StarDestroyer.Net BBS

From my understanding, the Romans did understand the value of keeping fresh ranks, but it wasn't done the way Rome (the series) showed it.

Instead, Roman armies (at least early Republic ones still using the Hastatus/Principe distinction) deployed their troops in a checkerboard formation, with the frontline alternating between empty spaces and a maniple.

During battle, the gaps between the maniples would be filled by a maniple from the second line once the troops in the first line got tired/fatigued. Once the second line is now engaged, the tired maniples who were originally on the frontline could now withdraw.

Not exactly sure how well it worked (Scipio for instance threw out this formation in his big battle against Hannibal at Zama), but it does show that the "rotate fresh troops" thing was likely not something done on a per soldier-level.

Zinegata wrote:From my understanding, the Romans did understand the value of keeping fresh ranks, but it wasn't done the way Rome (the series) showed it.

Agreed, hence this thread for discussing how the Romans replenish their ranks.

[quote="Zinegata"Instead, Roman armies (at least early Republic ones still using the Hastatus/Principe distinction) deployed their troops in a checkerboard formation, with the frontline alternating between empty spaces and a maniple.

During battle, the gaps between the maniples would be filled by a maniple from the second line once the troops in the first line got tired/fatigued. Once the second line is now engaged, the tired maniples who were originally on the frontline could now withdraw.

Not exactly sure how well it worked (Scipio for instance threw out this formation in his big battle against Hannibal at Zama), but it does show that the "rotate fresh troops" thing was likely not something done on a per soldier-level.[/quote]

The thing about checker board formation is that it allows gaps for the enemy to pour into, and outflanking your units, at least based on what I could foresee. We know how the checker board formation work in theory, but our sources simply do not give us what happened to the formation once the lines were engaged. How did the second and fresh maniples reach the enemy lines if the front ranks are engaged in combat? How did the front rankers pull back from a melee fight?

P.S. We do not have to limit ourselves to discussing Roman battles. I wonder if looking at more records of melee fights, especially among regions that did not adopt gunpowder until a much later date ( say Japan and various South African tribes) will give us a much better idea as to what happens during a melee fight.

ray245 wrote:I find that series to be grossly unhistorical. Take note of their episode regarding the late Roman army.

Moreover, there is nothing in that clip that could help us understand how a real melee battle would have worked. Not only is there a lack of enough actors to depict such battles, there is also a lack of killing intent among both parties.

I agree, but this show is not about history, but about how to use a weapon properly within its historic context.

My post was referring to the question about the way of fighting - The javelin at close range (<20m) then constantly moving forward, constantly stabbing at the enemy from between and under their shields. Very aggressive. To me, the battles in ROME are too static, too Hollywood.

LaCroix wrote: I agree, but this show is not about history, but about how to use a weapon properly within its historic context.

However, I find that what the show is doing is too limited to show us how fights occurred within their historical context. There is simply too little people involved, and the hand to hand combat simply cannot show us how people react when faced with the threat of death.

My post was referring to the question about the way of fighting - The javelin at close range (<20m) then constantly moving forward, constantly stabbing at the enemy from between and under their shields. Very aggressive. To me, the battles in ROME are too static, too Hollywood.

My issue, which was raised by Philip Sabin as well, we should account for the element of fear among both sides in a fight. Very rarely do humans go charging in towards danger without care of his life.

The Romans weren't simply charging without regard for their life, they were advancing, putting the fear of life into the enemy. Roman Soldiers are extremely well protected, and when this wall of shields advances, it is terrifying.

Just stumbled over the South Korean interpretation of front line replacement...

LaCroix wrote:The Romans weren't simply charging without regard for their life, they were advancing, putting the fear of life into the enemy. Roman Soldiers are extremely well protected, and when this wall of shields advances, it is terrifying.

What about civil wars then? Do the Romans continue to move forward towards each other without any fear?

Just stumbled over the South Korean interpretation of front line replacement...

Very interesting indeed. Although what happens during training does not mean such fights will occur the same way you expect it would in real life.

Zinegata wrote:Ah, so they had lighter "tactical" engines that required only a few men to operate for battles (which may have been lost in translation since latin does not distinguish between big or small siege engines). Thanks, that clears it up nicely.

well, these were not a seperate breed or so, they were just one in the many arsenals of Roman siege weapons that just happen to have multiple uses (they were used as standards siege weapons as well with frightening accuracy, mostly to pick defenders off walls before the main assault started).

