The Disobedient Roman Soldier

[Mamlaz]

Ok, so war Collages can stop using it to teach from then, and start using you and your internet

Yes, because the numbers and the tied lines are utterly asinine.

In order for them to even assume such numbers they would need to locate burials from all major battles fought and then excavate the remains and analyze every single skeleton in order to make an assumption from what whichever percentage of them died from.

It is quite honestly the most "just pull it out of your ass" thing I have seen in a long time.

[Common Soldier]

Vegetius was informed about military matters some 500 years after the Marian Reforms. He cannot be considered a primary source of the Roman army when he was not present for so many iterations of it, and historians are openly dubious of the value of his writings. "... [Vegetius] was neither a historian nor a soldier: his work is a compilation carelessly constructed from material of all ages, a congeries of inconsistencies." - G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier, p.25.




If I have no sources, you have no bloody reading comprehension. I have cited Livy, I am backing up EricD who has just today cited Polybius and Ceasar, and who started this thread with a bibliography of more than a dozen sources. 'No sources', what bloody cheek.

Maybe if you actually did research insteas of parroting EricD you see how ignorant you are. Polybius specically said in his dezcription of the equipment of the Roman hastati troops they carried a sword

..."called a Spanish sword. This is excellent for thrusting, and both its edges cut effectively, as the blade is very strong and firm." http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/histo...lybius5.htmlte

Dionysius of Halicarnassus also describes the Roman sword being used as thrust. I have previous posted the link to Dionysius. It is clear.from ancient sources, of which their are more, that the Roman swords used their swords actively for thrusting as well.as cutting.

In your zeal to show that the gladius was only used for cutting, you ans EricD have undermined the.argument that the sword was not a primary weapon of the Romans, since your own sources imply otherwise.

Yes, we have accounts, and these accounts are famous because they were exceptional. We remember banzai charges because they were shocking and unusual, while your other accounts are spurious to the discussion at hand; it's one thing to talk about people pressing on in the face of a great storm of missiles, but remember that this tangent spawned from discussing what the actual moment-to-moment progression of melee combat looks like; that is, EricD attests, and I agree, that it was not, in the main, a matter of "men smashing into pike formations and impaling themselves on said pikes like utter maniacs."

While we have real facts showing that you are wrong, yonhaven't provided any real facts aupporting your claim. Romans were trained and disciplined, knowing they could be executed if they failed their duty. They are not going to behave like some rioters ornraw recruits. Yes, sometimes Roman soldiers did behave cowardly, they were human, but such behavior was the exception, and was severely punished. The cowardly behaviour you describe was the excetion, which is why ancient writers noted it and the punishment. You are as wrong here as you were on thr gladius not being used for thrusting.

You asserted that we are better informed about late medieval battles than modern riots, and you did so right here:
We have video footage of modern riots, we do not have footage of medieval battles.

I should have made clear that we are better informed about early modern battles than ancient battles, my mistake in not making battles that clear. But I have made it repeatedl clear that riots are not battles, and what happens in them is not representative of the way ancient battles were fought in a number of key and important areas. Videos of modern riots have about as much relevance to ancient battles as a video of WW2 air combat.

[Imrix]

Maybe if you actually did research insteas of parroting EricD you see how ignorant you are. Polybius specically said in his dezcription of the equipment of the Roman hastati troops they carried a sword



Dionysius of Halicarnassus also describes the Roman sword being used as thrust. I have previous posted the link to Dionysius. It is clear.from ancient sources, of which their are more, that the Roman swords used their swords actively for thrusting as well.as cutting.

In your zeal to show that the gladius was only used for cutting, you ans EricD have undermined the.argument that the sword was not a primary weapon of the Romans, since your own sources imply otherwise.

Right, except 'the gladius was only used for cutting' is not something I have ever said, so your lack of reading comprehension is letting you down again. In my very first post on this tangent I said outright that it could be used for stabbing, only that 'nobody ever raved about how it did so'. In my second post on the tangent I explicitly addressed the distinction between the gladius being only used for one thing, and the gladius being for one thing over others, and where this is relevant to the wider discussion;

I'll grant that much, but there is a profound difference between 'the gladius could stab' and 'the gladius was used for stabbing'. One suggests capability, the other suggests purpose. The gladius' purpose was to hack people apart. That suggests that Romans fought in loose order, so that they had room to properly employ their decisive secondary weapon.

While we have real facts showing that you are wrong, yonhaven't provided any real facts aupporting your claim. Romans were trained and disciplined, knowing they could be executed if they failed their duty. They are not going to behave like some rioters ornraw recruits. Yes, sometimes Roman soldiers did behave cowardly, they were human, but such behavior was the exception, and was severely punished. The cowardly behaviour you describe was the excetion, which is why ancient writers noted it and the punishment. You are as wrong here as you were on thr gladius not being used for thrusting.

I already linked back to EricD's opening thesis, which provides 3,700 words of diligently-sourced facts on the nature of Roman training. You can lambast me all you like for 'parroting EricD' but the guy is providing a dozen sources, frequent quotes, and arguing interpretations of other people's quotes. That is real facts, and I find it quite sufficient to draw on them.

