Roman Battle Tactics

[Tarbicus]

Never trust the internet:
[url:3ddtbjpp]http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/schools/gallery/gall07al.htm[/url]
[url:3ddtbjpp]http://www.umich.edu/~kelseydb/Exhibits/MIRE/Objects/ObjectsNumber/8504obn.html[/url]
[url:3ddtbjpp]http://www.jwaller.co.uk/nas/Stanion_Villa.htm[/url]

Cheers.

[drsrob]

Aparently the whistle was invented in 1883!!
See [url:rq77vwbg]http://www.constabulary.com/faqs/w-faq.htm[/url]

This article says nothing of the kind. It speaks of the police-whistle, that could be gripped with the teath. It was invented in 1883 by a company who had been making whistles for 20 years!

[Arrian]

The use of the whistle in the first battle of "rome" is, I think, a plausible way of showing that the romans had a system for changing ranks and giving other orders in the heat of battle. The filmmakers should be credited for actually showing a use of drill- tactics at all, and emphasising the distinction between the "dsiciplined" romans and their wilder "barbaric" opponents. The romans come across as brave but well trained, and the barbarians as brave but stupid. In the free-for-all usual in hollywood combat, "tactics" usually only mean a creative use of fire-arrows and oil, (think braveheart or gladiator). Naff helmets notwithstanding, "rome" has done something different.

That said( slightly off-topic) I am very glad to hear of your experiences concerning actual combat and low-level tactics. our group dabble in steel- weapon fighting ( sort of SCA- ish) and have yet to see tactics like those often described in roman history books that actually work. in my experience, combat between battlelines is a lot more tentative and cautious affair than usually envisaged (and shown in movies). I think it would be possible to get away with quite a lot of maneuvres provided that they are well- drilled, surprising and properly signalled. A whistle would be quite helpful, and much more practical and available to the centurion than a brass band. we shall have to make some more experiments.

[Tarbicus]

in my experience, combat between battlelines is a lot more tentative and cautious affair than usually envisaged (and shown in movies).

It's worth reading 'Cannae' by Gregory Daly if only for his step by step recreation of the battle, which includes exactly what Arrian describes. Daly draws on a lot of sources both ancient and modern.

Cheers.

[Arrian]

Thanks tarbicus. I think i'll have to read that one. Nice tunic, by the way

I remember seeing a story on the news a while back, in Ukraine or Bellarus i think. There about twenty policemen in riot gear with big shields and truncheons attacked and "dispersed" a crowd of several hundred demonstrators. They kept a firm, tight line and advanced in short bursts at the crowd. The lines ( there were actual lines) contacted only briefly before the crowd fell back, stopping a few meters back, throwing bottles and rocks, most of wich hit the shields of the rear rankers holding them above their heads. the process repeated itself three our four times before the crowd lost their nerves and legged it. If the policemen had pursued with intent to kill I believe it would have been a massacre.(But they would probably have lost their order).
Not jolly wiewing, but I think it gives a good picture of how
this kind of combat plays out. There was little actual contact and it didn't seem as though many people were actually hurt.

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
I just want to suggest further reading on this subject, which corresponds more or less with Arrian's picture of the combat:

Goldsworthy, A. K.: The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200, Oxford, 1998.

Sabin, P.: The Face of Roman Battle, Journal of Roman Studies 90, 2000, 1-17.

Zhmodikov, A.: Roman Republican heavy infantrymen in battle (IV-II centuries BC), Historia 49, 2000, 67-78.
- can be downloaded for free here: http://www.fenrir.dk/imperium/downloads/

Look also at this oldRAT discussion:
http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkf ... D=23.topic

Greetings
Alexandr

[P. Clodius Secundus]

