Roman Military Strategies?

[Adelais Valerius]

They had a certain style of combat on the battlefield depending on technology, fashion, and availability. There were things that were desirable - a good position on the battlefield, keeping your cavalry on the wings to utilise their mobility and counter enemy outflanking moves, keeping infantry in groups to allow them to support each other etc. Thats all very well, but if the enemy does something you're not expecting they have the initiiative. Ancient warfare is sometimes expressed as a competition between equipment much like modern warfare can be. Not so. Whilst it does make a difference, in the ancient world a man with a sword is often as godd as any other, including your enemy. So what advantage can you find? Position, timing, ambush, ruse, feint - any sort of trick to lull the enemy into a bad situation. Remember Lake Trasimene, with Hannibal tying torches to cattle to make the romans think they were leaving?

 

Really? I hadn't read that! Any book suggestion?

[caldrail]

Pretty much all of the above.

[Maty]

... Hannibal tying torches to cattle to make the romans think they were leaving?

 

That was Casilinum wasn't it? River Volturnus rather than Lake Trasimeme, and against Fabius rather than Flaminius. Trasimene was also a dirty trick though, featuring guerillas, (and horses and spearmen) in the mist. I've always liked the opposite trick, of appearing to stay by tying corpses to sticks to look like sentries and having a few volunteers to keep campfires burning for the entire departed army. (I think both Spartacus and Sulla pulled this one, and were imitated by the writer of Beau Geste, who had evidently read his classics.)

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War" is also an excellent source. Just be aware that the author states mistakenly that the lorica segmentata armour of Roman legionaries started in the 30s C.E. This was before they discovered this type of armour in the Teutoburg Wald recently. That particular battle was fought in 9 C.E. therefore legionaries must have started wearing the l.s at least by that time.

[caldrail]

This was at the beginning of the usage of such armour and it may not have been widespread. For instance the 1st cohort or theextraordinarii may have been equipped with it, or perhaps only one legion of the three involved - we don't know. The origin of the lorica segmentatae may well have been during the civil wars in small numbers, or was the origin as display armour adopted for the field? There is no known date for the empire-wide adoption of such armour and I think it may have been part of Augustus's military reforms.

[Northern Neil]

There is no known date for the empire-wide adoption of such armour and I think it may have been part of Augustus's military reforms.

I believe that mail (Lorica Hamata) was in almost universal use until at least the Claudian period, and even in Flavian contexts it still turns up in large amounts. The Eastern legions never fully adopted Lorica Segmentata. As I am away from home and do not have my books handy, I cannot back this up with any references - I am pretty sure it was Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, though. As Caldrail says, it may have been adopted piecemeal at various times. Question is, was it better or more useful than mail? We assume so, but what if it was cheaper to produce, and actually less desirable? Maybe our re-enactor friends can give their opinions on this.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

What about Loricae Squamatae ?

 

From what I can remember it was a kind of scaled armour but was not very effective, it was quite restrictive and was especially vulnerable from upward thrusts.

 

In what era was this used? And for how long? I suspect the answer to the last question will be not very.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Question is, was it better or more useful than mail? We assume so, but what if it was cheaper to produce, and actually less desirable? Maybe our re-enactor friends can give their opinions on this.

Surprisingly enough, it had the advantage of being lighter - always an advantage in close combat. That's why I am surprised the eastern legions did not readily adopt it, considering the hot climes in which they had to march and fight.

[Northern Neil]

Question is, was it better or more useful than mail? We assume so, but what if it was cheaper to produce, and actually less desirable? Maybe our re-enactor friends can give their opinions on this.

Surprisingly enough, it had the advantage of being lighter - always an advantage in close combat. That's why I am surprised the eastern legions did not readily adopt it, considering the hot climes in which they had to march and fight.

Maybe it was a matter of supply? Eastern armourers probably made what they traditionally made, whereas armourers closer to Rome were more amenable to new techniques. Regarding Lorica Squamata, I believe it became more commonoplace during the later empire for two reasons: its cheapness of manufacture, and effectiveness against slashing attacks of barbarian longswords.

[caldrail]

What is often forgotten by people these days is that Mobility/Protection/Firepower equation isn't just true today, its always been true. There was a class of fighters known as Crupellarii ("crustaceans") who wore extremely heavy armour during the late republic/principate. Some rebel gladiators so equipped were cornered and the legionaries fighting them could not penetrate their protection with the gladius. Ok... So they knocked them over - the gladiators could not easily get to their feet - and hacked open their armour with pickaxes. The Cataphractii/Clibanarii (Heavy cavalry) are often thought of in the same way as the medieval knight, but no. Their horses were small - the same size as the usual light cavalry of the day - and the cataphracts wouldn't usually gallop for fear of wearing out their mounts too quickly under the weight of armour and so forth.

 

The heavier the armour, the more tiring it is to wear. So if you don't actually need that level of protection, then the typical soldier will simply drop what he thinks he can get away with by the roadside - its less tiring on the march. On the other hand, if your enemy has better protection, then the average soldier wants more offensive capability. He chooses a heavier longer weapon. If your enemy is weighed down with heavy gear, then stay mobile. Make sure the enemy can't come into contact on his terms -something he parthians/persians understood well.

