Warfare Ancient Persia Greek Mycenae Carthage Rome Alexander Sulla Pompey Caesar

£39.58 Buy It Now, Click to see shipping cost, 30-Day Returns, eBay Money Back Guarantee
Seller: ancientgifts ✉️ (5,440) 100%, Location: Lummi Island, Washington, US, Ships to: WORLDWIDE & many other countries, Item: 385814988116 Warfare Ancient Persia Greek Mycenae Carthage Rome Alexander Sulla Pompey Caesar.

Warfare In The Classical World by John Warry. (Heavily) Illustrated Edition.

NOTE: We have 75,000 books in our library, almost 10,000 different titles. Odds are we have other copies of this same title in varying conditions, some less expensive, some better condition. We might also have different editions as well (some paperback, some hardcover, oftentimes international editions). If you don’t see what you want, please contact us and ask. We’re happy to send you a summary of the differing conditions and prices we may have for the same title.

DESCRIPTION: HUGE (Heavily Illustrated) Hardcover with Dust Jacket: 224 pages. Publisher: Salamander Books (1980). Dimensions: 12 x 9x 1 inches; 3 pounds. From Homeric and Mycenaean warfare, up through the Roman period, and concluding with the coming of the barbarians. This authoritative volume traces the evolution of the art of warfare in the Greek and Roman worlds between 1600 B. C. and A. D. 800, from the rise of Mycenaean civilization to the fall of Ravenna, and the eventual decline of the Roman Empire. The book is also, of course, about the great military commanders, such as Alexander and Julius Caesar - men whose feats of generalship still provide material for discussion and admiration in the world's military academies.

CONDITION: LIKE NEW. Unread (albeit mildly shelfworn) hardcover w/dustjacket. Salamander Books (1980) 224 pages. The inside of the book is pristine. The pages are clean, crisp, unmarked, unmutilated, tightly bound, and evidence absolutely zero indications that the book has ever been read - or even flipped through for that matter. Of course it's always possible that a few bookstore browsers may have flipped through the book while it was on the bookseller's shelf - which is always a possibility with any book which traveled through normal retail distribution channels which would include traditional shelved ("brick and mortar") book stores. However there are no indications the book has ever been read or even browsed, we're just presuming that with the book being 45 years old...someone, somewhere, at some time must have flipped through it least the first few pages...even if there are no such indications. From the outside the book evidences the fact it has spent 45 years "kicking around" on bookshelves. The covers and dustjacket evidence some edge and corner shelfwear, though it is mild. With respect to the dustjacket, this is in the form of mild "crinkling" and abrasive rubbing to the dustjacket spine head and the two upper open dustjacket "tips" (or upper open corners, front and back). The "tips" of course are formed where the dustjacket folds beneath the covers to form the dustjacket flaps, i.e., the "open corners" of the dustjacket (top and bottom, front and back). The spine heel and the two lower dustjacket "tips" (front and back lower open dustjacket corners) evidence no rubbing and noticeably lighter crinkling (in fact the lower open dustjacket corners do not even evidence any discernible crinkling). If you hold the dustjacket up to a light source and scrutinize it intently, you'll also see some faint crinkling along the open edges of the dustjacket. That the crinkling and rubbing is moreso to the dustjacket spine head and the two top "tips", less so to the spine heel and the two lower dustjacket "tips", reflects the oversized nature of the book...when being shelved/re-shelved it's the top edges which are more likely to be rubbed against a bookshelf edge (above) than to the bookshelf edge below. Oversized, heavy books like this are awkward to handle and so tend to get dragged across and bumped into book shelves as they are shelved and re-shelved, so it is not uncommon to see accelerated edge and corner shelfwear to both the dustjacket and covers of such huge, heavy books. Aside from the faint edge and corner shelfwear to the dustjacket, there also was/are two (neatly repaired) closed edge tears to either side of the dustjacket spine head. At the rear corner of the spine head the closed edge tear is about 1/4 inch in length. At the front corner of the dustjacket the closed edge tear is/was about 3/4 inch in length. Both closed edge tears have been very carefully repaired from the underside of the dustjacket, touched up with an oil-based sharpie, and as a result they are not prominent blemishes. In fact they are rather difficult to discern even when you know where they are. One last note regarding the dustjacket, and that is that it seems the upper third or quarter of the dustjacket spine head seems to be somewhat light faded. This would be the result of this tall book (while shelved) "peeking out" between smaller, shorter books, while being exposed to the typical fluorescent lighting of the typical bookstore. Not uncommon. Beneath the dustjacket, the full cloth covers are clean and unsoiled, echoing only very mild edge and corner shelfwear as the overlying dustjacket. There's faint crinkling and abrasive rubbing at the spine head, spine heel, and open cover corners (front and back, top and bottom). Again, very large, heavy books like this are awkward to handle and so tend to show accelerated shelfwear, frequently bumped, and particularly with respect to the edges as due to their size and weight they are frequently the victim of careless, lazy or clumsy re-shelving, oftentimes being bumped against bookshelf edges as they are shelved/re-shelved. However the shelfwear to the dustjacket and covers are again, very mild, and we mean just that. It requires that you hold the book up to a light source and scrutinize it intently to discern these "injuries" (and yes, we're nitpicking). We describe the book as "like new" balancing the (overall) very mild and superficial shelfwear to the dustjacket and covers with the fact that on the other hand, the book is clearly unread. However if you wished to place more emphasis on those faint blemishes (particularly the two very small, neatly repaired closed edge tears to the dustjacket spine head), and less emphasis on the fact the book is unread, you might want to consider the condition "very good (plus)". Except for the tiny repaired closed edge tears at the dustjacket spine head, the overall condition of the book is relatively consistent with what might pass as "new" stock from a traditional brick-and-mortar open-shelf book store (such as Barnes & Noble, Borders, or B. Dalton, for example) wherein otherwise "new" books often show a little handling/shelf wear the result of routine handling and the ordeal of constantly being shelved and re-shelved. Satisfaction unconditionally guaranteed. In stock, ready to ship. No disappointments, no excuses. PROMPT SHIPPING! HEAVILY PADDED, DAMAGE-FREE PACKAGING! Selling rare and out-of-print ancient history books on-line since 1997. We accept returns for any reason within 30 days! #051.3L.

PUBLISHER REVIEW:

REVIEW: This superbly illustrated volume traces the evolution of the art of warfare in the Greek and Roman worlds between 1600 B.C. and A.D. 800, from the rise of Mycenaean civilization to the fall of Ravenna and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. John Warry tells of an age of great military commanders such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar - men whose feats of generalship still provide material for discussion and admiration in the military academies of the world. The text is complemented by a running chronology, 16 maps, 50 newly researched battle plans and tactical diagrams, and 125 photographs, 65 of them in color.

-The Pronunciation of Ancient Languages.

-The Persian Wars.

-The Decline of Sparta and the -Ascendancy of Thebes.

-Alexander's successors and the Later Greek World.

