Login

03-02-2001, 12:45 PM

Salvete omnes, 
 
According to modern studies on behaviour of soldiers in battle made during WW2 and later conflicts, it was shown that only a part of the infantrymen actually fired their weapons, and of these a still smaller part discharged aimed rounds. However it was also noted that men serving as crew operating specialised equipment such as machineguns and AT rocket launchers were more likely to act as fighters than the riflemen. This was in part attributed that these had to work closely together (lying next to each other one would fire the MG, the other would feed ammo) and that their behaviour was thus more likely to be witnessed. This leads to the following question. Would in your opinion the close order formations adopted by heavy infantrymen because of their physical proximity in ancient times have performed better, that is produced a higher proportion of combat effective soldiers using their available weapons, than the dispersed infantry units of more modern times or would the effect have been negligible and for what reasons? 
 
Valete, 
 
Sander

03-03-2001, 11:52 AM

Sander- 
I'd say they were more likely to use their weapons, for a couple of reasons: 
1. The draconian punishments for cowardice and/or disobedience; because they are in close formation they are under the eyes of their superiors/fellow soldiers. 
2. The close formation itself. Stuck out in a line on a field with the enemy coming at you, I think everyone could overcome any moral reservations on taking human lives. 
3. I also think that the Roman soldier was not as "civilized" as modern recruits are. Before the triumph of Christianity, there wasn't "Thou shalt not kill." After Constantine, weren't most recruits either hereditary recruits or else from the edges of the map? 
4. Also, the main cause of casualties was, I believe, routing. I would hope they knew that if you ran, you died. Not the sort of death the Patria thinks "sweet and fitting" to die...

03-03-2001, 12:32 PM

Salve, 
 
Overall i agree with your view, though in my opinion there should be some further qualification of the reasons. 
 
Despite the threat of draconian punishments Roman troops did break and run (Goldsworthy lists a number of instances in The Roman army at war). Discipline was however not always rigourously enforced and soldiers could get away with indisciplined behaviour. Their value, particularly in imperial times, was too great to be wasted. It would also seem that punishments were deliberately harshly formulated in the letter of the law to enable the judging magistrate to display his benevolence by meting out a less severe justice. 
 
It would seem most likely to me that the nature of fighting methods adopted by heavy infantry in the ancient world would induce more pressure on the troops to use their weapons than modern soldiers. In my view the argument for the close formation also seems the most convincing. Given the better protection afforded by armour and shields, I think that Roman infantry would generally have greater confidence than Napoleonic era infantry when deployed in line. 
 
Regarding the level of civilisation I am not wholly convinced. Roman society was in some respects more brutal than ours, but on the other hand it can be argued that modern people are potentially more often exposed to portrayal of brutal violence than the Romans (apart from fictionalised portrayals of violence daily TV news reports vs some ten days of gladiatorial combat). It seems that modern attempts at introducing brutalisation training did not have the expected results (in J. Bourke, An intimate history of killing. Face-to-face killing in twentieth century warfare (London 1999) chapters 3 and 5) of training more hardened troops. It could even induce traumatizing experiences to soldiers who had yet to be committed to combat. 
 
It remains a matter of dispute what the origins of late Roman soldiers were. However the old notion of widespread barbarisation or Germanisierung has been criticised in more modern studies who point to the lack of available evidence to support such claims, though the methods used are themselves not without flaws: it remains unknwon whether there were more foreign troops in Roman service than before. Recruits from barbarian origin may also have been christian (though generally following Arrianism rather than orthodoxy). Christianity even became a prerequisite for service in the fifth century, barring pagans from service. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Goffredo · 03-03-2001, 01:36 PM

I think that extrapolating modern army experience can be a useful excercise but there are too many uncertainties to be able to come to some solid conclusion. The ancient way of fighting is simply too distant. Maybe bayonet and hand-to-hand combat is the closest thing: as in ancient times the individual has a greater chance of surviving if he can count on his buddies and the unit that is best trained in group fighting will most likely win (other things being equal). I do think that average ancient soldier(roman legionary) performed better than the average modern day soldier because it was more urgent then to count on "the guy standing nearby". That urgency put pressure on selecting individuals that could tie with his buddies, more than that what is exerted in modern day armies, except maybe for those corps specialized in close-quarter fighting. The real problem with extrapolating back 2000 years is that we cann't really imagine what went through peoples minds. The notion of death, aggression, violence, has changed so much. Even ancient christians seem odd to us. There might be some psychological constants that govern certain types of behaviour in battle but to unfold those of the ancients by using modern data seems risky. I wonder if there is any info regards how other non-european societies fight that could be used to look for constants. We might be closer to the roman-greek way of fighting than that of the Zulus or the Samurai but then a glance at those cultures might put us in touch with an ethos that was once common place in europe too.

