Tactics

[Pompieus]

Considering the historical importance and the tremendous interest in the Roman Army isn't it remarkable how little is really known about the actual tactics used by the Roman Legions in combat? Though gallons of ink have been spilled on the subject, is there any consensus on issues as basic as the spacing of legionaries in combat? Were they 3 feet or 6 feet part?-how much space is needed to make use of pilum, gladius and scutum? Do experts agree as to what was done about the intervals between maniples and/or cohorts in battle? A quincux with gaps between maniples may concievably have worked against a phalanx unwilling to break formation by pushing into the gaps, or Samnites using a similar loose formation, but how could they let hundreds of screaming celts into the rear of the fighting line without breaking all cohesion? And how on earth did they "relieve" the fighting line in the midst of battle? It's hard to believe that men could disengage, back-up and move to the flank in an orderly formation in the midst of the confusion and fear of hand-to-hand combat. I find the suggestions and questions raised in Gary Brueggemans website (www.garyb.0catch.com) fascinating and unresolved either by scholars or the experience of reenactors, though both raise more fascinating questions.

 

Is it possible the maniples marched into line in closed formation (three feet to the man) then moved laterally into an open formation with six feet between soldiers thus closing the gaps-then attacked? Is it possible for the rear century to move directly forward - through the front century to "relieve" the fighting line in the midst of combat?

 

Any strong opinions?

Edited December 30, 2007 by Pompieus

[Kosmo]

Besides Vegetius and other less relevant sources we actually know very little about those things. Probably most were so obvious to romans that there was no reason to write them down.

[caldrail]

The gaps in the roman formations were there to allow units to move and reform without conflicting with each other. In practice, its unlikely that many celts would have reached the rear of the line. The warrior ethos of such barbarians was all about heroic one on one hack'n'slash. Confronted with a roman army, the braver ones shouted louder and charged first, followed by the rest, all of whom would have ran at the romans, not past them. In fact, I can't see any positive benefit to attempting to penetrate since this was inevitably going to involve smaller numbers whose sides and rears may have quickly become unsupported. It was fairly suicidal to try it I think and even though a keyed up swordsman might not have been thinking too clearly, it remains far more likely he'd attack those within easy reach - the front rank of romans.

 

Romans preferred to present a solid barrier to the enemy, a shield wall, easy to achieve with those large oblong shields in close order, with enough gap to present a sword thrust between. They did employ an open order too, when a looser style of swordplay was judged better, or perhaps when avoiding casualties from missiles, but certainly never when enemy cavalry were in the area. Loose infantry formations are easy to break by cavalry charges, tight formations much less so and often next to impossible depending on circumstance.

 

Shock effect of a marching body of men is achieved with close order. Open order is less self supporting and although the formation is more useful in say.. fighting in urban areas perhaps, where tightly organised groups rapidly become disordered and disorganised, the romans had much reason to retain a close order.

 

There is a possibility that pilum were thrown in open order for practical purposes, then the troops withdraw to close order again, but I'm not sure of the practicality of this and you may well want to consult re-enactors for their thoughts.

 

When the two sides met, the amount of chaos and deformation on the line depends largely on circumstance. In many cases, the sturdy roman line remained tight with men rotating in to replace the casualties. There is a mention in Caesars works of casualties being pulled to the rear out of harms way (although medical treatment may well have been a long time coming), and we know the romans were extremely well drilled in formation manoevers of this sort. Once a roman unit begins to merge with an enemy the ability to react and command is far reduced, something the centurions must have been well aware of and something they wanted to avoid at all costs. For this reason, a withdraw and reform move is a possibility. In this situation, don't forget the enemy have been fighting too and are just as tired, so an immediate chase (unless they're winning and morale is very high) might not happen - they might actually be grateful for a chance to catch their breath and reform themselves. There are accounts during the civil wars of roman units doing this repeatedly between each other, then rushing in again no holds barred.

 

Beware of assuming that there were standard tactics for every eventuality. Warfare doesn't work like this, and if you take a formulaic approach you will lose more often than not. Initiative and suprise tactics worked well during the ancient era and indeed, the succesful commanders were often the clever ones with a little lateral thinking behind them, the ones who fought dirty, or who outsmarted their opposing commander. It really is astonishing just how this one man could shape the battle and despite any relative advantages in men and equipment, could still win the day.

Edited December 30, 2007 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

What you say Caldrail it's probably correct but largely unsourced. There are sources that mention repeated charges by both sides, that implies that they withdrown after failing to break the enemy line, but this it's not always mentioned.