-The Punic Wars and Roman Expansion.

-Pompey and His Epoch.

-The Wars of the Triumvirate.

-The Coming of the Barbarians.

REVIEW: From the rise of Greece to the fall of Rome, this illustrated volume is a wonderful account of the warriors and battles that dominated Europe and the Near East for more than 1,000 years. The story begins at Troy, drawing upon Homeric legend and modern archaeological evidence. It continues through Greece's Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, Alexander the Great, Rome's Punic Wars, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, and the barbarian invasions. Warfare in the Classical World will excite both readers who have a mature interest in the period and as well for those becoming acquainted with ancient history for the first time.

REVIEW: From the rise of Greece to the fall of Rome, this superbly illustrated volume is a wonderful account of the warriors and battles that dominated Europe and the Near East for more than 1,000 years. The story begins at Troy, drawing upon Homeric legend and modern archaeological evidence. It continues through Greece's Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, Alexander the Great, Rome's Punic Wars, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, and the barbarian invasions. Although John Warry's text is worth reading, the color drawings of uniforms, equipment, weapons, warships, siege engines, and more are the real highlight and make the chronicle extremely accessible. Warfare in the Classical World will excite both readers who have a mature interest in the period and, although it's not a kids' book, children becoming acquainted with ancient history for the first time. [Amazon.com].

READER REVIEWS:

REVIEW: This is a beautifully balanced book. It covers the classical period between 1600BC and 800AD in a very organized and readable way. Each period is prefaced with the heading "Ancient Authorities" and outlines where the following information is sourced. Then the period is discussed in flowing narrative which highlights the key personalities and events of the time along with an in depth look at the mechanics of warfare. The strategy and tactics presented is blended nicely with the historical discussion. In summary, this is a terrific encyclopedia and ranks as one of the nicest books I have seen on the subject. Superb.

REVIEW: This is a great resource for anyone interested in that huge chunk of time from the Homeric era to about the end of the Western Roman Empire. The illustrations are great, and a surprising amount of topics are covered, from now extinct elephant species to ships and machines. The author has a good way of showing long trends: Greek light infantry becoming heavier while heavy infantry became lighter, for example, that you might not otherwise notice. It is definitely worth the price.

REVIEW: As far as explaining warfare in the classical world, you really couldn't get a better book. Its illustrations are clear and informative. I originally found this book in my high school library and it took all my will power to keep from stealing it. I've found that most books that explain famous battles do so in a manner that's often vague and leave much to the reader's interpretation. This book shows how a battle came about - step by step. Keep in mind that it doesn't especially delve in the political/social mechanisms of why the battle started, but that isn't necessary considering that so many other books cover those topics sufficiently.

REVIEW: This truly is a marvelous book and provides a wonderful introduction to warfare in the classical world. The Ancient Greece section -- from Homeric times to Alexander the Great and his successors -- comprises half the book's pages, and then the Roman Republic section -- from Pyrrhus to the beginning of Octavian/Augustus rule -- comprises about 80 pages. Overall the book is simply marvelous, and as long as you don't mind the author breezing over Imperial Rome, it's a must-buy. The Alexander the Great section in particular is spectacular.

REVIEW: This is a beautiful book. The color work is excellent, as is the placement of each item and its description. In addition, the various artifacts are carefully related to their contemporary battles with great accuracy. This is one of those books that one returns to over the years, both to refresh one's knowledge or to expand upon it!

REVIEW: I got this for my son and I ended up reading it first. I am sure during this Christmas both of us will want to fight for the book. The pictures and the drawings are of the highest qualities. I love the descriptions of major wars. All in all, this is a great book that I suspect I will read and re-read many times.

REVIEW: if you are remotely interested in civilizations or warfare from the classical era, this is a must have book. Older school children will find it extremely helpful if they are studying this subject and adults will also be very pleased with it. Plenty of illustrations will keep even the casual reader very interested. An ideal companion to any other historical literary work.

Ancient Celtic Warfare: The Celts were a linguistic group which spanned across a wide geographic area and included numerous cultures and ethnicities. Because of this fact, the traditions, practices, and lifestyles of Celtic-speaking peoples varied considerably. The importance of warfare and the traditions surrounding war were one common thread of similarities throughout Celtic societies and cultures. This was true from the earliest emergence of the Hallstatt culture (12th-6th century BC) to the La Tene culture (5th-1st Century BC).

Warfare was interwoven into Celtic social structures, art, religion, and lifestyle. The Celts acquired a warrior reputation among their neighbors in the ancient world. Celtic societies tended to be more loosely organized than their Mediterranean counterparts, Celtic craftsmen worked iron, bronze, and gold with tremendous skill. Many technological innovations related to metalworking originated with the Celts.

Based on archaeological evidence (some graves contain much more valuable goods than others) it is postulated that there was a hierarchical social structure and the aristocracy placed a heavy emphasis on warrior status and prestige. Early Irish literature also attests to the presence of several different social classes, including nobles, free people, and slaves. Client-ship was an important part of this society, as the aristocracy used the bonds of patronage they had with their followers to maintain their own social status. A patron would offer hospitality, legal protection, economic support, and other rewards to their followers in exchange for loyalty and service.

Important individuals were distinguished by the inclusion of items like horse gear and weapons, especially swords. Vehicles such as carts or wagons were also included in high- status burials, offering a precursor to the role that the chariot played in later Celtic warfare and burial rites. These objects may have been owned by the individuals in life, but the selection of items to include in a burial might also be influenced by local traditions and beliefs. For example, the placement of certain weapons or pieces of equipment may have been more ceremonial or religiously motivated. This is especially likely to be true of more ornate swords, daggers, and helmets.

The warrior burials of the La Tene period date to roughly between the 6th and 1st century BC. La Tene warrior burials contain objects related to warfare such as swords, spears, and helmets, as well as drinking ware related to feasting. More important individuals were buried with horses or chariots. A kind of hierarchy of warriors appears on the Gundestrup Cauldron from Jutland, Denmark, an instantly recognizable and very famous archaeological artifact.

The Celts were renowned for their skill on horseback, and horses played an important role in Celtic culture. The importance of horse ownership and charioteering to social status and wealth in Celtic culture is a testament to the role of mounted warfare in Celtic Europe. The 2nd century AD Roman Historian Pausanias describes a tactic called trimarcisia in his “Description of Greece”. Each mounted warrior would be accompanied by two grooms who each had a horse in case their master’s horse was wounded. If the warrior was wounded, one of the grooms would return him to their camp, while the other one remained to fight in his place.

