Battle of Arausio

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

jastayme3 RE:Battle of Arausio 3/23/2005 3:22:33 AM

There may have been a typo perhaps-an extra zero? Or maybe it was refering to casualties for the entire campaign.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 RE:Battle of Arausio 3/23/2005 3:22:34 AM

There may have been a typo perhaps-an extra zero? Or maybe it was refering to casualties for the entire campaign.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 RE:Battle of Arausio 3/23/2005 3:22:36 AM

There may have been a typo perhaps-an extra zero? Or maybe it was refering to casualties for the entire campaign.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Battle of Arausio - stuttering - calling all Boris's 3/23/2005 5:10:40 AM

matey, ease up on the whiskey, you're starting to stutter... ;) Boris the Romanian is one of the Roman Warfare experts... try and get his attention.

Quote Reply

Roman RE:Battle of Arausio 3/23/2005 8:01:32 AM

"There may have been a typo perhaps-an extra zero? Or maybe it was refering to casualties for the entire campaign." It was specifically the casualties of that particular battle. Also, the info came from two independent sources (though it differed slightly - one source said 85,000 and the other 80,000 [112,000 including the 'baggage train']).

Quote Reply

Roman RE:Battle of Arausio - stuttering - calling all Boris's 3/23/2005 8:08:03 AM

Yep, I am hoping for Boris to show up in this thread... ;)

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Battle of Arausio 3/23/2005 8:45:27 AM

Being no expert of sorts on the subject, I?d like to cast doubt over the figures. Such a loss taken by Caesar would have surely demanded his recall to Rome (and subsequent prosecution if Cato had anything to do about it). As such, the campaign in Gaul and Britannia over the eight year period was highly illegal under the Republic?s laws anyway (levying troops, attacking the across the Rhine, forging alliances etc) While it was only the triumvirate between Pompey and Crassus, along with his continual victories, that kept Caesar in his proconsul position. For a man that could find victory at Alesia and prior to that carve up several hundred thousand Helevetii, I find it seriously difficult to imagine that he would suffer any such reverse on that scale.

Quote Reply

blitZ Battle of the Catalaunian fields 3/23/2005 1:24:41 PM

i think the Battle of the Catalaunian fields, Romans V The Huns had more than 100,000 dead in a single day. but i cant find the link.

Quote Reply

Roman RE:Battle of Arausio 3/23/2005 5:46:47 PM

Ad, this was before Ceasar's time...

Quote Reply

boris the romanian The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/1/2005 11:36:17 PM

Sorry about the lateness of this reply, old boy, but I've only just come accross this thread. The Battle of Arausio was one of the great calamaties of Roman military history but it is also notable for three other reasons, namely a) it is the last major engagement involving an "old school" manipular Roman legion (i.e. hastati, principes, triarii, equites, velites, socii, etc.) b) it is the last major engagement involving a proper "old school" consular army c) it is the first major battle involving a Roman army and primarily Germanic opponents (the earlier Battle of Noreia being more of a series of savage skirmishes that went out of control). This battle was part of a Senatorial campaign against the Volkerwanderung of the Ambrones, Teutones and Cimbri. These barbarians are thought to have originated from Saxony and "Jutland", and by c.110 BC they had began a great southerly migration. Their numbers have been estimated at well over half a million, which may be no great exaggeration, of which c.150-200,000 would have been combatants. These would have been joined by other Germanic and also Celtic tribes during their travels south. The Senate was well aware that this barbarian horde was in search of land, not loot, and very wisely refused them negotiations and any concessions, but they seriously under-estimated both their numbers and fighting prowess, so that, despite several skirmishes and raids by Roman troops in 106 BC, less than 20,000 legionaries faced them in Noricum. These were brushed aside quite easily by the barbarians, who continued their south-westerly march. This greatly alarmed the senate, which raised the last old style Consular army in great haste and panic. Because of the enormously unpopular wars in Spain, the Roman army was in a process of "professionalisation" (i.e. the Marian reforms), and this merely added to the difficulties of raising a Consular army in haste. Although records are not clear, a Consular army would have comprised of four legions of 4,200 men each (although I think it is a safe assumption that these were swelled to 5,000 men each because of the national emergency) plus an equal number of Allies. This would have given the Romans a number of around 40,000 troops. As they marched towards Gaul they would have been joined by equally alarmed Celtic tribes in an effort to stem this Germanic invasion, which preferred tackling the Rhone rather than the Alps. So the Consular army would have been anywhere from 45-65,000 strong by the time it confronted the barbarians. The exact details of the battle are not very clear, but what is known is that the Germanic charge carried all before them. This would imply that the hastati were traditionally deployed as antesignanii rather than the (then) more common post signanii, as the principes would have done rather better against barbarians (many of the older Roman troops would have already faced barbarians on several other campaigns). In any case, the Roman battle lines were shattered and they were quite probably enveloped (at least partially if not completely) by the far more numerous Germans. They routed and the Germans gave chase until, to the Romans' good fortune, a ferocious thunderstorm opened up. The superstitious Germans thought their Odin was displeased and gave up the chase, thus preventing the major Roman disaster from being one of complete and total annihilation. Even so, the Roman losses were severe, with c. 35-45,000 dead. The Germans seem to have suffered quite a bit, too (losing perhaps 10,000), but they could absorb these losses. The scene was set for the dramatic Roman come-back at Aquiae Sextiae and Vercellae three years later under Gaius Marius. ...hope that helps....