 

If equipment is chosen or changed, there's a reason. Warfare is a serious business and soldiers like advatages - they also hate dragging stuff they don't need.

Edited March 30, 2008 by caldrail

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Question is, was it better or more useful than mail? We assume so, but what if it was cheaper to produce, and actually less desirable? Maybe our re-enactor friends can give their opinions on this.

Surprisingly enough, it had the advantage of being lighter - always an advantage in close combat. That's why I am surprised the eastern legions did not readily adopt it, considering the hot climes in which they had to march and fight.

Maybe it was a matter of supply? Eastern armourers probably made what they traditionally made, whereas armourers closer to Rome were more amenable to new techniques. Regarding Lorica Squamata, I believe it became more commonoplace during the later empire for two reasons: its cheapness of manufacture, and effectiveness against slashing attacks of barbarian longswords.

Probably. That last point is of interest. It indicates that Barbarians who fought the Romans of the early empire period and before typically used thrusting rather than slashing movements with their swords. From Caesars Commentaries it would seem they actually preferred spears but I am guessing that when they did use swords it was more in a thrusting role. I cannot remember where I read this but apparently the reason was because the carbonizing process that converts iron into steel was not very prevalent among Northern European tribes, hence a slashing attack with an iron longsword would have seriously dented or bent the weapon. Until the advent of steel a thrusting movement in combat would have made more sense. Again I cannot remember the source for this but if anyone has information to the contrary I would welcome it.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[caldrail]

From Caesars Commentaries it would seem they actually preferred spears but I am guessing that when they did use swords it was more in a thrusting role.

Disagree completely. Barbarian swords were invariably longer than the gladius which indicates slashing attacks, a form of attack that fits in well with the warrior mindset, given many of these barbarian tribes had a culture of individual ferocity which in itself doesn't make much room for disciplined thrusting.

 

Let me quantify that. A thrusting attack is aimed. It requires a cool head and some technique. You see this in fencing and after the legions were very keen to make their men practice until perfect. The loss of this discipline was one reason for the adoption of the cavalry spatha by rank and file soldiers in the 3rd century AD. That doesn't mean the barbarians couldn't thrust with their swords (obviously it was possible given the sharp point) but holding a sword out ahead of you requires you lift the weight of the blade - its not a featherweight - and since the barbarian sword is longer the moment of bending is stronger and therefore requires more muscle to keep the blade level than the shoter and more usable Gladius. Why else are barbarian swords thinner than a gladius? Its to save weight. The gladius can get away with being heavier (as short as it is) and also notice the very long point of the old gladius. This means the weight is balanced further back and therefore the sword is easier to thrust with. As we reach the principate, the gladius straigtens and the point atrophies, which indicates an increasing reliance on slashing as well as thrusting attacks, a point confirmed by roman commentators who metion that a legionary of the principate era swings his sword around as much as thrusts with it. As the pax imperia makes itself felt, fewer roman soldiers are actually involved in combat and in common with gladiatorial combat (a notable fashion influence due to its popularity) the gladius becomes shorter and used in a more florid style in common with arena practice. Gladiators are known to have been hired as swordplay trainers by the legions occcaisionally. Once the discipline and nerve of experienced soldiers is lost in the 3rd century, the fresh recruits decide that a gladius is a bit too up close and personal, adopting the spatha instead - which since it resembled a barbarian sword in format, it was familiar to poorly trained recruits of barbarian origin.

 

Further, the design of a barbarian sword is for slashing attacks. It doesn't generally have a curved blade so there's no slicing action, but the barbarians developed their swords for fighting amongst each other - not the romans - and since many of their cultures eschewed the use of armour a sharpened crowbar was all they needed. That said, the quality of barbarian swords ranges from crude mass produced stuff to some very fine examples of the swordsmiths work, depending on who made the sword and for whom it was made.

 

There's little subtlety in celtic warfare. These barbarians are all show, they shout, they gesture, they swing swords about aggressively to frighten their opponents. That doesn't mean they can't fight, nor does it mean that some of their men aren't capable sword fighters, but it does reflect their culture of status derived from personal courage.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Further, the design of a barbarian sword is for slashing attacks. It doesn't generally have a curved blade so there's no slicing action,

What is the difference between a slashing and a slicing attack in sword-fighting

[caldrail]

A curved blade that comes into contact with an enemies soft parts tends to present an edge against it as it the blow draws across him - it therefore cuts as long the blade is in contact and since the curve faciltates a swinging action, the blade itself doesn't present much resistance to completing the slice and so may well cut deeper.

 

A straight blade used the same way cannot present a cutting edge during the entire swing, since the the point will begin to 'lift' the edge away from the victim as it moves across. You could argue the point itself will cut - this is true - however its effectively a much smaller cutting edge that will not slice as effectively as a curved blade.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

That makes sense. It is also interesting that the curved blade seems to have become more prevalent later among Eastern warriors like the Saracens. Although I am sure it did not originate there (witness the Falcata), this type of weapon is now almost associated with armies of the Muslim empires while its use seems to have pretty much disappeared in Western Europe.