Sorry if this is stupid, but it has been bothering me. I recently watched the movie Gladiator, and I always wondered why the Romans didn't continue shooting the barbarians when they stood in the forest taking the shots. In matter of fact, the Romans were the ones to make the first move.
I'm not a general for a reason. However, wouldn't it make more sense continuing the bombardment against the barbarians? They were engulfed in flames, and had no way of protecting themselves. The Romans could have stayed back waiting for the barbarians to make the first move. Wouldn't this have saved many Roman lives?
This can apply to most battles in ancient history. I understood you need to gain ground so you're not pinned back, but in this situation the Romans were far more superior than the barbarians.
My memories a bit fuzzy on the intro so correct me if I'm wrong but the Romans' were using onagers which are strictly for sieges. Also they didn't use exploding missiles - gunpowder's a later invention.
The Romans did use smaller ballistae like this in open battle.
So disregard that opening scene, it's painfully stupid and filled with hollywoodisms. Cavalry don't charge through forests and the general would never have gotten involved unless things were going tits-up and he was desperate to rally his men.
As for 'softening up' the barbarians, the movie omitted the pila that would have been thrown just prior to charging.
