12-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Mark wrote:
Finally - I would indeed appreciate any comments on my understanding of the basics of phalanx warfare.....
Unless I miss my guess entirely, the Romans developed Greek formations and deployment into real, no different to modern (re-developed from the 17thC onward) drill - as the way to move their soldiers about effectively. And 'man' moves about in paces.
So, according to your hypothesis, the Romans at some point in their history, while fighting fellow Latins, Italians and Gauls, adopted a Greek-style formation and method of drill, which included *formal drill, similar to that re-invented in certain western European armies in the 17th century. I have a few questions before I can except that:
*For the sake of this posting, I define formal drill as a codified method of moving units around, while marching or in close combat, based off an organized method, which implies units being in step with one another (some sort of auditory cadence is necessary), codified commands that are systematic and standardized (everyone knows them), the use of knowledgeable drill masters to train the men at a ratio that allows everyone to learn, the time necessary to teach/train the army, and some sort of manual for everyone to read to reference.
1. At what point was the Greek phalanx standardized in its deployment? What year did this happen, under which commander, during which war? When did the Spartans, Argives, Thebans and Athenians (just to name a few) develop and practice fighting methods that were shared universally? Before the advent of the Macedonian reformed infantry, what influential Greek statesman/generals wrote manuals detailing the drill methods for INFANTRY? Was formalized drill necessary for part time citizen soldiers armed with an aspis and spear to function as an effective unit in combat as the ancient sources describe?
2. What ancient sources mention Roman drill manuals dating to the early to mid republican period? As the Roman soldier was part time, seasonal, on the concept of warrior-farmers levied to patriotically serve the state in yearly wars, how complicated would the drills have been that were taught to new recruits who, until until the late 3rd Century BCE (204'ish), weren't levied until March, when the new Consuls took office, which signaled the beginning of the new campaign season?
3. How standardized was the Roman army during the Republican period? Did all the different legions operate the same? Were fighting methods consistent across locale, commander, terrain, enemy? IE., Did Caesar's legions fight the same as Pompey's? Did some commanders use special methods that made them superior to other commanders, that were NOT standardized?
4. When Philip II of Macedon reformed his infantry into pike carrying units with a formal drill system, what other reforms/conditions occurred that made the well-drilled sarrisa formations possible? Were part time soldiers used? Are part time soldiers capable of learning the intricate drills or were professional (full time) soldiers used/needed?
5. In the 17th Century, what European army/armies re-instituted the use of formal drill for their infantry? How were those units armed? Did these units mimic Republican Roman methods, Macedonian or late Roman/Byzantine, in regards to force structure and armament? Why did the tactics gain popularity, to finally be used exclusively by nearly ever western european army? How and why did the drill methods carry over from pikes into firearms? At what time did these methods stop being used in combat? Why?
Feel free to answer these questions in any method you'd like.
PS. I think that if Romans did have some sort of institutionalized drill, even a most basic one, it would not be based off of actual measurements like cupids or feet, but on concepts like you suggested, such as steps, paces, shield width, arm lifted and held parallel to the ground, etc., which are more readily adapted to infantrymen, especially ignorant ones. I seriously doubt orders such as "Shift to the left thirty cubits/half a stade/forty seven feet" was ever given, as other measurements, such as steps or paces, would be easier to follow.
Finally - I would indeed appreciate any comments on my understanding of the basics of phalanx warfare.....
Unless I miss my guess entirely, the Romans developed Greek formations and deployment into real, no different to modern (re-developed from the 17thC onward) drill - as the way to move their soldiers about effectively. And 'man' moves about in paces.
So, according to your hypothesis, the Romans at some point in their history, while fighting fellow Latins, Italians and Gauls, adopted a Greek-style formation and method of drill, which included *formal drill, similar to that re-invented in certain western European armies in the 17th century. I have a few questions before I can except that:
*For the sake of this posting, I define formal drill as a codified method of moving units around, while marching or in close combat, based off an organized method, which implies units being in step with one another (some sort of auditory cadence is necessary), codified commands that are systematic and standardized (everyone knows them), the use of knowledgeable drill masters to train the men at a ratio that allows everyone to learn, the time necessary to teach/train the army, and some sort of manual for everyone to read to reference.
1. At what point was the Greek phalanx standardized in its deployment? What year did this happen, under which commander, during which war? When did the Spartans, Argives, Thebans and Athenians (just to name a few) develop and practice fighting methods that were shared universally? Before the advent of the Macedonian reformed infantry, what influential Greek statesman/generals wrote manuals detailing the drill methods for INFANTRY? Was formalized drill necessary for part time citizen soldiers armed with an aspis and spear to function as an effective unit in combat as the ancient sources describe?
2. What ancient sources mention Roman drill manuals dating to the early to mid republican period? As the Roman soldier was part time, seasonal, on the concept of warrior-farmers levied to patriotically serve the state in yearly wars, how complicated would the drills have been that were taught to new recruits who, until until the late 3rd Century BCE (204'ish), weren't levied until March, when the new Consuls took office, which signaled the beginning of the new campaign season?
3. How standardized was the Roman army during the Republican period? Did all the different legions operate the same? Were fighting methods consistent across locale, commander, terrain, enemy? IE., Did Caesar's legions fight the same as Pompey's? Did some commanders use special methods that made them superior to other commanders, that were NOT standardized?
4. When Philip II of Macedon reformed his infantry into pike carrying units with a formal drill system, what other reforms/conditions occurred that made the well-drilled sarrisa formations possible? Were part time soldiers used? Are part time soldiers capable of learning the intricate drills or were professional (full time) soldiers used/needed?
5. In the 17th Century, what European army/armies re-instituted the use of formal drill for their infantry? How were those units armed? Did these units mimic Republican Roman methods, Macedonian or late Roman/Byzantine, in regards to force structure and armament? Why did the tactics gain popularity, to finally be used exclusively by nearly ever western european army? How and why did the drill methods carry over from pikes into firearms? At what time did these methods stop being used in combat? Why?
Feel free to answer these questions in any method you'd like.
PS. I think that if Romans did have some sort of institutionalized drill, even a most basic one, it would not be based off of actual measurements like cupids or feet, but on concepts like you suggested, such as steps, paces, shield width, arm lifted and held parallel to the ground, etc., which are more readily adapted to infantrymen, especially ignorant ones. I seriously doubt orders such as "Shift to the left thirty cubits/half a stade/forty seven feet" was ever given, as other measurements, such as steps or paces, would be easier to follow.