[EricD]

Yes, but that is a silly argument and weightless for the claim you are making.

For an entire army to depend on that for its style of combat is utterly ludicrous.

And yet the sources repeatedly indicate that missiles were exchanged throughout battle, and that the Romans took steps to prevent their missiles from being thrown back at them. All this indicates that it was very common for two forces to throw missiles back and forth for some time. Do you have any actual argument besides "Nuh uh"?

No, it absolutely is not up for debate, we have a mountain of primary sources describing such impact and slaughter.

Hand to hand combat is absolutely a horrific and lethal environment, in which if both sides stand resolute and strike at each other within range many people will be swiftly wounded or killed. But they can only strike effectively if they are remaining on their feet, well grounded and balanced. In other words, a charge against a force which does not run must end with the charging force slowing doing and beginning to fight rather than continuing to run forward. A physical impact, body to body, is suicidal and a very good way to get yourself killed by knocking yourself off balance. It may have happened at times, but it could not have been a desirable way to fight, and I don't believe experienced soldiers would do it very much.

That is because they are modern people with absolutely no concept of pre-gunpowder war and the romantic brutality of pre-modern life.

The same people as you argue that horses could not charge static formations of people because their own modern sheltered horsies cannot, thus the utterly brutalized violent horsemonsters of old that were bred and raised for violence apparently could not either.

This is completely unsubstantial. Pre-modern people were not supermen, they were human beings just like you and me. Their culture may have been more violent than our own in many ways, but these notions about "romantic brutality" turning them into bloodthirsty maniacs with no regard for their own self-preservation belongs in a Conan the Barbarian story, not in a historical discussion. Similarly with these notions of "violent horsemonsters of old". This is nostalgic silliness, idealizing a lost golden age which never really existed. It's not a historical argument, and it is ignorant of human instincts. A soldier may choose to overcome his fear and fight on regardless, but even so they will, in the main, always seek to preserve their safety wherever practicable.

Dueling is not battle.

Fiore dei Liberi fought both duels and battles, with sharp weapons, and made that his life's vocation. His experience is valid.

In violence enticed groups they don't.

Rioters, intent on causing grievous bodily harm to the police, and completely untrained to mass violence, are very cognizant of their own safety. In fact I would argue that the rioters are a very valuable point of comparison because they are untrained, because they demonstrate for us the untrained instincts of a human being in a massed violent situation. What do we see? They don't rush in heedless against the police. They inch their way forward, make a few strikes, fall back. When a resolute group of riot police charge as a group, the rioters turn and flee without waiting for any contact. That is the instinct for self-preservation in action. In a real battle, with actual life on the line, these instincts would be even stronger, not weaker.

You mean a dude who lived a century after melee combat for infantry became a secondary thought?

Ardant du Picq was a real soldier, who saw actual battle, and interpreted ancient sources via his own lived experience. He was captured in action storming an enemy bastion at the Siege of Sebastopol. He, frankly, knows more than you or I do about these matters.

...sigh

So do you have an argument, besides "nuh uh"? Because I am showing you video proof of human behaviour in massed violence. You seem to want to disregard the facts because they don't agree with your romanticized notions about the past.

"and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at that kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes in the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.’ - Blaise de Monluc


"and all of a sudden rushed in among them and several Ensigns a good many of us at least, for as well on their side as ours all the first ranks, either with push of pikes or the shock at the encounter, were overturned, neither is it possible among foot to see greater fury. The second rank and the third were the cause of our victory, for the last so pushed them on that they fell in upon the heels of one another, and as ours pressed in the enemy was still driven back" - - Blaise de Monluc



"with their pikes bent against their enemies, may altogether give a great blow and thrust to the repulse of horsemen or footmen than if they were of divers lengths like pipe organs" - Sir John Smythe

"When Battells commeth to push of pike, commanders say, that your pikemen must not push just by advancing and retiring their arm as commonly is done; but onely go jointly on together in a rout without moving their arms" - Sir Thomas Kellie

"if the cheeks or sides of the pike are not armed with thin plates of iron four foot deep are very apt to be broken off near the heads, if the push be vigourous and the resistance considerable" - Lord Orrery

"At such times they push and warde, with the one hand bearing their pike, with the other hand travisinge of ground, quickness of foote and hand ys much advisable" - Henry Barrett


Here they smash into the enemy in such a fast manner that their pikes run through or past the first ranks so they have to drop the pikes and draw swords and daggers how close they end up;

"after they have given their first thrust with their pikes and being come to join with their enemies front to front and face to face, and therefore the use and execution of the pikes of the foremost ranks being past, they must presently betake themselves to the use of their swords and daggers …the nearness and press being so great." - Sir John Smythe

Here's a thing that JE Lendon remarked upon in his paper The Rhetoric of Combat: Battle descriptions are, by nature, highly artificial. They are an attempt to translate into words and images an experience of violence which is, by nature, chaotic. A person immersed in a battle, invariably, can only see what is within his narrow field of situational awareness. He doesn't have an eagle's eye view of the whole sweep of the field. His mind is pumping with adrenaline, he is fraught with fear, with exhilaration, a battle is an overwhelming sensory experience of sights and sounds and smells. Eyewitness sources, although of course very valuable, are not omnipotent, and they also rely upon the metaphors and linguistic structures of the given culture or language to try and communicate what is happening in a battle.