Quote Reply

Roman RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/2/2005 9:07:40 AM

Thanks boris the romanian! I was hoping you would notice this thread to comment, since you seem to know a lot about wars and battles of the ancient world. The article about the battle mentioned, however, that there was not one, but two consular armies involved in the battle. Supposedly one of the reasons for how poorly the Romans fared in the battle was abysmal coordination between the two consular armies commanded by men who hated each other. That might account for the different numbers - perhaps you are counting just one of the consular armies.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/2/2005 9:38:04 AM

"Supposedly one of the reasons for how poorly the Romans fared in the battle was abysmal coordination between the two consular armies commanded by men who hated each other." ...visions of Cannae - where the Romans significantly contributed to bringing themselves undone.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/2/2005 10:11:43 PM

"The article about the battle mentioned, however, that there was not one, but two consular armies involved in the battle." That seems to be contrary to what I've read. I've read that there was "only" one consular army but that it was significantly reinforced by both Italian and Gallic Allies. Your typical consular army would have around 40,000 men whereas this one had perhaps as many as 65,000 troops. Given Roman commitments in Spain and also in the war against Jugurtha, plus the process of reforms, it seems highly unlikely that they would have been able to instantaneously raise two consular armies on the spur of the moment, especially if you consider that the number of men lost at the Battle of Noreia and preceeding skirmishes amounted to almost half a consular army. "Supposedly one of the reasons for how poorly the Romans fared in the battle was abysmal coordination between the two consular armies commanded by men who hated each other." I'd be rather careful with that statement. It sounds suspiciously like the words of Titus Livius, who had the rather annoying tendency of blaming poor Roman martial prowess on ineffectual leadership rather than recognizing enemy fighting abilities for their true worth. Livius is a great writer but a mediocre military historian. While poor leadership is quite possible, I think it far more likely that the Roman commander simply under estimated enemy capabilites and got violated in the most disturbing manner as a result.