First century Roman authors like Lucan, Pomponius Mela, and Silius Italicus describe the Celts as riding scythed chariots into battle. The 6th century Byzantine historian Jordanes made a similar claim about the Britons in his “Getica”. Although there is no evidence that the Celts used scythed chariots, their use is described in the 8th century Irish epic set in the 1st century AD, “The Cattle Raid of Cooley”:

“…When the spasm had run through the high hero Cúchulainn he stepped into his sickle war-chariot that bristled with points of iron and narrow blades, with hooks and hard prongs, and heroic frontal spikes, with ripping instruments and tearing nails on its shafts and straps and loops and cords. The body of the chariot was spare and slight and erect, fitted for the feats of a champion, with space for the lordly warrior's eight weapons, speedy as the wind or as a swallow or a deer darting over the level plain. The chariot was settled down on two fast steeds, wild and wicked, neat-headed and narrow bodied, with slender quarters and roan breast, firm in hoof and harness, a notable sight in the trim chariot-shafts...”

The Celtic panoply generally consisted of a sword, spears, and a shield. The main sources of evidence about ancient Celtic arms and armor come from archaeological finds, Greek and Roman literary accounts, and art depicting Celtic warriors. The Celts are known for having used long oval shields which were long enough to protect the greater part of the body. These were decorated with bronze or iron bosses, some of which were quite ornate such as the archaeological find known as the 'Battersea Shield'. Swords were worn on the hip or side, hanging from a bronze or iron chain.

A few surviving examples of breastplates have also been found in Hallstatt and La Tene graves, although these were very rare. The Stična Breastplate is a riveted bronze cuirass from a 6th century BC Hallstatt warrior’s grave in modern-day Slovenia. Similar cuirasses have been found in 8th century BC Hallstatt burials in Marmesse, France. These cuirasses bear some similarity to Greek and Etruscan 'bell cuirasses' produced in the Mediterranean during the Archaic Period (8th to 6th century BC) and to the 'muscle cuirass' which developed in the 5th century BC.

Many surviving examples of Celtic helmets (such as the “Waterloo Helmet”) are ceremonial and were not intended for use in actual combat. These were status symbols, made with expensive materials like gold and coral in addition to bronze and iron. The often impractical designs indicate that they were intended to make the wearer more visible in parades or processions, rather than to provide protection in actual combat. Celtic helmets began to be less ornate and more practical in the later La Tene period, perhaps indicating that their use was becoming more widespread.

Celtic warriors played an increasingly prominent role in the art and literature of the Greeks and Romans from the 4th century BC onwards. A coalition of Celtic tribes under a high king known as Brennus invaded Italy and sacked Rome in 390 BC. Another ruler with the same name helped to lead an invasion of Southeastern Europe with a coalition of tribes which culminated in the invasion of Greece around 280 BC. The aggressive migration of the Celts into the Mediterranean led to increasingly intense conflicts with the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman Republic.

While human sacrifice was practiced to some extent in Celtic cultures, stories like Pausanias’ account of Celts eating Greek babies when they sacked Callium in 279 BC are pure fiction. Celtic arms and armor were adopted by the groups they came into conflict with such as the Thracians and the Romans. The Roman gladius is an important example of this, as it was descended from Celtic or Celtiberian swords which could be used for both cutting and thrusting. The gladius replaced the more pointed, blunt-edged swords that Romans had used until the 3rd century BC.

These Classical stereotypes of the Celts were the underpinnings of early historical scholarship and still inform public perception of the Celts to a great degree. Although archaeological evidence has disproved many of these ideas, they still linger on in the modern imagination. [Ancient History Encyclopedia].

King Servius Tullius (circa 580- 530 B.C.) introduced six classes of wealth upon Rome’s citizens; the lowest group had no property and were excluded from the military, whilst the highest group, the equites, formed the cavalry. The earliest contemporary account of a Roman legion is by Polybius, and it dates to around 150-120 B.C.; this is referred to as the Manipular Legion, although the Manipular legion probably developed around the middle of the 4th century B.C. It is thought that the Manipular legion, which was based around smaller units of 120-160 men called maniples (Latin for 'handfuls'), was developed to match the looser formations that Rome’s enemies fought in and would be able to out maneuver phalanx formations.

As the nature of Rome’s army changed from limited, seasonal campaigns, and a provincial empire began to come into existence due to the success of such battles as Cynoscephalae (197 B.C.) and Pydna (168 B.C.), the legions began to develop more permanent bases, in turn creating a manpower shortage. Gaius Marius was elected consul in 107 B.C. he began to enlist volunteers from citizens without property and equipped them with arms and armor at the expense of the state. The development from the maniple to the cohort is also credited to Marius, though this change may have been finalized by Marius, rather than wholly implemented by him.

By the 2nd century A.D. Rome was deploying armored cavalry units, and whilst it had used siege weapons previously, employing arrow and stone throwing siege-engines, it was in the 3rd century A.D. that Rome started to notice the use of artillery, with the addition of the onager, a large stone-thrower. There are many classical writers who are useful to consult when looking at the Roman army, both Greek and Roman. Polybius is very useful at assessing the Roman Army, providing information on their weapons (6.23), discipline (6.38) and rewards for courage (6.39.1-3; 5-11), as well as describing them in battle.

The citizen soldiers of the Manipular army would be enrolled for a specific amount of time, rather than signing up for years of service as they would do in the Imperial period. This meant that the legions of the Republic had no long continual existences because they were disbanded after the campaign they had been serving on was finished. The result of the Marian reforms was a professional standing army for the Roman State, or in the coming years, individual generals who gained the loyalty of their legions.

Trajan to Pliny: "[An officer had discovered two newly enrolled soldiers were slaves]... it needs to be investigated whether they deserve capital punishment. It depends whether they were volunteers or conscripts or given as substitutes. If they are conscripts, the recruiting officer was at fault; if substitutes, those who gave them are to blame; if they presented themselves in full awareness of their own status, that is to be held against them. It is hardly relevant that they have not yet been assigned to units. The day on which they were first approved and took the oath required the truth of their origin from them." Pliny's Letters, (10.30), circa 112 A.D.

The average centurion got 18 times the pay of the standard soldier, 13,500 denarii, and centurions of first cohort got 27,000, whilst the primi ordines got 54,000. By the 2nd century A.D., there would not have been much active service either, and hence less threat of death, since this was a fairly peaceful time in Rome’s history. Because of this later stability and settlement, many Army bases incorporated baths and amphitheatres, so the army clearly did have its advantages. However, it was not until Septimius Severus that standard soldiers could legally marry during service (not that this had stopped unofficial marriages beforehand, and furthermore, centurions were allowed to marry beforehand).

Likewise, soldiers could also own slaves. Tacitus. (Hist. 2.80.5), gives a good example of army living conditions. Whilst Dionysus and Plutarch do not mention the introduction of maniples per se, they do talk of tactical and equipment changes that would be in line with changes that a change to maniples would require. Livy describes how a manipular formation was presented in battle: "…what had before been a phalanx, like the Macedonian phalanxes, came afterwards to be a line of battle formed by maniples, with the rearmost troops drawn up in a number of companies."

