Contributions Of Roman Warfare

[Aurelius]

AVE

 

I would like to inquire on everyone's opinions regarding the contribution of classical roman warfare (from 100 BC- 200 AD) to modern-day warfare (western, preferably). If anyone would be so kind as to provide solid evidence for these impacts/effects, i give you my thanks in advance.

 

PS im new here, so pardon me if this topic has been brought up in the past.

[caldrail]

Strictly speaking it doesn't because armies no longer fight in anything like the same manner. Some might say that roman organisation and training has descended to modern armies. It hasn't, because the roman model vanished with the romans. Organisation of armed forces has generally been abysmal ever since with some possible short-lived exceptions. Modern armies rediscovered organisation themselves during two world wars which forced a lot of nations to become far more professional about warfare. Warfare continues to evolve with increasing use of technology to protect and communicate, never mind blow your enemy to smithereens before you've even got to the battlefield. Roman influence on warfare is very limited, although it has to be said the Battle of Cannae in 216bc remains the most studied set-piece confrontation in military classrooms around the world. Erm... Thought the romans lost that one?

[Germanicus]

Virgil, care to comment on this ? I see many similarities between modern armies and Roman Legions, but don't know whether it's co-incidental as Caldrail suggests, or whether things like rank structures, logistics, military discipline and the like can be traced to a somewhat Roman origin.

 

One thing though - I would have thought Napoleans organisation excellent, and the British armed forces both land an Naval during the empire anything but disorganised. I'd imagine, although I have never studied it, that forces engaged against the British in the American Civil war were also well organised.

[caldrail]

Didn't the americans fight each other in their civil war?

 

Actually, organisation during the ACW was horrendous. They almost started from scratch and it drove at least one general absolutely stark raving nuts.

 

British organisation has never been wonderful until recent decades (some argue it still isn't but thats sour grapes) and you only need to read about the American War of Independence to see that.

 

Napoleon didn't do badly for his time but not perfect.

 

It just seems to me that the romans simply did what they did best - organise. Their military organisation did not survive. Did the Byzantines continue with or did they adopt different formations and tactics?

Edited March 19, 2006 by caldrail

[Pertinax]

Forum members have touched this area before, but I cant nail the thread as yet. There were several salient points in relation to Roman effectivness versus later and machine age armies.If I remember the gist was something like this:

 

1. killing potentallity was not surpassed until the introduction of the machine gun , Napoleonic and American CW battlefields did not surpass the lethality of combat with a pilum/gladius equipped unit.

As an aside body armour protection of a Roman standard would have been an especially useful item in reduction of fatalities even on a Napoleonic battlefield.

 

2. logistical/commisarat potential was unsurpassed until the early part of the Second World War-the construction of Hadrian's Wall (ref Fields-Osprey check the "materials/chronology section and this refers to the "modern" section of rebuilt wall I have posted in the Vindolanda gallery ) is still almost beyond many modern Engineer units.Some say Vietnam is the real tipping point.

 

3.Casevac was unsurpassed until the Korean War, and the return of formerly wounded trained men to combat fitness was a driving policy goal from Augustan times (at least).

 

These remarks relate to the Imperial era.

 

When I find the thread I will give the lethality/battlefield dispersal resource links.

 

http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/2004/04eby1.html

the marines have a useful item on battlefield dispersion: its a modern paper but its a neglected area in that the Roman battlefield was non-dispersed , the Gladius was everywhere therefore lethality was very high

Edited March 19, 2006 by Pertinax

[Virgil61]

Virgil, care to comment on this ? I see many similarities between modern armies and Roman Legions, but don't know whether it's co-incidental as Caldrail suggests, or whether things like rank structures, logistics, military discipline and the like can be traced to a somewhat Roman origin.

...

 

I think Caldrail's hit it squarely on the head. The Roman method of professional organization and emphasis on training at its high point vanished. I don't think they influenced later armies so much as they were the first to harnass the 'fundamentals' of organizational psychology, leadership and management as it pertains to warmaking (small groups training/fighting together to improve unit cohesion and loyalty, NCOs at the 'company' level allowing a certain flexibility complimented by organization, a professional army, incentives for success such as rank and loot, logistics, etc.)

