The Roman Miltary Tactics

[TonyGee]

Was the Roman Military all it was cracked up to be? For me it seems they relied heavily on the Soldiers profesionalism and the Enemies lack of intelect more than any great Tactical Know how. The legion was a great military force yet it lacked in so many ways. It was for me cumbersome making it almost impossible to menouver beyond the initial plan of attack, It was also Slow to the point of making it one of the least Mobile forces ever to grace a battlefield.

 

It also appears to me that they never learned this lesson, Hannibal Tought them what an organised mobile Force could do to a legion many times during the punic wars, the persians also gave them a good whiping on occasion. Just why did the romans never seem to grasp the Reality of the use of a good cavalry and light Skirmish troops?

 

I do Understand that the roman Miltary machine was exceptionaly successful but i think i would put that down in the main part to the lack of a Quality enemy in its early years and later down to the Fact that no one could compete with Roman Manpower and finance in the later Conquests.

 

Now i could well be waaaay off the mark in these observations and i will happily accept someone putting me right on these points. But please Dont be too hard on me, im a nice person deep down.

[Ursus]

I can't say as this isn't my area of expertise. Although it doesn't seem to me the Punic or Hellenistic armies Rome fought were weak and unintellectual. Even the Celts in Gaul in Britain could learn quickly and gave Caesar a few tactical scares.

 

But I would suggest the Roman army's finest contributions didn't come from the sword and shield. The legions laid the engineering infrastructure for the empire through massive construction projects. They also laid a civil infrastructure for the empire by giving provincials a stake at Roman citizenship.

[TonyGee]

I can't say as this isn't my area of expertise. Although it doesn't seem to me the Punic or Hellenistic armies Rome fought were weak and unintellectual. Even the Celts in Gaul in Britain could learn quickly and gave Caesar a few tactical scares.

 

But I would suggest the Roman army's finest contributions didn't come from the sword and shield. The legions laid the engineering infrastructure for the empire through massive construction projects. They also laid a civil infrastructure for the empire by giving provincials a stake at Roman citizenship.

The Punic armies rome Faced werent weak or unintellectual, but they also fared well against rome and its legions when commanded by a good general. and while the Celts of Britain/Gaul/Germany werent stupid in most senses ( they did have a good society build and trade was a part of their daily lives ) in battle their tactics played right into the hands of rome.. a major Infantry charge. I think most of Ceasar's problems with the celts came from Skirmishes outside of the main battles where the celts could attack small sections of the main army as they travelled.

 

And i do agree that the Roman Armys main Contribution was its Engineering capabilities. but its fighting abilities were the foundation for such things in the long run.

[Primus Pilus]

The Republican legions, including those that faced Hannibal, were tactically handcuffed. Hannibal's great mobility came from the heavy reliance he placed on cavalry (which is something the Romans were never good at). In the Republic, the 'conscript' (I use that term to reflect that the armies were not full time professionals) Roman armies were still partially based on the old Greek phalanx system, which historically was very immobile. Lack of consistency through armies being assembled as needed, rather than constant training, etc., limited the capability of military tactics during that time.

 

After the reforms of Marius, through the civil war period and into the Augustan Age, the Romans developed a professional standing army. The professional legions were the most mobile tactical infantries in the ancient world, where each piece (cohort, century, etc.) was capable of independent operation. The Imperial Legions (or Post Marian) were uniform in principle and strategy, meaning gear and training were the same for each soldier. One entire cohort (6 in a legion) could peel off the main body to flank or circumvent an enemy, and the cohesion of the whole wouldn't be compromised.

 

In the Republican army, flanking was, for the most part, unheard of. Most battles in that era were straight on head to head engagements. When Hannibal came to Italy, his cavalry was able to run around the tactically inferior Romans at will, and his superiority as a battlefield general was established. The Romans however, learned a great deal from Hannibal, and his success began to change the way the Romans looked at warfare. The world can really give a great deal of credit to Carthage for Rome's eventual dominance of the western world.