A bit of misconceptions which I think should be cleared up beforehand.

a) regarding the "Rome" interpretation:
- it has some merits as a possible way to replenish the front rank. However, this obviously only works if the shields are not interlocked or the men stand jammed against each other. I do think it is the best interpretation of open order replacemen.
b) differentiating between Imperial and Republican Rome
It makes no sense comparing the armies of scipio and Augustus and the Late Army. One has to pick a time period first. So Ray, what period do you want to discuss here?

Thanas wrote:A bit of misconceptions which I think should be cleared up beforehand.

a) regarding the "Rome" interpretation:
- it has some merits as a possible way to replenish the front rank. However, this obviously only works if the shields are not interlocked or the men stand jammed against each other. I do think it is the best interpretation of open order replacemen.
b) differentiating between Imperial and Republican Rome
It makes no sense comparing the armies of scipio and Augustus and the Late Army. One has to pick a time period first. So Ray, what period do you want to discuss here?

Perhaps we should start off with discussing the armies of the punic wars? We can always proceed forward in time as the thread progress.

This would help everyone understand why the Romans evolved their fighting techniques and tactics over time.

ray245 wrote:The thing about checker board formation is that it allows gaps for the enemy to pour into, and outflanking your units, at least based on what I could foresee. We know how the checker board formation work in theory, but our sources simply do not give us what happened to the formation once the lines were engaged. How did the second and fresh maniples reach the enemy lines if the front ranks are engaged in combat? How did the front rankers pull back from a melee fight?

P.S. We do not have to limit ourselves to discussing Roman battles. I wonder if looking at more records of melee fights, especially among regions that did not adopt gunpowder until a much later date ( say Japan and various South African tribes) will give us a much better idea as to what happens during a melee fight.

You've caught Thanas' interest so he'll probably have a better answer (I'll be taking notes when he does ); but my understanding is that the gaps in the line were also used by the velites (skirmishers) to fall back right before contact without disrupting the formation. With the velites still taking up space in the gaps, the enemy forces can't really flank the Hastatus maniples before it's time for the Principe to get engaged.

Note that I'm talking about the "Punic War" armies, which are basically the Republican army - with the Hastatus and Principes and Triarii (pre-Marian reforms)

ray245 wrote:Perhaps we should start off with discussing the armies of the punic wars? We can always proceed forward in time as the thread progress.
This would help everyone understand why the Romans evolved their fighting techniques and tactics over time.

This was the time of aggressive expansion - other than later times, where Romans fought off invasions into their territory. The whole setup of the army is offensive. To my knowledge, the Romans used seven standard battle formations in this time, only one of them defensive in nature. All others are either frontal attacks or frontal attacks with flanking moves. Quite telling, their first formation was an attack in oblong square, e.g. march towards the enemy and stab them.

Other than their enemies, who usually lost cohesion quite early into the battle as it dissolved into a wild melee, the Romans almost never employed the charge, but a steady advance in tight formation and under tight discipline.

The whole equipment is tailored to that task. Huge shields to interlock and drive into the enemy, bunching him up. Quick, short stabbing swords to go into the infight. Javelins to throw moments before the rows clashed. The armor gives protection to the head and shoulders, and to the body, in case of attacks slipping through the shields, but it is the 'lightest' heavy armor possible, allowing you to be mobile and advancing.

Also, total lack of defensive weapons like spears and long swords to keep the enemy at distance. The Roman equipment was tailored to go into point blank range - which would make most enemies queasy. People always preferred spears and long weapons in order to not having to get close enough to be hit, yourself. The Romans didn't care for that. They just marched on into the fight, regardless of cost to themselves, very much like the vikings later did.

In this "Total war - Total aggression" approach, there lies a vast psychological power. Shock and awe was a roman invention.

Well, the Romans also had good armor so they could better afford close encounters .

Zinegata wrote: You've caught Thanas' interest so he'll probably have a better answer (I'll be taking notes when he does ); but my understanding is that the gaps in the line were also used by the velites (skirmishers) to fall back right before contact without disrupting the formation. With the velites still taking up space in the gaps, the enemy forces can't really flank the Hastatus maniples before it's time for the Principe to get engaged.

