Roman Battle Tactics

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
yes, he participated in the oldRat discussion, which I've mentioned above. Regrettably, as far as I remember, he was active in this discussion only.
Greetings
Alexandr

[Felix]

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?

The thought that a rapid charge was a response to enemy missile fire is an interesting one, but off hand I am not sure it is correct. In the case of the Scottish Highlanders, this style of rapid assault was used by Montrose's army during the English Civil War, and was used against an opposing (Campbell) highland army as well as against various lowland forces.

[Andy De Cusati]

Hi Everyone,

It seems as though this discussion has reached an end for now. I want to thank everyone who responded for taking the time to do so. I am grateful for your kindness and enjoyed it very much.

I have learned a lot just by cruising RAT! I look forward to learning more!

Andy De Cusati

[Arahne]

I have no experience in fighting so this what I write is hypothetical. Few men are spending their life together in one tent or room going through the fights, sharing their bred. In direct combat one is watching another being slaughtered by enemy. Don't you think he or few of them are going to jump in. We are speaking about professional killers long ago forgoten to fear for life.

[Tarbicus]

Few men are spending their life together in one tent or room going through the fights, sharing their bred. In direct combat one is watching another being slaughtered by enemy. Don't you think he or few of them are going to jump in.

It is a good point. They won't have called each other Brother for nothing.

[Arahne]

I have to admit that I am confused with Polibius words (I, VI, 39). Those who have protected or saved with their shield a citizen or ally ....are decorated with wreath. etc. Sorry for my translation. I thought that it was more usual behaviour.

[Zhmodikov]

Felix,
Thank you very much for your detailed comments.

You wrote:

"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."

Please, read Livy 34.14-15 and Appian's account of the same battle (Iberica 51). Appian explicitly refers to Cato's original account.

You wrote:

"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."

I absolutely agree with Pilybius that the sword was the main weapon of the legionary. But this doesn't mean that fighting with swords took the most part of battle duration.

You wrote:

"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.? Of course we do know that his patrons, the Scipio family, were high in the Roman elite in an age when a Roman could not rise in political circles without military experience ? so Polybius?s immediate audience would know if he was confabulating."

He does not describe the minor things and actions. He describe the pilum, but only once mentions the use of it in battle. He spends a lot of words describing weapons, organization, camp, equipment, etc, but finds too few words to describe spirit and morale of the fighting troops. It is a distinctive features of narrative written by theorists, not experienced soldiers.

You wrote:

"The bulk of the article deals with Livy?s writings. Zhmodikov does not mention Livy?s military qualifications at all ? as far as I know Livy held no military or civilian office at all, and is generally less likely to have direct or indirect experience of battle. So the source of the material is at least as unreliable as Polybius, and certainly a few centuries later."

Livy's incompetence in military matters is a commonplace, so I thought it is not necessary to discuss it. But Livy uses works of many other Roman historians, writers, and poets, he mentions more than ten names, and probably he read much more. We can see how he compares and analyses information from the sources. In contrast, Polybius used only one Roman narrative source, a work of Fabius Pictor written in Greek. He blame almost all authors he mention and accuses them in incompetence.

You wrote:

"Zhmodikov then details examples of leaders wounded by missiles in various works. The majority of these are Roman leaders (7 out of 8 from Livy, 1 of 2 from Plutarch, and 4 of 6 from Livy again.) I think it is clear that the fact that a Roman commander was hit by an enemy missile does not clearly establish that the Romans were hurling vast numbers of missiles ? it does show that the enemy was using some (uncertain) number of missiles."

But if the enemies of the Romans were using a lot of missiles two or three hours after the beginning of a battle, while the Roman commander was being in the first ranks, before his men, or even among the enemies, it seems to me that there were no fighting with swords. And there are also a few examples of non-Roman commanders hit by a Roman pilum in a fierce fighting, for example, Indibilis: he was hit by a pilum, and his retinue was annihilated by a hail of missiles.

You wrote:

"Of the 4 out of 16 cases of enemy commanders hit by missiles, one is Hannibal at Saguntum."

This case is in the second group of examples, which, as I wrote in my article, are not interesting in the light of my study, exactly because they happened not in regular field battles.

You wrote:

"Commanders in the era in question usually did not lead from the front ranks, but a little way back so they could see the whole action. That is what made the few cases (such as Caesar mentions) of a commander plunging into the melee so striking and heroic. If the commanders are not in the front line, their likelihood of being skewered on an enemy sword is extremely small. The only weapons which are likely to hit them are missiles, so the vast majority of commanders? wounds will have to be missile-related."

In most cases in my list it is explicitly said that the commander was being in the first ranks, before his men, or even among the enemies in the moment he was hit by a missile.

