapter 24/25.

 

Unfortunately, Appian only mentions it in passing, and Cassius Dio's account is very fragmentary. The loss of his description of the battle is particularly disappointing because Dio had a certain dramatic flair which included recreated speeches of participants and such. While most of these rather lengthy monologues throughout his work are probably highly fictitious, it certainly adds something to the description of a battle.

 

Livy's original account is also lost, though it is briefly mentioned in book 68 of the Periochae. Livy's account is also preserved through The Epitome of Roman History by Florus, but unfortunately I can't find an English version online. (If anyone can find one, please let me know and I'll add it to our ancient source link thread). In any case, Florus deals with the Cimbric war extensively in book 38.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Livy's original account is also lost, though it is briefly mentioned in book 68 of the Periochae. Livy's account is also preserved through The Epitome of Roman History by Florus, but unfortunately I can't find an English version online. (If anyone can find one, please let me know and I'll add it to our ancient source link thread). In any case, Florus deals with the Cimbric war extensively in book 38.

 

How about this PP

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epitome_of_R..._History/Book_1

 

|Here's a little taste of Florus's work.

 

 

They requested our general to fix upon a day for battle, and he appointed the next. They enagaged in an open plain, which they called the Raudian field. There fell on the side of the enemy to the number of sixty thousand; on ours fewer than three hundred. The barbarians were slaughtered during an entire day. Marius had also assisted valour by artifice, in imitation of Hannibal and his stratagem at Cannae. In the first place, he had fixed upon a foggy day, so that he could charge the enemy before they were awar of his approach; and, as it was windy also, he manoevred so that the dust was driven into the eyes and faces of the enemy; while, in addition, he had arranged his troops to face the east, so that, as was afterwards learned from the prisoners, the heaven seemed to be on fire from the glittering of the Roman helmets and the reflection of the sun's rays from them. But the struggle with the enemies' wives was not less severe than that with themselves; for the women, being mounted on waggons and other carriages, which had been ranged around as a defence, fought from them, as from towers, with spears and pikes. The death of these savages was as glorious as their contest for victory; for when, upon sending an embassy to Marius, they failed to obtain their liberty, and sacerdotal protection, which it was not lawful to grant, they either fell, after strangling or braining the whole of their children, by mutual wounds, or hanged themselves, with ropes made of their own hair, upon tress and the yokes of their waggons. Their king Bojorix fell in the battle, fighting furiously, and not without avenging himself.

[Primus Pilus]

How about this PP

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epitome_of_R..._History/Book_1

 

Excellent!

[Monkey Boy]

Thanks guys. Glad I wasn't around back then to watch those Cimbri women slaughter their own kids. I guess life was pretty cheap back in those days.

[caldrail]

Life was short for the ancient world. Disease, accident, violence - all were lurking in the background. For the romans themselves, only 2 out of 5 survived into their twenties. Unlike today, a child was expected to mature rapidly. Perhaps married at 15, a grandfather at 30. For those races without the benfits of roman culture it might even be worse. One thing that comes across from primitive peoples in our day is their realism about the world around them, allowing for their ignorance of it. Since their survival depends on co-operation, they're often very co-operative and social, and even the more violent of them are sometimes suprisingly accomodating. Violence in primitive peoples is usually down to two reasons.

 

Firstly, a conflict over resources. Where survival is important, then the preservation of your food and water sources is vital, especially if a rival tribe aren't interested in sharing it or coming to some arrangement. These networks of violence between tribes linger for long periods of time, following on from generation to generation.

 

Secondly, it can be a matter of honour. Its not just sophisticated societies that suffer from this aspect of human nature, as perceived insults can also give rise to long confrontations and ultimately blood is spilled if no suitable recompense is found or agreed to.

 

For some primitive peoples, the freedom to live life as they choose can be paramount. The struggles of native americans against continued intrusions into lands they regarded as open are very much an example. Similar motives are found amongst the peoples that the romans ointruded upon, so perhaps we shouldn't be suprised at their willigness to defend their freedom. In a situation where it isn't possible to defend, then yes, we do see situations where primitive tribes become nihilistic. Not all of course. Some simply surrender and lose their former pride. And that is the deciding factor. Is this barbarian tribe too proud to lay down arms and allow themselves to be enslaved by Rome? If so, then they must fight. If they cannot see any way of achieving a victory, then it follows they must sacrifice their own rather than suffer the roman yoke. The same attitudes occured at Masada. The jewish zealots realised they stood no chance of surviving, and killed themselves almost to the last man, woman, and child to retain their dignity.

[ASCLEPIADES]

If both Cimbri and Jews knew firsthand that after the defeat their alternatives would be death or enslavement (literally), it was no surprise they migth have preferred the first alternative. There was much more at stake than mere dignity.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Is this barbarian tribe too proud to lay down arms and allow themselves to be enslaved by Rome?

 

But in Britain and in Judaea, this wasn't really the choice--to die or to be enslaved. The choice was much more modest--to die or not to fight Rome. Before they ascended the Masada, the zealots weren't facing slavery--they were facing members of a rival Jewish faction whom they detested and often assassinated. Nor were the Britons facing slavery either. At worst, they were facing farming.

[caldrail]

Agreed, but the decision on whether to fight to the last or commit mass suicide occurs when all alternatives have run out. For the jews at Masada, the roman assault had begun and the jews knew they weren't going to take prisoners. For them, a more dignified way out seemed important. They chose their own way of death rather than having the romans exact whatever punishment they chose.