"This body of thirty maniples they called antepilani, because behind the standards there were again stationed other fifteen companies, each of which had three sections, the first section in every company being known as pilus. The company consisted of three vexilla or “banners”; a single vexillum had sixty soldiers, two centurions, one vexillarius, or color-bearer; the company numbered a hundred and eighty —six men. The first banner led the triarii, veteran soldiers of proven valor; the second banner the rorarii, younger and less distinguished men; the third banner the accensi, who were the least dependable, and were, for that reason, assigned to the rear most line…" (Livy, Ab urbe condita, 8.8).

•10 cohorts to one legion.

•10 tents to one cohort.

•120 cavalry - not really a fighting force, but messengers and scouts.

1. Alae quingenariae; one ala of 16 turma; one turma of 30 men; 480 men.

3. Cohorts equitates; mixed infantry and cavalry. The Auxiliaries were commanded by Prefects of the equestrian rank. However, as the auxiliaries developed, a forth kind of troop was introduced, this reflected the fact the auxiliaries had developed into a status very similar to that of the legionaries.

When a soldier of the Auxiliaries was discharged, he received a military diploma, which granted him and his children Roman citizenship and gave legal acceptance of any marriage; for many this was a very attractive reward for joining (and surviving) service in the Auxiliaries.

In addition to this there was the Roman Fleet (classis), the Urban Cohort (3-4 cohorts stationed in Rome that acted as a police force to maintain civil order, under the command of the Urban Prefect), and the Equites Singulares, the cavalry for the Praetorian Guard, which varied in strength from 500-1000 men. In total, for most of the Imperial period Rome had a military force of around 350,000, taking into consideration there were 28 legions of around 5,500, and then 160,000 divided amongst the auxilia, the troops in Rome, and the fleet.

The centurions had their own rankings, the titles of which are probably based on the organization of the Manipular Army. For the 2nd-10th Cohorts of a Legion, the centurions were ranked, highest to lowest: pilus prior, princeps prior, hastatus prior, pilus posterior, princeps posterior, and the hastatus posterior. For the first cohort, there were five centurions, called the primi ordines, and they were ranked (again, highest to lowest), primus pilus, princeps prior, hastatus prior, princeps posterior, and hastatus posterior.

The Republican gladius hispaniensis (Spanish sword) was the other standard weapon of the Roman infantry, and was worn on the right hip, being designed for stabbing and thrusting. However, it could also cut, having sharp edges. Livy (31.34.4.) describes the terror of the Macedonian army after seeing the damage that the sword could wreak. The Imperial sword is referred to as the Mainz-type sword (after the location where examples have been found) and is similar.

However, there does not seem to be any non-contentious material to support Vegetius, and considering his later date, he may be transferring contemporary practices to earlier times. The Imperial scutum differed from the Republican one in that it was rectangular when seen from the front, (this is the stereotypical ‘Roman shield’), with a boss in the center, made of iron or a bronze alloy that was probably used to bash the opponent. Polybius 6.23.14 describes the various types of breast-plate or cuirass that the Republic troops could equip themselves with.

The most typical were made from a single sheet of iron in a bowl shape with a neck guard at the back, a pronounced brow and hinged check guards; all designed to minimize damage and reflect blows made at the wearer’s face. The Monterfortino style helmet (named after the grave of Montefortino in Ancona where a number of examples were found) was the standard helmet of the 2nd century B.C. Polybius 6.23.12 describes the famous feathered crest of this helmet.

Vitruvius passes over the more obvious-to-construct siege ladders. Also, whilst not an actual ‘weapon’ per se, walls could be undermined by sappers. Josephus, The Jewish War 3. 245-6- describes in quite gory detail the effectiveness of stone throwers. However, siege weapons were also sometimes (but rarely) deployed in open warfare: Tacitus, (Histories 3.23) relates how at the second battle of Bedriacum in 69 A.D. where “an exceptionally large catapult… would have inflicted carnage far and wide…” if it were not for two soldiers who snuck up to it and cut its ropes and gears.

However, the whole legion need not be based in camp at the same time. Vindolanda Inventory No. 154, of the 1st Tungrian Cohort, shows how the troops were divided across the province, acting as provincial policemen or guards to the governor, to name just two duties outside of the Roman fort that soldiers might be sent to do. The army was a key part of Imperial Rome, and the emperors relied on the army’s allegiance; this can be seen by the coin of Vitellus which reads, that he is in power in “agreement with the army”, and by the fact that the emperor was seen as a soldier, and how this was one of the reasons for Nero’s failings; Dio Cassius, 69.9, tells of the vital role of the Praetorian guard in Claudius’ ascension to power.

"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides." (Plut.Vit.Aem. Paul.1.20).

When Quintus Sertorius, an eques of notable military distinction, was outmatched by the enemy cavalry, so “during the night he dug trenches and drew up his forces in front of them. When the cavalry squadrons arrived… he withdrew his line of battle. The cavalry pursued him closely, fell into the ditches, and in this way were defeated.” (Frontinus, 2.12.2).

The semi-legendary Battle of Lake Regillus, circa 496 B.C., took place at Lake Regillius between Tusculum and Rome, and happened at the very beginning of the Roman Republic. It was fought between Rome and the Latins. The Latins were led by Rome’s last and exiled king, Tarquinius Superbus. and this was the king’s last attempt to regain power in Rome. The Romans were led by the Dictator Postumius. After much uncertainty on the battlefield there were three measures which Postumius had to put in place to ensure his victory.

Zama (202 B.C.) was the last battle in the Second Punic War and ended 17 years of war between the two states of Rome and Carthage. The Roman legionaries and Italian cavalry (with a supporting body of Numidian cavalry) were led by Publius Cornelius Scipio. The Carthaginians were led by Hannibal, who fielded an army of mercenaries, local citizens, veterans from his battles in Italy, and war elephants. The Roman victory saw an end to Carthaginian resistance, with the Carthaginian senate pressing for peace again. The Romans granted peace, put only at a high price for Carthage.

At the battle of Teutoburg Forest (9 A.D.) three legions were ambushed and slaughtered by a gathering of Germanic tribes, commanded by Arminius, chief of the Cherusci. The Romans were led by Publius Quinctilius Varus. Tacitus (Annals,1.55-71) describes the scenario and battle in detail but Suetonius, best sums up the effect of this defeat: “[the defeat] of Varus threatened the security of the empire itself; three legions, with the commander, his lieutenants, and all the auxiliaries, being cut off. Upon receiving intelligence of this disaster, he gave orders for keeping a strict watch over the city, to prevent any public disturbance, and prolonged the appointments of the prefects in the provinces, that the allies might be kept in order by experience of persons to whom they were used."

For the best part of half a millennium the Roman army acted as the long arm of Roman imperialism over an area of land that encompassed the lands touched and influenced by the Mediterranean. It united Italy, divided Roman allegiances, acting both as the State's enforcer and the enforcer of individuals of power; it was able to subdue German tribes, Carthaginians, Greeks, Macedonians, and many other peoples. It was a force to be reckoned with, and it still is because to understand how the Roman army operated is no easy task, and this definition has only brushed the top-soil off the vast wealth of details on the Roman army that have been buried in time. [Ancient History Encyclopedia]

Naval warfare had its own unique dangers, though, with adverse weather being the biggest threat to success, which is why naval campaigns were largely limited to between April and November. Ancient naval vessels were made of wood, water-proofed using pitch and paint, and propelled by both sail and oars. Ships with multiple levels of rowers, such as the trireme, were fast and maneuverable enough to attack enemy vessels by ramming. The largest ships were the quinqueremes, with three banks of rowers, two each for the upper two oars and one rower on the lower oar (around 300 in total).

