>>41542540Furthermore, the reason for these unorthodox formations was because the romans had a stupid attitude when it came to engagements. They viewed surprise attacks, ambushes, and traps as dishonest fighting, they were very keen on fighting being only a battle of bravery and skill. They didnt even have a latin word for ambushes/deception until augustus caesars campaigns. The word gaius julius caesar used was similar to their word for corruption and attrocity. ideal battle to the romans is a hill and an open field, no trickery, no ambushing etc. As such, they often lost their first engagements, but romans always won sustained conflicts through tenacity and genius military generals. The romans knew this reputation, and so they would make sure that they kept their best soldiers in the back and made sure they kept plenty of reserves. Another feature was their tendency to mix skirmishers with infantry. Infantry were trained in long range combat and javelin throwing, the romans didnt like soldiers who couldnt hold their own as front line soldiers. The reason this is all relevant is that the prevailing battle tactics in north africa, egypt, spain, and asia minor were to send their entire army ahead covering their advance with heavy arrow fire and expanding their line in an attempt to encircle. The point was to force a rout or psychologically affect the enemy soldiers by displaying this endless group of soldiers. Generally they wanted to win within one encounter because the routing was where most casualties occurred, it was very rare that an army would be totally destroyed in combat. The romans knew if they used the same tactics they would never win, so they employed their multi layer reserve system. Another reason is that they were often caught in ambushes and generally unlucky situations. Having these reserves often saved caesar in the gaul campaigns and pompey in the Mediterranean campaigns. Romans lost battle after battle, but always won the war.
