Describe A Battle

[Valens]

I thought giving members a chance to give descriptions of some of their favorite battles from Roman History would be a good way for others to get a good general idea of what went on in the battle. It would also most likely give users a scope into how battles were fought throughout Roman History.

 

So, if you have a battle you would like to describe, then please do so here. Be sure to put some effort into this, but at the same time, don't feel like you have to do a play-by-play of every units movements. I'll start us off:

 

 

The Battle of Magnesia- This is my description of the Battle of Magnesia. It may contain errors, despite my best efforts in compiling my information, and is surely not any sort of published work, but it should give a good picture of this famous ancient battle.

---

 

Background- We are in the year of 190 BC. Rome is at war with the Hellenistic World. The battle will take place between the Seleucids under Antiochus the Great and the Romans under Scipio Africanus.

 

Drawing Up the Formations- The Romans used their manipular legion, against a Hellenistic formation focused on the phalanx. Unlike the earlier versions of the phalanx which used heavily armored hoplites, the the warriors(called phalangites) in the newer phalanx were lightly armored(many not armored at all) pikemen, that used the sarissa, which was a massive pike, at some times, measuring up to 6.4metres(or 21 feet). Alexander the Great had used his phalanx as something to pin down an enemy, letting his cavalry deliver the decisive charge, but due to a shortage of cavalry in Hellenistic Armies of the Second Century BC, they had come to rely on the phalanx to win battles.

 

---->Roman Troops and Line Up- To the far left of the Roman infantry formation, we have three rows of the Latin ala, going to the left of the ala, we have two Roman legions(of course drawn into three rows), continuing to the right, we have another three-rowed Latin ala unit. To the right of the last mentioned Latin ala, we have 3, 000 peltasts. The cavalry is positioned on the wings of the Roman infantry: the Turmae Cavalry being on the left wing, and around 3, 000 standard cavalry on the right wing.

 

---->Seleucid Troops and Line Up- (Since the Seleucids didn't line up in an easy to describe 'infantry in the middle, and cavalry on the wings' formation, I will simply desribe the line up from the Seleucid Right down to their Left.) Starting on the Seleucid right wing, we have 1, 200 Dahae Cavalry, next there are 10, 000 Argyraspides Infantry, following them we have 3, 000 Agema Cavalry, to their left is 3, 000 Cataphracts Cavalry, next in line are 1, 500 Galatians, next are 16, 000 phalangites(forming the main phalanx), to the left of the phalanx are another set of 1, 500 Galatians, following to the left are 4, 700 light infantrymen, then there are more of the Cataphracts Cavalry(numbering at 3, 000 on this side as well), next is 1, 000 of the Regia ala Cavalry, followed by 2, 500 Galatian Cavalry, and to the far left are 500 Tarentines Cavalry. We also have some additional units placed to the front of the Seleucid formation: There are a row of Seleucid Chariots in front of the Cataphracts, Galatian, and Tarentines Cavalries(to the left of the phalanx). In front of the phalanx, we have 54 elephants.

 

Brief Stage of Events in Battle- Antiochus attacks and breaks through the Roman Legion with his attacks with agema and catacphracts. He orders these cavalries to go to attack the Roman camp, but they are checked by the Roman guards left behind. Lepidus(a commanding tribune of the broken legions), gathers his broken legion together to drive the cavalry and Antiochus back. The Seleucid Chariots attack, but are driven back by missile fire, and in their retreat, they cause much confusion in their own forces. Next, the Roman cavalry moves forward, and drives the opposing cavalries to the rear. The Roman infantry advances on the phalanx, defeating the surrounding skirmishers, but the phalanx itself stands firm for the time. Some of the phalanx support elephants panic upon seeing the Roman cavalry coming from their flank, and run back into the phalanx, causing mass confusion within the phalanx, eventually Seleucid the center dissolves, and the battle is won for the Romans who are free to march to the Seleucid camp.

 

 

If errors are found, please bring them to my attention. If you are confused, and/or have questions, I will most certainly attempt to clear them up for you.

[Viggen]

Hello Valens,

 

thanks for sharing and taking the time for researching and posting it here, we really appreciate it...

 

Concerning errors i pass the buck to primuspilus, he knows so much more then me about this particular period...