[Horatius]

The gaps in the roman formations were there to allow units to move and reform without conflicting with each other. In practice, its unlikely that many celts would have reached the rear of the line. The warrior ethos of such barbarians was all about heroic one on one hack'n'slash. Confronted with a roman army, the braver ones shouted louder and charged first, followed by the rest, all of whom would have ran at the romans, not past them. In fact, I can't see any positive benefit to attempting to penetrate since this was inevitably going to involve smaller numbers whose sides and rears may have quickly become unsupported. It was fairly suicidal to try it I think and even though a keyed up swordsman might not have been thinking too clearly, it remains far more likely he'd attack those within easy reach - the front rank of romans.

If you watch the battle scene in the first episode of HBO Rome I think it illustrates what caldrail is talking about perfectly. In fact the narration if you turn it on mentions that the scene is based on the latest research into Roman battle techniques. They even laugh about Pullo 'fighting like a barbarian' when he breaks ranks and ventures off on his own. To my mind this is the best single illustration of the disciplined fighting machine the Legions must have been and why they were successful against overwhelming odds against less organized opposition.

[caldrail]

What you say Caldrail it's probably correct but largely unsourced. There are sources that mention repeated charges by both sides, that implies that they withdrown after failing to break the enemy line, but this it's not always mentioned.

The reason it isn't always mentioned is that this elongated melee rarely occurs. One side or the other will usually break and run long before any appreciable casualties mount up, and 'last stands' are unusual and circumstantial in warfare. Traditionally a unit is finished as a fighting force before they reach 30% casualties, and once casualties mount, the morale collapse speeds up very quickly.

 

Regarding sources, there's actually quite a lot of anecdotal evidence for how the romans (and some of their enemies) conducted themselves on the battlefield, its just that its inconveniently spread across a whole plethora of sources. Often though a story of a battle can reveal how things were even if the author never intended to discuss that directly. I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions, just try to make the piece fit the jigsaw, not the imagination (as if I don't get accused of that!

[Gaius Octavius]

This might be helpful:

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/videos/index.html

[caldrail]

They even laugh about Pullo 'fighting like a barbarian' when he breaks ranks and ventures off on his own.

This is interesting, because traditionally a roman soldier who breaks ranks like this without orders is liable for execution. This was certainly true in the mid-republican period.

[M. Demetrius]

The problem with the retiring and renewing motion in Rome HBO, is that it would be foolhardy to attempt such a huge undertaking when the enemy was right there. From what I've read, and what little mock combat I've done, in fifteen or twenty minutes it's necessary to take a break. Both sides would be laboring under the same physical limits, with this generic exception:

 

Most of the "barbarians" that fought with the Romans were lightly armored, so they would not be as encumbered, but they were not professional soldiers.

 

The Romans were used to wearing their armor and marching all day, so they were more accustomed to the strain and weight, but nevertheless, people get tired when doing physical combat.

 

If the enemy were right at the line, it would be unlikely that anyone would hear the hypothetical whistle. Nobody really knows how they signalled advnaces, flanking, controlled retreats, or other combat maneuvers. We know they used standards and different horns, but we don't know what kind of signals produced the results. An educated guess is that there would be a switch of the first couple of ranks when the enemy fell back to grab some air, but how that was accomplished is unknown. In Rome HBO, the command to rotate the ranks came after thirty seconds. During that switch, with the enemy soldiers only five or six yards away, there would be an immediate rush, and the crowded lines of moving men around would be incredibly vulnerable, seems to me.

 

But it looked cool as all getout to see that overhead view of the troops moving. If anybody could pull that off, it would be the Romans. Sadly, there aren't any surviving drill records from the Republic, and AFAIK, none from the early Empire. Maurice and Vegetius are about the closest thing I can think of, and they are from later time frames.

[Horatius]

The problem with the retiring and renewing motion in Rome HBO, is that it would be foolhardy to attempt such a huge undertaking when the enemy was right there. From what I've read, and what little mock combat I've done, in fifteen or twenty minutes it's necessary to take a break. Both sides would be laboring under the same physical limits, with this generic exception:

 

Most of the "barbarians" that fought with the Romans were lightly armored, so they would not be as encumbered, but they were not professional soldiers.

 

The Romans were used to wearing their armor and marching all day, so they were more accustomed to the strain and weight, but nevertheless, people get tired when doing physical combat.

 

If the enemy were right at the line, it would be unlikely that anyone would hear the hypothetical whistle. Nobody really knows how they signalled advnaces, flanking, controlled retreats, or other combat maneuvers. We know they used standards and different horns, but we don't know what kind of signals produced the results. An educated guess is that there would be a switch of the first couple of ranks when the enemy fell back to grab some air, but how that was accomplished is unknown. In Rome HBO, the command to rotate the ranks came after thirty seconds. During that switch, with the enemy soldiers only five or six yards away, there would be an immediate rush, and the crowded lines of moving men around would be incredibly vulnerable, seems to me.

 

But it looked cool as all getout to see that overhead view of the troops moving. If anybody could pull that off, it would be the Romans. Sadly, there aren't any surviving drill records from the Republic, and AFAIK, none from the early Empire. Maurice and Vegetius are about the closest thing I can think of, and they are from later time frames.

