Roman Army Drill

[John Conyard]

I often wonder how much drill there was in the early Imperial army. By drill I mean spacings, doublings, facings, wheeling and counter marching as opposed to weapons drill. I appreciate many early Imperial re-enactment groups pride themselves on their drill, and the view that the early Imperial Roman army in some way mirrors the British army, or any other modern army, still seems to prevail.

I appreciate than pike armed troops need formation and weapons drill to operate. But sword armed legionaires do not need much beyond "follow the suicidal promotion seeking centurian". Battle dynamics are rarely examined, except perhaps in Tacitus and Cassius Dio. Modern perceptions of early combat suggests legionaries would advance in some sort of formation to missile range, with individuals or small groups going that bit further into hand to hand combat. This combat would last for seconds before one side would fall back to a “safe” distance, the idea of “safe” being based on the perceived threat from the enemy. Roman discipline was based on falling back the minimum amount, and their willingness to advance once again and continue the process for a long period of time.

A short glance at the evidence shows us the early Imperial army is tactically flexible and full of interesting equipment, but perhaps rather limited when it comes to drill. But by the 4th century we see the rise of a more professional army, benefiting from technological improvements, with professional staff officers drawing on written manuals, perfect cavalrymen, cohesive battlefield drills, integrated long range missile capacity within the legions, spear armed phalanx-like front ranks, and with the full financial support of the state.

Heretical? I don't think so!