[TonyGee]

well i could argue against all those points but i wont seeing as you are right and i would be wrong

[Primus Pilus]

Go ahead and argue

[TonyGee]

Go ahead and argue

Well ok

 

I know Marius's Reforms did a lot for the Roman Army and its Overall Quality but what i dont think it brought about was a major change in the Armys workings. The Army Became more mobile because of the Soldiers Profesionalism not because the Roman Army Group ( ie the Different units that make the legion ) was Flexible or Designed to be flexible. A roman Legion after the reforms of marius would still have struggled to cope with a force the likes of Which Carthage and Hannibal brought against them.

 

Rome had a tendancy to struggle against any foe Who didnt Just paint their Faces blue and Run at their wall of spears like headless chickens. ive always seen the Roman legion as something as a Grinder, they would walk into the enemy as a wall and just grind their less well armoured enemies into the ground. No real Tactical victory just a my breastplate is harder then you're Chesthair kinda thing.

 

Hey im clasping at straws here!

[Primus Pilus]

Well there is some truth that they could function as simple grinders. Most of that depended on the generals though, of course. The great ones, such as Caesar, used the superiority of the Roman army to its maximum capabilities. The serviceable generals, used the tried and true method of marching straight at the enemy, and would usually still win through the sheer superiority of Roman armament and discipline. There were, however, plenty of inept generals. Varus' loss of three legions (along with the great guerilla skill of Arminius and his underarmed Germanics) provides one example.

 

The Romans struggled against any army with superior cavalry, even after they were heavily supplemented with Gallic or Germanic auxilia. Despite the tactical skill and mobility of the Roman infantry, cavalry used as with speed and strength was always a problem for infantry throughout history. In the east, the Romans had problems with Persians and Parthians for that reason, coupled with the fact that these empires also had the wealth to provide quality armaments to its soldiers. Still though, these empires never made serious lasting incursions against the Romans, as they either couldn't match up consistently, lacked the resources. Rome didn't truly begin to lose battles on any consistent basis until the massive Germanic migrations. The breakdown of the social fabric of the empire, including its armies, through the inclusion of so many non Roman citizens and soldiers played a significant part, as well.

[DanM]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in the middle of this conversation, but I have a few comments.

 

First, I would like to suggest a couple of books that might be interesting to you. Hannibal is one of my all-time favorite historical figures and my favorite book about Hannibal is the one written by Theodore Ayrault Dodge. Also, Liddell Hart's "Scipio Africanus" is a good book to cover the subject of what the Roman army could do under an imaginative and agressive general. Don't forget, this is the guy who finally beat Hannibal in North Africa.

 

Lets compare the legion to the armies it faced. To say that the Republican troops only faced painted savages is a bit misleading. Don't forget that the Romans were considered to be country bumpkins until they conquered the Mediteranian world.

 

If you look at what Hannibal did at Lake Trasimeno or Cannae, its more an issue of generalship than one of the tactical merits of one formation over another. I think that if anything, the biggest weakness of the Army of the Republic was its method of selecting military leaders. Until Scippio Africanus, the best general the Romans could field against Hannibal was the one who refused to fight him (I think his name was Fabian or something like that).

 

Also, I think your negative view of the Roman legion is a bit undeserved. Its not just a matter of cavilry vs infantry. Compare the legion to the phalanx. The phalanx was all about the initial shock. When it worked, it was an irresistable force that swept away the opposing army. When it didn't, it was a big, unwieldy mass of troops. On the battlefield, the Roman army was anything but slow and cumbersome. Their more open battle order allowed them to be much more nimble on the field than an opposing army in phalanx formation. To say that a horse can carry a man from point A to point B is one thing, but to say the Roman legion was unwieldy on the battlefield is a totally different thing.

 

As for the reasons for decay within the Roman Empire, I think thats a much deeper subject than immigration. There were a lot of social and economic issues going on within the Empire that did much to enable the germanic invasions. Think of the Roman Empire like the human body. If its weakened, then opportunistic diseases and parasites are given the opportunity to flourish. If the body remains strong, however, then these things are less likely to take hold.

