Sander van Dorst.

[caldrail]

Thats true of warfare in general. However not all roman enemies broke so easily, and its easy to get swept away with the romance of roman military superiority when all too often they had no great advantage. Hannibal proved that.

Yes, and it's true of the Romans. The Roman generals were not up to Hannibal's challenge and were caught in a trap. The lack of discipline and the failure to hold their lines uniformly allowed Hannibal to envelop them and slaughter them wholesale. Had they held their center lines...

Wrong. It was discipline - the adherence to orders and formation against the normal roman practice of turning to face enemy threat, that allowed Hannibals plan to work. The flip side of strong discipline is a lack of initiative for fear of punishment, and its very true the roman soldier was more afraid of his commanders than his enemy.

 

Exactly, lack operational control which can easily be understood as a lack of discipline in their lines meant that their tactical advantages were rendered null. The gladius and scutum... even those of the Republican legions... were designed for close, tight and disciplined combat. This shouldn't be surprising considering that every military historian of merit subscribes to the basic concept of Roman military formation, structure and discipline.

Thats the standard line handed down from victorian military antiquarians, who equated what the romans did with their own practises. Roman officers had to work hard to ensure their men stayed in line - Caesar says that. There are some interesting aspects to roman organisation that aren't generally appreciated - I've just posted a thread on the subject - and clearly they worked on the principle of utility rather than strict order of command.

 

So are you suggesting that inadequate leadership has no effect on discipline or only that the Romans were always an unruly, undisciplined mob but that effective leaders simply outgeneraled their enemies every time?

No, I'm not, I'm pointing out that whilst the romans did have strong discipline, it was a two-edged sword. The armies of the 1st century AD were more disciplined than those of the republic yet this was after the major conquests and perhaps the Varian Disaster is just a blip? No, it was poor leadership. Varus was led by the nose into an ambush, the worst scenario for the disciplined roman troops who could not react fluidly - how could they? - they had no pyramid command structure.

 

Again, I'm not saying that Roman discipline was singly responsible for the dominance of Rome across Europe, but only that is was a major difference between them and their enemies. However, I find what seems to be your complete dismissal of it puzzling.

It shouldn't be. Any army, even some rag-tag barbarian horde, requires a measure of discipline to stand there and fight together. That requires some leadership. Without Arminius, the germanians wouldn't have mounted that ambush, but engaged in local struggles as they did afterward. Aside from the bravado of warlike cultures, its their discipline that allows them to keep fighting toe to toe with roman legions. The roman discipline was strong and achieved the same end - just - and although it could be an advantage, it was not simply discipline that kept these men in line - it was an officer pushing them back from the rear. Thats not discipline is it? There's a very defined limit to how disciplined these men were. Hand to hand combat can be very wearing on the nerves and the romans were not immune to it even with all that training. The romans were good, but far from perfect.

[caldrail]

in question of officer that is commission? about the centurio.?

"Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum"

where do you get that information to support your statement, which reference or books?

for me it is wrong. to be a prefecti you must be a plebian or a young patrician.

 

When you answer my challenges, I'll answer yours. But in case you think I'm making it up, check some of the works by established experts like Peter Connolly, Adrian Goldsworthy, and others. I do. Its a little more revealing than some of those websites out there. Further, I also read a broader range of history than you do, so I get information about the roman legions you haven't come across. Further, I think about whats written and use what I know of human behaviour and military history as opposed to copying list of information. I'm a wargamer too, RW, have been for a long time. But pushing lead figures around a table to a set of rules teaches you very little.

[Primus Pilus]

Thats true of warfare in general. However not all roman enemies broke so easily, and its easy to get swept away with the romance of roman military superiority when all too often they had no great advantage. Hannibal proved that.

Yes, and it's true of the Romans. The Roman generals were not up to Hannibal's challenge and were caught in a trap. The lack of discipline and the failure to hold their lines uniformly allowed Hannibal to envelop them and slaughter them wholesale. Had they held their center lines...