You wrote:

"I fully agree that high-intensity melee combat cannot be sustained for hours on end. However, there are two considerations that affect this issue. First of all, it usually isn?t clear that all parts of both armies were locked in high-intensity melee for the full duration of a battle."

This raises a lot of questions, for example, what the troops did during the periods of the lulls or "stand-offs". I think, they threw missiles.

You wrote:

"Aside from the missile phase (of whatever duration), it is common for various parts of a battle to begin at different times. Zhmodikov mentions Appian?s comment that Cannae was a very long battle. As far as I know, it also began with cavalry engagements on both wings, and the infantry forces only collided after the cavalry were engaged."

The duration of Cannae is almost a whole day. The fighting itself took several hours. There were many battles that lasted five, four or three hours.

You wrote:

"Typically, one side is routed and the other side pursues and kills a variable number of the fleeing enemies ? but this is not counted in the duration of the battle"

There are clear examples that the ancient authors also did not include the pursuit in the duration of a battle, see for example Plutarch's account of Pydna - he wrote that the battle itself was unusually short, less than two hours, and that the Romans pursued their enemies until nightfall.

You wrote:

"The other consideration is that intense physical contests do not need to be continuous maximum efforts. Consider boxing"

Boxing has nothing common with massed fighting.

You wrote:

"the fight is going on there is an irregular rhythm to the contest. Each round does not start with a full-scale attack that continues the whole round, but rather the fighters do move into and out of close contact."

They are individual fighters, and figth not for life and death.

You wrote:

"Consider soccer or basketball."

In these games there are no tightly packed formations.

You wrote:

"Zhmodikov next notes the various enemies of Rome that used missiles. This is of limited utility, since in most cases we don?t know much about the internal structure of the enemy army, so the importance of missile throwing vs. sword-swinging cannot be assessed."

But if we turn a little back to the examples of the Roman commanders hit by missiles in the middle of masses of infantry several hours after the beginning of a battle, the role of missile weapons becomes more clear.

You wrote:

"Zhmodikov cites the Roman oath given before Cannae, which does suggest collecting missiles was a priority. However, he gives the major issue of ammunition supply no serious consideration. This is (literally) a very weighty matter. Missiles can be used up at a very high speed. For a bow, 5 or 6 shots a minute is not difficult, and a quiver of arrows might be 20, 30, or maybe 40 arrows. This might allow 8 minutes of shooting. Javelins can probably be thrown at roughly similar rate, but no one carries 20 javelins around. (Certainly not when they have a scutum, helmet, various amounts of body armour, and a gladius.) I know of no evidence that the Romans carried more than a couple of pila (good for less than one minute of missile exchange). Yes, there are rear-rankers also holding pila, but this is a rather limited supply. We do have information about armies which definitely relied on missile fire ? the Parthians and various steppe nomads ? and they seem to have had either multiple quivers themselves, and often a baggage train of beast bearing additional arrows. If there were large supplies of reserve ammunition, some mention would be expected in the literature"

See Caesar's comments. Once some Gallic allies were ordered to bring missiles to the Romans during an attack on fortifications. He also mentions that once the Romans were attacked in their camp, and have spent their missiless after six hours of fighting.

You wrote:

"either losing the supply train and being handicapped, or being able to engage in battle once an adequate supply of missiles was received. These supply issues are commonplace in the history of gunpowder warfare, and show up in the longbow-heavy armies of England in the Hundred Year?s War, but do not seems to be common in Roman warfare."

It is difficult to find and use a spent arrow, and even more difficult to find and use a spent bullet, but it is easy to find and use a javelin.

You wrote

"Scavenging arrows and javelins from the field of battle is certainly possible, but has limitations also. One problem is that the missiles do get damaged, which limits the recycling of projectiles."

Nevertheless, there are clear mentions of the Romans using spent missiles, including enemy ones, in Livy, Sallust, and Caesar (see the references in my article).

You wrote:

"Next, the enemy may be using a different kind of missile. If Romans are attacking an enemy with Cretan archers, there are going to be few javelins to pick up and throw back at the Cretans."

Read Livy. The Cretan archers used stones thrown by hands against the Romans, as they found that their arrows did not do any harm to the Romans, because the Roman shield protected almost the whole body. .

You wrote:

"If the enemy uses a different type of throwing spear (and judging by the terminology Zhmodikov cites, this is likely) there would be some issues of picking up these exotic javelins are using them exactly like pila."

See the examples of the use of enemy missiles.

You wrote:

"By the way, if this interchange of missiles was indeed normal, you would expect some Romans commanders to be hit by pila, and some foreign generals to be hit by non-pila. A quick glance at Zhmodikov?s list does not confirm this. Romans are hit by exotic missiles, and foreigners hit by pila."

"Telum" or "missile" is not an exotic missile, it is simply "a missile".
And the cases of Roman commanders hit in battles are relatively rare incidents: about ten examples for almost 200 years of warfare.

