Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 16th, 2009, 04:33 AM   #31

mister's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
From: United States of America
Posts: 333
Re: Overrated?


Thanks DIVUS IVLIVS you have given me something t think about.
mister is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 16th, 2009, 05:40 AM   #32

Galerius' Ghost's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2009
From: USA
Posts: 35
Re: Overrated?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS View Post
No, I agree he handled it quite well (although as always the higher praise must go to Caesar's extraordinary command). Personally I have always thought that Pompey made the right decision in not following up this attack. Contrary to the statements of the ancient writers, from what we know of the situation "following up" on the rout would not have been nearly as easy as it sounds. Pompey had gained his victory by breaking through the weakest point of Caesar's lines. The "lines" in question were, from the descriptions, a veritable maze of fortifications and trenches that even their own defenders could get lost in. Had Pompey launched further attacks he may well have been thrown back, and that would have put a huge dampener on what he had just done. In Adrian Goldsworthy (one of my favorite writers of Roman History)'s opinion, Pompey's military judgement was sound in consolidating what he had just won.
I like Goldsworthy but I have to disagree here. Caesar himself states that his right wing had disintegrated and was routing in panic. While it is true that the area around Dyrrachium was a 'maze' of trenches and fortifications, from the description of events it doesn't seem that Caesar's men were likely to reform and fight, if Pompey had followed up hard on their heals. Its very hard to regain control of an army once panic has ensued and this is typically when most casualties were inflicted during ancient battle. I understand Pompey was wary of engaging Caesar's veteran troops in open battle and would have rather fought a war of attrition, but as history shows, there was to be a decisive battle. Pompey heavily outnumbered Caesar at Dyrrachium and once Caesar's army began to give way Pompey should have followed through and attempted to end the whole thing while he held the advantage. Caesar, himself, seems to have thought Pompey should have followed up, as well.
Galerius' Ghost is offline  
Old May 16th, 2009, 07:47 AM   #33

DIVUS IVLIVS's Avatar
Pragmatic Idealist
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Virginia
Posts: 2,407
Re: Overrated?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Galerius' Ghost View Post
I like Goldsworthy but I have to disagree here. Caesar himself states that his right wing had disintegrated and was routing in panic. While it is true that the area around Dyrrachium was a 'maze' of trenches and fortifications, from the description of events it doesn't seem that Caesar's men were likely to reform and fight, if Pompey had followed up hard on their heals. Its very hard to regain control of an army once panic has ensued and this is typically when most casualties were inflicted during ancient battle. I understand Pompey was wary of engaging Caesar's veteran troops in open battle and would have rather fought a war of attrition, but as history shows, there was to be a decisive battle. Pompey heavily outnumbered Caesar at Dyrrachium and once Caesar's army began to give way Pompey should have followed through and attempted to end the whole thing while he held the advantage. Caesar, himself, seems to have thought Pompey should have followed up, as well.
On Caesar's opinion... it's very hard to say. We have from other sources a quote from him about how Pompey "would have won if he knew how to conquer", but such a remark, if he made it, probably goes along with the remark he made after the battle of Zela, where after flooring Pharnaces in four hours of vicious fighting he commented that Pompey had been very lucky to be considered a great general for fighting foes of this calibre. Caesar was not above trying to deflate his rival's reputation somewhat.

Getting back to Dyrrachium, it's not as simple a chain of events as Pompey breaking through and then holding back when he should have kept attacking. He broke through, then Caesar and Mark Antony arrived on the scene and attempted to remedy the situation. Both sides built more fortifications - Pompey to secure his new gains, Caesar to try and plug the hole (he had Mark Antony built another whole camp beyond the spot where Pompey had broken through. After a while Caesar believed he saw an opportunity for a counter-attack, and lead it, but Pompey eventually managed to get there with 5 legions and Caesar's force panicked and routed. This is the moment when Pompey supposedly misses an opportunity to follow up. But this doesn't quite ring true for me (or, apparently, for Goldsworthy). Caesar had just come out of at least several intense hours of building new fortifications to plug the line, and his routing forces would have retreated back inside to presumably rally. In any case, the force with him that had just been routed consisted of only a few thousand men at most - the rest of his forces, somewhere in the area of 25,000 men, were still ready at their posts to be brought up. Caesar's own failed counter-attack had shown just how easy it was for the maze of fortifications to foul up an attack that had been going well.

It should be remembered that Pompey had concentrated here some 5-6 legions and a lot of cavalry - a large portion of his forces, If he took a gamble here and tried a follow-up and it went wrong then he would find himself in a far worse position than Caesar was in at the moment.

All in all, Pompey would have found plentiful reasons beyond just excessive caution not to attempt a follow-up.
DIVUS IVLIVS is offline  
Old May 17th, 2009, 12:37 PM   #34

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 392
Re: Overrated?


Hello all,

First for the record I am american, so with that out of the way let me say that, in my mind the most overrated would be Eisenhower, the true definition of armchair general, while Montgomery, Bradley and Patton were trying to break free of the French coast, Eisenhower was busy with photo ops with Churchill and King George...................
Paragonrex is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.