Wrong. It was discipline - the adherence to orders and formation against the normal roman practice of turning to face enemy threat, that allowed Hannibals plan to work. The flip side of strong discipline is a lack of initiative for fear of punishment, and its very true the roman soldier was more afraid of his commanders than his enemy.

 

No, it's not wrong. If one reads the actual source material describing the battle, it really isn't that big of a mystery. Unquestionably Rome was inadequately led by Varro and Paulus, but the source material is laden with evidence of a lack of discipline.

 

Livy 22.44

The Roman camp was again disturbed by a mutinous soldiery and consuls at variance...

 

Livy 22.45

He (Hannibal) sent his Numidians, however, across the river to attack the parties who were getting water for the smaller camp. They had hardly gained the opposite bank when with their shouting and uproar they sent the crowd flying in wild disorder, and galloping on as far as the outpost in front of the rampart, they nearly reached the gates of the camp. It was looked upon as such an insult for a Roman camp to be actually terrorised by irregular auxiliaries that one thing, and one thing alone, held back the Romans from instantly crossing the river and forming their battle line...

 

Again 22.45

Varro, whose turn it now was, without any consultation with his colleague, exhibited the signal for battle and led his forces drawn up for action across the river.

 

22.47

At length after long and repeated efforts the Romans closed up their ranks, echeloned their front, and by the sheer weight of their deep column bore down the division of the enemy which was stationed in front of Hannibal's line, and was too thin and weak to resist the pressure. Without a moment's pause they followed up their broken and hastily retreating foe till they took to headlong flight. Cutting their way through the mass of fugitives, who offered no resistance, they penetrated as far as the Africans who were stationed on both wings, somewhat further back than the Gauls and Spaniards who had formed the advanced centre. As the latter fell back the whole front became level, and as they continued to give ground it became concave and crescent-shaped, the Africans at either end forming the horns. As the Romans rushed on incautiously between them, they were enfiladed by the two wings, which extended and closed round them in the rear. On this, the Romans, who had fought one battle to no purpose, left the Gauls and Spaniards, whose rear they had been slaughtering, and commenced a fresh struggle with the Africans. The contest was a very one-sided one, for not only were they hemmed in on all sides, but wearied with the previous fighting they were meeting fresh and vigorous opponents.

 

Perhaps most descriptive... Polybius 3.115

For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front, since the Celts were deployed in a thin line while they themselves had crowded up from the wings to the centre where the fighting was going on. For the centres and wings did not come into action simultaneously, but the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent and a long way in advance of their wings, the convex face of the crescent being turned towards the enemy. The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks.

 

While you would argue that it was both inadequate leadership and the lack of a chain of command (which I do not disagree with), I believe it is important to point out the lack of discipline by the center maniples that allowed the envelopment to take place. They thought they had achieved a rout, but in fact had not. Had they maintained their center lines rather than pursue the enemy as an undisciplined lot, they very likely would not have been enveloped... unless of course Hannibal found another way.

[caldrail]

No, it's not wrong. If one reads the actual source material describing the battle, it really isn't that big of a mystery. Unquestionably Rome was inadequately led by Varro and Paulus, but the source material is laden with evidence of a lack of discipline.

The deformation of roman lines is not a lack of discipline. Its the natural consequence of decreasing space in which to manoever and fight. All armies, however disciplined, react in this way. March an army into a defile and you get an unformed mass of men pushing at each other. Unfortunately for the romans, this caused chaos, because their style of command required cohorent blocks of men, and since lower ranks were for administrative duties without any role on the field, there was no local initiative.

 

The Roman camp was again disturbed by a mutinous soldiery and consuls at variance...