03-03-2001, 01:51 PM

Salve, 
 
It seems to me that it would certainly be more difficult to run from battle in ancient times, particularly for those in the front ranks, who had a lot of pressure from the crowd behind them. 
 
That seems to me, anyway, to be the part of the reason the Republican armies stationed their oldest veterans in the rear: to provide a physical block to anyone faint of heart in the front. 
 
You may also want to look at the Greek phalanx. I'm sure someone of your erudition has already read Hanson's The Western Way of War, but if you haven't, then by all means check it out. He argues that father and son would often fight side-by-side. I would certainly not want to show myself a coward in front of my relatives! 
 
The other interesting point about the phalanx concerns their relative lack of discipline compared to the legions. Most of the hoplites, excepting the Spartans and the Macedonians, who had professional armies, were simple citizens and did not train regularly. Yet they were able to defeat much larger Persian armies at Marathon and Plataea. 
 
Why they were able to do that is a big question. But I would say that discipline and experience is important, but perhaps not the most critical thing when it comes to a group of men routing. There are several instances throughout WWI of inexperienced troops showing nearly suicidal bravery (the infamous 'Kindermordern' and the British at the Somme spring to mind). The ties of family, friendship and esprit de corps can all work to make a man fight in ways he would not do otherwise. 
 
Labienus

**richsc** · 03-03-2001, 03:26 PM

I'm reminded of a saying in the US Army in the WW2 that you were considered a veteran after five days in the field. 
 
Of the mentions of soldiers running, I can think that usually they had somewhere to run to. After the first battle of Manassas, many US soldiers were found wandering the streets of Washington. Remember though, that most US troops formed and reformed to walk into the Confederate lines, getting cut down in large numbers time and again. Something kept all these green recruits going. 
In Vietnam, there was nowhere to run; if you ran, the VC would pick you off. If you were caught away from the rest of the troops, you were picked off. 
 
I wonder if it was emphasized to the Roman troops that running meant getting caught by cavalry in open ground, a guaranteed death. Makes you wonder if it was a standing order for Roman cavalry to run their own soldiers down if they broke. Same as for many armies until the late 19th century, and the end of cavalry. Richard 
[email protected]

Matthew Amt · 03-03-2001, 11:06 PM

Avete! 
All the above points are excellent. I'll add one more possible consideration: Noise. Guns and explosives make a lot, and that can be horribly intimidating. Frederick the Great, in the 18th century, had lots of opportunities to experiment with differen tactics and methods. He found that when his armies fired their muskets by companies, the fire was much more controlled and caused more causalties among the enemy. But when he had them fire altogether by much larger regiments or brigades, the physical effect was much less (fewer hits), but the psychological effect more than made up for it! 
 
Gunfire tends to make people hit the deck and burrow. You can even hear bullets going past, which would definitely make me cringe. And of course you can't see bullets unless they are tracers, so you don't necessarily know when something is coming your way. All of this would tend to make men not want to come up far enough to shoot back. There are accounts from the 18th century of soldiers clumping together in half-crouched clumps, as if trying to shelter from heavy rain, while under fire--it was very hard to keep orderly lines. (Invites a bayonet charge!) 
 
Javelins and even arrows, on the other hand, can be seen in time enough to dodge or block, though of course you can't necessarily avoid them all. It must have been bad to watch incoming pila, however, knowing that even if you blocked it, it could still punch through your shield and give you a second navel. There is at least one account of Germans (I think) who were catching Roman javelins in flight and chucking them back, so obviously they are watching carefully and not just cowering under their shields praying. 
 
But overall, the only noise in an ancient battle would come from the men themselves (or horns, or shield-pounding), not the same kind of impact as gunfire. 
 
Valete, 
Matthew/Quintus

Catiline · 03-03-2001, 11:49 PM

i do wonder how much psychological effect shiel banging had on an enemy. i know modern police forces still use the technique, but i always suspect that it's used more to build up the confidence of the unit doing it before the charge. 
 
In the end everything we're discussing here is conjecture. i tihnk Napoleonic example can only carry so much weight. looking at Napoleonic bayonet charges hese were rare in the first place. The number of times that hand to hand combat with cold steel came into play were even fewer. Troops broke nad ran. however, Greek and Roman units generally had to scome into hth contact. the concept of killing at range wasn't as prevalent. 
 
