12-25-2013, 01:11 AM
Mark,
Maybe we are just not understanding each other; our two cultures might share words but some of them have different meanings, especially since we've both have military/drilling experience. So here goes.
When someone says drill, to me it means marching in an "organized" formations with a number of predetermined movements and commands, such as turns, counter marching, etc., with a group leader in a position to control it all. So a Roman unit going into battle probably met these qualification and were technically drilled. But moving large bodies of people in this "organized" manner isn't too hard and doesn't take too long to teach, as long as the units aren't required to be in strict rank and file or in step with one another. It also helps having a system for maintaining discipline (ensuring miscreants are punished for messing up or for not obeying) and the installing leaders with some experience. But I'm referring to a unit that basically walks together as a large mob, not rank and file or in step.
When it comes to drilling with rigid spacing requirements, with a need to march in step, its means great difficulty. Not just to control the group but to teach;.it takes many of hour devoted solely to get the men understanding the methods to walk in lock step, which means achieving muscle memory in the established step/pace. Watch people marching on Youtube, in good formations everyone is using the same leg movements. Additionally, the more rigid the formation, the more additional and complicated the marching commands and movements become. So, if this rigid concept of drill, which we know was used by the Macedonians, falls inline with what you think the Romans of the Republican period used, then it means longer training times to learn the military step, longer times to become a cohesive unit that is capable of marching in sync together, and a long time to learn the complex number of commands. Realistically, we're talking about months of training, of many hours a day.
Like I mentioned earlier, the Macedonian phalanx was known to have done this type of dill. What they did took months to train, required an higher amount of small unit leaders (file leaders, file closers), required full time soldiers, drill masters at nearly every level, and a highly disciplined, well paid and well motivated force. And to make it worse, the marching techniques were notoriously difficult to use on anything resembling rough terrain, as the military step is hard to do going up/down hill, in mud, crossing small gulleys, walking around trees, bushes, etc. Even today, most organizations that still perform drill practice on manicured grass or blacktop parade fields for a reason. They do so because marching people together in strict alignment is a pain in the butt on anything but flat terrain. Sound familiar? Maybe just like what Polybius says? Considering how much trouble it takes to have a well drilled unit, you might ask why the Macedonians bothered. Because part of their infantry had long two-handed pikes in their hands, it meant one misstep while marching or in combat could result in a massive pike smashing against a rank mate's head! Or a trip while marching, resulting in the man directly behind tripping as well. You get the point. The use of the pike required strict drill, but strict drill has many disadvantages as well.
So now we have the Romans. For the sake of the argument, we'll stick to the republican period, as you continuously bring up the Greek/Macedonian phalanx, and the last of the Greek/Hellenistic powers was destroyed in the Pontic Wars in the Late Republic. So, it comes down to necessity. Why would Roman Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Centurions, spend months training their legions in complex maneuvers if their style of fighting didn't necessitate close order? Did a misstep with a sword or shield threaten the cohesion of the entire line? No. What source, describing the Republic period, recounts a strict style of drill I've described earlier? None that i know of. It seems that when instances of training are mentioned it mostly encompasses some sort of legion wide mandatory training, such as Scipio Africanus' five day training period, involved sword and pila drills, speed marches, along with camp construction (to build endurance and toughness), and larger war games. I don't recall anything specific about marching aside from Vegetius and to be honest, I don't like him as a source because he generalizes too much.
Its at this point where it seems you and I differ. You hypothesize the Romans were designed to fight with interlocked or nearly touching shields in a Greek-like Phalanx, but with a scutum instead of an aspis, and swords instead of spears. Then you say that the Greeks' methods of warfare "seems more to have been based upon standing next to each other and holding spears/pikes properly and advancing together en masse.", which hardly means well drilled. But from my view point, its the opposite. I believe that the Roman's method of infantry fighting generally meant fighting in a looser manner, with more individuality emphasized, without a need for strict drill. This is based off the existing sources that describe combat during the mid to late republican period (Polybius, Caesar, etc), from the shape of the shield (curved to protect sides, allowing independent protection) and the use of a sword (an emphasis on close combat with the enemy, cutting and thrusting).
Like I mentioned earlier, this might just be a case of miscommunication.