It does look cool doesn't it I agree that if any one could have pulled it off it would have been the Romans. I think the machinelike switching of the front ranks at short intervals would have been a distict advantage just because of the fatigue factor. Especially against barbarian armies . I remember reading somewhere where the Legions drilled every day with overweighted shields and swords. A whistle seems logical and remember the sound in ancient warfare would be much less than modern warfare and if you were trained to react and listen for it maybe a whistle is not so far fetched. It is strange though that we know so little about the actual tactics of the Legions.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Horatius

[CiceroD]

What precisely is the primary source for these rotating files? is it Vegetius?

[caldrail]

Appian mentions rotating troops but I think the point of this has been misunderstood. As mentioned above, it probably isn't practical to rotate an entire line. The sources refer to individual soldiers, and then done because the soldier is no longer able to continue fighting. So in other words, if a legionary is wounded or too exhausted then the soldier behind him either alerts him, or physically removes him, in order to take his place in the line. This is therefore an ad hoc activity the legionary is trained for (and expected to undertake) that does not require formal orders from a centurion, who in all likeliehood is leading the attack from the front and is too busy to take care of individual soldiers welfare in this manner.

[Horatius]

What precisely is the primary source for these rotating files? is it Vegetius?

Actually the only reason I replied to this thread is that I've always been intrigued by that battle scene. If I remember right they say in the narration that it is based on the latest research by someone, but I can't make out the name. It is so different than the usual Roman film battle scene that it must have had some purpose to it. There is a lot of dramatic license in HBO Rome but there is a lot of really good historical tidbits too. I think they strive to be accurate when they could.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Horatius

[sonic]

Appian mentions rotating troops but I think the point of this has been misunderstood. As mentioned above, it probably isn't practical to rotate an entire line. The sources refer to individual soldiers, and then done because the soldier is no longer able to continue fighting. So in other words, if a legionary is wounded or too exhausted then the soldier behind him either alerts him, or physically removes him, in order to take his place in the line. This is therefore an ad hoc activity the legionary is trained for (and expected to undertake) that does not require formal orders from a centurion, who in all likeliehood is leading the attack from the front and is too busy to take care of individual soldiers welfare in this manner.

 

This is not the only mention of troop rotation in the ancient world. In his description of the Battle of Dara, Procopius has the Sasanid Persians rotating their cavalry as they become tired and run short of missiles. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain how this happened but the episode shows that it wasn't only the Romans that did this.

[caldrail]

The problem with descriptions like that is that its easy to get carried away and imagine the romans conducted all sorts of disciplined manoevers on the battlefield with robotic precision. The reality of course is that in a stressful situation like that, on what is probably uneven ground, with all the noise, action, and the usual emotions running through the soldiers heads, is that organised manoevers become much more difficult. This is why the armed forces over the centuries have insisted on practice, practice, and more practice, until a manoever becomes instinctive. Nonetheless, there are practical limits to the precision that can be achieved, and since the manoever is usually carried out in situations that don't resemble the real thing, there is going to be a margin of error in carrying it out. However, its also true that the romans understood this, and for that reason they would sometimes stage mock 'battles' or other confrontations during training to accustom their soldiers to the enviroment they would be facing. Now whether the tv show is actually an accurate depiction of what happened I can't say. Almost certainly, a centurion wouldn't have shouted a command, but instead relied on the louder and clearer signal of a horn. He would give the nod, so to speak, or perhaps an optio or even a principal might take the initiative - the romans were very keen to ensure the command structure remained able to cope with dynamic situations without having to find someone senior to ask permission, and in any case, it was often the case that during melee a centurion was too busy to command the unit.

 

So much of the roman methodology of warfare has been lost to us. Ok, we know how they were organised, we know details of their equipment, we have these sources that give hints on the way things were done. Soldiers are practical people. They have to be. Its life or death on the battlefield and a bad decision can be fatal. Also, the romans were very realistic about how to organise their troops and train them, something that remains almost unique at fiirst sight, yet there are glimpses in ancient sources that expert knowledge was put to good use. There was, for instance, that spartan mercenary who trained the army of the Carthage and prevented them from an imminent defeat. We know the greeks were organised in warfare. The persians too. Although our conception of these things is sometimes romanticised we must remember that when you get to the point of drawing swords against someone else, it gets very real. Roman soldiers were trained to conduct themselves on the battlefield in the light of hard earned experience, and wouldn't have wasted much time with stupid or pointless drills that caused chaos in action. That after all was one of the reasons for the centurion system - in that you had a body of junior officers who had usually been promoted from the ranks, who knew how the legions functioned, and perhaps more importantly, how men functioned in these situations. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the centurianate was one primary cause for the success of the roman legions in warfare. The romans had devised a a stratified but flexible command system that served them well for centuries - No pun intended.