Roman Military Superiority

[Virgil61]

I suspect that a major problem is that there is virtually no evidence as to how the low level leadership operated. We can only assume it was akin to the 'middle ground' and/or 'leading by example. The evidence is overwhelmingly 'leading by example' but is hardly conclusive. Hence much of a junior leader section would be mere repetition.

 

Repetition isn

[Furius Venator]

I see what you are saying but I came away from the book with a strong sense of how the leadership operated at all levels. I don't think that the lack of a chapter devoted specifically to low level leadership is too much of a problem.

 

As to training, on reflection I think you're correct. A second appendix at the very least

[caldrail]

Neos Dionysos, yes, I agree. The phalanx really works best as a stationary force, for example as a defensive unit (that one is true even in the game Rome: Total War - the Phalanx units kick ass when defending, but I find them hard to attack with - they're so damn slow in Phalanx mode, which would be quite true in reality too, you simply can't maneuver such a tight formation with long spears quickly), especially in a restricted area where it cannot be flanked. There the extra reach and mutual coverage of the frontal area with the long spears really is a huge advantage. When attacking, the use of the long spear would often, of course depending on the situation and type of opposition, pretty much be better as a first-charge weapon, after which it is dropped and then a sword or such is used instead - kinda like with the pila of the Romans.

 

Pardon? The whole raison d'etre of a phalanx was to drive the enemy back. It was an offensive formation. You're quite correct though, the phalanx couldn't manoever easily, which is why it fell from favour.

 

As for defense, just wait for the enemy cavalry to get at you from the flanks or the rear. Ouch.

[Neos Dionysos]

Neos Dionysos, yes, I agree. The phalanx really works best as a stationary force, for example as a defensive unit (that one is true even in the game Rome: Total War - the Phalanx units kick ass when defending, but I find them hard to attack with - they're so damn slow in Phalanx mode, which would be quite true in reality too, you simply can't maneuver such a tight formation with long spears quickly), especially in a restricted area where it cannot be flanked. There the extra reach and mutual coverage of the frontal area with the long spears really is a huge advantage. When attacking, the use of the long spear would often, of course depending on the situation and type of opposition, pretty much be better as a first-charge weapon, after which it is dropped and then a sword or such is used instead - kinda like with the pila of the Romans.

 

Pardon? The whole raison d'etre of a phalanx was to drive the enemy back. It was an offensive formation. You're quite correct though, the phalanx couldn't manoever easily, which is why it fell from favour.

 

As for defense, just wait for the enemy cavalry to get at you from the flanks or the rear. Ouch.

 

 

Hoplite warfare was more or less a conflict of endurance and who made the first fatal impact. A Hoplit force marched into action and the last 100 or so yards they dashed, (this is shown and told to us by several accounts perhaps the best describing the battle of Marathon), the only way to defeat a phalanx when it was phalanx v phalanx was to either completly halt it's momentum and force them slowly backward, thus destoying the cohesion since the front is backstepping and the rear is trying to press forward, or to utterly break the formation by delivering that desicive first impact which was intended to cause your enemy to slow and stop and you to continue to press forward no matter at what pace.

 

Look at Alexander's use of the phalanx though, (which is different than hoplites to begin with by thier armanments and equipement), he uses it to engage an enemy but not to try off the enemy, instead to keep an enemy force pinned and engaged, his cavalry was the key element. In ever single of his major engagments, he ALWAYS makes the first move with his cavalry using it either as a diversionary force, (like he did at the Granicus), causing the enemy to concentrate on the flank or area they were being attacked so as to allow his phalanx to enter into the contest and attack now a dis-organized or jumbled foe. In other cases, he allows the enemy to come to the phalanx, (which is moving forward mind you since it is not a smart idea to just sit back and let them come to you unless you have high terrain favoring you), but using the phalanx to engage the main body of enemy infantry and allow his cavalry to maneveor about the battlefield playing that critical decisive move.

 

Later Hellenic armies tried to use the phalanx like a steam-roller, and in some cases, (like Philip V in 197bc, at Cynoscephalae), when the Macedonians had the high terrain as an advantage they were able to come down and steam roll the Romans, though this was only true for the left flank of the Romans, the right flank, having engaged a force of phalanx who were not in formation nor were ready for the battle were broken, dis-jointed and allowed the flexibitly of the Roman system to play the critical role in flanking and checking the enemy, thus allowing the victorious right flank to flank and assit the beuleargerd left flank.

 

You say as a defensive tool it is not possible, because of the flanks... the same is true as an offensive, but the reason why it is more of a defensive formation than an offensive is because of the flanks.