 

regards

viggen

[dy-nasty]

Alexander was Great, Hannibal was fantastic. Alexander could read other Armies, but so could Hannibal. Alexander could demand the best from his Armies, but so could Hannibal. However, I have to say the edge on leadership would go to Hannibal. Hannibal's army was made up of Gauls Spaniards, Greeks Numidians and Lybians, men from cultures who seemingly had nothing in common, yet Hannibal managed to use all of these troops under one command and break-down the language barrier. At the time that is also quite an accomplishment in his leadership! Hannibal had to fight Rome, despite being outnumbered and lacking resources, with multiple foes with multiple numbers, and each time defeated his opponents. From researching both generals, I

[kama]

it depends on the era they would fight in. if it was in hannibals era, then hannibal probably would but if it was with alexanders era, then he probably would.

 

but if there was a 'middle' era then i'd say alexander

[Primus Pilus]

A very interesting concept, but even Hannibal himself conceded that Alexander was the greatest general commander in history. Both heavily relied upon cavalry which would make a confrontation interesting. Hannibal though, never faced a brilliant enemy until Scipio, but by that point his own veterans were scattered and he was forced to rely on raw recruits.

 

I could hazard a guess I suppose. I would go with Alexander simply because he just didn't lose. Hannibal, despite his successes was seriously challenged in Italy against inferior Roman commanders. He never lost big, but was never strong enough to finish the job either. By no means do I knock Hannibal who was a brilliant commander. If forced to make a guess I simply would choose the greatest conqueror in the history of the world.

[Moonlapse]

*Duplicate topics merged*

[Valens]

If forced to make a guess I simply would choose the greatest conqueror in the history of the world.

Napoleon wasn't a choice...

 

But seriously, if we are going to judge Hannibal based on his opposition in Italy, then we certainly must make the same judgement for Alexander: The Persian Empire Alexander fought was most definately a Persian Empire on the decline in many areas, including militarily, and much like Hanibal in Italy, Alexander didn't face many extremely talented commanders in his main campaign, yet he still struggled in battles. Also, we have to realize that the armor and weaponry of Alexander's Hellenistic Army was far superior to Persian equipment, which was an advantage Hannibal didn't have, and an advantage that has proved to be very important in other Greco-Persian conflicts.

 

When it comes down to it though, I'd put it as a toss-up. Too hard to compare for me.

[Primus Pilus]

Its the only thing we have to judge Hannibal on. It certainly isnt fair to judge him based on Zama, where he was defeated with far inferior forces.

 

I may sound as if I'm knocking Hannibal, but I'm not. He was simply a brilliant tactician. Seems to have made some bad judgements regarding strategy, but on the field itself, he was second to none.

[Valens]

Its the only thing we have to judge Hannibal on. It certainly isnt fair to judge him based on Zama, where he was defeated with far inferior forces.

 

I may sound as if I'm knocking Hannibal, but I'm not. He was simply a brilliant tactician. Seems to have made some bad judgements regarding strategy, but on the field itself, he was second to none.

Oh, I understand, I'm just saying that Hannibal's opposition doesn't seem to be grounds to rank him lower than Alexander(in other words, I think Hannibal actually faced tougher opposition than Alexander, less numerical opposition, but tougher nonetheless). I would certainly rather put my army against a Persian Army of 4th Century BC than a Roman Army of the 3rd Century BC.

[Zeke]

I got a colorful line to this kinda of debate. Ok were trying to see if Hannibal was better then Alexander or vice versus buts lets just say that they were both alive around the peirod, Alexander would be well known of coarse, so in my opinion Hannibal would chicken out. Because Alexander the Great according to the history books and guiness book of world recrods never lost a battle.

So here is my colorful line

 

When Hannibal was on the run in the east, Scipio Africanus the only man who had managed to defeat Hannible ask him who were the best Generals in the world?

 

"Alexander the Great," Replied Hannibal, "because with a small force he defeated armies whose numbers were beyond reckoning, and because he overran the remotest regions, merely to visit which was a thing above human aspirations,"

"To whom would you give second place?" asked Scipio.

Hannibal reflected for a moment and then said: "Phyyhus, for he first taught the method of encamping, and besides no one ever showed such exquisite jidgement in choosing his ground and disposing his posts.

 

(Scipio was becoming quite annyoned now, his ego was probably becomming a little netted asked Hannibal who he would give third to,

 

"Myself beyond dout," replied Hannibal Barca.

Scipio laughed and then asked,

"What would you have said you if had counqured me?"

"Then," came Hannibal's reply,

"I WOULD HAVE PLACED NOT ONLY BEFORE ALEXANDER AND PHYRUUS BUT BEFORE ALL BEFORE ALL OTHER COMMANDERS.

