Battle of Ennium? Anyone capable of verifying it?

[MagicJuggler]

A common conception about chariots was that with the development of better cavalry they would eventually be rendered obsolete, first shown at Gaugamela but eventually being sealed for good at the Battle of Zela. The assertion was that well-trained infantry could scatter and reform in a manner that the chariots would be rendered harmless, before being trapped and killed.

However, on fanaticus, there is an assertion that Theophrastus and Gallus have recorded the Battle of Ennium of 51 BC where Pharnaces, son of Mithridates VI, had reformed the Pontic army in a manner that it would be a combined army of Macedonian-styled phalanx pikemen, with legionare-inspired troops to guard the flanks. Additionally he deployed 500 scythed chariots to make a hole in the Roman army. Unlike Darius' use of chariots at Gaugamela, Pharnaces used cavalry archers to pin the Romans into Testudo formation, subsequently ordering his scythed chariots to make the drive home while sending Galatian mercenary cavalry to pin the Roman cavalry. According to the account, the first line of legionaires was wiped out, and the subsequent lines suffered immense casualties, creating a hole which the mercenary Galatians followed through with. The Romans, desparate after beating this attack off, then issue a counterattack only to be driven off by the Phalanx/Legionare combination.

The issue is how this battle is not recorded on the accouts of Pliny, Cassius Dio, or any other Roman Historian. Did this battle actually take place, and was it of the scale implied? And would such a battle go against conventional historical lessons of Legion>Phalanx and Chariots=fail?

 

[Archonsod]

The issue is how this battle is not recorded on the accouts of Pliny, Cassius Dio, or any other Roman Historian. Did this battle actually take place, and was it of the scale implied? And would such a battle go against conventional historical lessons of Legion>Phalanx and Chariots=fail?

If anything it reinforces them. The Romans were caught in Testudo, they couldn't see the approaching chariots through the dust kicked up by the archers and as a result when the chariots hit they were still in tight packed formations. If on the other hand they had adopted a loose formation to deal with the chariots then I've little doubt the result would be reversed.

 

[MountainBlade]

As for the legion vs phalanx, Roman historians admitted that in a head on fight the phalanx is superior. The legionaries mobility is what made them effective against the phalanx, but it certainly isn't as simple as legion > phalanx.

 

[MagicJuggler]

Perhaps it is the result of crappy world history textbooks, as I remember the one I had to read when in high school mentioned the legion was superior on account of its ability to effectively turn...which could just simply say the world of bad history textbooks. The only real issue with a phalanx was if it were flanked and even Alexander realized this as the Hypastists were intended specifically for more maneuverable warfare.

That the phalanx was effective head-on is obvious, the initial roman attack during the battle of pydna being repulsed, and the Libyan pikemen at Cannae proving a nasty killing blow to the Romans. However on the offensive it had issues if it intended to charge, a main issue being rough terrain disrupting the phalanx formation (again, Pydna). Nevertheless, used in a methodical advance, it was a useful item.

That said, does this battle look like it actually happened as I can't find anything else to corroborate it.

 

[Archonsod]

From the sources provided, the only Theophrastus I'm familiar with died some 150 or so years before the battle even took place,  and Gallus could refer to a number of individuals who were around at the time (though the most likely candidate would be a poet, of whom we only have one surviving work which mentions bugger all about battles).
Given that the usual Roman sources such as Pliny don't mention it I'm inclined to say it's likely a work of fiction. Not only do commentators like Pliny seem to relish divulging the various failures and cock ups of the Roman military, but the only (oblique) references I can find for the battle seem to place a huge emphasis on the number of free slaves fighting in the Pontic army. This would suggest to me that it's piece of propaganda rather than fact, though possibly originating not too long after the events it purports to relate.

 

[MountainBlade]

Perhaps it is the result of crappy world history textbooks, as I remember the one I had to read when in high school mentioned the legion was superior on account of its ability to effectively turn...which could just simply say the world of bad history textbooks. The only real issue with a phalanx was if it were flanked and even Alexander realized this as the Hypastists were intended specifically for more maneuverable warfare.

That the phalanx was effective head-on is obvious, the initial roman attack during the battle of pydna being repulsed, and the Libyan pikemen at Cannae proving a nasty killing blow to the Romans. However on the offensive it had issues if it intended to charge, a main issue being rough terrain disrupting the phalanx formation (again, Pydna). Nevertheless, used in a methodical advance, it was a useful item.

That said, does this battle look like it actually happened as I can't find anything else to corroborate it.

Nah, what you say is correct.
The only thing on google is that page on fanaticus and two TW forum posts.

Reviewing what I know about Pharnaces reign, I must say it seems unlikely. Pharnaces made peace with Pompey and was given Mithradates overseas possessions, which later became the Bosphoran Kingdom.

Also, when Pharnaces invaded Pontus in 49BC, it came as a surprise to the Romans. He did win a convincing victory at Nicopolis. Soon after however, Caesar returned from the Alexandrine War and crushed him at Zela (Veni, Vidi, Vici), upon which he was deposed.

Pretty much I can't believe that no contemporary historian mentions it. Its a no from me, but there are people here that know much more than I ever could.

And that's the best answer I can give you.