Fire balls (pots of burning pitch) could also be launched at the enemy vessel to destroy it by fire rather than ramming. Fleets came to be commanded by a prefect (praefectus) appointed by the emperor, and the position required someone with great skill and leadership qualities to successfully marshal a fleet of sometimes unwieldy vessels. The captain of a vessel held centurion rank or the title of trierarchus. Fleets were based at fortified ports such as Portus Julius in Campania which included artificial harbors and lagoons connected by tunnels.

Training was, therefore, a crucial requirement, so that the collective manpower was used most efficiently and discipline was maintained in the frenzy and horror of battle. Rome's navy swept away the Carthaginians and Cilician pirates, bringing total domination of the Mediterranean. Roman naval tactics differed little from the methods employed by the earlier Greeks. Vessels were propelled by rowers and sail to transport troops, and in naval battles the vessels became battering rams using their bronze-wrapped rams. In actual battle, sailing maneuverability was limited and so rowers propelled the vessels when at close quarters with the enemy.

This is why, over time, vessels had more and more rowers, not along the ship's length which would make the ship unseaworthy, but by piling rowers on top of each other. Thus the trireme of the Greeks, with three levels of rowers, had evolved from the brireme with two levels, and the trireme eventually evolved into the Roman quinquereme. Rome had employed naval vessels from the early Republic in the 4th century B.C., especially in response to the threat from pirates in the Tyrrhenian Sea, but it was in 260 B.C. that they built, in a mere 60 days, their first significant navy.

The first engagement where the corvi were employed with great effect was the Battle of Mylae off the coast of northern Sicily in 260 B.C. The two fleets were evenly matched with 130 vessels apiece, but the Carthaginians, not expecting the Romans to be any great shakes at naval warfare, did not even bother to form battle lines. The corvus proved a devastatingly successful attack weapon against the disorganized Carthaginians, and a Roman victory was the result, albeit, an unexpected one. Not only did the commander and consul Caius Duilius have the satisfaction of seeing his opposite number flee his flagship in a rowing boat, but he was also granted a military triumph for this, Rome's first great victory at sea.

The Carthaginians sought to entice the front two Roman squadrons away from the rear and catch them in a pincer movement. However, whether through a lack of maneuverability or proper communication of intentions, the Carthaginian fleet instead attacked the Roman rear transport squadron whilst the front two Roman squadrons caused havoc inside the Carthaginian center. In the close-quarter fighting, seamanship counted for little and the corvii for everything. Once again, victory was Rome's. Carthage lost 100 ships to a mere 24 Roman losses.

Eventually however Rome prevailed. The war had cost Rome 1,600 ships but the prize was worth it: domination of the Mediterranean. This sea control became useful in Rome's wars with the successor kingdoms of Alexander in the Macedonian Wars. Between 198 and 195 B.C., for example, Rome repeatedly launched successful sea-borne raids against Philip V of Macedonia's ally Nabis, the Spartan tyrant. With the decline of Rhodes, which had for centuries policed the Mediterranean and Black Sea to protect her lucrative trade routes, piracy became rife in the 1st century B.C.

Finally, he sailed for Cilicia in Asia Minor, where the pirates had their bases and where they had been deliberately allowed to gather by Pompey for a last decisive battle. Attacking by sea and land, and victorious in the battle of Coracesium, Pompey negotiated a pirate surrender with a sweetener of free land for those who gave themselves up peacefully. The last threat to Rome's complete control of the Mediterranean was gone. Now the only threat to Rome was Rome herself and, so it was, civil war ravaged Italy. Julius Caesar emerged the victor, and the remnants of Pompey's fleet became the backbone of the Roman navy, which was used to good effect in the expeditions to invade Britain - the larger second expedition in 54 B.C. involved a fleet of 800 ships.

The weapon proved devastatingly effective in 36 B.C. at the 600-ship battle of Naulochos (Sicily again), and Sextus was defeated. In 31 B.C., near Actium on the western coast of Greece, there occurred one of the most significant naval battles in history. Still battling for control of the Roman Empire, Octavian now faced Mark Antony and his ally, Egyptian Queen, Cleopatra. Both sides amassed a fleet and made ready to attack the other. Mark Antony led a fleet of 500 warships and 300 merchant ships against Octavian's similar-sized force, although Antony had larger and less maneuverable Hellenistic-type vessels.

As disease ravaged his troops and his supply lines became increasingly threatened by Agrippa, Antony had little choice but to try and break out on the 2nd of September. Not helped by a defector giving Octavian his plans and several generals switching sides, Antony could only muster 230 ships against Agrippa's 400. Agrippa's strategy was to hold station at sea and lure Antony away from the coast. However, this would have exposed Antony to the greater maneuverability of Agrippa's vessels, so he tried to hug the coast and avoid encirclement.

The propaganda of the victors predictably blamed Cleopatra and Antony's cowardice for the defeat, but the fact that Antony had engaged Agrippa under sail suggests that, heavily outnumbered, he had, from the start, intended flight rather than combat. Following victory at Actium, the new emperor Octavian, now calling himself Augustus, established two 50-ship fleets - the classis Ravennatium based at Ravenna and the classis Misenatium based at Misenum (near Naples), which were in operation until the 4th century A.D. There were also later fleets based at Alexandria, Antioch, Rhodes, Sicily, Libya, Pontus, and Britain, as well as one operating on the Rhine and another two on the Danube.

Rhine River Excavations of Roman Riverine Warships: Roman raiders and their lost arks. When workmen were digging foundations to erect a new Hilton hotel in Mainz, West Germany (in 1982), they excavated the well-preserved remains of nine Roman warships. Such are the small ironies of history. And now, less than a year later, two more vessels have been uncovered, buried under 12 to 15 feet of clay. The oldest of the ships was built in 81 A.D., according to the rather precise evidence of the rings in the oak.

There was accommodation for sail amidships, but they were chiefly propelled by oars. In their sharp lines, one feels the thrust of a score of Caesars. Around 12 B.C., we know, the Emperor Drusus cut a canal from the Rhine to the Zuyder Zee. Some of these ships, part of the classis Germanicus (Rome's German navy), must have traveled on that canal. How tirelessly the empire laid down arterial roads and bridges and waterways so that its armies could move further, and yet further, from the heart of Rome!

There were not enough freed slaves - from Gaul, from Spain, from Africa - to man all those oars. The last words of the Emperor Septimus in 200 A.D. were: "Pay the soldiers more." But there was no longer enough gold to ship out of Rome on those roads and waterways, financing all the garrisons of this garrison state. For what the Romans finally ran out of was will. What was it all for? National security? World order? Manifest destiny? The Romans thought they knew in the beginning.