[P.Clodius]

The Roman army's biggest weakness was her cavalry arm as Primus Pilus alluded to already, but I am of the opinion that yes, the Roman army WAS all it was cracked up to be. It was simply unstoppable at all it put its mind to providing it was properly led. Sure Hannibal kicked ass, hats off to him and to the Parthians too for that matter, but these defeats can be attributed to poor leadership above all else. While Hannibal was superior in cavalry so was Pompei at Pharsalus but Caesar countered this by hiding light infantry to surprise the enemy cavalry once they tried to attack the right wing of the 10th Legion. The result was a route. Do not get the quality of the legions mixed up with leadership of the legions. One historian described the Roman legion system as a system

[Primus Pilus]

Perhaps my words sound as if I don't respect the Roman legions, but believe me, I personally feel they were the greatest infantry the world has ever known. I was simply trying to point out the weaknesses, and put in context, while responding to an earlier post.

[Maximus Caesar]

I have a question: When the Roman encountered the Macedonians on the field of battle, how did they defeat the Macedonian's fourteen-foot sarissas? I mean, any legionnary would get impaled if he tried to advance frontally on the Phalanx, so how did the Romans overcome the long reach of the Macedonians?

[TonyGee]

I have a question: When the Roman encountered the Macedonians on the field of battle, how did they defeat the Macedonian's fourteen-foot sarissas? I mean, any legionnary would get impaled if he tried to advance frontally on the Phalanx, so how did the Romans overcome the long reach of the Macedonians?

I have read that Rome Defeated The Macedonians quite easily through a combination of both Superior Cavalry ( that ones hard to believe ) and more favourable battle grounds. The phalanx was next to useless unless used on flat open ground, or thats what ive always thought.

[Jimbow]

Choosing the ground you fight on is as important as any other factor, and has to be lumped in with all of the other parts of combat. The Romans were incredibly flexible and quite ingenious when it came to adapting to enemy methods, the testudo being a good example. It would seem that once the phalanxes advanced they came to uneven ground, and lost cohesion to the formation. At least, that is what was supposed to have happened at the Battle of Pydna. At that battle, Paullus ordered the legions into the gaps to attack the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At this range, within the killing reach of the sarissa, the Roman methods and superior shields and armour won by a long stroke (excuse pun

 

I honestly thought that the Romans would be able to get under the reach of the sarissas, thus rendering them useless, but apparently that wasn't the case. At the Battle of Cynocephalae, it seems to have been a desperate and inspired attack on the phalanxes exposed and vulnerable rear that turned the tide and won the day for Rome. The sarissas would have been even useful then, had the Romans understood that their being raised was the sign of surrender. Alas, they didn't.

 

Polybius also asserts that once the phalanx is broken in any way it is left open for infiltration by more agile and flexible Romans, who can actually wade in and cut it down from within. Phalanx vs Legion

[Fafnir]

Two things. First, P. Clodius mentioned...

 

When facing an enemy on one front it was reported that a large enemy force was approaching from the rear, legions were detached, marched 25 miles, defeated the enemy, marched 25 miles back to defeat the enemy they were facing the next morning. 50 miles and two crushing victories! How much more mobile can an army be?

 

 

I know this is a little off the time period (10 Centuries or so) but Harold's armies in England marched many miles to fight the Vikings at Stamford Bridge up in northern England, then marched back to southern England in a few days time to fight the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. (and lose...) I dont know if thats farther than what you stated, but its still quite mobile.

 

Secondly, TonyGee stated...

 

The phalanx was next to useless unless used on flat open ground, or thats what ive always thought.

 

 

Phalanxes were useful on open ground, yes, but their maximum efficiency was definately when they were in an enclosed area where they couldnt be flanked, i.e. mountain passes, towns, etc. (Theres that one instance of a few hundred Spartan warriors killing thousands upon thousands of Persians in a mountain pass... forgot the dates and stuff of that, saw it on the History Channel) The knowledge of Phalanxes working well in towns pretty much comes from my experience in Rome Total War though.