Note that I'm talking about the "Punic War" armies, which are basically the Republican army - with the Hastatus and Principes and Triarii (pre-Marian reforms)

It seems logical then, to believe that in order for such a formation to work, melee warfare during this period was not like a mass of men shoving each other with shields.

Other than their enemies, who usually lost cohesion quite early into the battle as it dissolved into a wild melee, the Romans almost never employed the charge, but a steady advance in tight formation and under tight discipline.

Not disagreeing with that, given the numerous times an enemy broke before the lines actually engage each other.

Also, total lack of defensive weapons like spears and long swords to keep the enemy at distance. The Roman equipment was tailored to go into point blank range - which would make most enemies queasy. People always preferred spears and long weapons in order to not having to get close enough to be hit, yourself. The Romans didn't care for that. They just marched on into the fight, regardless of cost to themselves, very much like the vikings later did.

The issue is what happens when the enemy lines did not break? We know of a number of cases during the second punic wars, where the Carthaginian lines simply did not break. The battle of Cannae is an big example of enemy lines not breaking when they were facing the Romans.

Did the Romans and the Carthaginian pack themselves together like one big sardine, or did the battle follow the model described by Sabin?

P.S. Should I describe Sabin's conclusion in more detail perhaps, for the people who cannot access the article via JSTOR?

The link to the article is located here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 1237279581

I shall quote a few interesting arguments made by the author of the article for the people that do not have access to JSTOR. I hope it is not too much content to infringe any copyright claim.

The Face of Roman Battle, Philip Sabin, JRS 2000 wrote:The popularity of the long and unwieldy pike as an infantry weapon in both ancient
and early modern times surely stemmed, at least in part, from a dread of true hand-to-
hand combat, and from a desire to keep the enemy at bay and to inflict damage from a
'stand off' position

The Face of Roman Battle, Philip Sabin, JRS 2000 wrote:I suggest that the default state in protracted Roman infantry combats
would have been similar to that between eighteenth- and nineteenth-century infantry,
namely a small separation of the two lines so that they could exchange insults and missile
fire but were not quite close enough for hand-to-hand duelling.

The Face of Roman Battle, Philip Sabin, JRS 2000 wrote:Hence, unlike in the stalemated firefights of more recent times, I believe that in most Roman battles the lines did
sporadically come into contact, as one side or the other surged forward for a brief and
localized flurry of hand-to-hand combat. The flurry of combat would end when one side
got the worst of the exchange, and its troops would step back to re-impose the 'safety
distance' while brandishing their weapons to deter immediate enemy pursuit.

This is what I meant.

Whenever one line seeks to connect with the other, the one being hit harder would step back a few feet and try to regroup. In one of these this brief pauses, if the Hastatus line was deemed worn out, there would be the commant to switch lines. Then, one half of the Principes line would step forward, and to the side, creating a gap for the Hastatus troops to retreat. As soon as they were through, the "second line" of the Principes would step into the gap, closing the line and advancing into combat, hopefully before the enemy line was reformed properly.

Battle line
0
1 PPPPPPPPPP
2
3 HHHHHHHH

Gap opening
0
1 PP....PP
2 PP....PP
3 HHHHHHHH

Retreat & line reform
0 HHHHHHHH
1
2 PP PP PP PP
3

The problem was that if the other side did not disconnect, but stand fast, the Hastartus could not be relieved in that way, for the pursuing enemy would break through the gaps in the Principes line, which would be devastating.

Zinegata wrote:Well, the Romans also had good armor so they could better afford close encounters .

I believe it is the other way round. People do not adapt their fighting style to their equipment, they use equipment that supplements their fighting style and mentality. Look at the weapons a nation employs, and you see their doctrine.

The romans invented this kind of armor and weapons because they preferred close encounters. They knew how demoralizing this was to others, and were quite willing to soak up the inevitable losses, as long as the enemy suffered worse. The thought of actually attacking a resisting enemy was not popular among most nations, and their weaponry showed that. Romans believed in bravery, as can be seen in an arena fight. IT was simply forbidden to fall back. A honorable fighter knew only one direction. Forward, into the enemy.

