Battle of Arausio

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

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.

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

Roman RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/3/2005 10:22:29 PM

I suppose it could be - I do not know enough about ancient history to tell, but internet sources seem to claim that the Battle of Noreia happened in 113 BC and the Battle of Arausio happened in 105 BC. That means there are 8 years between the Battle of Noreia and the Battle of Arausio. I think that 8 years would give the Romans enough time to either reconstitute the old army or raise another one for Capeio (if it is actually him who was at Noreia - I do not know that).

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/4/2005 11:46:45 PM

"Battle of Noreia happened in 113 BC" Err........the Battle of Noreia was the first major engagement between the Germanic horde and the Roman army, in 106 BC. Their defeat left the barbarians free to ravage Noricum. They proceeded into southern Gaul, and to Arausio...

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/4/2005 11:48:40 PM

I've seen the internet sources as well, and they do state 113 BC, but I'm pretty sure the battle was in 106 BC.

Quote Reply

Roman RE:The Battle of Orange (Arausio) 4/5/2005 12:02:54 AM

I would trust you on the date more than a single internet source, but the fact is that all internet sources I found (I checked at least 5 or more sources), including outlines for university courses, state that the Battle of Noreia happened in 113 BC, while Battle of Arausio happened in 105 BC - a space of 8 years in between them. Also, they state that the defeated Roman forces at Noreia were led by Cn Carbo. The leaders of the two armies at Arausio were Caepio and Mallius. Hence, Caepio was not the one leading Roman forces at Noreia.

Quote Reply

1 2