 

As a defensive formation, you can either use terrain or cavalry to defend the flanks. The enemy most either drive off your cavalry or light infantry to get to your flanks or they must break through the enemy center which is exactly what a general who has the phalanx would want you to do.

 

On the other hand if you use it offensively, you are moving them away from any terrain cover and now relying solely on your own cavalry or light infantry to defend those flanks, and should the enemy attack that cover and engage them, and your phalanx is still moving on forward you've just exposed your flanks for an enemy like the Romans to exploit with thier infantry, not needing thier cavalry to do anything. If they had remainded on the defensive, unless the flank support was driven off, a general engagement negates the posssibilty of a concentrated, organized assault on the flanks and so the phalanx can just stay put and allow the enemy to come to them or at the last minute make that dash and impact hard into the on coming enemey formation, still knowing the flanks are secure because of the engagement that thier cavalry and the enemies' is currently invovled in... or they have terrain to gaurd them and have no need to worry about anything.

[Jimbow]

There are two important choices missing:

 

1 - Virtus and Disciplina

 

2 - Competition amongst the ranks

 

I could suggest they were in fact the real reasons for the Roman Army's success, now I'm almost finished reading Soldiers and Ghosts, by J. E. Lendon.

[Virgil61]

There are two important choices missing:

 

1 - Virtus and Disciplina

 

2 - Competition amongst the ranks

 

I could suggest they were in fact the real reasons for the Roman Army's success, now I'm almost finished reading Soldiers and Ghosts, by J. E. Lendon.

 

I'll enjoy reading your opinion on Soldiers and Ghosts. I read it a few months ago and found it very well written but seriously flawed.

 

He's really enamored of Homeric influence on the actions of individual soldiers, which I found naive and lacking in an understanding of how groups of aggressive males operate in combat. Most non-Homeric influenced cultures compete and value individual bravery in combat and soldiers use it to gain distinction in the eyes of both leaders and peers. He really takes David Hanson's culture of war thesis to an extreme.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Virgil61

[Jimbow]

I see your point, but he does back up his statements with examples from the sources. Combine that with the type of education the aristocracy went through (alluding to the Republican tribune), and the martial nature of Roman society, I feel his arguments stand up. Ross Cowan also uses similar sources to support his similar view, and C. Gilliver pointed out the value of virtus in the Roman soldier's psyche elsewhere.

 

What I really like, and agree with, is the emphasis on how a Roman soldier behaved in battle, which goes against the "quiet disciplined ranks" traditionally thought of. His pointing out of how the more reckless elements in battle changed from tribunes to centurions and auxilia is also of great interest.

 

Also, how competitive spirit was a great motivator, more akin to athletes than "close friends". His point about how grave stele are usually erected by actual family members, or similar ranks or specialists who knew the soldier, is a good one and quite surprising. Interestingly, usually not his contuburnia mates.

 

Anyways, even if you don't agree with his views, as you say, it is a thoroughly well written book, and I feel a 'must read'.

[caldrail]

Roman soldiers were expected to remain quiet during battle and were trained for that. To be honest though, I think having a barbarian spear pushed into me is likely to make me scream in pain. And if I were standing next to the guy so pierced, then I would be tempted to shout for assistance. I'm sure they were too.

[Furius Venator]

They maintained silence in the advance (a technique common to many armies eg the Spartans and the C19th British) but would break the silence with a devastating (to enemy morale) shout upon engaging (just like the Spartans and British coincidentally)

[Guest mandragon]

although the organiztion and displine of the legions definatley played a roll in their unchecked conquest of the world the superiorty of their arms and armor definatley played the biggest role, fighting mostly lightly arm,ed and bronze armored foes the superior iron weapons and the tower sheild made the legion a nearly uncrackble force of death. not to metion the fact that considerable physical streth wopuldve been required to shove a bronze sword thourgh a iron breast plate whereas the iron gladius would pieerce the bronze like butter. not to metion their constant training or their irton displine. but the wepons made the differance because the greeks had at least equal disipline and determintion to defend their homland, all they really lacked was iron armaments. peace out everybody

[caldrail]

Don't forget morale. An essential ingredient to success. An army unwilling to fight will probably turn and run even with the best equipment.

[roman wargamer]

i maintain my vote to...

 

Pool of manpower on which to draw.

 

no tribe, monarch , nation or race ever recover from loss of a major battle ever recover again.

 

Rome is a confederation of officially 35 tribe which to draw pool of manpower for

the Roman military superiority and survivibility.

 

the decline of Rome was more of the disintegration of the Patrician and senate clan line,

 

which was in the beginning the ones who provide the military manpower and logistics.