No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Topographical Study of the Battle of Ausculum
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
Extract
Pyrrhus, after the campaign of 280 B.C., spent the winter in Tarentum, whence in the spring of the following year he made an advance into Apulia and captured a number of towns. Shortly, however, he found his path blocked by a substantial Roman force stationed on the territory of the obscure town of Ausculum. Obscure though this town might be, it was of strategic importance. Two roads crossed there—the Via Aurelia Aeclanensis (leading from Aeclanum to Herdoniae) and the Via Herculia (leading from Aequum Tuticum to Venusia). It is still possible to describe the town as controlling one of the three southern entrances into Apulia.
It has been suggested that Pyrrhus' object in this Apulian invasion was to capture Venusia, the recently founded, prodigiously strong Latin colony. To the present writer, this seems most improbable. The venture would have taken a good deal of time and effort, and it would certainly have cost many lives which Pyrrhus could spare but ill. This is especially true if the town was by then provided with a wall, as Beloch thinks. It seems more probable that Pyrrhus had another plan in mind. In the preceding year he had advanced into Latium, at least as far as Anagnia, and possibly even as far as Praeneste, his purpose being, not to besiege Rome, but to try to provoke by his presence a general defection of Rome's allies in that region. Unfortunately for Pyrrhus, those Latian allies were bound too tightly to Rome, and no movement followed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British School at Rome 1932
References
page 45 note 2 Zon. viii. 5: 
page 45 note 3 For the road system at Ausculum, see Ashby, T. and Gardner, R. in Pap. Br. Sch. at Rome, viii, 1916, p. 119.Google ScholarNissen, , Ital. Landesk. ii, 1901, p. 845, wrongly says that the town lay on the Via Traiana.Google Scholar Ausculum is the correct spelling of the name, as is proved by the evidence of coins (Friedländer, , Osk. Münzen, p. 54)Google Scholar, and of inscriptions (C.I.L. ix. 665). The Osculum of Festus, p. 228 L., is a mere variant. The form Ἄσκλον is due to confusion with the well-known town of that name in Picenum.
page 45 note 4 von Hofmann, A., Das Land Italien u. seine Gesch., 1921, p. 349.Google Scholar
page 45 note 5 Niebuhr, , Röm. Gesch. iii. p. 588Google Scholar; followed by Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. iv. 2, p. 465 seq.Google Scholar; and De Sanctis, Stor. d. Rom. ii, p. 399.Google Scholar According to Dionys. frag, xvi–xviii. 5, the colony (founded in 291 B.C., Vell. Pat. i. 14. 6) had 20,000 colonists. It is uncertain whether it was immediately provided with a wall. Polybius, iii. 90. 8, says that Venusia was not walled in 217 B.C.—a statement accepted by Niese, , Gesch. der griech. u. maced. Staaten, ii. p. 34Google Scholar, n. 5, but rejected by Beloch, op. cit., p. 469. The reading Telesia for Venusia in Polybius' text is now usually accepted, Mommsen, in C.I.L. ix. p. 44.Google Scholar
page 45 note 6 Appian, Samn. c. 10.
page 45 note 7 Florus, i. 13.
page 46 note 1 Its importance may be gauged from the fact that some 50,000 men on either side took part in the action.
page 46 note 2 Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. iv. 2 (1927), pp. 465 seq. (reprinted from earlier editions)Google Scholar; De Sanctis, loc. cit.
page 46 note 3 In addition to Dionys. xx. 1, Plut. Pyrr. c. 21, and Zon. viii. 5, Front. Strat. ii. 3. 21 and Florus i. 13 both place it near Ausculum. Eutrop. ii. 13; Livy, , Per. 13Google Scholar; Justin, i.e. Pomp. Trogus. xviii. 1. 11, Valerius Antias fr. 21 P., do not localise the battle. Oros. iv. 1. 19 says it took place in Apulia.
page 46 note 4 Der pyrrische Krieg, Leipzig-Berlin, 1884, pp. 148 seq.
