The Roman Miltary Tactics

[Primus Pilus]

Thermopylae... interestingly enough, the Romans adapted their own version of that ancient battle. According to Livy it was against Veii at Cremora.

[roman wargamer]

my weird reply ... the decay of Rome was cause by

they no longer have any great enemy and slowly the

Roman noble and knights population was never replace

or slowly decreased in number due to war casualty and

prolong service that prohibit marriage and family.

without heir to take its place, legal heir.

[Locke]

Roman Tactics at Home

 

I think Rome collapsed upon itself due to the stree of everything, death toll, lack of leadership and such stuff like that. But they were the "greatest" army ever, as you can see by looking at their empire. The only other army that I think could stand and fight on the same level(given the same technology/weapons and such) would be the German Nazis. Don't get me wrong, I'm no skin head, but they were both at their times, very powerful. The Roman army, par example, was built upon its soldiers, and how quick they could move (correct me, but I think it was 25 miles a day for each legion). The Nazis and their "Lightning Strikes" could travel extremely fast and capture places easily, and unexpectantly (Poland...and other countries). The comparison can be seen, can't it?

 

With the United States Army, well, Freedom is food for the mind, the more you have, the more decisions you will want to be able to make (I'm still gonna join the Marines though...WOOT! ). Romans didn't have that problem order s we obeyed without question, so naturally they would have risen to the top of the world very quickly. With fearless soldiers and brilliant leaders, they were destined to make it there.

 

 

Fafnir: its called "The Battle of Thermopylae", where 300 Spartans held their last stand fighting against Xerxes and the Persian army. They killed over 600 men before the last Spartan died.

[Augustus]

What made the Roman Army sucessful was the use of manipular tactics, that is attacking in a checker board fashion. It had the strenghts of Phalanx actions with the fluidity of skrermish tactics. Appart from that the discipline and training in the Roman army was stiff and consistant, making the individual soldier a hard combat unit unto himself.

[Primus Pilus]

The only other army that I think could stand and fight on the same level(given the same technology/weapons and such) would be the German Nazis. The Nazis and their "Lightning Strikes" could travel extremely fast and capture places easily, and unexpectantly (Poland...and other countries).

Yes, some comparisons can be made, but keep in mind that the German Army of the World War era was a relatively short-lived power. The rise of the National Socialists, including the rebuilding of its army, until their final defeat was only about 2 decades in total. In Roman history, 20 years is a tiny blip on their radar.

 

Romans didn't have that problem order s we obeyed without question, so naturally they would have risen to the top of the world very quickly. With fearless soldiers and brilliant leaders, they were destined to make it there.

 

 

The Romans had their own share of mutiny. Even Caesar had some difficulty.

[Fafnir]

Fafnir: its called "The Battle of Thermopylae", where 300 Spartans held their last stand fighting against Xerxes and the Persian army. They killed over 600 men before the last Spartan died.

 

 

Thanks, i usually cant remember names of battles or casualty rates.

 

(Though i am wondering how you did... )

[Locke]

Um, Primuspilus, well yeah, but big armies usually have their fair share of mutinies, that is expected. But overall the Roman army was a very efficient team that worked together skillfully.

 

Fafnir, its called "The Fall of Reach", one of the Halo books, I just finished reading it.

[Primus Pilus]

Um, Primuspilus, well yeah, but big armies usually have their fair share of mutinies, that is expected. But overall the Roman army was a very efficient team that worked together skillfully.

I agree with that statement, for the most part (at least prior to the modern age) but it is important to note that Romans not only faced mutinies, but one of their worst problems (mostly prior to the Imperial era) was poor military leadership. Generals were selected based on their election to various magistracies and many had no business in such a postion as they were completely incompetent.

[roman wargamer]

"What made the Roman Army sucessful was the use of manipular tactics, that is attacking in a checker board fashion. It had the strenghts of Phalanx actions with the fluidity of skrermish tactics."

 

i wonder why it can not be re created in table top wargame.

 

when modern math is already existing to deal with it.

[haimore]

I say it went down to Generalship...not overall tactics. Pound for pound...and all else being equal...the Legion was the best formation of it's time...Hanibal was just the better General...but didn't know how to win war...only battles.

[roman wargamer]

i presume Hannibal was only logical, like Napoleon on his

war with Russia...Moscow can be taken...but the question

of long time occupation was next to impossible when the

enemy others Army is still "intact" and without enough

forces for conquer and battle the retreat left force.

[bernstein]

OK, now that someone mentioned total war.

i came to wonder, if the phalanx were ever used in half circle, or even circle formation in battles against romans

or is this completly unrealistic?

I mean it would be impossible to flank them in this case....

 

Anyone know of any battle where this formation was used?

[Fafnir]

Fafnir, its called "The Fall of Reach", one of the Halo books, I just finished reading it.

 

 

LMAO, wouldnt those odds be more like 6 to 30,000? Interesting you chose Halo, there's the Spartan-II cyborg (or whatever it is XD) and the Spartans at Thermopylae.

 

Oh and bernstein, if the Greeks used half-circle or circle formations with their hoplite soldiers i dont think they would have been very effective...

 

A reason why the Phalanx was in a tight box formation was because the troops in the back could deflect arrows, javelins, and the like with their pike/spear, since their pike/spear was at about a 45 degree angle. Also, the soldiers in the back usually push the troops in the front, and they are also there as reserves, but i mean whats the chances that a soldier in the front of a phalanx would die.

 

Also, to create a circle formation with spearmen would be very difficult to accomplish... maybe the Spartans could have had the training for that... wait how would they know which way to march in a circle formation? lol

 

If there was a battle with this configuration for a phalanx, i believe the hoplites were probably just confused.

[amcrazyjus]

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!

it is very true but i think that was not the only problem the roman faced (like Hannibal)

many fought well but lacked military work but hannibal had a great militatry skill, but he only knew how to win the battle not the war.

[amcrazyjus]

the greatest queation of all is why, not how caould they have lost, i mean rome was very powerful and hannibal was a great leader (much to rome's dismay) but he only knew how to win the battles and not the wars, and the other problem was that rome didn't have any "major" emimies and that caused them to caulapse (correct me if i'm wrong) oh... the legions walked 18 miles a day not 24 (sorry!)