The Adoption of the Manipular System

[marcus silanus]

The popular image of the Roman army is of the post-Marian cohortal legions, resplendent in lorica segmentata and imperial Gallic/Italic helmets, which is understandable and fair. However, Rome's primary rise from regional power to mistress of the Mediterranean occured from the time when it is widely accepted that she adopted the manipular tactics of the Samnites to the end of the second century BCE.

 

The Samnite Wars were closely followed by the Pyrrhic War and from that point the general use of the manipular system, I believe, contributed greatly to Rome's further success.

 

I wonder how far members would agree or disagree with me that the popular use of this system was a major factor in Rome's triumph over the Mediterranean.

[caldrail]

That's a possibility, but the image of organised relentless troops distorts our view of Rome's effectiveness in military terms. Rome had a track history of poor performance on campaign to begin with, and significantly it was usually a change of leadership and a more determined approach that saw Rome through to the end it sought.

 

In studying the Roman legions we tend to examine it in such a way as to find some tactical and strategic truth in the manner they organised their troops on the ground. We admire their level of orgainising and see Roman administration as hauntingly familiar. In a sense, we should do, because as people we're not really different at all, apart from a different set of rules. In other words, human beings always tend to do business the same way - it's our behavioural patterns as a species. The point is that we often see what we want to in this sort of close examination.

 

As to what extent Roman military organisation worked to its advantage is that the manipular system replaced the greek phalanx as a mode of battle. The Romans had realised that the sturdy pike formations had significant disadvantages and wanted a more flexible approach to warfare.

 

Or did they? Such ideas didn't occur to all them simultaneously. As always with far reaching changes, it would have been the idea of one especially insightful person who had the good fortune to be in a position where he could influence others. Military people are often quite unimaginative and tend to do things as they've always been done, for good reason it must be said, but the Roman failure to adapt quickly to clever opponents is a notable aspect of Roman military history.

 

The manipular system worked to Rome's advantage, that can't be denied. It was flexible and allowed tacticlal diversity against the fixed and almost 'linear' thinking involved in phalanxes of the earlier times. But that alone wouldn't secure victory. Much depended on the quality of the troops, and as study shows, the image of Roman military perfection is a gross exaggeration. All too often, their troops were lazy, indifferent, rebellious, and unwilling - all the same character flaws as their opponents.

 

When you consider the Romans before the much standardised (but never completely unanimous) training and discipline in the post marian era, it becomes clear that Rome fought it's wars with a what was effectively a militia. These men weren't professional soldiers at all, but citizens doing their bit (either willingly or because they had little choice - individual motives would have varied). Before we assume that organisation was the key to Roman success, we should remind ouselves that Rome was an intrinsincally militaristic society. They had evolved from warrior tribes raiding each other and in later times the military ethic was highly valued. Politicians based their careers ion their service record for instance.

 

The battlefield is however a confrontation between large groups of men. Without effective leadership, the mass of opinion prevails and all too often, armies fail to achieve what was possible because their leader had failed to inspire them. This happened to Roman legions too at times. In fact, there are mentions of actions in which one suspects that with the lack of inspired leadership the Roman organisation wasn't advantageous at all, but rather just there, in the background, a means by which the men were ordered and one that had failed to maintain such order in that circumstance.

 

The important point to realise is that Roman battles were not fought by central control as we see in later eras. There was a high degree of local autonomy amongst the maniples, and indeed, the centurion as a leader of men is a direct descendant of the warrior leader. Roman armies were given their strategy for the coming battle before it began, just as other armies did in their day. The success of brilliant generals wasn't so much that they 'played better chess', but that they had a better idea of what they wanted to achieve on the battle field. Troops were informed beforehand - whenever possible - of what they were expected to do. That is of course the reason that ambushes were so effective in the ancient world and the preferred means of dealing with the enemy if you gained the strategic advantage.

 

So, was the manipular system a major reason for Rome's success? Yes, up to a point, until the enemy had learned to adapt to it or until their leader had a craftier idea of how to conduct his campaign against them. But remember that military technique evolves and eventually even the manipular system wasn't good enough to take on the enemies of Rome.

Edited August 7, 2009 by caldrail