Technological Advantage ?

[Germanicus]

I have not read a lot of general military books, and while passingly familiar with tactics/formations used by the Roman military, mostly from major historical battle descriptions, I have no idea what sort of advantage the Legions had over "barbarian" nations in terms of the hardware they used. I know the gladius was suited to their way of fighting, but was the steel in it, and the armour superior ? How did the Gallic sword match up ? Also, with regard to artillery, did the Gauls employ catapults and scorpions like the Romans ? I can't recall Caesar mentioning it in his commentary and would like to know.

[Guest spartacus]

Apparently many officers considered showering the enemy with arrows was a a good way to soften them up- pre battle

[Guest Scanderbeg]

You mean Pillums?

 

 

What the Romans had over the barbarians were:

 

-Organization.

The general had control over his legions and could signal the to move one way or another. This was done through captains and other sub levels of command. To the point where an massive army of 20,000 or more soldiers could be lead by 1 man. The legion worked as a unit. Meaning 162 soldiers would act together as 1. Split where need be and come together again. This also made up for the physical inferiority that the Romans usually had against Barbarians.

 

-Discipline.

The legion was extremely disciplined. They moved always in formation always following direct order. Unlike the barbarians which were erratic and could end up charging at the wrong time or too fast. Like I stated before it moved as a unit. This unity did not give their enemy much room either. Formations, such as the tortoise formation showed how well they were disciplined. The unity they had allowed them to actually be able to use strategies, the Gaul did not always have this. They ran when they got scared. There was a quote Julius Caesar said about them once but I forgot it.

Here is a pick of how close together the legion stood:

http://www.soldatini.org/images/recensioni/es224_1.jpg

Note The soldiers in the front acting as shields while the back was throwing pillums.

 

-Technology

A Roman legionnary was put together so well that you could take apart their armor and put it together again(it was layered). The short Gladius was short and quick and enabled to make quick stabs at the enemy. The gladius was also very light and so did not require too much energy. Also, because it was small it allowed a legionnaries to pack together as it did not require room to kill. Where as barbarians, such as Gaul, used heavy big swords that could wear you out and required room to swing. By the time a Gallic soldier swung his sword he was already penetrated on the side of the lung by a gladius. The shield was BIG. A tower shield allowed a legionarry to be well hidden and protected. The shield was made the legion a wall. The barbarians had a hard time trying to break in it as the shields were clasped together making the legion impenetrable. The pillum served as a great way to lower the enemies numbers before they ven when face to face. Each soldier had 2 pillas that woudl be thrown before a charge. The usually unarmoured Gallic soldier would get hit and he would be OUT!!

Thsi would level the enemy before they even hit you. It would also serve as fear. In the battle at Zama, Hannibal's frontline started running away the second it saw hastitii pull out their pillums. This caused his frontline to start fighting against his second line. It was frightening to see a sharp spear coming straight at you. The pillum broke after it hit something so the enemy would not be able to throw it back.

 

The Gallic did not have siege equipment or Catapults. They were totally amazed to see the legion do what they did. They were more then just soldier's. they were also engineers. They built bridges, ladder's, roads, catapults, camps. There was nothing that could stop them. Julius Caesar's siege of Alesia is an example of how they used technology to their best. The use of contravallation to block an entire town.

 

Let me just set things straight. After Gladiator people started believing that catapults were used in regular or open warfare. This was rarely done. They were hard to carry and would slow down the army. Leaving them open to raids. They served their purpose of being mainly used as siege equipment.

 

Its interesting to note that most of the equipment the Romans had were actually barbarian based. The Romans got the manipular system and the checkerboard formation from the Samnites. Their helmet was Celtic based:

http://www.soldatini.org/images/recensioni...ni/ha8022_1.jpg

So was their armor. The gladius was a taken from Iberian soldiers. Also note that the Gladius Hispanicus evolved throughout time in the Roman hands. It began as a stabbing but later was also used to slice. The late Empire used longer swords

 

Here is a cool site howing armor from different times. This page shows Roman.

 

http://albion-swords.com/armour.htm

 

Hope this helped

 

Here is a pic of what the camps they built looked like:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/im/re/camp.jpg

[Zeke]

Great information Skenderburg!

 

Zeke

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Skenderburg.

Sounds German. Cool!

 

I won't bore you with details, my name is actually from a past general named Iskender bey(bey meaning chieftain in Turkish but in this case it meant lord Lord Alexander, once again in Turkish, in honor of god ol alex the great). In English the name becomes Skenderbeg. I wont bore you with details but he was a general who turned on the Turks back in the late 1400's. He formed the country of ALbania, my place. He united with the Papacy and was going to form an alliance with Constantinople to get more soldier's together but he couldnt in time. He even held of attacks from the Turks for 25 years and defeated Mehmed II(The man who conquered the Byzantine Empire) in one of their engagements.

 

Wow, that was actually a lot of details. Ill be quiet now.

[Zeke]

you live in albania?

[Germanicus]

Thanks Skenderbeg,

 

In the battle at Zama, Hannibal's frontline started running away the second it saw hastitii pull out their pillums

 

 

Wow, the hastitii must have been pretty accurate to generate that kind of fear in an enemy.