This doctrine was the key to Roman success.

Their military downfall, after a long phase of expansion, was due to the fact that they became too big. When they came under attack by multiple enemies, they simply lacked the numbers to be everywhere at once with suitably big armies. They needed to split up to cover huge fronts, and due to this, they needed to switch to lighter, more mobile infantry, and more defensive tactics. They also became less willing to accept casualties. You can see this quite well in the change of equipment. (This also led to the barbarization of the army. They needed manpower, and these imported troops fought the way they were used to.)

Ray245 wrote:We know of a number of cases during the second punic wars, where the Carthaginian lines simply did not break. The battle of Cannae is an big example of enemy lines not breaking when they were facing the Romans.

Cannae was not lost due to the lines not breaking. It was lost by a commander. And won by cavalry.

Biggest mistake: Varro chose an open field for battle, even though he had a 1:2 cavalry disadvantage. (This alone subsequently bit him in the arse, so to speak.)
His second mistake: He stacked his troops extra deep, so his front was actually equal or even smaller than the only half as big enemy forces. He did so, because he believed the center to be broken quickly, as it usually happened in the last encounters. So the romans held forces back to pursue the routed troops and exploit the split lines, actually flanking through the centre.

His third mistake, he fell for a feinted retreat. Hannibal realized the roman tactic, and had his center constantly giving up room, a standard tactic against a superior foe. The romans believed this was due to the center breaking, and followed into the gap, even though the flanks held. They committed more and more forces to the press in center, and only held the flanks, believing they would break soon, as well.

This would have worked, athough with high cost. The roman had much heavier troops and twice the numbers. It would still have been a great victory, were it not for the fact that by this time, Hannibals cavalry had already cut down the Roman cavalry to almost the last man, and now charged into the rear of the roman center. These soldiers were so bunched up that they couldn't even turn to engage the attack.

LaCroix wrote:The romans invented this kind of armor and weapons because they preferred close encounters. They knew how demoralizing this was to others, and were quite willing to soak up the inevitable losses, as long as the enemy suffered worse. The thought of actually attacking a resisting enemy was not popular among most nations, and their weaponry showed that. Romans believed in bravery, as can be seen in an arena fight. IT was simply forbidden to fall back. A honorable fighter knew only one direction. Forward, into the enemy.

Do you have any source to back up this claim that the Romans were exceptional to other nations when it comes down to having aggression during battle?

LaCroix wrote: Their military downfall, after a long phase of expansion, was due to the fact that they became too big. When they came under attack by multiple enemies, they simply lacked the numbers to be everywhere at once with suitably big armies. They needed to split up to cover huge fronts, and due to this, they needed to switch to lighter, more mobile infantry, and more defensive tactics. They also became less willing to accept casualties. You can see this quite well in the change of equipment. (This also led to the barbarization of the army. They needed manpower, and these imported troops fought the way they were used to.)

Are we seriously going to go through the whole issue regarding the barbarization of the late Roman army again?

LaCroix wrote: Cannae was not lost due to the lines not breaking. It was lost by a commander. And won by cavalry.

I am talking about the Carthaginan lines, not the Roman lines. For Hannibal's tactic to work, his center line cannot afford to break as the Romans advanced forward.

ray245 wrote: Do you have any source to back up this claim that the Romans were exceptional to other nations when it comes down to having aggression during battle?

The word "virtus" alone is one of the biggest hints. It the most important of all virtues - manliness.

ray245 wrote: I am talking about the Carthaginan lines, not the Roman lines. For Hannibal's tactic to work, his center line cannot afford to break as the Romans advanced forward.

A line that is ordered to constanly fall back from the enemy to lure him into a pincer movement is not in danger of breaking. As long as they can fall back as quickly as the romans advance, the whole armies just march along without much fighting.

Hannibal gambled, and pulled off the perfect delay tactic. The Carthagians only lost 5-10000 men while killing 40-50000 romans. They only engaged in combat once the cavalry had already shattered the Romans.

If (by sheer miracle, because roman cavalry was almost worthless, and Hannibal's cavalry was very good) the cavalry would not have swept the equites off the battlefield, history would have recorded Cannae as the place where the Carthagians got their asses handed to them.