Some will see them as an argument for more defense; others, as an argument for less defense. Most people will "learn" what they are already convinced of. The ships sit, submerged in huge metal basins in an empty trolley barn, too waterlogged to be withdrawn from water. Polyethylene glycol is being tried as a liquid replacement. But for the moment, air is the enemy. In contrast to their military pretensions, the Roman warships now seem profoundly vulnerable - documentation for a modern historian's conclusion: "The complete failure of Rome against Germany...usefully illustrates the limitations of sea-power." And what else? Something in us parallel-seekers wants to know. Something in us doesn't want to know. [Christian Science Monitor].

To maintain trade contacts between these cities and to police their interests the Carthaginians used a naval fleet which became the envy of the ancient world. Such was its strength that Rome, although successful in land battles, was forced to build its first ever fleet in order to defeat Carthage and claim the western Mediterranean for its own. For three centuries prior to the Punic Wars, though, the Carthaginian fleet ruled the waves. Inheriting the skills passed on to them by the mother country Phoenicia the Carthaginians were admired across the ancient Mediterranean not only for their seamanship but also the quality of their ships.

Each oar was fitted with a horizontal bar for the helmsmen to handle. The Phoenicians had invented the trireme with three banks of rowers, but after using these in their early history the Carthaginians would later progress in the 4th century B.C. to the bigger and faster ships with four and five men per oar, the quadrireme and quinquereme. The quinquereme, so called for its arrangement of five rowers per vertical line of three oars, became the most widely used in the Punic fleet. Catapults could be mounted on the deck of these large vessels but were probably limited to siege warfare and not used in ship-to-ship battles.

"They much surpassed the Romans in speed, owing to the superior build of their ships and the better training of the rowers, as they had freely developed their line [formation] in the open sea. For if any ships found themselves hard pressed by the enemy it was easy for them, owing to their speed, to retreat safely to open water and from thence, fetching round on the ships that pursued…them, they either got in their rear or attacked them in the flank. As the enemy then had to turn round they found themselves in difficulty owing to the weight of the hulls and the poor oarsmanship of the crews, [so the Carthaginians] rammed them repeatedly and sunk many."

The second tactic, known as periplous, was to try and sail down the flanks of the enemy formation and attack from the sides and rear. This strategy could be countered by spreading one’s ships as wide as possible but not too much so as to allow a diekplous attack. Positioning a fleet with one flank protected by a shoreline could also help counter a periplous maneuver, especially from a more numerous enemy. While all this chaotic ramming was going on, smaller vessels were used to haul stricken ships away from the battle lines or even to tow away captured vessels.

Command of the navy was in the hands of an admiral selected by the council of Carthage. He had equal status to the commander of the land army, and only very rarely were the two forces commanded by the same person. Each ship was run by three officers, one of whom was the navigator. A typical quinquereme crew would have consisted of 300 rowers taken from the citizenry of Carthage and allied cities such as Utica. In later times slaves were also used to meet the high demands of warfare. The lesser-skilled slaves could be used to good effect in the larger ships where two men manipulated most of the oars.

Oarsmen could not relax when beached as they were expected to fight in landing operations but not in ship-to-ship battles. Crews might also be employed in the building of siege engines, too. The larger ships were decked and would have carried complements of armed men, both archers and marines armed with spears, javelins, and swords, who could board enemy vessels given the opportunity.

The outer ring of ship sheds could hold another 170 ships. From recent archaeology we now know that the harbor was 325 meters in diameter and matches Appian’s description. The roofed sheds fronted by Ionic columns allowed the relatively light wooden ships to be pulled up a wooden slipway for repair and to avoid them becoming water-logged when not needed. The sheds were 30-48 meters long and 6 meters wide. The harbor also had a large platform (choma) which infantry and even chariots could use to board the ships. Both harbors were protected by massive fortification walls.

However, the best documented naval engagements, and those most vital to Carthage’s survival, came during the Punic Wars with Rome now as enemy number one. In the First Punic War (264 and 241 B.C.) Rome quickly realized that to defeat Carthage they would have to do what they had never done before - build their own naval fleet. Accordingly, in the spring of 260 B.C. Rome constructed a fleet of 20 triremes and 100 quinquereme warships in only 60 days. Copying the design of a captured Carthaginian ship, the Romans then added a whole new feature: the corvus (raven).

The Carthaginians, so dismissive of their opponent’s seafaring skills, had not even bothered to form battle lines. When the Carthaginian flagship was captured, the commander was forced to flee in a rowing boat. The Roman commander Duilius was honored with a Roman triumph, the first in Rome’s history to be awarded for a naval victory. Carthage seemed to have no answer to the corvus and more defeats came at Sulcis in 258 B.C. and in the battle of Ecnomus in 256 B.C. The latter was one of the largest naval engagements in history with the Romans commanding 330 ships and the Carthaginians a similar number.

Round one of the Punic Wars was finally won by the Romans with their victory off the Aegates Islands (Isole Egadi) on 10th March, 241 B.C. The Carthaginian fleet, led by Hanno and sent to relieve the besieged city of Drepana on Sicily, was defeated by a 200-ship Roman fleet commanded by the consul Gaius Lutatius Catulus. Catulus had spent all the previous summer training his crews and the effort paid off when 50 Carthaginian ships were sunk, 70 captured, and 10,000 prisoners taken. This loss was not huge, but after decades of war, it drove the cash-strapped Carthaginians to seek peace terms.

In 205 B.C. Carthage sent yet another army, led by Mago, to relieve his brother Hannibal who was by now cornered in southern Italy. Unfortunately, they could only land in Liguria, northern Italy because of the Roman naval dominance and their control of the major ports further south. In 204 B.C. Scipio managed to cross to Africa unimpeded with an army of 30,000 men. In 202 B.C. the Roman general then defeated an army led by Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. The second and most decisive round was over with Rome once again the victor.

The Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.) turned out to be something of a mismatch. Carthage, without a navy, could do nothing to prevent the Romans landing an army of over 80,000 men in North Africa. Despite valiant resistance behind Carthage’s impressive fortifications and a brave attempt to break the siege with a fleet of 50 secretly constructed ships, Rome was able to carry out the senator Cato’s famous command to the letter, Carthage was destroyed.

Very few ancient wars up to that time were ever settled by sea engagements alone as land warfare remained the principal means to inflict total defeat on the enemy. Even before the Punic Wars had started, Carthage had gone a generation without having to fight a naval battle with the consequence that its mariners had little real battle experience. Rome took up naval warfare with great success and displayed an astounding ability to replace its fleets almost at will. In Spain and North Africa Romans defeated the Carthaginian armies on land. Hannibal’s four great victories in Italy proved to be the exception, not the rule, and his gamble that Rome would collapse from within failed.

