Prometheus

Even until the musket 'similar' tactics as those used before the romans could be used. I am sure there were professional flexible pike units after the decline of the knight.

Hmm, obviously there is something to be done about the veteran legion. It seems that it is untrustworthy and that it may switch sides or desert; 'they leader' is now the enemy. I think I would disband the veteran legion and use it to get the three other legions to full strenght. By fragmenting these troops and surrounding them with troops that should be totally loyal to me I would neutralise the possibility of a conspiracy by these veteran troops. At least, I fix the problem as well as I can. Then I need to do something about the moral and discipline in general. I need to appeal to their interests and motivations. I would like to treathen them with strong punishment and promice them great rewards. Of course I need to be able to back that up and I also don't want to scare them. Hmm, I don't think I personally can hold a strong speech. Maybe I can have the clever politically inclined subordinate give a speech. It needs to appear as a spontanious one. I need to avoid the idea that I am 'too weak' to give a speech on my own. But then again, these people are new to me and I am new to them. If I am a roman general I can probably give a better speech as I would be able to do now. I would march my army towards the enemy in the east and try to crush them as quickly as possible. It is clear that I have to fight. I cannot be passive or flee because then the enemy army will unite and be undefeatable. It doesn't seem that I can risk a siege. Two months of food isn't that much, though this is a bit hard to tell. I would definitely gather more information and try to find more solutions before abandoning it. At least in the time given, the time needed to prepare the army for the march. But in that case I will need one very strong camp. Hmm, the army north requires some deception. I would like to catch the army to the east off guard. I assume the army north is relatively close and that their strategy will be to wait for the other army to arrive to my camps. They will have scouts near my camps and they will have messengers travelling between the two armies. Maybe I could have my loyal subordinate stay in one of the camps with a small portion of the army. The enemy may not now the size of the army and they may assume my whole army is still inside the camp. Hmm on second thoughts it may be impossible to sneak out my army and launch a real suprise attack on the enemy in the east. Hopefully in the best case the experienced army in the north spend time and resources trying to take the camp/town with a siege. My loyal commander will not have any chance, but he will be too loyal and too dense to ignore my order/realise this. These two enemy legions will win this siege battle at a price. At the same time I launch an attack on the enemy in the east. In the best scenario they will assume my entire army is pinned down in the siege and not expect anything. They will probably be outnumbered, not that experienced and they will have a poor commander. So I should be able to win without much problems even if they do know I am comming. The victory will give me moral momentum to beat the experienced two enemy legions. The question is what 'the town is critical to hold' really means. Does it mean I need to hold it at the end of the battle or during the battle. Also, the possibility that the enemy in the north will occupy the walled town while I defeat the other enemy could be a problem. When I return I have to besiege them. That's not what I want. If this is really critical then that would mean I would lose the war. Hmm, can't think of a perfect solution. I don't want to split up my troops. My original idea was the have my loyal supordinate hold the town more with a 'ghost army' than with a real one. Maybe he needs to be given a real army of more than half a legion. It seems to me that half a legion should be enough to hold a small town against two legions. But then again I could be wrong. But I also expect the enemy in the north to wait for their army in the east. Furius Venator, your scenario was the most interesting one up till now. Strategy is more important than tactics and it is easier to speculate about.

Since their cavalry outnumbers yours 3 to 1 this would be impossible. Sure, you would 'fix' their infantry with yours but then when you are going to outflank them you have to cut through their cavalry first. I mean, what do you expect the enemy will do? Just have their cavalry look while you outflank their infantry and then cut them to pieces? And in this story it is easy to do because space on the flanks for the cavalry is limited by the forests on both sides. Plus they have the higher ground. I also think their cavalry will be stronger. I think the enemy will want to fix and flank and when you try and probably fail you walk right into their plan. I don't think this scenario has much promise. You chase an army that is twice your size while half your troops are raw recruits. You are inside enemy territory and it seems the enemy also has the advantage of terrain. At least I can't interpret it so that there is an advantage for us. Plus they have the cavaltry advantage as well. What advantage do the romans have here? It seems to me that the only way to win is to have the enemy phalanx fight inside the forest or on broken ground. Cut the cavaltry out of the picture completely. Maybe the enemy general can be tricked to do this with deception but since they are in their own lands I don't see much reason why the enemy would think he has to fight a battle like this. It's hard to ambush the enemy in their own country. A head on confrontation seems pointless. Maybe missile weapons can do the trick. Maybe if you had two experienced legions you could set up a battle where the enemy cavalry would not be effective and then just win the infantry battle with some good maneuvering and tactics. [edit] Wait, the fight is in neutral country. Hmm, why would the Macedonians have themselves chased from their own country while they have the stronger army? They would just pick the perfect battleground for them and then the romans would have to fight or stop chasing. Well, since the Macedonians have the advantage of numbers and cavalry and maybe even of experience the romans need to gain advantages to neutralise these. Maybe the enemy is afraid to fight because they are fleeing. Maybe sack their towns since they fled their homeland. It forces them to go back and then catch them on disadvantages terrian and circumstances. Have them line up their phalanx on the battle field several times; harras it and then leave. Your men know their won't be any battle while they have to except the worst every time. [second edit] Ack, he was still talking about the samnites. I got confused. Ooh well. I typed enough. Figure it out yourself

