Did They Try To Improve?

[skel]

Did the legion ever attempt to imporve their tactics, gear, and styles after a certain defeat due to a specific factor? such as with the parthians and their arrows going right through the roman shields, did they ever attempt to make them stronger? or were they for some reason stubburn, keeping the same methods and equipment even though they knew it wasnt as effective?

[Jimbow]

I think the tactics of Hannibal taught the Romans a few things. The flexibility and brute force of the legions tactics was supplemented with a more unified command and an improved cavalry. They replaced the citizen-soldiers with paid professionals who underwent thorough and constant training, although there is opinion that the draft continued for some time regardless. It could be said that Scipio actually introduced battle tactics for the first time, using manouevres and strategy, and not just relying on the skills of the individual legionaries and marching them at the enemy.

 

The abandonment of the phalanx must have been an adaptation to the need for tactics in hillier terrain. Most likely, the hill tribes of Italy hardly met to discuss which open plain they should fight on next morning, as the Greeks often did. The Celtic sack of Rome in 390 BC may have had a large part in this.

 

As for equipment improvement, the one that springs to mind is the addition of the crossbars to the top of the helmet, supposedly in response to the Dacian falx. Pteruges also may have been seen more thereon, along with greaves for the legs, and manica for the arms. Also, the very fact that during the 4th C BC bronze helmets were abandoned for iron ones must also have been in response to weapons used by the enemy. Bronze ones were re-introduced later in the 2nd C BC, but had more thickness than previously.

 

Correct any mistakes, anyone.

 

Jim.

[Primus Pilus]

Greaves were also added thanks to those nasty Dacians.

[Marcus Regulus]

For the most part what I see is that they did imporve tactics and exisiting weapons as Jimbow mentioned, what I don't see is is any attempt to create new weapons or different weapons. There are a few exceptions to this (The corvus on ships for example), but for the most part they seem to be content with improvement but not innovation. How much this contibuted to the downfall of Rome is debateable

[Spurius]

For heavy infantry, the legions were hard to beat. And, with the technical innovations like the sturrip some time away, Rome at it height was fighting during a period when infantry was the king of battle.

 

The gladius was a great stabbing weapon. Try this, swing a club for a period of time and then later do a piston like stabbing motion for the same amount. See which one tires your arm out less, and stabbing has a greater killing potential.

 

The pilum was as good as it gets for a battlefield javelin. Carrying two meant that an enemy charge could be broken up quite nicely with one volley. The second either stopped or rendered the frontline too few to seriously challenge roman ranks. Then you advance with that piston armed gladius snaking out around a large shield.

 

Rome armoring its troops in chain or segmetata not only protected them, but was a great morale boost when facing gangs of screaming barbarians.

 

In short, the best heavy infantry in an infantry world.

 

And Rome did evolve, just look at composition of a second century C.E. legion and a fifth century fighting force. Quite a change.

[Lex]

What was the motivation for adopting the spatha in the later empire and why did they wear it on the left hip? And does anyone know roughly at which year they started using the spatha?

Thanks.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

All this stuff was so powerful....

 

Until after Andrianople.

[rvmaximus]

Wy didnt the Romans adopt the falx to be part of their legions? The falx must have been known for along time since the Dacians are a nothern Thracian people and were in the Greek sphere of influence most likely.

[Favonius Cornelius]

With some improvements to their armor the falx I think probably became no big deal. It is easier and safer to teach a great number of soldiers across the world to stab with a gladius than use the strength and skill demanding falx. Use of falx also prevents use of shield, and use of falx would prevent tight legionary formations. All told it was not a good weapon to adapt. It has a notorious reputation for the wounds it could give, and the fact that it actually wounded soldiers after decades of easy victory.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

With some improvements to their armor the falx I think probably became no big deal. It is easier and safer to teach a great number of soldiers across the world to stab with a gladius than use the strength and skill demanding falx. Use of falx also prevents use of shield, and use of falx would prevent tight legionary formations. All told it was not a good weapon to adapt. It has a notorious reputation for the wounds it could give, and the fact that it actually wounded soldiers after decades of easy victory.

 

As I remember from seeing in a documentary, the falx was also a farming tool which many of the Dacians used to tend their farms since they themselves were farmers too. So the idea of using something lowly in background was despicable to the Romans.

[Valerius]

Marcus Licinius Crassus came up with a novel way of coping with the Parthians who were famous for their archery. He sat his army down in the middle of a plain and waited until the Parthians used all their arrows up. Unfortunately the opposing Parthian general arranged for a constant re-supply of arrows sent up by camel train. Crassus was finally compelled to give up and retreat, losing three eagles, his son and his own life in the process. One of the surviving officers took command and led the remenants to safety - Gaius Cassius Longinus, on eof the future assassins of Caesar.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Marcus Licinius Crassus came up with a novel way of coping with the Parthians who were famous for their archery. He sat his army down in the middle of a plain and waited until the Parthians used all their arrows up. Unfortunately the opposing Parthian general arranged for a constant re-supply of arrows sent up by camel train. Crassus was finally compelled to give up and retreat, losing three eagles, his son and his own life in the process. One of the surviving officers took command and led the remenants to safety - Gaius Cassius Longinus, on eof the future assassins of Caesar.

 

 

All true, but I am curious: what is your point in telling this tale?

[Valerius]

The reason I repeated this story was in answer to the original question - did the Romans try to improve or change their tactics? The answer is yes, but did not always succeed. The problem with military planning is that the other side refuse to do as they are expected - no plan survives very long after contact with the enemy is made. The other point I was trying to make is that battles are never won - they are lost. Each of the opposing generals goes into battle with a plan to win - the loser is the one who cannot adapt his plan to circumstances. Roman battle tactics changed very little in terms of the basics between the 1st century BC and the end of the 2nd Century AD, though their equipment did evolve to a certain extent.