Roman Battle Tactics

[Philhellene]

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

They used reliable sources.

The difference is that Silius in this case have confirm from other sources.

OK, what about that:

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.

Who confirms that?

[Mitra]

They used reliable sources.

The same for Silius. He has access to same litterary and cultural background.

OK, what about that:

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.

Who confirms that?

<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). >

In all this book we have a description fo mixed fighting formation ; first line in close combat , other launch weapons on rear ranks of enemy. We don't have separated phases of fighting.

[Philhellene]

The same for Silius

He`s a poet. Shakespeare also wrote about roman history ("Julius Caesar"), he`s reliable?

<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). >

It`s all about Punic Wars?

[Mitra]

He`s a poet. Shakespeare also wrote about roman history ("Julius Caesar"), he`s reliable?

Not exactly , he is a senatorial man with basic military background for his status. He speak for other men with the same conception of battle.


[quote
It`s all about Punic Wars?[/quote]

III and II century sources on this argument are absent. Polybius description legion vs phalanx is a purely mechanical comparison finalized to his purpose (the phalanx tactical use is limited by Polybius for this reason)

[Ildar]

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).

Also in Vegetius, Anonymus Byzantinus of VI century (XVI.8), Nicephorus II Phocas, Ammianus Marcellinus (XIV.6.17).

[Philhellene]

Also in Vegetius, Anonymus Byzantinus of VI century (XVI.8) , Nicephorus II Phocas, Ammianus Marcellinus (XIV.6.17).

Ildar, you have so many sources, why do you need Silius? All you sources, as you sad me, are non-battle, they don`t describe real battles, and you want to finish Zmodikov, and you have to find a real battle, you think you found it, but... There is normal question of reliability! Just prove Silius reliability!

[Mitra]

They describe tactical uses ; battles in ancient sources are controversial , interpretation change with scholar, for a battle we have 10 different interpretations.

[Philhellene]

...battles in ancient sources are controversial...

You think we cant reconstruct a battle's sequence of events at all?

[Mitra]

No , it is difficult also for modern battle. With ancient battle is possible only intepretation and conjecture.

[Felix]

Alexander,

Thank you for the responses.

I must ask (since I do not know this) - Livy does cite a variety of prior authors in his remarks about combat; so the validity of his citation does depend on part of the prior authors, some of whom doubtless had greater military experience than he did. Do we know that Livy was citing these authors verbatim, as is done in modern scholarly literature? If not, then there may be an issue of the accuracy of his citations.

You remark about Polybius "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. " This conclusion is not backed up by citation. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the writings of a number of notable military figures. Frederick the Great left some "Military instructions to his Generals" http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/rea ... ctions.htm and one will see the first section does refer to the nature of the troops. On closer inspection, this section is mostly devoted to technical measures - how to keep men from deserting! Sections 2,3,4 are about Provisions, Liquor, and Forage, respectively. Section 26 does talk about the attacking spirit - and is only 7 sentences long. Twenty six sections are about weapons, formations, maneuvers, and camps - and two about morale.

More contemporaneous writings written for (if not exactly personally written by) the Byzantine emperors Nikephoras Phokas and Maurice are also worth looking at. The former's Praecepta Militaria will be found in McGeer's translation, the latter by Dennis. In both cases, the very first sections are about the soldiers training and equipment - all very concrete and dry - and not about morale and spirit. The Praecepta are all about formation, equipment, and encampment. Only the last paragraphs of the last section vaguely concern morale - these discuss the place of prayers in the military routine. In the Strategikon, two short sections in book 2 refer to trumpets and war cries, but the whole of book 1, 3,4,5,6 are all technical. Authors with extensive military experience did indeed write mostly about weapons, formation, and camps.

[Felix]

I did allude to modern sporting events, because they are the closest model I can think of where we know the structure of the game provides relatively few lulls or breaks, but we also know that there are times when the action slows by mutual consent. In reading accounts of games, these lulls are usually not described at any great length, because no great exploits are being accomplished during the lulls. So they are relevant - indeed, since there is nothing in the modern world which is a close model of ancient warfare, there is no reason to believe that a missile-dominant model is inherently more plausible than a shock dominant one. The moment one starts talking about exhaustion or fatigue or the inability of people to sustain an effort, you are imposing a modern model (usually based on sporting events - sustained close hand to hand combat is unknown in modern warfare - or reenactment events, where the limitations are clearly not those of combat).

The issue of missile supply is still a difficulty; not always at the instant of combat, but rather on being prepared to enter combat. Adequate ammunition supplies are a constant concern in modern warfare. Given the size of a pilum, the rapidity with which they can be thrown, a general would be seriously concerned if he were to need to conduct an hour's worth of javelin combat. Even at the very modest rate of 3 per minute (similar to what musket warfare averaged), 10 minutes of throwing consumes 30 pila per thrower. These have to come from somewhere; and if the enemy uses a different type of javelin, slings, or arrows, then the supply issue is acute.

