Battlefield Tactics

[Guest supplecoder]

Does anyone know of a good resource for battlefield tactics? It would really help me.

[Primus Pilus]

He's not exactly the most riveting of ancient writers but it is ancient source material...

 

Vegetius - De Re Militari

[Virgil61]

Does anyone know of a good resource for battlefield tactics? It would really help me.

 

In case you're still wondering Googling "Roman Battlefield Tactics" brings up two very good sites:

 

Victori: The Roman Military - Strategy and Tactics

 

Roman Army Tactics

[Favonius Cornelius]

Rome Total War.

 

No seriously! It is one thing to read about it. To see it in action can really give you a feel for what it could have been like.

[Felix Marcellus]

Does anyone know of a good resource for battlefield tactics? It would really help me.

 

Are you looking for small unit tactics or what? Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his books on Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander talks a lot about tactics at least at the command level. The Alexander book starts out talking about several skilled captains throughout history before going into the Alexander portion. This guy uses all the ancient sources Livy, Vegetius, Quintus Curtius, Arrian etc. In addition, he travelled much of the ground Hannibal and Caesar tread. Through his journeys, seeing the terrain, he's able to confirm or discount what some of the sources tell us. Mostly he verifies distances and locations certain events took place. But when he talks about the battles, he well illustrates the command level tactics used by both sides. I don't recall him getting into details on formation usage, maneuvering individual formations, etc. But he does mention often his experience in the 19th century US infantry and how their formations worked and how he would imagine Roman, Carthaginian, Phalanx formations would've worked.

 

Very interesting. He's definitely my favorite historian of the 3 great captains.

 

Sidenote. I just returned from Egypt. Hated it. I highly don't recommend visiting it.

[Virgil61]

Are you looking for small unit tactics or what? Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his books on Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander talks a lot about tactics at least at the command level.

 

Very interesting. He's definitely my favorite historian of the 3 great captains.

 

Sidenote. I just returned from Egypt. Hated it. I highly don't recommend visiting it.

 

I've seen his books around for years but just never picked one up to read. Maybe I'll try the one on Caesar.

 

Agreed on Egypt, it's a pit. Bright Star?

[Felix Marcellus]

Are you looking for small unit tactics or what? Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his books on Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander talks a lot about tactics at least at the command level.

 

Very interesting. He's definitely my favorite historian of the 3 great captains.

 

Sidenote. I just returned from Egypt. Hated it. I highly don't recommend visiting it.

 

I've seen his books around for years but just never picked one up to read. Maybe I'll try the one on Caesar.

 

Agreed on Egypt, it's a pit. Bright Star?

 

 

Yes, Bright Star. For me, a 3 week deployment for a 3 day long computer driven scenario. For some lucky others, a 6 week deployment for a 3 day computer driven scenario. The good part was working with soldiers from other countries. But I'm definitely not scrambling to be a part of the next one.

 

Oh, and I'd definitely recommend if you're a fan of Hannibal or Alexander picking up those books as well. Especially the one on Alexander because the beginning of that book discusses several famous captains of antiquity. It basically kind of shows the progression of Military science from I think Cyrus the Great up to Alexander. Then it just concentrates on Alexander for the remainder of the book.

[ungoliant]

here are some other resources:

 

http://www.classicalhack.com/article/tactics/0040/1/

 

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_ro...tle_tactics.htm

 

http://www.oakengates.com/history/roman_army_tactics.htm

[Favonius Cornelius]

here are some other resources:

 

http://www.classicalhack.com/article/tactics/0040/1/

 

Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of table top wargaming, but I am not sure it would be the best resource for the actual thing...

[Onasander]

Frontinus and Heron of Byzantium are on the net. Any commentary of the Swedish king Gustavius would also have it. Emperor Maurice's Strategikon used to be on the net, but it got yanked. Picture of Leo VI Tactical Constitutions are also floating about, and if you know latin, for the time being, till I can afford a couple real good source books, Vegetius' fourth book is on the net in Latin. If your really desperate more, you can read the writtings of Julius Ceasar and Virtuvius' Architectual manuels.

 

Beyond this, it's Hypothetical stuff for me, like some guy I see quoted sometimes called Psuedo-Hygenius, mostly in leadership/logistic stuff, a few 9-10th century Byzantine AoW texts Dumbarton Oaks has translated but never publishes, and my mythical search for a couple of 6th Century German AoW book written in latin (I think) with really big names that I read about 6 years ago in a library three or four thousand miles away.

 

Ummmm, Oh... ya, there is also my namesake, just type in Onasander on the net.... if you can read Russian, their is a translation of it on the net (I know some of you can).