Hmm, an UO player. Sadly most PC games often totally ignore ancient warfare, limiting to dark ages and medieval warfare. I know nothing of the topic so I won't say anything more.

Ok I didn't read all the posts yet and I guess I am not really an expert eventhough I did read art of war and some stuff. Hmm, of course the first thing I would do is make peace. That's probably in my advantage. But let's assue that I want to defeat them, that is the answer the TS wants. Hmm, I would be thinking about things on a larger scale than the things people mentioned before me. I would really want to know the character of the enemy general, his motives and such. I would also like to know alternative battlefields. My first though was to let them into my territory while I pick a battlefield that is even more to my advantage. It is not clear if this is possible. I guess it isn't now that the armies are already lined up. I also don't know what type of units the enemy has. I guess one could know or find out if one knew more about the samnites. It seems that the main idea would be to have them come to me in the latter part of the day and then just fight them in a straightforward fashion. A hard head on battles on flat plains would be a tactical advantage to the legions, I imagine. But it could turn out to be a very costly battle. It is in no way clear if winning this battle at hight costs would win the war. A lot of detail is missing. I agree with Sun Tzu, as Octavius already pointed out, that the outcome of the battle if already clear before it starts. So when you add more detail it will tell us the outcome and defeat the purpose of any discussion. So really, since this battle is on my border and there is no reason why I should fight now, I would retreat if that were possible. Let them make some mistake and then take thr advantage. Since you did not mention a mistake and since that would ruin any discussion, it seems that this battle will be a bloody one if both forces really want to fight. Really, they could even have that part of my land if they wanted. It would be a waste of men. I would wait for the possibility of a real victory. There is a nice anecdote in my version of Sun Tzu's Art of War that Tu Mu added to Estimates No.24: Pretend inferiority and encorage his arrogane: "Towards the end of the Ch'in dynasty, Mu Tun of the Hsiung Nu first established his power. The eastern Hu were strong and send embassadors to parley. They said: 'We wish a T'ou Ma 's thousand-li horse.' Mo Tun consulted his advisors, who all exclaimed: 'The thousand-li horse! The most precious thing in this country! Do not give them that!' Mu Tun replied: 'Why begrudge a horse to a neighbour?' So he send the horse. Shortly after, the Eastern Hu send envoys who said: 'We wish one of the Khan's princesses.' Mo Tun asked advice of his ministers who all angrily said: 'The Eastern Hu are unrighteous! Now they even ask for our princess! We implore you to attack them!' Mo Tun said: 'How can one begrude his neighbour a young woman?' So he gave the woman. A short time later, the Eastern Hu returned and said: 'You have a thousand li of unused which we want.' Mo Tun consulted his advisors. Some said it would be reasonable to cede the land, others that it would not. Mo Tun was enraged and said: 'Land is the foundation of the state. How could one give it away?' All those who had advised doing so were beheaded Mo Tun then sprang on his horse, ordered that all who remained behind were to be beheaded, and made a suprise attack on the Eastern Hu. The Eastern Hu were contemptious of him and had made no preperations. When he attacked he annihilated them. Mo Tun then turned westward andattacked Yueh Ti. To the south he annexed Lou Fan . . . and invaded Yen." So I see no reason why it would be advantageous to fight that battle now and then. I would withdraw if I could. but like I said before it is not clear what influence that would have. Is the moral of the enemy bad and may it increase if I do so? Will the moral of my troups reduce if I withdraw? Or will it not matter? Is the enemy general arrogant and can I use the point made by Sun Tzu and explained by Tu Mu above? Or maybe I am already famed for my deceptions and the enemy will follow slowly, fearing an ambush of some sort and giving me time to create an advantage. But maybe the border area is of vital importance for some reason. Maybe it is worthless. If the last is true maybe the enemy will go home when I retreat. If so then that means I outright won the battle without a drop of blood. But if there will be a battle here and now. I will probably try to get a head on straightforward battle, which would favour roman heavy infantry, and try to keep my units concentrated and strike at their weakest point until they rout. But in terms of tactics I don't feel so knowledgeable. Maybe they have troops hidden in those lightly forested hills. Maybe I can use them. I think one would need a map for that. Maybe I have quite a few cretan archers and balearic slingers. If the hills are exactly right I could hide those in those forests and then withdraw my heavy infantry. If they follow they will get into heavy fire and they will be in trouble. In any case they will have a disadvantage and I just turn around the infantry at the right time and I charge full speed. Their troops will already be either in panic, retreat or a desperate charge. It will be very hard for the enemy commander to keep order in his troops. I guess that they will just rout very easily.