Well, just another day on the farm? Roman soldiers were often bolshy, which was one reason for the harsh discipline. Lets not forget what the roman soldier was. The romans wanted men to fight and kill for Rome - to stab a child to death if that was the order. He was from a poor background, a labourer, a hunter, a scumbag, more often that not a barbarian in roman kit. Sure, the romans had better training and discipline than other armies of their time, but they weren't robots. The actions of the romans might seem to us to have a lack of discipline, but step back, see a bigger picture. Are modern day troops any better? Yes in some ways, but the dehumanising side of strong discipline also makes men who are capable of terrible cruelty - as the media reveals with relish. And since that point has been made, notice how the presence of media on the front line has changed the behaviour of modern soldiers. Back then, a roman soldier was paid by a culture that tolerated and even enjoyed violence. That culture existed in a time when violence and cruelty was normal everywhere. Yet for all their organisation it still boiled down to a bunch of men with swords fighting another bunch of men with swords. Its a tough, gritty gritty, unpleasant business (though you will always find those that enjoy such a lifestyle) between two cultures not far removed from each others own technological level. We like to think the romans were civilised, more advanced, somehow better... But their legions were composed of the same people they fought more often that not, and discipline can break down very quickly once command loses its grip.

 

While you would argue that it was both inadequate leadership and the lack of a chain of command (which I do not disagree with), I believe it is important to point out the lack of discipline by the center maniples that allowed the envelopment to take place. They thought they had achieved a rout, but in fact had not. Had they maintained their center lines rather than pursue the enemy as an undisciplined lot, they very likely would not have been enveloped... unless of course Hannibal found another way

But it wasn't lack of discipline - it was standard roman practice. The romans didn't think beyond the immediate prize of a retreating carthaginian army, and since the control of infantry was broken down into local blocks without any sense of the general situation, they were acting to orders and S.O.P.'s. Had the romans shown a lack of discipline, would the sides of the army not turned to face a threat of carthaginian columns either side? Or failed to advance as one? Or failed to turn up in the first place?

[roman wargamer]

A note about Ferentarii - thats not a troop type, but a generic description used to cover troops used in a certain manner. Its the same concept as the Gregarii in gladiatorial combat. Not a specialist fighter, but a fighter used in a team whatever he was originally trained as.

thanks for Caldrail, he now knows what it mean even partially,

a year ago, he do not even heared or read of it.

 

Neither had you before you read that Vegetius website. Don't be so cheeky. You hadn't defined the ferentarii either. Sorry mate, I beat you to it

u lol... it simply mean a light armed infantry away from the main body of the legion.

 

when i mention it. you uncunningly accused me of inventing the word ferentarius.

i won't forget that day, when somebody corrected you, on it's meaning.

you blush!

[roman wargamer]

in question of officer that is commission? about the centurio.?

"Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum"where do you get that information to support your statement, which reference or books?

for me it is wrong. to be a prefecti you must be a plebian or a young patrician.

But in case you think I'm making it up,

you just presented a wrong idea! a centuriones becoming a prefecti

what more of a castrorum, one of the highest position for a prefectus.

 

a centuriones will become a centurio in the legio.

if you begin your carrer as hastatus centurio posterior...

even if you are promoted every year a one rank higher...it will take you a lifetime to become a primuspilus.

 

to be a centurio, you must be a member [or your ancestor family line] of the comitia centuriata,

a voting member and not just an assidui or propertied citizens.

 

if you can make an " illustrious career, as you say"

you could become a honorary member of the Romani equites or the first of the citizen of Rome.

that appointment alone to become equites will need the approval of senate censor.

 

and all you said...But in case you think I'm making it up...look for it yourselves.

 

i just presented my argument.

Edited May 22, 2008 by roman wargamer

[caldrail]

when i mention it. you uncunningly accused me of inventing the word ferentarius.

i won't forget that day, when somebody corrected you, on it's meaning.

you blush!

Blush? What on earth are talking about? No, I don't blush, I admit to an error. I always have. Thats why I log onto this site, so I can learn. Unfortunately, RW, your info-dumping is often not relevant to the thread and sometimes factually in error. Further, you miss the point sometimes when errors or details are pointed out to you. Further still, whilst you may well go to some effort in learning facts and figures, you clearly make no effort to understand it nor do you apply any thought to it - you simply repeat what you read regardless of its accuracy.

 

Firstly, if you're accused of making something up, then list the reference you got it from. Its easy. You still might be wrong - as sometimes happens to me - but at least you avoid the smell of bovine refuse.