The Punic Wars (Carthage Versus Rome): The Punic Wars were a series of conflicts fought between the forces of ancient Carthage and Rome between 264 B.C. and 146 B.C. The name Punic comes from the word Phoenician (Phoinix in the Greek, Poenus from Punicus in Latin) as applied to the citizens of Carthage, who were of Phoenician ethnicity. As the history of the conflict was written by Roman authors, they labeled it 'The Punic Wars'.

As long as Rome remained the little city of trade by the Tiber River, Carthage reigned supreme; but the island of Sicily would be the flashpoint for growing Roman resentment of the Carthaginians. Sicily lay partly under Carthaginian and partly under Roman control. When Heiro II of neighboring Syracuse fought against the Mamertines of Messina, the Mamertines asked first Carthage and then Rome for help. The Carthaginians had already agreed to help and felt betrayed by the Mamertines’ appeal to Rome.

By immobilizing the other ship, and attaching it to their own, the Romans could manipulate a sea engagement through the strategies of a land battle. Even so, they lacked the expertise at sea of the Carthaginians and, more importantly, were lacking a general with the skill of the Carthaginian Hamilcar Barca. Hamilcar was surnamed Barca (meaning `lightning’) because of his speed in attacking anywhere and the suddenness of the action.

According to the historian Durant, “Worn out almost equally, the two nations rested for nine years. But while in those years Carthage did nothing…a number of Roman citizens voluntarily presented to the state a fleet of 200 men-of-war, carrying 60,000 troops.” The Romans, more experienced at sea battles now and better equipped and led, won a series of decisive victories over Carthage and in 241 B.C. the Carthaginians sued for peace.

While Carthage would largely ignore the war, leaving the fighting to Hamilcar and his mercenaries, Rome would be building and equipping more ships and training more men. Even though Rome had never had a navy before the First Punic War, they emerged in 241 B.C. as masters of the sea and Carthage was a defeated city. During the war, the Carthaginian government had repeatedly failed to pay its mercenary army and, also in 241 B.C., these mercenaries laid siege to the city.

They concentrated their efforts on the conquest of Spain rather than trying to drive the Romans out of their former colonies. In 226 B.C. the Ebro Treaty was signed between Carthage and Rome agreeing that the Romans would hold Spanish territory north of the Ebro River, Carthage would hold the area they had already conquered south of the river, and neither nation would cross the boundary.

Hannibal then proceeded to win every single engagement against the Romans, conquering northern Italy and gathering former allies of Rome to his side. Having lost many of his elephants on his march over the mountains, and lacking necessary siege engines and troops, Hannibal was caught in southern Italy in a cat and mouse game with the Roman army under Quintus Fabius Maximus. Fabius refused to engage Hannibal directly relying, instead, on cutting off his supplies and starving his army.

When they did exactly that, and the Romans pressed what they saw as an advantage and followed them, Hannibal closed from behind and the sides, enveloping the Roman forces and crushing them. 44,000 Roman soldiers died at Cannae compared with 6000 of Hannibal’s forces. Hannibal won his greatest victory but could not build upon it as Carthage refused to send him the reinforcements and supplies he needed. Shortly after this, the Roman general, Publius Cornelius Scipio (later known as Scipio Africanus, who had fought against Hannibal at Cannae) was defeating the Carthaginian forces in Spain (under Hannibal’s brother, Hasdrubal).

Hannibal returned to the city and told the senate that Carthage should immediately surrender. Scipio allowed Carthage to retain her colonies in Africa but she had to surrender her navy and was not allowed to make war under any circumstances without Rome’s approval. Carthage was also to pay Rome a war debt of 200 talents every year for fifty years. Carthage was, again, a defeated city but, retaining its trading ships and ten warships to protect them, was able to struggle on and begin to prosper. The Carthaginian government, however, still as corrupt and selfish as it had always been, taxed the people heavily to help pay the war debt while they, themselves, contributed nothing.

The Roman senator Cato the Elder took the threat so seriously that he would end all of his speeches, no matter the subject, with the phrase, “And, further, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.” In 149 B.C. Rome sent an embassy to Carthage suggesting exactly that course: that the city should be dismantled and moved inland away from the coast. The Carthaginians refused to comply with this and so began the Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.).

War Horses and Chariots in the Ancient World: By the mid-second millennium B.C., the use of horses in warfare had become common throughout the Near East and Egypt. This development was made possible by advances both in the design of chariots, in particular the invention of the spoked wheel, which replaced the solid wooden wheel and reduced a chariot’s weight, and the introduction of all-metal bits, which gave chariot drivers more control over their horses. Though chariot warfare was expensive, and its effectiveness was determined by the durability of the chariots and suitability of the terrain, the vehicles became essential battlefield equipment.

The “Kikkuli Text,” written in cuneiform script and dating to around 1400 B.C., is named after its author. Kikkuli introduces himself in the first line as a “horse trainer from the land of the Mitanni,” a state in what is now northern Syria and southeastern Turkey. He then describes an approximately 184-day training cycle that begins in the fall, in which he includes instructions for the horses’ feeding, watering, and care, recommending stable rest, massages, and blankets. For nearly a millennium, warhorses were used almost exclusively to pull chariots, but after about 850 B.C. chariotry began to decline. Horses, however, never lost their usefulness in battle.

Ancient Viking Warfare: During the Viking Age (about 790-1100 AD) Viking warfare and the component raids are inextricably connected with the expansion of Scandinavian influence along the North Atlantic and into the Mediterranean. The Vikings’ heavy use of ships, good strategic mobility and strong grasp on logistics ensured they could cause havoc abroad for years at a time. It was these factors that distinguished Viking warfare from that of their contemporaries. Contrary to public imagination (and the stereotypical depictions portrayed by television of savage berserk-warriors frothing at the mouth and committing unspeakable brutalities), Viking warriors were probably no more brutal than their Medieval peers.

The majority of these raids were undertaken by individual war-bands that teamed up on an ad hoc basis. Leadership ranged from small, local chieftains to earls and kings. The Vikings’ characteristic hit-and-run tactics were bolstered by the establishment of over-wintering bases. From these bases campaigns could be launched and more land could be conquered. These eventually lead to the establishment of several full-fledged Viking territories far from the Scandinavian heartlands.

Axes were a typical and very popular Viking weapon. Unlike swords axes may have been used throughout Viking society. They were known mostly from finds of numerous axe-heads. These appeared not only in richer graves alongside other weapons but also as the sole weapon in more austere burials. Their presence perhaps indicating that unlike swords, axes may have been used across a broader economic spectrum. Viking swords were made of iron. They were meant to be held in one hand. They had broad grooves along the centre (‘fullers’) cutting down their weight to some extent.

A short-sword or dagger could get its owner out of a pinch in close-quarter combat or as a backup weapon. They were called sax or seax following the Saxon terminology. Other Viking weapons include heavy thrusting spears or lances crafted from iron and sporting leaf-shaped blades. Their shafts were most likely up to 6 or 7 feet long. Bows and arrows also found employment as weapons. Interestingly, the literature also alludes to the possible use by Scandinavians of some sort of siege engines. Their wooden remains would have long since turned to dust, so historians and archaeologists can only guess at their precise design and usage.