The pictures are great as is your infomation.

 

Were the commands the general was giving relayed by word of mouth or by some sort of flag system like in later warfare ? Word of mouth doesn't seem plausible ?

 

Germanicus

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Flags, horns etc.

It was actually a very well developed system of cammands. Different sounds meant different actions.

 

you live in albania?

 

 

Nope Im a US man now. have been for 9 years.

 

It's pretty sad to this the kind of control a general had in the Roman Empire was eventually lost in the west for quite a while during the Dark Ages. The Byzantine Empire maintained it for a few centuries but eventually they lost it also. There actually a story that stated one time Teutonic Knights were going again a Byzantine Army but they retreated because when they heard the Byzantines marching all they could hear was foot steps. the soldier's marched in complete silence.

 

Wow, the hastitii must have been pretty accurate to generate that kind of fear in an enemy.

The pictures are great as is your infomation.

 

 

It's about accuracy as it's about the fear. There were thousands of pillums in the air waiting to pierce thousands of soldiers. His frontline was new recruits also. The Romans did not aim the pillums. Theres no time for that. Rather it was pointed at a certain direction in the sky. Years of training taught them intuition I suppose.

 

 

Here I found a more realistic celt:

 

Look at the armour. The chainmail is what the Roman Principes(second line of the army and the middle class society) wore.

http://img223.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img223&ima...uredcelt4dw.jpg

This is a pick of a Celtic-Iberian soldier. Notice their weapon. Does that remind you of anything? Something the Roman's are equiped with? The Celtic influence of Roman's is huge. The Roman's redesigned their enitre army after decimated by the celts at Allia and Rome was nearly destroyed. Everything was fitted so they could battle with them. Before Allia, the Roman's fought much like the Greeks. Using Hoplites. After their horrible defeat they redesigned everything and even rebuilt all their walls to make their city almost impenetrable.

 

 

I often get annoyed with how the Celts are portrayed. They were not so wild. They seem so to people mainly because they lived in tribes. Not to mention most of our older knowledge of them came from Romans. Much of it came from Julius Caesar's commentary. However they were not the club waving crazies portrayed in Roman films or games(Looking at RTW).

[Guest Scanderbeg]

By the way. Archery, in the west, was not all to useful. Arrows did not do much damage. The bow and arrow did not get really get anywhere until the Middle Ages in Europe. In Parthia and the east it was different. Just about everything relied on infantry and close quarter combat. Mostly due to the west having bows that were not all too great. Improvements in the bow and arrow improved archery. ALso when against heavy infantry, arrows don't do too much damage. Not to mention the fact that arrows were not aimed at the enemy but were pointed upwards. The arrow literally fell on the enemy, loosing a lot of force in the process.

 

The Roman's did have long range units they relied on a lot though. they were called Velite's. They were skirmishers. Were taken from the lower class society(pre Marius) so they wore little armour so they were rather fast. I belive they were either in between the Hastiti or in the front. Best to check the site.

 

Here is a modern Gladius:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...5/Gladius_1.jpg

[Germanicus]

Did the velites throw pilum as their long range attack or some other kind of spear ?

 

Regarding the celts - I agree with you, they were highly sophisticated in a lot of ways. I think the RTW representation is probably as accurate as they could make it. Particulary the British, who I believe did actually fight naked and were heavily tattooed.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Those were a special unit. They were called Gaesatae. Heres a picture.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/uploads/pos...-1092855259.jpg

Notice the torque worn around their neck. this is one of the ways they discovered how far out the Celtic tribes moved. These were found in Britain, Ireland, Spain, Northern Italy, present day Romania and Germany. Deep Germany

 

The Celts actually did have a system like that of the Romans. In fact the legion was a more disciplined copy of a unit of Celts that carried two pillas, a long shield, heavy chain armour and a short sword(These were usually Celto-Iberian soldiers). It was not as sophisticated as the Legion but the idea came from them. in fact, Celts also made roads.

 

Also the pillum would also be thrown in a way to destroy enemy shields. The pillum would be thrown, pierce and shield then the spear end would bend and be very difficult to pull out, rendering the shield useless. I believe the Roman's thought of that.

 

The RTW Celts was as realistic as CA wanted to make it. They were very liberal with their creation of units. You wouldnt believe the kind of fake units they went out of their way to enter in .

[Scaevola]

So the Gaesatae only went naked into that battle (the battle of Telamon) much to their detriment; skin being notoriously bad protection from thrown javelins. I've never been able to find examples of any group doing the naked fighting on a regular basis. Almost like they found out it was a bad idea the first time they did it. :fish:

 

Velites gear is covered here. (Thanks UNRV) As you can see, they used the hasta velitaris or light javelin...similar but lighter than the pilum. They weren't a seperate unit as each maniple had its own Velites. They just retired during close fighting behind the Princeps and Hastati. When Augustus reorganized the legions, they disappeared as a troop type completely.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

There were some reports of Hannibal's allied Gallic soldiers had some of them in them. Though i don't know how much truth there is in this.