First of all, I applaud "Rome" for their efforts to show the effectiveness of a well drilled army against a brave but less cohesive band of warriors. I am fearful that this may lead to another "Hollywood" convention becoming the prevailing wisdom without historical evidence. Has anyone come across actual physical or documentary evidence? To me it seems that people are going out of their way to add whistles when the cornu and tuba are already there. I don't usually like to drag "modern" military tactics back to ancient times, but as an ACW bugler we often use brief, distinct, calls at a direct tactical level. Perhaps the best examples are the calls "To Lie Down" and "To Stand Up". They are three notes each. The first two notes are the same for both and the third either ascends or descends to indicate direction. It is very effective when you want a battle line to avoid an incoming volley or to allow artillery to "play through". If it can be played by one bugler and heard by a company or regiment on a black powder battlefield, I'm sure it could have worked back then. Also, all officers were to be knowledgeable of all 49 calls in the Infantry Manual and able to sound them on the bugle. I do not know the Roman's taste in music, but I am dubious that they used the horns as a "Brass Band" in the modern context. The limited scale/range of unvalved horns makes them usable for fanfares, but they're not much to dance to. By the civil war they were used only for tactical signalling. I would be interested to hear of any references to horns you may come across. I have made two Roman horns. The first is a brass tuba with a leather grip that is tuned B flat (army bugle), but adjustable to tune. The second was a small Copper and brass cornu that can be seen in the "Caesar's Bridge" segment of History Channel's "Engineering an Empire".

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Hi,all. It makes sense that horns could signal rotation of ranks. In "the Roman Imperial Army: of the first and second centuries" by Graham Webster ,he states-"the first two ranks comprise the main fighting force.The first(hastati)would engage the enemy.If they were not successful,they retired between the maniples of the second line(principes),while the third line(triarii)knelt with spears forward,not visible to the enemy in front.If the second line failed,the third closed in and attacked.( I say this because I think the original question was less about the signaling but the rotation of battle order).However on the subject of whistles,there would be no reason that the Romans could not have had some kind as flutes were common long before and a simple whistle is just a flute with only one hole. Whew! Thanks,Andy

[Robert Vermaat]

The first two ranks or lines?
Anyway, even when trained, line relief would be extremely diccicult if carried out for a complete rank or even unit. Gaps between units make no sense when in full contact with the enemy, and I just can't envisage gaps between each solier and the next, enough for an armoured man to pass through.
Any rank rotation or line relief would only be possible when contact with the enemy was broken or a serious lull in the fighting was taking place.

If not, an attack by the enemy during the logical confusion during the refreshment moves would have a very high chnace of breaking the ranks.

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
I absolutely agree, that any line or rank relief during direct combat is not possible. But I believe, that gaps between units existed even in full contact with the enemy and that during the lulls in battle some rank rotation and even some kind of rotation of whole centuries through these gaps did happen.
Greetings
Alexandr

[Felix]

I apologize for the delay in addressing this thread. Most of it occcured while I was away, and my repsonse took some thought.

Having perused Zhmodikov’s article and thought about this subject, I am not convinced that the Roman legions fought with missiles for long periods of time prior to closing with swords. I have some concerns with Zhmodikov’s article. He rapidly dismisses Polybius’ writings on Roman tactics. Yet Polybius explicitly states that the sword was the main weapon of the legionary – this is one of the few explicit statements on the critical issue. His evaluation of Polybius ends with the comment that “we do not have any direct evidence for that Polybius was an experienced military leader and that he had ever seen the Roman army in battle.â€Â

[Alexandr K]

Hi Felix,
the Zhmodikov's article really is a little bit problematic and some criticism is fitting. The most significant point of the whole article, however, is that the missile exchange was much more important in Roman warfare than has previously been thought. I think he proved convincingly, that the picture of one pila volley at the beginning of charge and subsequent combat at close-quarters, is not correct. The missile fight simply took much more time (although the absolute predominance which Zhmodikov attributes to it is, I believe, exaggerated). And if you don't believe Livy, read Caesar. He writes that at the battle of Ilerda his legionaries depleted all their missiles only after five hours of heavy fighting (Caes. B. C. I. 46).
Greetings
Alexandr

[Felix]

I agree that Ilerda is one case where a prolonged missile exchange seems to have occured. Here is one case where time is mentioned and one of the cases where ammunition supply is mentioned. A "one pila volley and charge" model is clearly not the rule (it begs the question about why two pila may be carried, and what the rear-rankers were doing with their pila). However, it seems that the article was advocating a one/two/three/four hour exchange of missiles, with a few minutes of swordplay to break the monotony. I feel that model is accurate in only a few, rare instances.

[Tasciavanous]

Hi is the Zhmodikov article avaliable any where eles as I can't seem to download the pdf and it sounds interesting if flawed.
I have always wondered if the traditionall screaming barbarian charge was prompted but the roman abillity to saturate an area with missile weapons in much the same way that the "highland charge" was prompted by the need to close quickly before the firepower disparity made battle overly bloody or victory unattanable?

[Praefectusclassis]

Wasn't he a member of old RAT for a while too?