Talk:Battle of Philippi

A request

Dear ladies and gentlemen reading this discussion comment,

Under the heading "The first battle of Philippi" this article reads: "Alternative sources credit the avarice of Brutus's troops as the factor that undid their definitive victory on October 3. Premature looting and gathering of booty by Brutus's advancing forces allowed Octavian's troops to re-form their line. In Octavian's future reign as Emperor, a common battle cry became, "Complete the battle once begun!"

I searched intensively for the sources of the battle cry "complete the battle once begun!" which is described in the article as being the result of the premature looting. Who could direct me to the original sources of that statement? Or is it a made up invention of the author of this article?

Thank you very much.

Your help is greatly appriciated.

Aslansfriend dm1@mail2Germany.com

Old discussion

Ok. I tried to rewrite this article on the bttle of Philippi. It was really a shame to have a big article on Phillipi's race battle (totale casualty <100!) and only a stub for the battle of Philippi, the last struggle of the Roman Republic. I read again all main primary sources (the best is Appian, but some good informations also from Suetonius, Plutarch and Velleius). I also draw 3 very simple maps (based on the decription of places by Appian and modern maps of the area. This is my first major editing on Wikipedia (more work than I thought at the beginning...), so I believe the article will need a good polishing (as well as a in-depth check for possible mistakes). As usual fell free to suggest or make changes--Calabrian 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The maps look wrong. You might want to check the ones I made for the French wiki based on Heuzey and Collart works : fr:Bataille de Philippes. Marsyas 06:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I double-checked the maps and removed the map of armies movements before the battle. These movements were not described in detail in the text. For the two battles I made my simple drawings based on the map of Kromayer and Veith (published in L. Keppie's book) and on two maps available at livius.org (there is a link on the article). The main difference with Heuzey and Collart's map is in the first battle, where Brutus' camp looks separated by Cassius'. According to Appian the camps of Brutus and Cassius (which were 1.5 Km apart) were joined by a single rampart (Ten stades farther are two other hills, at a distance of eighteen stades from Philippi itself and eight stades from each other. On these hills Cassius and Brutus were encamped, the former on the southern and the latter on the northern of the two… Between these hills, eight stades apart, lay the main pass from Europe to Asia as between gates. Across this space they built a fortification from camp to camp, leaving a gate in the middle, so that the two camps became virtually one.). This is followed by the map at livius.org and by Kromayer and I followed this scheme in my drawing. --Calabrian 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It does still look wrong. You probably do not know this but the actual hills mentioned have been recognized on site (see Kaïmaris, Georgoula and Karadedos, Photogrammetric and photo interpretation research in the plain of Philipi, Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 16, 2002, 119-129 : the latest confirmation of Heuzey and Collart). That's the difference between drawing a map solely from the texts, and drawing a map by looking for the topographical features mentioned on the site. Anyway, the second map is still wrong because it's Antony and not Octavian who tries to outflank Brutus. And this manoeuver, on the drawing, extends too far toward the west. Once again look at a topographical map of the area ! Marsyas 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work, the original page for this battle was absolutely terrible and to my suprise I returned here and saw a massive improvement, thankyou. NeoRicen 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed in all the stuff about Roman battles that I see in Wikipedia... there is plenty about strategy but little about fighting tactics, particularly the critical part about Brutus's final advance is glossed over. Seasoned veterans face to face with sword, no spears/arrows, ok, that would certainly mean shield walls. A shield wall fight is not a quick event, it can take hours. Seasoned veterans would have maintained the wall until the last rank, and they would have remembered at what point the wall was first breached or flanked. That would really be interesting information about the turning point of the second battle. Also the reason X equestrian was not mentioned as involved in this fight, likely is because Brutus's shield wall was complete and cavalry balk at shield walls when they can't outflank them. If so, it would be a nice inclusion. I'd do it but I don't know all the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

'Dear ladies and gentlemen reading this discussion comment,

Under the heading "The first battle of Philippi" this article reads: "Alternative sources credit the avarice of Brutus's troops as the factor that undid their definitive victory on October 3. Premature looting and gathering of booty by Brutus's advancing forces allowed Octavian's troops to re-form their line. In Octavian's future reign as Emperor, a common battle cry became, "Complete the battle once begun!"

I searched intensively for the sources of the battle cry "complete the battle once begun!" which is described in the article as being the result of the premature looting. Who could direct me to the original sources of that statement? Or is it a made up invention of the author of this article?

Thank you very much.

Your help is greatly appriciated.

Aslansfriend dm1@mail2Germany.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslansfriend (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of Cyprus ship lead by Serapion on here that aided Cassius and Brutus. This event added as a major factor for Marc Antony to meet cleopatra later. I'm fairly sure this is the battle too but I'm still researching this if we can fit it in somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.157.192 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Logistical consideration: “Friendly Fire”?

Can anyone shed light on an issue that has both puzzled and intrigued me for years? In internecine battles like Philippi, in the midst of the meele that often resulted, how could Roman legionnaires tell who was on whose side? At the outset of the battle, yes, battle lines and standards were drawn. But once the fighting turned into a wild meele, what then? Did the legionnaires on the contesting sides wear some sort of different armor, or perhaps attached some sort of banner to themselves? I’d guess it was inevitable that “friendly fire” indicants occurred, but how was wholesale such averted in this or similar battles? Maybe someone knowledgeable about this period and such matters could add something to the article to this effect. Thanks much.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Battle" of Philippi or "Battles" of Philippi

I think it's perhaps more didactic to speak of two battles, as they occurred weeks apart and under very different conditions (the presence of Cassius among them). Perhaps a move to Battles of Philippi might be in order? Ifly6 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)