Battle of the Kaudin Passes
| date | 321 BC Chr. |
|---|---|
| place | on the Kaudin passports |
| output | Victory of the Samnites |
| Parties to the conflict | |
|---|---|
| Commander | |
|
Gaius Pontius |
Titus Veturius Calvinus , Spurius Postumius Albinus |
| Troop strength | |
| not specified | 40,000 or 50,000 |
| losses | |
|
low |
low |
In the battle of the Kaudin passes in 321 BC. Chr. Suffered Romans against the Samnites in the Second Samnite Wars a humiliating defeat. With reference to this, the phrase Caudinian yoke denotes a shameful humiliation.
Historical background
The three Samnite Wars were about control and supremacy in Campania by the still young Roman Republic over the Samnites, the resident tribes in Samnium .
Trigger and course of the battle
The battle was the result of a Samnite ruse. The Samnite general Gaius Pontius learned that the armies of the two consuls were in Calatia near Capua . He had Samnite soldiers disguised as shepherds and captured by the Romans. These then spread the rumor that the Samnites were besieging Luceria, an ally of Rome, in Apulia .
In fact, when the Romans heard of this news, they reacted as expected. They sensed the chance to defeat the Samnites in a battle and hurried towards Luceria, carelessly choosing the fastest route, namely the one over the Kaudinian passes, which can no longer be precisely located (Furculae Caudinae, actually: Caudinic forks, as this is the way to go forked) near the Samnite city of Caudium , which was controlled by the Samnites.
The pass was surrounded by high mountains to the left and right. When the Romans reached it, they found the exit blocked by fallen trees and boulders. Now the Romans wanted to turn back, but the Samnites also blocked the rear entrance of the pass, so that the Romans were trapped.
Decision about the enclosed Roman army
According to Livius' report , Gaius Pontius now sent a letter to his father Herennius asking how he should proceed. At first he received the answer that he should let the Romans withdraw. This was out of the question for him, so he sent another letter, whereupon Herennius replied that he should bring down the Romans to the last man. Gaius Pontius then asked whether there was no middle way, whereupon he received the answer that a middle way in this case was a great foolishness: If one renounces to force the Romans to peace by grace, a continuation of the war is inevitable, and in that case one must try to hit Rome as hard as possible. On the other hand, if the Romans were humiliated, they would seek vengeance with all their might. Nevertheless, it is said that Pontius chose such a middle ground. He suggested to the two Roman consuls who led the captured army that they could withdraw if they provided hostages for safety in return and agreed to subject their army to the humiliating procedure of letting them pass under the “yoke”. Since the Romans were near starvation after several days, they consented to a speech by the respected legionary legate L. Cornelius Lentulus and allowed themselves to be "subjugated". Soon afterwards the war broke out again and the Samnites were finally defeated.
Consequences of the decision
The ancient historians unanimously report that the Senate of the Romans rejected the contract ( foedus ) imposed by the Samnites . Since the desire for retaliation was very great, the consul Publilius Philo withdrew as early as 320 BC. Again against Caudium and Papirius Cursor against the city of Luceria, where the Roman hostages are said to have been. After the Romans achieved success at Caudium, the Samnites fled to Luceria, which was besieged by Cursor. Eventually the Samnite garrison surrendered, handed over the hostages and submitted to the Romans.
historicity
There is broad consensus in modern research that the rejection of the treaty and the retribution of the Romans are unhistorical. Likewise, the Samnite cunning is said to be an invention of the historians in order to downplay the considerable defeat of the Romans.
literature
- Grossmann, Lukas: Rome's Samnite Wars. Historical and historiographical studies on the years 327 to 290 BC Chr. Düsseldorf 2009, pp. 54–83.