Cimbrian War - Disaster at Arausio

Disaster At Arausio

In 105 BC, Rome and its new consul Gnaeus Mallius Maximus and the proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio, in order to settle the matter once and for all, gathered the largest force it had fielded since the Second Punic War, and possibly the largest force it had ever sent to battle. The force consisted of over 80,000 men, along with tens of thousands of support personnel and camp followers in two armies, one led by each consul.

The consuls led their armies on their own armed migration to the Rhône River near Orange, Vaucluse, where, disliking and distrusting each other, they erected separate camps on opposite sides of the river; by so doing they left their disunited force open to separate attack. The overconfident Caepio foolishly attacked without support from Maximus; his legions were wiped out and his undefended camp overrun. The now isolated and demoralized troops of Maximus were then easily defeated. Thousands more were slain trying desperately to rally and defend his poorly positioned camp. Only Caepio, Maximus, and a few hundred Romans escaped with their lives across the carnage-choked river. The Battle of Arausio was the costliest defeat Rome had suffered since Cannae and, in fact, the losses and long-term consequences were far greater. For the Cimbri and Teutones it was a great (though temporary) triumph. Instead of immediately gathering their allies and marching on Rome, the Cimbri proceeded to Hispania, while the Teutones remained in Gaul. Why they again failed to invade Italy remains a mystery. Perhaps they thought easier plunder could be found in Gaul and Spain. It is also possible that, owing to their reckless battle tactics, the Germans had suffered heavy casualties in their victories over the Romans and decided they were not yet strong enough to engage them on their home ground. Theodor Mommsen thus describes their methods of war:

Their system of warfare was substantially that of the Celts of this period, who no longer fought, as the Italian Celts had formerly done, bareheaded and with merely sword and dagger, but with copper helmets often richly adorned and with a peculiar missile weapon, the materis; the large sword was retained and the long narrow shield, along with which they probably wore also a coat of mail. They were not destitute of cavalry; but the Romans were superior to them in that arm. Their order of battle was as formerly a rude phalanx professedly drawn up with just as many ranks in depth as in breadth, the first rank of which in dangerous combats not unfrequently tied together their metallic girdles with cords.1

So with all these tactical disadvantages, they had to rely on superior numbers, their own fearsome courage, and mistakes by Roman commanders to bring them victories. Unfortunately for them, they would soon be faced with one of the greatest Roman generals at the head of a new and much deadlier army.