You wrote:

"A third problem about the thesis of exchanging a limited number of missiles is: what happens if the rates of shooting are unequal? Sooner or later (depending on the total number of missiles) one side ends up with most or all of the throwable missiles. What does the other side do?"

To take up swords and rush forward. See Livy 34.14-15 and Caesar B.C. 1.45-46.

You wrote:

"They could charge, and face a deluge of projectiles."

And so what?

You wrote:

"Lulls in the battle would allow some rank rotation as has been discussed."

Please, let us see mentions of such lulls in battles. I know only one or two, both described as something rather unusual.

Best wishes,
Alexander

[Robert Vermaat]

hello Alexander,
Welcome back to RAT!
Fascinating discussion, not only because of the missile problem, but also of the (apparent) position of the commanders in the very front line. Were not the antesignani supposed to be in front of the commander?

[Mitra]

Hello Alexander

I'm in accord with you on the continous missiles exchange during the battle , but i think this phase cannot be separated from the close combat phase.

This poetic description of Silius Italicus (chap.V) , make a sense of contemporaneity :

"
quis astare loco dederat Fortuna secundo,
contorum longo et procerae cuspidis ictu,
ceu primas agitent acies, certamina miscent.
at, quos deinde tenet retrorsum inglorius ordo,
missilibus certant pugnas aequare priorum.
ultra clamor agit bellum, milesque cupiti
Martis inops saeuis impellit uocibus hostem.
"

This is plausible , with the short range of heavy missile weapon (pilum , spear) of heavy infantry, the first ranks of the opposing sides must to be a few meters one from other , and close combat in this "kill zone" starting and stopping without control.

Silius Italicus description is confirmed from Strategikon words on close combat with first line using the swords and the rear ranks using the spears and with the shield for to cover the heads.


ciao
Mitra

[Robert Vermaat]

quis astare loco dederat Fortuna secundo,
contorum longo et procerae cuspidis ictu,
ceu primas agitent acies, certamina miscent.
at, quos deinde tenet retrorsum inglorius ordo,
missilibus certant pugnas aequare priorum.
ultra clamor agit bellum, milesque cupiti
Martis inops saeuis impellit uocibus hostem.

C'mon people, we're not all fluent in Latin. Translation please!

[Mitra]

For me is the traduction in english the problem , not latin

in breve:

the second rank fighting with pike and spear (from behind the first rank) the ranks behind the two use missiles , the ranks very behind make only war cries.

[Philhellene]

quis astare loco dederat Fortuna secundo,
contorum longo et procerae cuspidis ictu,
ceu primas agitent acies, certamina miscent.
at, quos deinde tenet retrorsum inglorius ordo,
missilibus certant pugnas aequare priorum.
ultra clamor agit bellum, milesque cupiti
Martis inops saeuis impellit uocibus hostem.

And what about reliability of this source? Silius Italicus lived in II century BC, he described the Punic War, i.e. the events of III century BC... And I think he wasn`t a military man... Is it a good proof?

[Mitra]

The experience fo Silius have little relevance (in all case greater of this of Livius , just to Vespasianus the poet have had the normal cursus honorum with the probable military tribunate) ; he repeat a military leitmotif which in different forms appears in Tacitus and in the Pharsalia.
We have confirm of this view (contemporaneity of fighting ) in the strategikon, Ciropedia,Ektaxis and Arrian's Anabasi (macedonian phalanx after gaugamela with 4 pikemen , 12 arciers and javelinmen).

The time distance with Cannae is also irrelevant, the battle of poet is finctional , is a image where the poet uses a own background of battle mechanisms. If we take only personal experience and vicinity to the events , also Livy and Appian must to be excluded a priopri.

[Philhellene]

...the poet uses a own background of battle mechanisms.

If he knows what is "the battle mechanisms".

he repeat a military leitmotif which in different forms appears in Tacitus and in the Pharsalia.

Or he tells about his own inventions. We don`t trust SHA (see "Aurelian`s elephants"), but Silius Italicus is a perfect source!

[Mitra]

...the poet uses a own background of battle mechanisms.

If he knows what is "the battle mechanisms".

The same affirmation is valid for the 90% of latin and greek authors in the imperial period, Livy and Appian in primis.

Or he tells about his own inventions. We don`t trust SHA (see "Aurelian`s elephants"), but Silius Italicus is a perfect source!

Is different , in SHA are the historical events to be questionables for ideological motivations and for this the affirmation must to be compared to other source.
Anyone think correct the Silius Cannae's reconstruction , but the author hasn't motivation for create a mechanism. He use a image plausible to his public (where military men are presents) derived from a cultural background of upper class literature.
The difference is that Silius in this case have confirm from other sources.