 

Secondly, much of your earlier posts were 'workguesses'. If you want to guess, then stop portraying your info-dumping as authoritive. If I 'workguess', I say so, and leave it to the forum to add their opnion or correct my mistake. There is no shame in not knowing, but wilful ignorance is a crime.

 

Thirdly, did Richard I, Coeur De Lion, really carry a copy of Vegetius around with him? I seriiously doubt it. He was not a studious man, he was a born fighter. He loved combat. So much so that he went off on crusade so he could win glory in the holy lands and enjoy a good scrap. A bookworm he was not - and I don't recall any mention of his being able to read and write. The website may well be exaggerating there.

 

Fourthly, I said the centurion had authority akin to a 'tribal chief'. You leaped in with both feet and pointed out the original roman tribal structure, and in doing so completely missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't drawing any connection with roman cultural structure - I was showing that a centurion ran his century as a warband, as a barbarian style gathering. He didn't motivate his troops as we might do today, he imply flogged them if they didn't obey. There was no subtlety - roman discipline was thuggish and harsh by necessity.

 

Fifth - You cling to the victorian ideal of roman efficiency and smartness like its some sort of unassailable rock. That image of the roman legions is more than a hundred years old and reflects military thinking as it was then. Come on RW, we've moved on. Archaeology and history has become more sophisticated in the last quarter century and with it has the way we look at roman culture. The roman military was a great deal more basic than Vegetius infers.

 

Sixth - As smug as you like to be, you've had cause to blush more than I. In fact, you're trying to score points off me by sneering. I'm very sorry I've doubted your word RW, but you do make exceedingly good errors. The difference is that I admit it and move on. You either go silent, dump some irrelevant info to look clever, or attempt to grab the moral high ground. You're not the first to try that with me, and I've seen off people more knowledgable than you.

 

Seventh - You read what you want to, you extract the information that agrees with your thoughts, you do not apply any critical thought. For you roman history is a religion and anything that does not agree with that image of roman history you have up there in your head you discount. Thats not history at all. The evidence is out there, RW, but it doesn't fit your conclusion.

 

Eighth - Finally, I couldn't give a monkeys if you happen to know more than I about roman history. Great. Brilliant. Thats what this site is about, its discussing that subject, and asking questions is the first step to understanding. You I notice, never ask. You want the status of expert. But you're not prepared to earn it.

[roman wargamer]

Further, I also read a broader range of history than you do,

yes, i concede, you are better read than me. i do not possess the book you read.

so I get information about the roman legions you haven't come across.

that is why i am asking you, how could a centuriones can become prefecti.

that is a very simple question.

Further, I think about whats and use what I know of human behaviour and military history

you always beat on your expertise.

 

and you are the one who claim you are better than me, and not me around.

as you said you have a "broader range of history than "me.

[Northern Neil]

RW, Caldrail was pointing out that that the psychological mindset of a centurion was more akin to a tribal chief, not that he actually WAS a tribal chief. That a senior centurion could become a camp prefect is a matter of record. How they did it I do not know, I suppose they were called to the legates tent when the previous camp prefect died/retired and were offered the job. Or maybe they applied for it in writing, supplying references from their current employer and documents of good conduct, and then were subject to competetive interview.

 

I believe the Roman army you allude to is that of the pre - Marian republican army, hence references to Hastatii. I suspect Caldrail may have been, like myself, talking about the imperial legions.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

And further, a centurion doesn't need to be a member of the comitia centuriata, because he already is. The term centuriata refers to centuries, not centurions, and any citizen enrolled in the roman legions - as a member of a century - is eligible to take part in the assemblies. The assembly wasn't exactly democratic as it seems though, since the wealtheir members were given a disproportionate say in what was voted for and in any case voting was done on a block principle.

[Gaius Octavius]

And further, a centurion doesn't need to be a member of the comitia centuriata, because he already is. The term centuriata refers to centuries, not centurions, and any citizen enrolled in the roman legions - as a member of a century - is eligible to take part in the assemblies. The assembly wasn't exactly democratic as it seems though, since the wealtheir members were given a disproportionate say in what was voted for and in any case voting was done on a block principle.