I would rather not. If the locals do not accept your domination it will be impossible to maintain it. The only option would be to change the demography, ie ethnic cleansing, colonisation, and other crimes like that. You can see how problematic it is in Palestine and Israel. So it will have to be an occupation that is mutually benifitial. And even then it will may be a minefield. Key is that you need to use a puppet regime made up of locals. Like the nazi's did and not like the US/UK did in Iraq(they disbanded the police and the army). As far as I know this is textbook stuff so it is rather strange that they made this blunder in Iraq. Furthermore, you put it way too simple. It will be impossible to know what a good reason would be is we don't have a concrete situation. And a good reason to even start a war would also be needed. Most wars end in failures for both sides. And even won battles will in the end be defeats. Plus, each war will lead to war crimes and atrocities. The agressor will be responsible for these. I can't really imagine a situation where this is justified. So all wars should be avoided.

I am not sure which part you refer to but all of these parts I read somewhere. I just put them together. A lull is when the two battle lines disconnect and the fighting stops.

Weren't lulls and even agreed breaks quite common? Also, didn't the legion battle line have holes in them? I am not sure how big their were but surely the roman battle line was made up of square blocks containing a particular number of Centuria. For an enemy to enter those hole was not a good thing. At least I am told. So maybe if we consider a great number of lulls, gutful men, or rather the lack of them and manuvering space in the battle line then all problems are solved. Right?

I understand that the idea of 'gutful men' and the others just passively following and only protecting themselves would be really important in ancient and medieval warface. But there will also be a difference between enlisted and drafted soldiers, soldiers who defend their wife and children, those who are in it for the money and those who just do their duty in their society by following orders. This does bring up the question about how intense the fights were. I know of stories from the first and second world war where soldiers of opposite sides just greeted each other when they realised neither of them had any interest in fighting. I know about guns from the american civil war being discovered that were loaded 10 times, the soldier just didn't fire his gun. I heard about a soldier in the Libanon civil war that was just standing there smoking with his buddies until they realised they were the enemy, both where so shocked that they couldn't do anything and they just ran away from each other. Politicians have to force war down the throats of their subjects. So they do this by dehumanising the enemy. Without this war would almost be impossible. Maybe most fights were quite passive in that it allowed to refresh front ranks without problems because both sides were just standing there looking at their opponents. Actually there are quite a few accounts of agreed pauses to rest and take care of the wouned. Even more interestingly there is an account from one of the wars between England and France where soldiers were calling challenges to each other. In the end the war was paused and a jousting duel was organised between two knights from either side. I think this created so much respect between the two sides that the war was aborted. Same thing in the bible with Goliath. Why was Goliath insulting and challenging the Israeli battle line? Why weren't they engaged in intense combat? There is also a story about Alexander where his men refused to assualt the wall where he ended up climbing the ladder up the wall with only his bodyguards. Ironically after Alexander was severly wounded his troops massacred the population as a retaliation. I guess Caesar didn't want to write down that he had to force his troops to actually fight by threatening to crucify some of them when both sides refused to fight and nothing happened. He just wrote down the had to 'encourage the troops' because the truth would just make them look folish.

I haven't had time to read the last post but since these are accounts from the point of view of the general/commander I am pretty sure it is sending in new troops and not a cohort cycling around the people fighting. And the issue about people not wanting to kill the enemy. I thought about that, because warfare is much more hands on than today. I knew about the problem and the techniques that were developed to build in a reflex so that troops would instinctively shoot. If anyone has a historical source that touches on this issue I would like to read it too.