Varro was too eager, too sure, because he was blinded by pure numerical superiority. Had the batttle been joined at the next day - with Paullus as commander, who was more cautius, it would have ended very differently.

LaCroix wrote:

ray245 wrote: Do you have any source to back up this claim that the Romans were exceptional to other nations when it comes down to having aggression during battle?

The word "virtus" alone is one of the biggest hints. It the most important of all virtues - manliness.

Yes, I am well aware of how much importance the Romans place on virtues. That does not back up your view whether the Romans were much more aggressive during battle as compared to any other people and trbies.

LaCroix wrote: A line that is ordered to constanly fall back from the enemy to lure him into a pincer movement is not in danger of breaking. As long as they can fall back as quickly as the romans advance, the whole armies just march along without much fighting.

Why? A line falling back could easily turn to a rout if it was not done properly when the Romans are advancing towards the Carthaginian. All it takes is someone to panic and the battle plan would have gone to hell.

ray245 wrote:Yes, I am well aware of how much importance the Romans place on virtues. That does not back up your view whether the Romans were much more aggressive during battle as compared to any other people and trbies.

I would need some time to mine for quotes of Romans calling other tribes cowards, but I don't think that this isn't necessary, for the doctrine is obviously more agressive than others.
People using 20-22 inch swords need to be really agressive. You can't stand and wait until the spears and long swords of the enemy cut you apart.
Using javelins is the same - you use those to soften up a formation into which you advance immediately afterwards. It would be useless to throw them at people standing apart. They'd hide under their shields, and then rearrange the shield wall. you need to charge them at the same time you throw them, so they must decide wether to block the javelins or the charging enemy.

ray245 wrote:Why? A line falling back could easily turn to a rout if it was not done properly when the Romans are advancing towards the Carthaginian. All it takes is someone to panic and the battle plan would have gone to hell.

That was the gamble part. Hannibal himself took charge of the center to stabilize it.

Of course, all it neeeded was a couple of people panicing to break the line - that is the inherent risk of all melee battles. But as long as you fall back orderly, just enough to not make any contact, there is little danger of breaking. Breaking rarely occurs without taking losses. And these people knew that they only had to wait for their cavalry. It's very much like modern para-infantry holding a foothold, knowing the tanks are already rolling in. It boosts morale.

LaCroix wrote:
I would need some time to mine for quotes of Romans calling other tribes cowards, but I don't think that this isn't necessary, for the doctrine is obviously more agressive than others.
People using 20-22 inch swords need to be really agressive. You can't stand and wait until the spears and long swords of the enemy cut you apart.
Using javelins is the same - you use those to soften up a formation into which you advance immediately afterwards. It would be useless to throw them at people standing apart. They'd hide under their shields, and then rearrange the shield wall. you need to charge them at the same time you throw them, so they must decide wether to block the javelins or the charging enemy.

The thing is you are assuming none of the enemies that the Romans faced used similar weapons. The Scutarii and the gladius were all weapons in use by the Iberian tribes. This does not support your view that the weapons used by the Romans were somehow more unique, nor can you justify that other tribes faced by the Romans were lacking in aggression because of the weapon they used.

That was the gamble part. Hannibal himself took charge of the center to stabilize it.

It is still an example of enemy lines not breaking upon contact with the Roman infantry. We are figuring out what happens when the lines did not break.

LaCroix wrote:People using 20-22 inch swords need to be really agressive. You can't stand and wait until the spears and long swords of the enemy cut you apart.

Um, long swords? I was under impression metallurgy to make good long sword was barely good enough in late Roman times, and then again a millennium later in late Dark Ages. Who exactly used a lot of long swords against Romans? Wasn't Roman Gladius simply the best that could have been economically given to common soldier?

ray245 wrote:There are people that argue in favour of the depiction we see in HBO's Rome. There are numerous problems with this depiction of course, such as the whole concept of changing ranks while fighting was never really mentioned in any of our source.

The whole issue with most depiction is while it might look nice and sensible to many of us who never experience what it is like to be a melee battle, it might not be realistic at all to the people who fought in such battles.

Then how it was done, then? I personally thought Rome example looked quite good - especially seeing that my attempts to use (as depicted) checkerboard formations in various simulators, from boardgames to Total War series always show a lot of problems to me. I mean, ok, the simulators might be flawed, but I always took a lot of interest in tactics employed in history, tried to use good tactics from the period, and every simulator showed similar flaws.

