the use of the drum - military cadence

[P. Clodius Secundus]

The centurio shouts for them to charge, they charge. All the way through this they're spaced far enough apart not to trip over each other, and as long as they don't wander off into the woods all's fine...... Here's a theory for you - the cadenced timing as envisioned today comes from the need to strictly coordinate rifle volleys and reloading, and ensure riflemen would face the same direction for aiming the rifles at a distant enemy. That's the only reason for it.

Don't forget about the cornu! According to Vegetius it's purpose was to relay and sound the actual commands for the formation. If a formation is spread out enough that the individual troops can route step (march to their own cadence) without treading upon each others heels it becomes difficult for one man's voice to reach everyone. It is also possible to establish a cadence playing rythmic notes on a horn. III CYR marches in at least 2 parades a year, and I occasionally play the opening phrase of the "Storm Troopers March" from Star Wars to set the rythm. I fully acknowledge that tune is an anachronism, but it works well enough and it sets the mood with the crowd. As for rifles being the only reason for cadence, I'd point out that;
1. Military drums predate rifle volleys.
2. Riot Police Squads (arguably an analog of a Roman shield wall) often use a shuffle-stomp cadence to maintain unit cohesion of action. They carry batons in lieu of rifles.
3. Without some form of cadence/chant/rythm, complex maneuvers such as the testudo can rapidly degenerate into what is commonly called a Cluster-F#*k.
Just my two denarii.
Regards,
Randi R.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There seems to be something wrong with the links, Jim, it just opens a gambleing site...... hock: :lol: :roll:

[Endre Fodstad]

Hmmm.

Yes, military drums predate rifle volleys. But as far as I know, military drums in the 16th-17th century were not accompanied by marching in cadence.

Do people actually attempt to step-march cadence in the Testudo? My experience with the formation suggests the opposite; 20 men in a turtle formation are much better off doing the slow shuffle than attempting to set a beat - after all, marching is step is not any guarantee against some people outpacing others, it's just a way of ensuring everybody walks in the same way.

Trumpets and signaling are tools of making people do what you want them to do at the same time - it has little to do with cadence.

The Strategikon (east roman medieval as it is) actually says pretty much straight out that attempts to achieve uniformity of order command - i.e. any complex manouvers - should not be attempted when battle is joined, as it only confuses matters and slows the units' response to the enemy's actions. This argument seems reasonable to me and attempting to parade march around in the face of the enemy seems to have a risk of falling into the same trap.

I'd really like to see people actually give formation movement without the cadence a go for themselves without automatically assuming it has to be in step.

[Tarbicus]

There seems to be something wrong with the links, Jim, it just opens a gambleing site...... hock: :lol: :roll:

Try the actual webpages, they work.

I'd really like to see people actually give formation movement without the cadence a go for themselves without automatically assuming it has to be in step.

And a proper go at that :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There seems to be something wrong with the links, Jim, it just opens a gambleing site...... hock: :lol: :roll:

Try the actual webpages, they work.

I'd really like to see people actually give formation movement without the cadence a go for themselves without automatically assuming it has to be in step.

And a proper go at that :wink:

It didn't before, but I see you have edited them, so I might risk it later.

Well, why don't you two try it and let us know how it goes? :wink:

[Endre Fodstad]

Well, why don't you two try it and let us know how it goes? :wink:

Well...I have tried some with 20-man units (a brief 17th century reenactment phase I had), and it works. I was more thinking that people should try it for themselves.

[Tarbicus]

Okay, the myth that a unit of soldiers in formation (and the Romans weren't in very close formation) must march in step to keep formation or manoeuvre is now debunked IMHO.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, why don't you two try it and let us know how it goes? :wink:

Well...I have tried some with 20-man units (a brief 17th century reenactment phase I had), and it works. I was more thinking that people should try it for themselves.

What sort of formations do you use in this period? It is not one I am too up on I am afraid. I really should look at other periods I guess, but I can't imagine it working too well in a Roman army. But perhaps I am alone in not seeing this?

The thought of lining up to be shot at has never figured in my list of high military achievements, IMHO or was that a later development?

[Tarbicus]

Pure myth. :wink:

[Endre Fodstad]

What sort of formations do you use in this period? It is not one I am too up on I am afraid. I really should look at other periods I guess, but I can't imagine it working too well in a Roman army. But perhaps I am alone in not seeing this?

Let's see. It's been ages. Guys with pikes and some other staff weapons, plus a gunner and a drummer in our 16-20 man unit. We carried out pretty much everything the Strategikon describes, plus some pike-vs-cavalry formations. Countermarching, turning, closing the ranks, opening the ranks, etc...

The thought of lining up to be shot at has never figured in my list of high military achievements, IMHO or was that a later development?