Quote Reply

Roman RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/3/2005 1:48:13 AM

Boris the Romanian, I am attaching an article I found on the web about the Battle of Arausio. Indeed, I am a little sceptical of internet sources, though this one looks reasonably trustworthy. Nevertheless, I posted on this board to get a 'reality check' on the info - so I want to thank you for your help with this. Nonetheless, you may be interested in the article so here it is: Battle of Arausio History Links Submit Site The Battle of Arausio took place on October 6, 105 BC, between the town of Arausio and the Rhone River. Ranged against the migratory tribes of the Cimbri under Boiorix and the Teutoni were two Roman armies, commanded by the proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio and consul Gnaeus Mallius Maximus. However, bitter differences between the commanders prevented the Roman armies from cooperating with devastating results. Roman losses are quoted at up to 80,000 troops, and many more servants and camp followers (total loss estimated at about 112,000 men). The terrible defeat gave Gaius Marius the opportunity to come to the fore and radically reform the organisation and recruitment of Roman legions. Contents Prelude A skirmish and two routs Aftermath References Prelude -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The migrations of the Cimbri tribe through Gaul and adjacent territories had disturbed the balance of power and incited or provoked other tribes, such as the Helvetii into conlict with the Romans. An ambush of Roman troops and the temporary rebellion of the town of Tolosa caused Roman troops to mobilise in the area, with three strong forces. Having regained Tolosa, the proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio adopted a defensive strategy, waiting to see if the Cimbri would move toward Roman territories again. In October of 105 BC, they did. A skirmish and two routs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even before battle was joined, the Romans were in trouble. Two of the major Roman forces available were camped out on the Rhone River, near Arausio. However, the proconsul Caepio didn't have much time for the consul commanding the other force. Gnaeus Mallius Maximus was a new man - not part of the established elite of Roman political life. As the current consul, he was also the superior of the two. Caepio took such exception that he camped his army on the opposite side of the river. The initial contact between the two forces was when a detached picketing group under the legate Marcus Aurelius Scaurus(consul suffectus in 108 BC) met an advance party of the Cimbri. The Roman force was completely overwhelmed and the legate was brought before Boiorix. Scaurus was not humbled by his capture and advised Boiorix to turn back before his people were destroyed by the Roman forces. The king of the Cimbri was indignant at this impudence and had Scaurus executed by having him burned alive in a wicker cage. Meanwhile, Maximus had managed to convince Caepio to move his force to the same side of the river, but Caepio still insisted on a different camp, and actually pitched his closer to the enemy. The sight of two Roman armies gave Boiorix pause for thought, and he entertained negotiations with Maximus. Caepio, presumably motivated into action by the thought that Maximus may be successful in negotiations and claim all the credit for a successful outcome, launched a unilateral attack on the camp on October 6. Due to the hasty nature of the assault, and the tenacity of the Cimbri, Caepio's force was annihilated. His camp had been left pratically undefended, so the Cimbri ransacked that also. With a great boost in confidence from an easy victory, the Cimbri then proceeded to destroy the force commanded by Maximus. Already at a low ebb due to the infighting of the commanders, this Roman force had also witnessed the complete destruction of their colleagues. In other circumstances the army might have fled, but the poor positioning of the camp left them with their backs to the river. Many tried to escape in that direction, but legionaries of the time were not known for their prowess at swimming, and certainly not when encumbered. Certainly, the number of Romans who managed to escape were very few. This included the servants and camp followers, who usually numbered at least half as many again as the actual troops. Livy puts the total Roman legionaries killed at 80,000. Aftermath -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rome was a warfaring nation, and was accustomed to setbacks. However, the recent string of defeats ending in the clamity at Arausio was alarming for all the people of Rome. The defeat left them critically short on manpower, with a terrifying enemy camped on the other side of the undefended Alpine passes. In Rome, it was widely thought that the defeat was due to the arrogance of Caepio rather than a lacking in the roman army. Popular dissatisfaction with the ruling classes grew. As it turned out, the Cimbri next clashed with the Averni tribe, and after a hard struggle, for the moment anyway, set out for the Pyrenees instead of immediately marching into Italy. This gave the romans time to re-organise, and elect the man who would become known as the saviour of Rome, Gaius Marius. References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gilman, Arthur; The Story of Rome From the Earliest Times to the End of the Republic Livy Book LXVII Mommsen, Theodor; The History of Rome, Book IV link

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/3/2005 12:47:57 PM

"commanded by the proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio" Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caepio at Noreia in 106 BC? I think the 80,000 casualty count is significantly exaggerated, but I think Caepio is the reason why we disagree on the number of Consular armies. The Romans had one reinforced Consular army. These reinforcements would also have consisted of the shattered remnants of Caepio's Consular army lost at Noreia (losses were around 15,000). There was only one Consular army at Arausio in the proper sense, although if the praetorium of Caepio's army was not lost at Noreia then, technically speaking, his army would still exist (no matter how few men it contained), thus possibly accounting for the "second" army mentioned by some scholars.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - December 3, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us