Ok, so no one knows what exactly happened. I am not sure if everyone saw this series but if there is a tightly packed unit of troops fighting I can imagine they would bumb and push against each others and that these actions would actually go through the troops as a wave. So if you want the first line to fall back through the rows the rows have to be very straight. Too bad things like communication and specific unit tactics like rotation of the troops are unknown.

Yes, I have recently read that. He(Caesar) also tells that he orders gallic cavalry to help him but when they arrived their horses turned out to be 'inappropiate'. It doesn't tell if the horses were tiered and instant action was required or that the horses were too small. The account of back-up horses was one talking about the Huns, if I remember correctly. So I wondered if this was common. I understand very well that cavalry doesn't charge the strongest part of the enemy battle line head on. I wondered if they would actually charge a battle line, either from the flank or front and what would happen. Would they just flee. Or if they fleed in most cases would the cavalry stop if the infantry was so crazy as to hold their ground? I imagine that if a flank or rear of a battle line was being charged with heavy lance cavalry the infantry would either try to face their attackers or run, if they had time. Or was the trick to make sure they didn't even realise they were attacked and 'trample' them from behind. I understand that one of the biggest uses for cavalry was manuvering and hunting down fleeing enemies. But cavalry do actually charge in many cases. So I wonder what actually happened in those cases. But now I have realised that for cavalry armed with spears there is a difference between 'shock cavalry' with counched spears/lances and cavalry wielding/thrusting with a hand. The latter would have a lot of trouble actually charging down with force, right? About communications, what would be the role of the signifer and vexillifer(banner carrier, right?). And then we also have the Aquilifer. In the HBO Rome series, in the first episode it shows part of the battle of Alesia. The centurion fights in the first rank and blows a whistle. At one point it shows all legionairies holding each other by a strap in the back of the armor, to help staying in formation so that the first line of men can slide back through the rows so they can rest and fresh men can continue the battle. Is this based on historical accounts?

For some reason I tend to mark my questions as 'easy', probably because they are easy to ask. Ok thanks for clarifying the two styles of cavalry. I guess I will have to look at some battle reports and see how cavalry was actually used. But I have been unable to find online sources. So I ordered a book on Alexander and Caesar's commentaries. It would be nice if someone had some sources because there is a big difference between theory and practice. Using the term 'counched position' I found more information: http://www.classicalfencing.com/mounted.shtml About reserve horses, I think I once heard something about fresh horses. I guess this is a question of what is rarer: Good mounted soldiers or good horses. Regarding communications, I wondered about the balance between a general controlling units during the battle and local unit commanders taking initative during the battle based on layed out plan. And about my last question. I found out about a concept known as 'peace-bonded' but when I use the term in google I only find things about re-enactment, LARP, cos-play and whatnot. Is this really a historical term? To detail my question a bit more, I was thinking about a civilian, lets say one or a group of cvilians, armed with a sword in a scabbard attacked to their belt. I could imagine it would be illegal for a civilian to wear a sword in public, like it would be illegal to do this today.

First question, would an unit of cavalry require back-up horses? If so how many? How would a mounted soldier prevent dropping his spear/lance. I imagine that hitting an enemy with large speed would result in a large force. I also wondered if a spear wouldn't deflect to the side but I guess that is just an issue of training, keeping the spear straight. At what speed would cavalry charge the enemy. Recently I have been playing a computer game Rome: Total War. In that game cavalry charge into enemy lines with full speed, trampling, or bumping over the enemy on occasion. If one would actually do that I can't imagine the horse not being injured. So I could imagine a forceful charge like in this game being very rare. Can anyone comment on this? Since it would not be required to collide with the enemy in order for cavalry to have its uses. About communication on the battlefield. How effective was this and how much difference did it make? Did a general have control over his units during the battle. Or was it just careful planning and then trusting in the commanders during the battle. I know there are different techniques but I don't even know which one the romans used. How many non-soldiers did an army generally have for support and logistics? It seems that in the roman legions the legionaires did many of these 'civilian' jobs. Any comments. One more question, what would happen to the weapons of an armed visitor trying to get into a walled city. I imagine one wouldn't be allowed to enter the city armed. Would the weapon be confiscated? Would a person be able to get it back? I am not asking this question specifically about how the roman empire handled this but how any walled city would handle this. I could imagine a numbered sortage system like we now have in some cloakrooms(?).