 

Hopefully, you will also put this up the next time Roman "Democratic' institutions are mentioned.

[caldrail]

I wasn't quite correct though. It was possible for a soldier to be promoted to the centurionate from the ranks (if he displayed the necessary qualities and a vacancy existed), which may well mean he was not a citizen, and therefore ineligible to attend an assembly covened by the comitia centuriata.

[roman wargamer]

And further, a centurion doesn't need to be a member of the comitia centuriata,

Rome have a very define social status for men that will dictate his position in the legion.

a centurion is an officer that could command a centuriae.

to be a centurio, you must be a member [or your ancestor family line] of the comitia centuriata,

a voting member.

And further, a centurion doesn't need to be a member of the comitia centuriata,

because he already is.

which is really is... a member or not a member.

The term centuriata refers to centuries, not centurions,

comitia centuriata is the comitia that elect the counsul for the grant of military imperium.

and not all citizen can vote... only members of the comitia centuriata.

it is were the pool of officers for the centuriae are commission.

The term centuriata refers to centuries, not centurions,

when members of the comitia was commission as officers, they become centurions of the centuriae.

and any citizen enrolled in the roman legions - as a member of a century -

is eligible to take part in the assemblies.

not all citizen can vote, Caldrail.

how can a counsul take notice of a person who has no bearing on his election.

and any citizen enrolled in the roman legions - as a member of a century -

the legiones,

are recruited initially from land owning farmers, who are financially capable,

and in later times even from urban assidui or propertied citizens, who can arned themselves.

and any citizen enrolled in the roman legions - as a member of a century -

is eligible to take part in the assemblies.

and futher,local assemblies has no lex power compared to comitia centuriata.

[caldrail]

Rome have a very define social status for men that will dictate his position in the legion.

No, it limits his options. There were always rare exceptions and for instance one man rose from the ranks to become emperor. What happened to your dictated position there?

 

a centurion is an officer that could command a centuriae.

to be a centurio, you must be a member [or your ancestor family line] of the comitia centuriata,

a voting member.

That might true of equestrian men selected for direct entry into the centurionate. It certainly never applied to those promoted from the ranks.

 

comitia centuriata is the comitia that elect the counsul for the grant of military imperium.

and not all citizen can vote... only members of the comitia centuriata.

it is were the pool of officers for the centuriae are commission.

One of the duties of the comitia centuriata was to elect consuls, and because the centuriata was restricted to citizens, there were limits to the numbers eligible. In fact, although this voting assembly was originally intended to encompass those with a military record, I can\'t find any limitation on attendance other than citizenship. Also, the assembly was a civilian institution, not amilitary one, and had nothing to do with being a pool of officers. Thats purely fantasy RW.

 

when members of the comitia was commission as officers, they become centurions of the centuriae.

No, they become centurions of the legion, with command responsibility for a century.

 

not all citizen can vote, Caldrail. how can a counsul take notice of a person who has no bearing on his election.

Whether all citizens could vote is not the issue. There were three other voting assemblies anyway so I suspect they could vote, even if the issues voted on wer restricted. Any Consul who ignores citizens may well find himself unpopular and this will affect his career afterward.

 

the legiones,

are recruited initially from land owning farmers, who are financially capable,

and in later times even from urban assidui or propertied citizens, who can arned themselves.

So?

 

and futher,local assemblies has no lex power compared to comitia centuriata.

So?

 

Mr Gamer. The Comitia Centuriata was not a secret organisation, it was not an exclusive officers club, it was a voting assembly for men who had fought for Rome, who were therefore considered as worthy of that right.

Edited May 25, 2008 by caldrail

[roman wargamer]

firstly, changes of social status, to the membership in the centuriata and upward status,

needs to be confirmed by the senate censor, that is the lex or law.

you can not just claim it.

 

Rome was a federation of tribe, so comitia centuriata is the federal representation

of the people in the confederation government of Rome.

 

and a very few select men and a few number of people only can vote... that is Rome ancient democracy.

not the same with your democracy.

 

you must tell the name of assembly you are mentioning, so we can study it's purpose.

Edited May 27, 2008 by roman wargamer