 
With regard to the greek phalanx the average casualties seem to have been around 5% for the winning side and 15% for the defeated. It's not a bug, it's a feature

**richsc** · 03-04-2001, 01:11 AM

I think again about the idea that Shaka Zulu had that thrown spears were so less useful than short stabbing spears. I wonder if pila had that characteristic too; the further and higher thrown, the less useful. Spears tend to yaw and turn, perhaps making them easier to catch or at least deflect. It argues for closer range, better discipline, and less chance to turn/yaw the pilum. 
The problem is no one, unless they are crazy college freshmen, are going to heave pila at each other and try to catch them. Hm..I knew some Delta Tau Delta's at W&L who might do it for a keg or two. 
 
I think that throwing the pila in ranks, long range then shorter and shorter, would be more like volley fire and very effective. (and *I* love speculation too). 
 
Richard 
[email protected]

03-04-2001, 09:50 AM

Salve, 
 
Goldsworthy points to the maintaining of silence as a device to unsettle the enemy. For both Spartan and imperial Roman troops it is attested that they maintained silence before contact, though the Romans would yell out just before closing. The signs of discipline, ordered ranks and an unnatural silence, were thus a moral aid. 
 
In my opinion one should be careful with direct comparison with Napoleonic era troops. Ancient heavy infantry was generally better protected (shields, helmets and body armour) than Napoleonic era troops. In Tactics and the experience of battle in the age of Napoleon (R. Muir, London 1998)it is claimed that while bayonets would not ordinarily used in open battle between bodies of troops (the attacked side either giving ground or the attckers losing their appetite for closing on a determined foe) these weapons did get used in street fighting and sieges, though then by individuals rather than bodies of men. 
 
Mentioning frat prats being prepared to do things like catching a pilum is striking. There are descriptions of troops in ancient times drinking before battle, mainly Greeks and Celts, though not the Romans I believe. Romans did have alcoholic beverages as part of their staple food stuffs (wine, beer and posca). In more modern times recourse is also made to infusion of 'Dutch courage' before entering combat. 
 
Regarding the killing done at a distance, Zhmodikov argues for a much greater importance of the missile exchanges before charging for republican Roman heavy infantry at least. However it does seem so that this part of the battle would be less murderous than close quarters fighting, if only because troops would be more likely to loose nerve in the latter type of combat. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/4/01 10:50:34 am

Goffredo · 03-04-2001, 01:55 PM

The placement of veterans behind less experienced ones during the early roman armies has another explanation (see Goldsworthy) that I find more convincing. 
Inexperienced troops before battle loose their nerve easily. Indeed the need to bang on shields, running charges, yells and various shows of courage (e.g. Scots showing their bums) are a natural way to blank out fear. If this need is frustrated by inactivity then fear works its way to the surface and anything can happen. Those men several lines behind the front hear the confusion (the roar of battle) but cann't participate directly. They need to keep cool. A novice will break, a veteran might stand, hence the placement of the vets behind. Of course it is true that the close placement of men on the sides and behind keeps physically a soldier in place. But the ability to withstand stress is learned by experience. Best keep the experienced and sturdy guys behind to avoid any bleeding of the rear ranks from turning into a disastorous hemorrhage. To use training to harden troops instead of relying simply on brute experience is an evoluted concept that came with the roman army evolving into a standing one and that process was a slow one. Marius simply codified it. 
 
The novice's inability to handle stress explains also the rash courage he can show. It derives from the desire to "get it over with". Better fight like an animal in a hypnotic state rather than wait passively my turn. The romans learned they couldn't rely confidently on an army where there were different levels of quality and indeed the ideal post-marian legion was a uniform body of men that were trained to be interchangable. The group of lines up front (the fighting lines) was realtively thin and the second and eventual third ones were used as flexible reserves. Everyone had to meet a minimal standard and the quality was uniform. Of course men, units, legions gain experience and a general would and should make the best use of his troops taking into accout the different levels of quality, but on paper his legionaries were trained uniformily and with flexibility.

03-10-2001, 05:55 AM

It is difficult to see commonality between Roman soldiers in formation and American soldiers in jungle fox-holes. The former, often of long relation to their peers, would easily reveal themselves by cowardice. The latter rarely had known each other for even a year and were provided the concealment of the jungle for their trepidation. 
 
Again, the former, in the earliest legions, were surrounded by friends and even family, and in later days belonged to a force with a long tradition for victory. American soldiers could look to neither for comfort. 
 
Lastly, the determination that esprit would best remedy American soldiers failings was just a lesson re-learned. As various posters have noted there are numerous examples of esprit overcoming normal fear in battle. Whether provided by the patriotism of the Greek state or the martial training of the Roman army the factor of esprit was of great importance. 
 
As a side note, when Caesar first faced Germans in Gaul he was required to deal with cowardice not in his trained legions but in those with the least experience 
with Legion regimen, his officers.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me