Ambushes

I'm sure the Romans had encountered ambushes, especially in the northern regions of Germania and Gaul which were heavily forested. I still don't know if they had a way of dealing with the issue. Would they send scouts to suvey the land or did they have intelligence on the situation?

Discuss.

I reckon that they did use their cavalry for scouting the closest surroundings. From what I remember, they weren't neither very consequent nor careful about it. Interesting subject definitively going to see if I can find something more on the subject tomorrow.

I'm sure the Romans had encountered ambushes, especially in the northern regions of Germania and Gaul which were heavily forested. I still don't know if they had a way of dealing with the issue. Would they send scouts to suvey the land or did they have intelligence on the situation?

 

Discuss.

Salve, RG! I think you can easily find a lot of evidence that the Roman Army had usually an X-traordinary performance in both activities, including here at UNVR. Unfortunately (for the Romans), they can always became overconfident, as P. Varro in Kallikriese or J. Civilis with the Batavians ( or M. L. Crassus in Carrhae at the other side of the empire, BTW).

Wasn't there a battle somewhere in Gaul or Britain where the Romans were defeated by warriors dropping out of the trees on them?

Josephus (A hostage from the Jewish revolt in the first century AD) claim in his book, "A History of the Jewish War" 3.71 that:

"The Romans are never caught unexpectedly by an enemy."

Now of course we all know that ambushes did occur, the battle/slaughter in the Teutoburg forest might be the most well known example (The one you're thinking of L?), but it might give us a hint that it wasn't something that happened very often.

("As the Romans Did, second edition, A Sourcebook in Roman Social History" by J Shelton)

In the book "The Punic Wars" by A.Goldsworthy it's stated that the cavalry during those wars at least, never were any good at scouting.

The Battle of the Trebia in the second Punic War was a prime example of the Romans walking straight into an ambush that could have been avoided with a bit of forward planning i.e. scouting and surveying the area of battle.

With Scipio still recovering from wounds from a previous battle the consul Tiberius Sempronius Longus who was eager to take the glory for himself procceded to march his entire army who were cold tired and hungry into the waiting ambush set by Hannibal and his brother Mago, resulting in the Romans losing a third of thier forces and Hannibal recording his first victory against Rome.

I'm sure the Romans had encountered ambushes, especially in the northern regions of Germania and Gaul which were heavily forested. I still don't know if they had a way of dealing with the issue. Would they send scouts to suvey the land or did they have intelligence on the situation?

 

Discuss.

There are some different variables on this. The situation, the terrain, the troop types available.

In open land, scouting with cavalry is a must, and where possible the romans did this. I don't think they were any better or worse than anyone else bearing in mind cavalry were foreign auxilliaries in most cases, and at least they were loyal to the general at least to some extent rather than simply a purse of coins. In forests there's little possibility of cavalry scouts proving effective, because they cannot range ahead as usual and in fact might be more restricted than infantry in wilderness. Swampland too inhibits the use of cavalry for scouting sometimes.

The romans did indeed encounter ambushes, and toward the late empire were setting a few themselves. Intelligence, as today, is vital to prevent these traps. The only way to get this information apart from your own scouts is to question locals, travellers, and enemy deserters or captives. Remember that Quintilius Varus thought he had good intelligence on the german uprising thanks to the information forwarded by Arminius

During a ambush situation, much depends on the initiative and leadership qualities of the officers on the scene. A quick witted centurion might well save his command from disaster whilst a politically placed inexperienced officer, bored with military life and fed up of dealing with all this day to day nonsense isn't likely to react quickly enough.

I'm not aware of any standard tactic the romans used in ambush situations, but its probable they grouped and formed up as quickly as possible - if possible - to present some form of organised resistance. The worst case is where the troops are seperated out and outnumbered in melee, because with limited reserves available at the scene it might not be possible to help them.

Salve

I actually agree with GPM regarding Trebbia. The Romans never seem to have gotten down to realizing that proper scouting was an indispensable component of warfare in those days. Both Cannae and the sack of Rome by Brennus could have been avoided if proper reconnaisance had been done. As for Josephus and his eulogy - that is just what it is, an eulogy. He was writing in Vespasian's palace and could hardly be expected to point out the weaknesses in his patron's army.

There should be more ambushes from the Punic Wars. I just can't recall back my memory.

Is it true that the Romans had been using war machines and arrow fire to lead them into an ambush?

Was Trebia and ambush or a "strategic trap" during a battle?

Just a few examples from the Gallic Wars...

Caesar was ambushed by the Belgae along the Sambre River in 57 BC. It was a desperate battle that could've changed the course of European history.

He (or parts of his command) were also ambushed on at least a couple of occasions in Britain (though at least one was during a foraging expedition).

A part of Caesar's command (a garrison under the command of Sabinus and Lucius Cotta) was also ambushed by the chief of the Eburones (Ambiorix). This garrison of 7,000 men was almost wiped out completely, and though Caesar would pay the Eburones back in kind, the victory likely helped encourage the full scale revolt of Vercingetorix.

Was Trebia and ambush or a "strategic trap" during a battle?

I would say that an ambush is pretty much the same as a strategic trap. An ambush is a kind of trap and you can't set up an ambush/trap with out any strategy or tactics involved.

The definition of ambush is - to suddenly attack a person or a group of people after hiding and waiting for them.

From wiki....

Ambush is a surprise attack from a concealed position on a moving or temporarily halted enemy. An ambush is a long established military tactic in which an ambushing force uses concealment to attack an enemy that passes its position. Ambushers strike from concealed positions such as among dense underbrush or behind hilltops. The tactic is generally used to gather intelligence or to establish control over an area. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancient to modern warfare. An ambush predator is a creature who uses similar tactics to capture prey without the difficulty and wasted energy of a chase. Always these creatures are masters of concealment, even with several of the techniques having been copied, such as camouflage.

What i mean by a strategic trap (Might be misleading due my lack of English knowledge.) is that wasn't the Romans aware of the enemy at Trebia? The trap was Hannibal's battle plan rather then an attack on a marching column. I don't remember the battle movements very well but I thought that the Romans engaged the Punic forces on the other side of the river, and then got flanked by concealed cavalry. I would call that a trap.

What I would call an ambush is when the enemy conceal itself and you're not aware of their presence in the area and after that, get attacked.

What i mean by a strategic trap (Might be misleading due my lack of English knowledge.) is that wasn't the Romans aware of the enemy at Trebia? The trap was Hannibal's battle plan rather then an attack on a marching column. I don't remember the battle movements very well but I thought that the Romans engaged the Punic forces on the other side of the river, and then got flanked by concealed cavalry. I would call that a trap.

I can see where your coming from but I still say that they both amount to the same thing.

Yes the Romans were aware of the enemy but what they were not aware of was the 1000 infantry and 1000 cavalry under the command of Mago which had been concealed in the underbush under the cover of darkness in order to abush/ surprise / spring a trap (or what ever you choose to call it) the Romans.

What I would call an ambush is when the enemy conceal itself and you're not aware of their presence in the area and after that, get attacked.

On my understanding this is what happened, isn't it?

Whether it be the whole enemy or a hidden percentage of the enemy it all amounts to an ambush ,designed to catch the Romans off guard and to eventually sway the battle in favour of the Carthagians.

I suppose some of there overconfidence would come from the fact that they would use local allied tribes or men to guide them through rough, uncharted territory like forests or marshes etc. Except this was risky obviously because they could easily be betrayed and led into an ambush. The best example of this is the most famous ambush in Teutoburg forest.