Maybe we are just not understanding each other; our two cultures might share words but some of them have different meanings, especially since we've both have military/drilling experience. So here goes.
When someone says drill, to me it means marching in an "organized" formations with a number of predetermined movements and commands, such as turns, counter marching, etc., with a group leader in a position to control it all. So a Roman unit going into battle probably met these qualification and were technically drilled. But moving large bodies of people in this "organized" manner isn't too hard and doesn't take too long to teach, as long as the units aren't required to be in strict rank and file or in step with one another. It also helps having a system for maintaining discipline (ensuring miscreants are punished for messing up or for not obeying) and the installing leaders with some experience. But I'm referring to a unit that basically walks together as a large mob, not rank and file or in step.
When it comes to drilling with rigid spacing requirements, with a need to march in step, its means great difficulty. Not just to control the group but to teach;.it takes many of hour devoted solely to get the men understanding the methods to walk in lock step, which means achieving muscle memory in the established step/pace. Watch people marching on Youtube, in good formations everyone is using the same leg movements. Additionally, the more rigid the formation, the more additional and complicated the marching commands and movements become. So, if this rigid concept of drill, which we know was used by the Macedonians, falls inline with what you think the Romans of the Republican period used, then it means longer training times to learn the military step, longer times to become a cohesive unit that is capable of marching in sync together, and a long time to learn the complex number of commands. Realistically, we're talking about months of training, of many hours a day.
Like I mentioned earlier, the Macedonian phalanx was known to have done this type of dill. What they did took months to train, required an higher amount of small unit leaders (file leaders, file closers), required full time soldiers, drill masters at nearly every level, and a highly disciplined, well paid and well motivated force. And to make it worse, the marching techniques were notoriously difficult to use on anything resembling rough terrain, as the military step is hard to do going up/down hill, in mud, crossing small gulleys, walking around trees, bushes, etc. Even today, most organizations that still perform drill practice on manicured grass or blacktop parade fields for a reason. They do so because marching people together in strict alignment is a pain in the butt on anything but flat terrain. Sound familiar? Maybe just like what Polybius says? Considering how much trouble it takes to have a well drilled unit, you might ask why the Macedonians bothered. Because part of their infantry had long two-handed pikes in their hands, it meant one misstep while marching or in combat could result in a massive pike smashing against a rank mate's head! Or a trip while marching, resulting in the man directly behind tripping as well. You get the point. The use of the pike required strict drill, but strict drill has many disadvantages as well.
So now we have the Romans. For the sake of the argument, we'll stick to the republican period, as you continuously bring up the Greek/Macedonian phalanx, and the last of the Greek/Hellenistic powers was destroyed in the Pontic Wars in the Late Republic. So, it comes down to necessity. Why would Roman Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Centurions, spend months training their legions in complex maneuvers if their style of fighting didn't necessitate close order? Did a misstep with a sword or shield threaten the cohesion of the entire line? No. What source, describing the Republic period, recounts a strict style of drill I've described earlier? None that i know of. It seems that when instances of training are mentioned it mostly encompasses some sort of legion wide mandatory training, such as Scipio Africanus' five day training period, involved sword and pila drills, speed marches, along with camp construction (to build endurance and toughness), and larger war games. I don't recall anything specific about marching aside from Vegetius and to be honest, I don't like him as a source because he generalizes too much.
Its at this point where it seems you and I differ. You hypothesize the Romans were designed to fight with interlocked or nearly touching shields in a Greek-like Phalanx, but with a scutum instead of an aspis, and swords instead of spears. Then you say that the Greeks' methods of warfare "seems more to have been based upon standing next to each other and holding spears/pikes properly and advancing together en masse.", which hardly means well drilled. But from my view point, its the opposite. I believe that the Roman's method of infantry fighting generally meant fighting in a looser manner, with more individuality emphasized, without a need for strict drill. This is based off the existing sources that describe combat during the mid to late republican period (Polybius, Caesar, etc), from the shape of the shield (curved to protect sides, allowing independent protection) and the use of a sword (an emphasis on close combat with the enemy, cutting and thrusting).
Like I mentioned earlier, this might just be a case of miscommunication.