Checkerboard formations seem both too dense (in full spots) and too light (in gaps) to be manoeuvrable, you can easily flank particular squares, and untangling square from combat without losing a lot of soldiers and morale is easier said than done, even with modern command techniques allowing all units to get order at the same time, much less with what ancients could use.

Tl/Dr - to me, in most depictions, "checkerboards" only seem to work well if enemy is perfectly willing to cooperate with you.

Thanas wrote:And what wall of shields are you referring too?

Well, if the most popular writer in Europe (by books sold) about Roman soldiers equipment and looks is right, they were quite good at making shield formations

Irbis wrote: Checkerboard formations seem both too dense (in full spots) and too light (in gaps) to be manoeuvrable, you can easily flank particular squares, and untangling square from combat without losing a lot of soldiers and morale is easier said than done, even with modern command techniques allowing all units to get order at the same time, much less with what ancients could use.

Tl/Dr - to me, in most depictions, "checkerboards" only seem to work well if enemy is perfectly willing to cooperate with you.

The same happens to everyone who tried the checkerboard formation in TW ( that includes me as well). The issue is we do have clear sources that describe the checkerboard formation to us, hence we know that such formation were used by the Romans.

We simply have to figure out how on earth would such a formation make sense. One method would be abandoning the combat model we saw in the Total war games, and see if the one created by others would make better sense.

ray245 wrote:The same happens to everyone who tried the checkerboard formation in TW ( that includes me as well). The issue is we do have clear sources that describe the checkerboard formation to us, hence we know that such formation were used by the Romans.

We simply have to figure out how on earth would such a formation make sense. One method would be abandoning the combat model we saw in the Total war games, and see if the one created by others would make better sense.

Yes, I know it might be simulators that are at fault, due to dozens of technical reasons, but still, if something doesn't seem to work despite a lot of attempts in different ways, maybe we are just reading the texts wrong, maybe authors simplified it to make it more accessible to audience, or maybe they omitted something that was so common knowledge no one bothered to add it.

If checkerboards worked even as purely thought model, I could accept our models and RL reenactments work wrong, but it does seem to be a great way to have your front line squares to be encircled, isolated and destroyed in detail.

Also, comment on that Korean video - well trained unit. So well, in fact, I started to wonder if they are too well trained for ancient standards, or is there something I don't see. Any similarly or even a lot worse trained unit can turn its last line or two to deflect flanking or rear attack pretty easily - so easily in fact, it made me question how statements like "charged into the rear of the roman center. These soldiers were so bunched up that they couldn't even turn to engage the attack" make sense. Unless someone physically pressed them against each other, rear of formation, especially of one that was pressing forward for some time, should be pretty loose and should be able to reform and fight by simply turning around, no?

Regarding Roman "exceptionalism"... I'd say that the extensive and harsh training of the legions probably had more to do with their battlefield aggressiveness. Virtues sound good and all, but without discipline that tends to rapidly evaporate in the face of actual armed enemies.

The main effect of the "virtues" honestly seem to be more on the Roman state's mindset as a whole, which helped the Romans sustain the war effort despite setbacks. Cannae may be the worst single defeat of any ancient-era army, but it can conversely be considered as Rome's finest hour due to their bloody-minded refusal to surrender in the face of such calamity. I've heard stories - possibly apocryphal - of the Roman Senate's reaction after hearing that Hannibal had encamped near Rome. Rather than panic or be alarmed, the Senate decided to conduct a sale of the land Hannibal was occupying. And they sold the land at full price. (Which was essentially saying "Hannibal is just a nuisance. The land will be ours again shortly".)

My other favorite story, possibly also apocryphal, was of the Consul captured by the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. He was ordered by his captors to return to the Senate and convince Rome to surrender, or else he would be killed. The Consul did indeed return to Rome, but instead of advocating surrender he argued long and loud that the Romans should continue fighting. After which, he defiantly marched back to Carthage to face death by a Carthaginian sword.

The Romans apparently really love these kinds of "Fuck you, Carthage/Gauls/Etruscans/Whoever. Bring it on!" stories .