4 ms·

> The losers could suffer appalling casualties in the battle itself or in the ensuing pursuit, but the victors rarely suffered more than 5 per cent fatalities e

> The losers could suffer appalling casualties in the battle itself or in the ensuing pursuit, but the victors rarely suffered more than 5 per cent fatalities even in drawn-out engagements. One of Rome’s biggest advantages was that their training and discipline were such that even when they lost, they would often still extract a high price from the opponent (see Pyrrhus). This could be a real problem during civil wars and the opposing Roman legions would devastate each other.

cercatrova 4y ago
Well, except for Cannae and other Hannibalic battles.
- WJW 4y ago
  Or the ambush in the Teutoburg Forest where the Romans lost 16k+ troops vs only minor losses for the Germanic tribes.
  - jbandela1 4y ago
    Yeah and there was also Carrhae. But those cases either involved a brilliant general (Hannibal was probably top 10 of all time generals) or else ambushes in unfamiliar territory far from their home base. I think the original point still stands.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      From Livy's History of Rome, when Scipio Africanus and Hannibal met at a party once: > Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal replied: 'Alexander, King of the Macedonians, because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands. Merely to visit such lands transcended human expectation.' > Asked whom he would place second, Hannibal said: 'Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side; so that the Italian peoples preferred the overlordship of a foreign king to that of the Roman people, who for so long had been the chief power in that country.' > 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!' > This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, and this unexpected kind of flattery...affected Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had set him (Scipio) apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond calculation.
  - ARandomerDude 4y ago
    The exceptions prove the rule, though. Cannae, Teutoburg, etc. were permanently etched in the Roman mind, and triggered immediate, major military campaigns in response. If these events had not been so utterly unthinkable at the time, the blowback simply wouldn't have materialized.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    Do you have a source for the 'only minor losses for the Germanic tribes'? Afaik we know very little about the Germanic side at all. Most of what we know is in fact due to Roman historians who mostly wrote about the events decades and centuries after they happened.
    - WJW 4y ago
      I don't have 'proper' sources, this is just what it says on wikipedia. The article does motivate why they say Germanic losses were only minor though, for example by comparing relative prevalence of Germanic and Roman archeological remains on the site.
      - t_mann 4y ago
        Interesting, the German wikipedia article (that is considerably longer) doesn't mention anything of the sort, only that we don't know. There's even a lengthy discussion (and a separate article [0]) about how we don't even know the location of the battle, so any statements about the battle based on archeological evidence should be taken with a huge grain of salt (there are some candidates, and there's even a giant statue at a supposed location, but that has more to do with nationalism than archeology). Sounds like it might be worth adding a [citation needed] to the English version. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_und_Spekulationen_zum_Ort_der_Varusschlacht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_und_Spekulationen_zum...

cercatrova 4y ago

Well, except for Cannae and other Hannibalic battles.

WJW 4y ago
Or the ambush in the Teutoburg Forest where the Romans lost 16k+ troops vs only minor losses for the Germanic tribes.
- jbandela1 4y ago
  Yeah and there was also Carrhae. But those cases either involved a brilliant general (Hannibal was probably top 10 of all time generals) or else ambushes in unfamiliar territory far from their home base. I think the original point still stands.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    From Livy's History of Rome, when Scipio Africanus and Hannibal met at a party once: > Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal replied: 'Alexander, King of the Macedonians, because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands. Merely to visit such lands transcended human expectation.' > Asked whom he would place second, Hannibal said: 'Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side; so that the Italian peoples preferred the overlordship of a foreign king to that of the Roman people, who for so long had been the chief power in that country.' > 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!' > This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, and this unexpected kind of flattery...affected Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had set him (Scipio) apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond calculation.
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  The exceptions prove the rule, though. Cannae, Teutoburg, etc. were permanently etched in the Roman mind, and triggered immediate, major military campaigns in response. If these events had not been so utterly unthinkable at the time, the blowback simply wouldn't have materialized.
- t_mann 4y ago
  Do you have a source for the 'only minor losses for the Germanic tribes'? Afaik we know very little about the Germanic side at all. Most of what we know is in fact due to Roman historians who mostly wrote about the events decades and centuries after they happened.
  - WJW 4y ago
    I don't have 'proper' sources, this is just what it says on wikipedia. The article does motivate why they say Germanic losses were only minor though, for example by comparing relative prevalence of Germanic and Roman archeological remains on the site.
    - t_mann 4y ago
      Interesting, the German wikipedia article (that is considerably longer) doesn't mention anything of the sort, only that we don't know. There's even a lengthy discussion (and a separate article [0]) about how we don't even know the location of the battle, so any statements about the battle based on archeological evidence should be taken with a huge grain of salt (there are some candidates, and there's even a giant statue at a supposed location, but that has more to do with nationalism than archeology). Sounds like it might be worth adding a [citation needed] to the English version. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_und_Spekulationen_zum_Ort_der_Varusschlacht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_und_Spekulationen_zum...