The linear tactics of the 17th-mid-19th centuries were quite well adapted to the needs of the time, as I recall it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Still involved lining up and getting shot at, not my favourite tactic.... hock: seemed the yjust adopted the method of the phalanx and used it to fire volleys at each other, which lead to the carnage of the US Civil war. But I guess you could say it worked all right! hock:

I think if the US had stuck with the tactics they had used in the War of independance, they would have been miles ahead instead of going down that road. But again, only my opinion as the facts are well documented in these cases.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Debatable? Yes... Debunked? Hardly... Plausible? Sure... IMHO wink: .

[Tarbicus]

It's not enough to say songs would create a cadenced march (it's all pre-Mozart), and how do you know you're not marching closer together than Romans would have? The notion that singing might intimidate an opponent doesn't take into account that the opponents might have their own songs anyway. It also doesn't take 5000 men to measure a mile - one can do that just fine. Did they all start off shouting "One!" in unison all the way up to "Twenty five thousand!" when they reached camp for the night?

Neither of you are addressing Endre's actual examples of how there's no need to march to a cadence, even when carrying bigger pointy things than pila. You're completely avoiding his very clear and unequivocal examples without any of your own opposite ones to refute them.

It just seems a modern expectation and prejudice, and I don't know why you think it's so important to have the march in step? What's the big deal about it?

[arklore70]

Folks all great points of discussion and interest.

Marching is step has modern application as it allows for crisp facing and turning movements. Thus if you wish to give a flanking movement, it is normally a requirement to have everyone at the same step to execute the maneuver with precision and not look like something out of Hogans Heroes or "F" Troop.

Can the same maneuvers be done with out staying in step, I am sure they could, but that would require some practice and I am not sure that you would see the same precision that you see the "Old Guard" or "Silent Drill Team" do. How much practice, I would not even want to guess with out knowing more exactly how they did move/march/walk on the battlefield or parade ground, but given a 16-25 year enlistment, I am sure that there was plenty of time to learn

Instruments like the tubicon, an cornicon (sp?)could have also been the method to execute formation changes as previously mentioned in this post. I have been in up to 15,000 man formations, where all the movements were executed by bugle call.

On the march, marching in step at a marked pace has practical application as it can be used to roughly calculate roughly how far a unit can be expected to move. Simple D=R*T

Now, nothing I have stated is nothing new or rocket science, but it is ingrained in all us military types that is how it was done, and how it was always done from the time"you know who was a corporal" and we were privates and cadets. Its a bit hard to imagine another way, when the ingrained way does work.

That said, you are very correct in that you do not need a calculated march step to make sure that you are traveling at a certain rate to cover a certain amount of ground. Trained and disciplined solders will naturally over time, train their bodies to "step it out" to move at a certain rate to cover a certain attainable distance in the required time. Modern armies conduct tactical road marches all the time where no cadence is kept, yet a certain pace is kept in order to get from Point A to B. NCOs and Company Grade Officers insure that the pace is appropriate to meet the mission requirement.

I am sure that appropriate Roman leadership had their ways of persuading troops to either pick up the pace or to slow it down. Hmmm I wonder if the vine rod staff the Centurio had was effective at all in this?

Sadly, we may never really know for sure how they did it, or if they even had a Army wide standardized method.

v/r
Mike

[P. Clodius Secundus]

It's not enough to say songs would create a cadenced march (it's all pre-Mozart), and how do you know you're not marching closer together than Romans would have? The notion that singing might intimidate an opponent doesn't take into account that the opponents might have their own songs anyway. It also doesn't take 5000 men to measure a mile - one can do that just fine. Did they all start off shouting "One!" in unison all the way up to "Twenty five thousand!" when they reached camp for the night?

Neither of you are addressing Endre's actual examples of how there's no need to march to a cadence, even when carrying bigger pointy things than pila. You're completely avoiding his very clear and unequivocal examples without any of your own opposite ones to refute them.

It just seems a modern expectation and prejudice, and I don't know why you think it's so important to have the march in step? What's the big deal about it?

I'm not saying that there's an absolute need for a cadence, but it's what marks the difference between the controlled discipline of a military unit and a gaggle. On Veterans Day I marched with veterans of at least five wars 18-80 they all still march in unison. Despite different and evolving tactics the simple task of putting one foot in front of the other in the right order builds unit identity. Perhaps in part because it helps identify that ubiquitous sad sack who isn't with the program. It might be difficult for civillians to grasp, but the sense of working in unison empowers the individual. This is probably why it survives past all battlefield necessity. As far as personal experience goes I've marched in column (four man front) with upwards of 5000 other ACW Infantry. The modern standard is a full arms length between files. At this distance it is still common to get your heels kicked when out of step. Adding distance to prevent this will extend and weaken the entire column. Furthermore, cadence, whether in the form of bands, songs, NCOs voices, or the cruch of heel plates, along with a standard stride lessens the tendency of groups to bunch up or become separated. AKA the accordion effect, which creates vulnerabilities. Endre's example is quite valid for a group of 20. How does it hold up to a Century? A Cohort? A Legion?