 

At it's most fundamental army's are just gangs of men; he who can organize them to get the most efficient performance and apply their violence (keeping an eye on the variable of technology) where needed usually wins. The Romans at their height got it done better than anyone, but those principles were still valid and I think were 'rediscovered' later.

 

Them's high-faluting concepts when you're talking about groups of men who--when victorious--raped, pillaged and looted often sticking the heads of the defeated on sticks, but the point still stands.

Edited March 19, 2006 by Virgil61

[Germanicus]

Didn't the americans fight each other in their civil war?

 

Nice pick up Caldrail . yes.....yes they did.

 

The Romans at their height got it done better than anyone, but those principles were still valid and I think were 'rediscovered' later.

 

Makes sense. cheers

[Aurelius]

wow...thanks for all those replies..a lot of info, i would say..

 

I do seem to see 'parallels' between the roman legions and the modern-day armies. But as others have noted this is no direct influence from the legions. But could battlefield commanders since time immemorial not have learned about the factors that made rome's armies triumph and at the same time ultimately fail? Is there ever any mention of later 'western' generals using (say) Vegetius' manuals or the 'Strategikon' in planning their own strategy/tactics or in writing their military manuals?.

 

Nevertheless, thnaks for posting your own opnions on the matter.

[caldrail]

As far as I'm aware later western generals didn't refer to roman manuals when decided strategy. Most certainly had been educated with the classics - I don't think roman warfare was well understood until more sophisticated archaeology and historical interpretation in recent times.

[Ovidius]

I think these are the crucial contibutions of the Roman Warfare.

 

1. Emphasis on drill, uniformity of weapons, equipment, and training

2. Europe's first civil service

3. Roads and other infrastructure

4. The spread of the Roman Legal system to much Europe and some parts of Asia.

[caldrail]

I think these are the crucial contibutions of the Roman Warfare.

 

1. Emphasis on drill, uniformity of weapons, equipment, and training

2. Europe's first civil service

3. Roads and other infrastructure

4. The spread of the Roman Legal system to much Europe and some parts of Asia.

 

No I don't think so. Only the last has any real lasting significance. Roads almost went out of service as soon as the roman legions left. The roman civil service vanished and wasn't replaced for centuries. The emphasis on drill, weaponry, equipment, and training comes when an army (any army) is constantly in the field and must improve to gain the upper hand.

[Germanicus]

Roads almost went out of service as soon as the roman legions left.

 

What did you mean by "almost went out of service" ? Out of use ? No longer maintained ?

[Ovidius]

I think these are the crucial contibutions of the Roman Warfare.

 

1. Emphasis on drill, uniformity of weapons, equipment, and training

2. Europe's first civil service

3. Roads and other infrastructure

4. The spread of the Roman Legal system to much Europe and some parts of Asia.

 

No I don't think so. Only the last has any real lasting significance. Roads almost went out of service as soon as the roman legions left. The roman civil service vanished and wasn't replaced for centuries. The emphasis on drill, weaponry, equipment, and training comes when an army (any army) is constantly in the field and must improve to gain the upper hand.

 

 

Hey, but it gave us the idea, right? The Roman Roads in the East were maintained by the Byzantines, and they continued the Roman tradition of building roads and aqueducts, and other infrastructures of civilization. Other armies had the emphasis on drill, uniformity of weapons, equipment and training, but only Rome succeeded in doing it perfectly for 500 years, and the Byzantines until 1453.

[caldrail]

Careful.... I don't think Rome did it perfectly. They did very well indeed - can't argue there. They were perhaps more systematic than most cultures and in terms of military technique ahead of their time. In the field they were good, but they did lose a lot of battles, often through poor leadership. Roman invincibility appears to be a myth that has endured two thousand years. Caesar would be amused!

[Ovidius]

Ok, point taken. Thanks for correcting me.