page 46 note 5 Beloch, loc. cit.
page 46 note 6 Horace, , Odes, iii. 30. 11.Google Scholar
page 46 note 7 Vid. Odes iii. 30. 10; iv. 9. 2; iv. 14. 25; Sat. i. 58.
page 46 note 8 De Sanctis, loc. cit.; Homo, , Primitive Italy, 1925, p. 208Google Scholar; Judeich, , Klio xx. 1926, pp. 1 seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frank, T., Camb. Anc. Hist. vii, 1928, p. 647.Google Scholar Only Pais, , Storia di Roma v, 1928, p. 371, n. 3, suggests that Beloch may be wrong.Google Scholar
page 47 note 1 Röm. Gesch. 111, 1912, p. 402. For the time of the year when the battle took place see below. For τραχύς = rough, cf. the name of Cilicia Tracheia, and Strabo's fanciful derivation of the name Tarracina (v. 3. 6. p. 233).
page 47 note 2 Op. cit., p. 472: ‘der Aufidus im Sommer überall durchwatet werden kann.’
page 47 note 3 Sil. Ital. x. 170, xi. 510, ‘stagna Aufida.’ Beloch's words (p. 468) are: ‘indeed to-day in summer the Aufidus has not much water.’
page 47 note 4 Beloch, op. cit., pp. 469–70.
page 47 note 5 Judeich, , Klio xx, 1926, p. 7Google Scholar, accepts the statement of Beloch (op. cit., p. 467), that the Ponte S. Venere is to be identified with the Pons Aufidi, which, according to the Itineraries, carried the Via Appia over the Aufidus, and that the battle took place at that point. But, for the identification Ponte S. Venere = Pons Aufidi there is no evidence: the Ponte S. Venere is not demonstrably ancient; nor is the nature of the country such as to encourage the belief that a battle was fought there.
page 47 note 6 Cf. the words of Niebuhr, iii. p. 588: ‘die allerbedeutendste aller Festungen, welche Rom im Apulien besass, war Venusia.’
page 47 note 7 Appian, , Bell. Civ. i. 52.Google Scholar
page 48 note 1 Horace, , Sat. i. 5. 86Google Scholar: ‘oppidulum quod versu dicere non est’—there are, however, several other claimants besides Ausculum. Horace's remarks about the water in this area are still applicable, although the building of the Apulian aqueduct is rapidly proceeding. This, when completed, will help matters materially.
page 48 note 2 Niebuhr, iii. p. 592, n. 882, talks of ‘confusion’ in Zonaras; this is not apparent to the present writer. The only other explanation of the Zonaras passage is that the battle was fought on the banks of the Cervaro, while Pyrrhus was encamped on the right bank of the Carapelle. For this suggestion see final note.
page 48 note 3 The denudation of the Roman Campagna and the Ciminian Forest are two well-known examples of this process.
page 48 note 4 Beloch, op. cit., p. 468.
page 48 note 5 The best treatment of the sources for the Pyrrhic War is by Niese, , Hermes xxxi, 1896, pp. 481–507.Google Scholar
page 49 note 1 Dionys. xx. 1 seq.; Livy, , Per. 13Google Scholar; Polyb. xviii. 28. 10; Front. Strat. ii. 3. 21.
page 49 note 2 Zon. viii. 5; Florus i. 13; Eutrop. ii. 13; Oros. iv. 1. 19.
page 49 note 3 Plut., Pyrr. c. 21; Valerius Antias, fr. 21 P.; Justin, i.e. Pomp. Trogus, xviii. 1. 11. (Judeich, op. cit., p. 9, wrongly says that Justin leaves the battle undecided.)
page 49 note 4 Tarn, , Antigonos Gonatas, p. 246.Google Scholar
page 49 note 5 Dionys. xx. 3. 3: Plut., in quoting Dionys. as authority for the incident, wrongly makes Dionys. describe the men of Arpi as Samnites instead of Daunians. According to Plutarch, Pyrrhus uttered his famous epigram (‘One more such victory and we're lost’) after Ausculum, although all other sources agree in making him say it after Heracleia. Plut, apparently names Dionys. as authority for this also—Dionys. could not have been the authority, for he does not reckon Ausculum a Pyrrhic victory. Niebuhr, iii. p. 589, n. 873, is correct in asserting that Plutarch is not very competent at accurate quotation of his authorities.