By the by, there is in fact a reference to a Roman commander worrying about missiles. This comes from J. Lazenby's book The First Punic War, and comes from Polybius, book 40. Lazenby writes this:

Metellus then ordered his light troops to take up a position in front of the ditch outside the wall and to continue firing at the enemy, paying particular attention to any elephants that charged them. If they were driven back, they were to take refuge in the trench, and the re-emerge when the oppurtunity came; a constant supply of missiles was to be provided by the poorer people of the town, who were ordered to pile them at the foot of the wall. "

In this case, prolonged missile combat was assumed to need extra ammunition, and the local citizens were drafted to carry the ammunition around. Both of these measures are not typical of other Roman battles, and suggest this missile-heavy type of combat was not the norm.

[Felix]

About Arrian's formation, it is well worth looking at an article by Philip Rance on the "Fulcum", www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

He analyzes the "testudo-like" battle formation, which does include both a static melee element (static, IMHO, because it is difficult to advance while maintaining the shield-wall as described) and immediately behind this, missile troops. He makes a good case that this is not the standard battle formation of the late Republic or early Empire, but a well recognzied variant formation which gradually becomes the predominant way of infantry to fight, as Roman armies switch from being heavy infantry dominant formations to armies where the infantry is prinicpally a static base for the cavalry to maneuver from; and cavalry is the major offensive arm.

He does not make the point, but I was struck by the resemblance of this testudo-like formation to the way the Persian infantry fought at Marathon and Plataea. A wall of shields is formed, and behind this thin crust of shock troops is a large number of missile troops, who shoot over the shield-men and expect to disrupt most attacks. The Persian method is contrasted to the Greek hoplite, (unless, of course, one doesn't believe the ophthismos either) who expects his shock attack to be the main fighting event.

[Tarbicus]

The issue of battle length is an important one, but I am concerned lest it be misunderstood. I fully agree that high-intensity melee combat cannot be sustained for hours on end.

I'm tentatively inclined to disagree, based on Josephus' description:

They have never laid down their arms, as if their weapons were part of their bodies, and nor do they wait for a declaration of war. Their military exercises are exactly the same as real war. Every soldier practices his training daily, with great diligence, as if it were wartime.
This is how the Romans can put up with the exhaustion of battles so easily. No amount of chaos disrupts their formations, terror cannot unnerve them, and heavy labour cannot exhaust them either. This means they always defeat others who lack their training. You migh call their training bloodless battles, and their battles bloody training.

Military training provides the Roman soldier not just with a resilient physique but also a resolute spirit. ..... their ears pricked up for orders, their eyes watching for signals,......

'Voices of Imperial Rome', Guy de la Bedoyere

[Zhmodikov]

Mitra,

I have thought much about such interpretation, but don't find in plausible.
If the front ranks are already engaged in fighting with swords, the rear ranks could throw javelins over their heads, but such throwing should be very ineffective: most javelins would fall on the ground behind the enemy formation, while some could hit the men in the front ranks of their own formation.

"Punica" is poetry written much later, the author is incompetent in military matters.
"Strategikon" is a theoretical work, its part in which infantry is discussed is very similar to instructions to legions in Arrian's "Formation against the Alans", another theoretical work written for a special situation.
We very rarely find such throwing in descriptions of real battles, and in some of the few examples in is clear that there were some special conditions, which made this throwing effective enough, for example, position on a hillside.
In many examples in both Livy and Caesar we see that only throwing is mentioned, while there is no word about swords in these passages.

Best wishes,
Alexander

[Robert Vermaat]

About Arrian's formation, it is well worth looking at an article by Philip Rance on the "Fulcum", www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

Indeed a very good article. I can recommend it, also in conjunction with Wheeler's ‘The legion as a phalanx’in Chiron 9 (1979), 303-318.
They make the point that the 'falanx' in the Roman army is not similar to the Greek phalanx, but also that it's by no means a Late Roman formation.

Rance describes two forms of the fulcum. One anti-cavalry formation in which three ranks locked shields, each above the other. It's a great formation to defeat cavalry, when the unit sits tight and does not break ranks.
Another was the attack formation where the remaining distance to the enemy was bridged by having the front two ranks lock shields, while the ranks behind covered their heads. It served mainly to escape enemy missile fire. It's not exactly a testudo, but it comes close. Arrian describes especially the first, and has his legionaries carry the hasta instead of the pilum.

Both are battlefield formations. Rance states that they're very similar to the testudo, which he thinks was not simply a siege formation, but a name covering also differing battlefield formations.