[Zeke]

I would have placed Hannibal not only before Alexander and Phyruus but before all other commanders.

[Spurius]

I shall sit down and write up a battle this weekend, with any luck (and cooperation from my son).

However, I can add an off-the-cuff (suprious, if you will) list of greatest ancient generals.

 

I think that the list should be broken into two parts at the very least. Great generals if you were a soldier, great generals for the nation.

 

Soldier List (judgement being made on relative care, feeding, loot and survivability of troops)

1) Caesar- You had a great chance at living through all of his battles if you did what he told you to do. Good $ $ too.

2) Lysander- What can you say about someone who first controlled coasts, pirates and Persians. All without drowning masses of his men.

3) Marius- Father of legions. May not like his discipline but his ideas made being a legionaire survivable.

4) Fabius the Delayer- Didn't have to fear salughter by Hannibal under his command, and he gave confidence back.

5) Aurelianus- Glory and money, with a future emporer no less.

 

National List (judgement being made on national prestige, loot, lifetime effect on nation, long term outcomes)

1) Alexander- History sings of him and the Hellenized world rocked!

2) Caesar- The key spark for the fire of Empire and greater glory than anyone has seen.

3) Hannibal- Beat Rome at its own game and propped Carthage up for years.

4) Cyrus the Great- Thunder from the east and builder of empire.

5) Agrippa- If not for him, no Augustus and perhaps no stable Roman Empire.

 

Bear in mind this is completely unscientific and posted with a bit of thought but no research to back up my oft-times faulty memory.

 

Later...

[Primus Pilus]

Btw, welcome to forum Spurius. Look forward to reading your battle description, as I have the previous entries.

[dy-nasty]

Both are excellent leaders of men, being both very inspiring and brave. Both are leaders, being able to pull off amazing moves. So if both of these Leaders, in the prime of their careers, were to face off against one another, who would prove the victor? The resources that both have available are the full resources of their respective kingdoms without any supply problems such as the ones, which crippled Hannibal's war against Rome. The armies would be made up of the same troops that they commanded in real life. Consider the armies to be of equal size but made up of the troops that each commander had at his disposal. So let's say, if both of these Leaders, in the height of their careers, were to face off against one another, which ancient general would prove to be the victor? Now I consider Alexander to be a sentimental favorite of mines, but my vote goes to Hannibal.

 

Why?

 

In my eyes, one has to rate these two generals by the opponents they faced. In creating simulations for the armies of Hannibal and Alexander you can use a baseline of gauging their respective effectiveness against similar enemies (like the Scythians and Parthians, Persians, and Romans, etc.). After gathering research on as large a number of engagements, you can you can create a statistical probability of their effectiveness (assigning a numeric value) and then compare them to each other. There are many other conditions that would have to be taken into consideration like terrain, location, size, season etc. that makes such comparisons quite difficult. So the best we have to go on is battle record v. opponents, innovations in war, and organization of arms and army. That will give us a credible background for comparison.

 

Now first, I would have to say that Hannibal was the better general considering the limited resources he had at his disposal, whereas Alexander managed to accomplish a great deal more with his impressive war machine, and had the resources of the entire Hellenized world behind him to draw from. Hannibal was only one, if not the best, of Carthage's generals and therefore, and has nowhere near the strategic ability enjoyed by Alexander. Furthermore, it can be said of both Hannibal and Alexander that either faced fierce enemies the other did not. When Alexander attacked Persia, the kingdom was far from its zenith. When Hannibal attacked Rome, she was a formidable military power. Another thing you have to consider is that Hannibal was use to being the underdog in battles, Alexander usually had the best army in the world when he went into battle, despite being outnumbered.

 

To put it simply, Alexander did not face the same difficulties as Hannibal. He is often credited for decimating armies superior in numbers, yet he fought against undisciplined and unreliable peasant levies, who were many in number, but not much of an army (it took 20 Persians to kill one Phalanx!). On the other hand, Alexander inherited the strongest army and nation at the time. Alexander

[dy-nasty]

For those that bring up the fact that Hannibal himself considered Alexander and Pyrrhos the greater general, the actual story goes a little further...

 

".....When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing at this, and said: 'What would you have said if you had defeated me?' 'In that case', replied Hannibal, 'I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus - in fact, before all other generals' "

Livy, The History of Rome from its Foundation XXXV.14