Replies

I'll name a few, there are many, many from which to choose. The most famous, that pretty much everyone who has looked at Roman history knows and no doubt you may have heard of, was Octavian advancing on Antony, Antony's troops and allies melting away and ending the wars of the triumvirate. A second was Vitellius' troops deserting upon the approach of Vespasian, as recorded by Tacitus. A third was Caesar advancing in Britain against Cassivellaunus, as recorded in De Bello Gallico by Caesar. A few skirmishes were enough to deprive Cassivellaunus of his allies and make him sue for peace.

As I said, an excellent strategy when you have the goods to back it up.

The problem I have with your examples is that the premise was the reputation of the Roman army led to such fear that the enemy capitulated without battle. But in two of your cases, both armies were Roman. Which was supposed to fear the reputation of the other?

Obviously, these were matters of internal political calculation in civil wars, with men on either side trying to anticipate the ultimate victor and avoid crossing him. Not fear of Roman military prowess, which was present on both sides.

As for the example from Britain, it was not a success without fighting. It was simply defeating a loose coalition by fighting its sub-elments piecemeal, coercing armies by threatening the countryside their members sought to protect, and the like. Weaker enemies capitulated after scattered defeats and deprediations because they could not halt those depredations except by submission, yes. But that is not the same as submitting rather than facing battle, because battle was too terrifying.

The reality is it was simply relatively easy to avoid battle in those days, if the local terms seemed unfavorable. I can think of a few cases out of Livy where armies "passed under the yoke" in submission, but after defeats or because they were cut off in impossible military situations. Not because of any generalized fear of Roman military reputation.