Roman Battle Tactics

[Aryaman2]

I think it could be useful to draw comparisons with other periods in which we have better, more reliable descriptions of battles. For example, I recall the battle of Ceresoles (1544), in this battle arquebussiers skirmished for several hours before close combat developed. I think we can think of 3 ystems of using range weapons.
1) Skirmishing, like those arquebussiers, and I think it would be the main system for Roman velites and other similar light troops, they advance towards the enemy, throw their weapon taking advantage of the impulse of the run, and then retreat, using this system I think the rate of fire should be rather low, less than a shot per minute, but of course you can replace ranks and create a sort of continuous fire.
2) Volley, the legionnaires throw their pila and then close trying to capitalize on the confusion created by the volley.
Comparing with XVI-XVII century warfare, I would say they are not incompatible, you can have an avantgarde of skirmishers, and then your line infantry to finish the job with a volley and a charge. It is my impression we try too many times to classify too rigidly, to use a modern comparison, in WW2 bazookas were used much more as antipersonal weapons or in demolition than in the designed antitank role. There are all sort of situations in war that could call for very different answers to the same soldiers.
As for the phisical exhaustion of close combat and lulls in battles, the best modern example is the police fighting riots (not a perfect example, I know) , and in this case I know from personal experience it is all about sudden outburst of fight with a lot of lulls, but I think it is more about moral than fatigue, people losee heart faster than physical strength.

[Mitra]

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.

Inefficacy of many launch weapons isn't strange ,aimed shot is possible only with almost straight trajectory but with a heavy javelin how the pilum this is possible only with few meters of fly. The same mass configuration of this arm , make the parabolic fly not aimed in a mass of men ,the normal launching modality. Many pila don't center the target (the same for arrows and stones) and hit from the sky the rear ranks not from frontal the first ranks.
A roman formation deep 6-8 ranks have a (theorical) depth of 12-16 meters (Vegetius distances) , even with close paked distance (2 cubits , but this distance don't permit pilum or other weapons launch) 6-8 meters depth is normal. With a pratical range of 15-20 meters for heavy javelins , if the opposed first lines are to a distance of 5-10 meters and the close combat fighting starting and stopping in the middle of this zone , the pila can fly over the heads having a no-little hit zone in the middle of enemy 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.

This is true but also ancient and medieval historical works isn't tecnical reports but works where stylistic ,hagiographic or theoretical objectives have the priority on the tecnical precision or correct information. From this point of view Punica and Livy can use the same sources for battle descriptions using them in different stylistic model and different objectives ; Silius use evidently a traditional roman-greek litterary model of human fighting (with heroic exaggerations and maniacal observation of bloody details) with moral values associated , not present in so high number in historical texts.
But litterary models of fighting in a world where warfare is endemic and aristocracy have a military tradition cannot be unrealistic (how hollywood today) only exaggerated.

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.

True but this depends also from the tactic of the enemy ; Numidians at Ruspina cannot be taked in a close combat fighting , they make a hit-run tactics with javelins not a standing-ground roman tactics. Many iberians and celtiberians tribes using also hit-run tactics (like the pompeian legionaries at Ilerda) , and in the Sabinus-Cotta last battle the Gauls adopted the same tactic. In all this case the legionaries are in difficult situation.

Regards
Davide

[Felix]

Thank you, Aryaman2!

I had not thought about modern riots; but the scenario does come very close to premodern combat. Unlike sporting events, there are no ordered breaks at all, and the struggle can be conducted at close range or at distance.

Your comment about 17th century combat reminded me of the use of primary shock combat in the early modern period. Even though the adoption of the musket meant that missile combat was at the center of contemporary warfare, there were a number of cases where combatants declined to allow their troops to fire, but relied solely on bayonets, swords, and pikes (in the earlier period). Once troops stopped to fire, the momentum of an attack was difficult to regain. In certain instances, generals ordered their troops into battle with no flints in their muskets, or no ammunition, to prevent their firing. One army which specialized in violent attack was the Swedish army. During the Great Northern War, the furious assaults of the Swedes could be stopped, but only with great difficulty - at Poltava Peter the Great had to have a much larger army, with better supplies, and numerous earthen redoubts deployed in depth in order to defeat the Swedes.

[Pompeius Minus]

One point that may or may not be relevant is that the attack with edged weapons was considered pretty high up the difficulty ladder in the 16-1800s. The "natural tendency" was for the attack to stall and degenerate into a standoff or firefight. Only well-trained and/or experienced troops (like the Swedes under Charles XII) seem to have been capable of shock tactics.

On the other hand the potential benefits were of course huge in that the enemy would usually break, or be defeated psychologically so to speak. The losses during the pursuit would then outweigh the losses during the actual combat (fire and melée), i.e. just like in the ancient world.

[Robert Vermaat]

Inefficacy of many launch weapons isn't strange ,aimed shot is possible only with almost straight trajectory but with a heavy javelin how the pilum this is possible only with few meters of fly. The same mass configuration of this arm , make the parabolic fly not aimed in a mass of men ,the normal launching modality. Many pila don't center the target (the same for arrows and stones) and hit from the sky the rear ranks not from frontal the first ranks.
A roman formation deep 6-8 ranks have a (theorical) depth of 12-16 meters (Vegetius distances) , even with close paked distance (2 cubits , but this distance don't permit pilum or other weapons launch) 6-8 meters depth is normal. With a pratical range of 15-20 meters for heavy javelins , if the opposed first lines are to a distance of 5-10 meters and the close combat fighting starting and stopping in the middle of this zone , the pila can fly over the heads having a no-little hit zone in the middle of enemy formation.

In case of full contact, why would you need aimed shot? A pilum, javelin or plumbata could/would do enough harm when thrown unaimed into a mass of soldiers. This is why the fulcum/testudo usually had soldiers of the 3rd-4th rank protect their heads. Apparently, this was not neccesary for the 5-8th ranks, so maybe they stood back from the first 4 ranks?

But if the missiles were launched from further back, across their own front ranks, maybe they landed on top of the hind ranks or the reserves of the enemy?

[Zhmodikov]

Felix,

You wrote:

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.

We do not know for sure. Livy probably rather retells his sources than cites them verbatim.

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"

Yes, but we are talking about the style of Polybius' history, not about that of his military treatises. One cannot find much about morale in military instructions. Concerning Frederick's writings, he probably considered morale as an unimportant factor, and probably morale was indeed unimportant in Frederick's army because of very strict discipline.

I'd like to add that Polybius offers not much information on the Roman way of fighting. He discribes the pilum, but only once he mentions the use of it in battle. In contrast, both Livy and Caesar often mention the use of the pilum and other missile weapons. Polybius even does not mention the key feature of the Roman infantry tactics - the line relief. All what we know about the line relief we know from Livy and Caesar.

Best wishes,
Alexander