[Vespasion]

The tactics I beleive in the later period depended on the generals commanding the army;

 

however the early armies

firstly they sent in the Hastai; once these were tired

the Principles would chage in; after these were exhausted or dead

the Triari charged in.

 

Hopefly by this time the enemy would be routing or dead; however if this didn't happen i'm unsure how the Romans would adapt to this situation.

 

Thanks

[Nikephoros Phokas]

I highly recommend the following website:

 

http://members.tripod.com/S_van_Dorst/legio.html

 

Sander provides a lot of information on the Roman army and is a regular contributor to another website, Roman Army Talk. RAT has many historians and re-enactors among its members, who provide details on many subjects related to the Roman and Greek military forces.

[eggers]

tactics on the battlefield depends on alot, not just how many troops u have! Terrain is important, and believe it or not weather. Napolean, for example, lost the battle of waterloo, partly (remember i say PARTLY) because it rained. Beeecause, when he used his famous artillary to bombard the allies, the explosive cannon balls just slopped into the mud, exploded and did absolutely no damage at all because all the energy of the explosion was absorbed by the thick mud, while the allied cannon fired small balls much like a shotgun, up close and personal.

 

Terrain:

Terrain is a bitch, because it can desrupt formation, and/or slow units down. If u study the terrain on the battle of agincourt, u'll notice there is a slightly raised ridge leading up to the english postion on top of the hill. When the french tried storming up there, it effectively caused a bottle neck (because the french wanted to get as high as they could before charging) and if u ever been in a bottle neck in the middle of a people stampede u'll know that things get alittle tight. If someone falls over, everybody behind and around falls over too. Except in battle, no-one helps u up, and instead tramples u into the dirt. And not to mention one big mass of french troops falling over each other and trying to squeeze through a bottle neck is just asking to be shot to pieces by longbow men. That and that it was wet and alot of people drowned in puddles because they were constantly being trodden on. Charming.

 

Formation is important (and ablility to hold formation):

phalanx's (for example) are good from the front, but poor on sides and rear. They are good for pinning enemy troops in place, crap at killing. Ideally u need someone to go round the back of an enemy and hit them hard and fast from the back, like cavalry. Hammer and anvil study by alexander the great, nuh said.

 

Commication and damn fine leadership (obviously):

Like the battle of pydna between roman and macedonian (macedonians baaad leadership, romans good)

 

aaaaaaaand know the limits of ur army:

romans were heavy infantry. They knew they were heavy infantry, not gods. Sooo they weren't good archers, or cavalrymen. They guessed this and knew something was wrong, solution? find somebody who is a good cavalryman, or archer, which they did. They found mercenaries, like sarmatians, or used the skilled of conquered people who were famous with a required skill, like the numidians.

 

And other reasons too.

[Iuvius Maximus]

i agree. moving too many troops will de-mobilize your army. Alexander the Great used this tatic a lot , especially in the battle of gaugamela. Having a mobile army

terrain- can do serious damage if your troops are not in position. also the less you know the land the worse. the more is better. this can help when flanking a enemy. also with guerilla tatics , it is key to know the land better than your enemy. even without guerilla tatics

comunication is also a good thing to have and also formation which is kinda , formation also can weaken parts of the enemy's lines, so you can close in on them

[Jaden]

I was going to start a new thread to ask this question, but as it relates directly to the more broad concept of 'Battlefield tactics', I'll throw it into the mix here.

 

Does anyone have decent information on the role of artillery in Roman warfare? There is some limited information in the links given above, but my interest lies primarily in the use of artillery in Roman field armies (as deployed against other armies, rather than in siege). While there is much written about other battlefield tactics, there is precious little on this subject.

 

Of course, the very fact that Imperial Roman armies were provided with somewhere between 55-60 ballista, as well as something in the range of 10 onagers is a testament to their reliance on artillery. While the onagers were probably kept specifically for sieging purposes, the existence of carro-ballista, essentially ballista on wheels, reveals the probability of extensive deployment and effectiveness during pitched battle.

 

Critics of the Imperial Roman Army generally point to two major weaknesses; lack of an effective cavalry, and the inadequacy of their missile troops. From all I've seen of Roman artillery, it appears the latter point couldn't be further from the truth. After all, there's no way our efficient Roman troops would lug around sixty pieces of ordnance designed exclusively as anti-personal weapons if they weren't incredibly practical.

 

I would love to see some information on such artillery tactics though, which would provide some greater insight into all I've speculated about above.