page 49 note 6 The present writer had arrived at this conclusion independently, before he was aware that the same suggestion is made by Judeich, Klio xx, 1926, pp. 1 seq.
page 49 note 7 Except, of course, for the firing of Pyrrhus' camp, which obviously took place on the second day.
page 49 note 8 Judeich, op. cit., p. 6, n. 3, suggests Beloch placed the battle of Heracleia too late in the year. He probably did likewise in the case of the Battle of Ausculum, which he places in September. Pyrrhus left Tarentum presumably in March; all that happened between then and the battle was his capture (in many cases without a fight—Zon. viii. 5) of a number of towns. As Polyb. could say that one of the Apulian towns—either Venusia or more probably Telesia—was unwalled, we may presume that other Apulian towns were, and there fore fell rapidly. May or June seems a more likely month for the battle.
page 49 note 9 This is the answer to the query raised by Delbrück, Gesch. der Kriegskunst, 13, 1920, p. 309: how is it that, on the first day, the experienced Pyrrhus has allowed the Roman burgess generals to outmanoeuvre him?
page 50 note 1 Dionys. says each side had about 78,000 men: this is generally agreed to be an exaggeration. The Romans are said to have had two consular armies there, i.e. four legions, so that Frontinus' figure of 40,000 may possibly be correct. It is calculated that Pyrrhus had about the same. See espec. De Sanctis, op. cit., ii. p. 399, n. 3.
page 50 note 2 Frontinus also gives us an account of the battle formation. This is not in such violent disagreement with Dionys. or Polyb. xviii. 28. 10 as is sometimes asserted. Frontinus, in order to show that Pyrrhus was obeying Homeric maxims, has exaggerated somewhat.
page 50 note 3 E.g. Schubert, R., Gesch. des Pyrrhus, 1894, p. 194.Google Scholar
page 50 note 4 Delbrück, loc. cit., appositely asks: How is it that on the second day the Romans are no longer in their favourable position?
page 50 note 5 According to the later accounts of Zonaras and Florus, Pyrrhus was wounded. Even Justin, i.e. Pomp. Trogus, makes Pyrrhus sustain a wound, but at Heracleia, not at Ausculum. Niebuhr, iii. 591, suggests that Pyrrhus' wound was an invention to offset that inflicted on the Roman Fabricius. Mommsen, op. cit., p. 403, on the contrary, thinks Pyrrhus really was wounded.
page 50 note 6 Plut., quoting Pyrrhus, gives these numbers, and they are credible. Later Roman accounts gave different figures, e.g. 20,000 lost by Pyrrhus (Frontinus, Eutropius, Orosius), 11,000 (Eutropius) or 5,000 (Frontinus, Orosius) by the Romans. Some accounts say that included in the Roman dead was the consul Decius, who devoted himself in the manner of his forefathers (Cic. De fin. ii. 61; Tuscul. i. 89), cf. Niese-Hohl, , Grundr. der. röm. Ges. 5 p. 73, n. 6.Google Scholar We are thrice told that a Decius sacrificed himself in battle—at Vesuvius in 340 B.C., at Sentinum in 295 B.C. and at Ausculum in 279 B.C. Naturally it only happened once, either at Sentinum or at Ausculum. Niese, , Hermes xxxi, 1896, p. 492, argues for the latterGoogle Scholar; Kornemann, , Der Priestercodex in der Regia, 1912, p. 26, n. 2, for the former.Google Scholar
page 50 note 7 The term applied to the battles by Diodorus, who, despite Hülsen in P.W. s.v. Ausculum, does mention the Battle of Ausculum; see Diodorus, Frags. of Bk. xxii.