Helmets were worn but, contrary to popular depiction, were not horned. A Viking warrior would not much fancy getting a helmet caught in their opponents’ beards or suffering other impractical consequences. The few helmets that have survived show a simple iron design of a conical cap with eye-guards. It’s possible they also included a nose-guard and probably a mail sheet dangling off the back to protect the owner’s neck. It is probable that similarly structured leather helmets were also in use, and may have been more common than iron helmets.

Characteristic was the Vikings’ hit-and-run strategy. They moored their ships on the doorstep of whatever they were attacking. They rounded up valuables and the occasional slave. Then they sailed or rowed off into the distance before any effective defense could be mounted against them. Viking ships were a key element of this form of warfare. Viking ships were extremely fast and light. These characteristics facilitated quick coastal strikes and also allowed them to head up rivers and penetrate inland. By the 830’s a general increase in both the size and the frequency of Viking raids. There were independent reports from Britain, Ireland, and Western Europe as well. The raids in Western Europe were particularly frequent in Frankish territories.

Occasionally ‘great’ war-bands in the late 9th century would be composed of the forces of several kings or earls, jointly lead, implying a merging of smaller independent forces. The apparent lack of formal structure makes their achievements in long-term campaigning and strategic and logistical planning even more impressive. First in Ireland and then also in England, the Vikings also began to over-winter in hostile territories, taking over or setting up bases.

Like the rest of early medieval warfare in Western Europe, Viking warfare could not simply ignore the deleterious effects of winter on campaigning and logistics. As such warfare was generally a seasonal affair, as it was during the Roman Republic a millennium before. Initially winters were spent back home in Scandinavia. However as time progressed pattern increasingly transitioned to over-wintering bases and settlements in Viking-held territories abroad. From such settlements the Vikings could participate in local politics, tactfully choosing sides, reaching agreements with their enemies, securing the payment of tribute, and launching new campaigns.

Archery was probably also used to break up the shield-wall. The shield-wall was not an ideal position in which to receive arrows. It provided a large target, with little maneuverability). The longbows known to have existed in this period would have penetrated shields and armor, though not necessarily deeply. Horses were used for their mobility, but probably dismounted for battle. Battle standards were carried near the leader or leaders, probably to indicate status.

One Viking force where such communicative measures would have been invaluable is that of the Danish ‘great army’ that razed havoc across England from 865 AD onward. The campaign lasted for years and brought the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumbria as well as most of Mercia to their knees. Even Wessex, under its leader King Alfred, struggled to resist the Viking forces. However King Alfred eventually won a decisive victory against the Viking forces. The Vikings’ great army disbanded around 880 AD. Its constituent war-bands seemingly jumping to take advantage of a succession struggle in the Kingdom of the Franks. There the flexible and opportunistic Vikings were active between 879-891.

As the Scandinavian kingdoms began consolidate and to take on more unified shapes, kings such as the early 11th century Danish King Sweyn Forkbeard were probably responsible for a more tightly-knit hierarchy. Likely they personally commanded the crews of several ships. The King’s forces would have been augment by the personal forces of their main subordinate chieftains. The total numbers of warriors then easily reached into the thousands.

It is assumed by historians that Viking battle units would have mirrored the crews of ships, i.e., that those crews would have fought together on land as a unit. This makes sense considering the Vikings’ heavy reliance on ships and the sense of companionship amongst fellow crew members. As for the raiders and warriors themselves, they were generally young men. This is in accord with both the historical records provided by Viking sagas, as well as the skeletal remains that have been found. However none of the skeletal remains support the existence of female Viking warriors.

Contrary to appearances mass media stereotypes, Viking warfare is actually not such a huge anomaly on the early medieval European landscape. Besides the fact that technologically the playing field was fairly level, raiding with the objective of plunder was hardly an exclusively Viking affair. It was quite typical of pre-Viking Ireland and Britain. It was also was widespread throughout Medieval Europe in general, and the classical world as well. Tribute-taking also occurred outside Viking spheres, even being central to relations between kings in early medieval Britain.

Other key elements that tie in with this are a strong focus on strategic mobility. Ships were supplemented by the use of horses on land. The Vikings possessed good logistic awareness and capabilities allowing for good supplying on campaign. The development of specialized cargo ships was another key element essential to both the two preceding elements. The Vikings possessed good military intelligence and a nose for picking vulnerable targets, as well as responding quickly to changing situations. The fluid structure of individual war-bands led by private leaders was also an essential element in their success.

Examples of such efforts employed successfully against the Vikings include fortified bridges used in the late 9th century by Charles the Bald, King of West Francia. The fortified bridges were used to block the Vikings’ access to the rivers. Also in the late 9th century Alfred the Great of Wessex simultaneously employed ship-led coastal defenses and the building of fortified towns (burhs ) across Wessex, which eventually halted the Viking advance.

These characterizations are not only pulled out of context but also exaggerated or even wrong. Accounts contemporary to these events were often penned by monks. Monks were in the first line of fire when the Vikings started plundering monasteries. It is thus hardly surprising they did not sing the Vikings’ praises. They were outraged at the fact that these heathens attacked churches and slew churchmen, despite the fact that even Christian rulers as well had attacked churches and slain fellow Christians.

As one historian summarized the Vikings’ successes on the battlefield, "owe less to the wild warriors of romantic imagination, and more to careful strategies and logistical planning, a skilful combination of warfare and diplomacy, and good underlying organization." The famous berserks who appear in Old Norse literature who in their fury roar, bite their shields, and are invulnerable, are more so fictional literary figures. They may have been based on a cult of masked warriors that existed in Germanic antiquity and are often connected to Odin. However to imagine entire Viking armies of that composition is simply far-fetched. That Viking warriors were effective and recognized as such, however, is reflected in them serving the Byzantine Emperor in the elite corps known as the Varangian Guard [Ancient History Encyclopedia].

  • Condition: Like New
  • Condition: LIKE NEW. Unread (and in that sense "new"), but mildly shelfworn. Please see detailed condition description below (click "view all details" button on your cell phone, tablet, or laptop).
  • Format: HUGE illustrated hardcover w/dustjacket
  • Length: 224 pages
  • Dimensions: 12 x 9 x 1 inch; 3 pounds
  • Publisher: Salamander Books (1980)
  • PicClick Insights - Warfare Ancient Persia Greek Mycenae Carthage Rome Alexander Sulla Pompey Caesar PicClick Exclusive

    •  Popularity - 1 watcher, 0.0 new watchers per day, 250 days for sale on eBay. Normal amount watching. 0 sold, 1 available.
    •  Best Price -
    •  Seller - 5,440+ items sold. 0% negative feedback. Great seller with very good positive feedback and over 50 ratings.

    People Also Loved PicClick Exclusive