Your quotes talk about pushing, blows, thrusts, repulses, and you argue on the basis of these metaphors that the nature of pike combat was of the two forces physically slamming into each other, body to body, like unto a car crash. But these are metaphors, they are artificial structures of language which the authors are choosing to try and communicate what is happening in battle, which is itself a chaotic and confusing place. I can open up my copy of Normandy '44, a history of the Normandy campaign by James Holland, and find passages like these:

"He [Montgomery] would send forward his infantry and tanks, which would invariably get stuck against the dogged defense of the Germans. As the forward troops began to overreach themselves, so the German forces would rise up out of their foxholes and what cover they had and epxose themselves [To counterattack]. And at that point, the full weight of fire-power would be brought down upon them"

"Further to the west, the Americans were pressing forward to the ridge line just to the north-east of St. Lo"

"They had successfully crossed the River Elle, but the high ground eluded them and, with heavy casualties, there was nothing for it but to pause, dig in, and bring up reinforcements for another push"

"Operation CHARNWOOD, the attack on Caen, was yet again preceded by an immense battering ram of firepower"

"This time, however, Meyer decided to disobey and issued orders for his men to start pulling out"

As Lendon remarks in his paper: In a modern description of battle, where is the "push" when soldiers push forward? What are they "pulling" when they pull back? What is the "line" when armies fight dispersed across a landscape? Why is the force of artillery firepower described with physical metaphors like weight, or a battering ram when it is not, in fact, a physical weight? You can find similar metaphors in the eyewitness accounts of the Second World War as well, from the memoirs of Sydney Jary or Robert Woolcombe. But these are metaphors. They are comparing something hard to describe to something more familiar to the reader, to aide their understanding. This is as ancient as Homer, who did similarly when he describes Hector or Achilles or Agamemnon as a vaunting lion. We understand that Allied forces aren't literally pinned to the ground when fire pins them down. We understand that artillery is not, in fact, a battering ram. These are metaphors. So why would "push" or "press" or "thrust" in pre-modern descriptions not also be in some degree metaphorical?

The word Roman authors like Caesar and Livy used to describe a clash of infantry was impetus. What does Impetus mean in Latin? "Attack", essentially. To make an onset or to make a rapid motion towards something. We can try to mine this word for its physical aspects, I think it very likely that the attack of Roman legionaries, flinging their javelins and charging with swords, was a rushing and rapid movement. I just don't think that these charges ended with a smashing physical impact, most of the time.

So while eyewitnesses like Fiore, or Montluc, or any of them are invaluable data for the historian, we have to be mindful of the artificiality of battle metaphors. A push, a press, a pull, a shock, these may not be literal descriptions but metaphorical ones aided to help someone else understand or discuss something which is difficult to describe adequately. Indeed, "shock" I think is often a very misleading term, because "shock" in war is probably more accurately understood to be something which stuns or horrifies rather than a physical shock of impact. Here's some police horsemen making a shock attack to break up large crowd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8

Notice how the crowd parts and gives away of its own accord before the horses. No one wants to risk being trampled, so they scramble out of the way and open an empty space into which the horses move.

Let's take your first quote, from Montluc. He says, firstly, that his force should not fight at the length of the pike, because the Germans are better than his own men at this. Does that not indicate that it is indeed a common thing to fence at pike's length? Given that the Germans are, by Montluc's own words, specialists in that kind of fighting. Secondly he says to run headlong to penetrate into the midst of their enemies. If the Germans stand and await this and do not give way, how can you possibly penetrate into the midst of them? You can't, there are ranks of densely packed bodies in the way. Such a physical impact just shocks both formations into disarray, as we saw in the hoplite reenactor's experiments linked previously. However, if you charge resolutely at the enemy formation, and they see you coming in with braced pikes and perceive a murderous intent, they will not stand and receive that as an impact. They will probably scramble out of the way and open up their ranks in front of you, like those rioters giving way before the police horses. This means that you could, in fact, penetrate into the midst of them. This is forcing them back with the pike, but it's using the threat of the pike to create space for your own group to penetrate into, not using the pike to physically press people aside. And if people don't move aside, you don't plant your pike and try to physically push on them, nor do you come to them body to body and shove as in a rugby scrum, you stab them with the pike and then they fall dead. They know this, so their self-preservation instinct will motivate them to move out of the way.

Now if the enemy group doesn't fall back when you charge with the pike, what most likely happens is your own group slows down in order to actually fight with their weapons, and then you have the fighting at pike's length that Montluc describes as the German specialty. The alternative is both groups hurtle together, and their front ranks impale each other upon their pikes.

Now did groups of pikemen stay both mutually resolute and advance their pikes into one another? Yes. It happened. It was so horrific and mutually destructive that the Italians called it Bad War, and it was viewed as a uniquely terrible event in a battle. The battles of the Reislaufer and the Landsknechts were so horrific to people of their time was because, both groups being prideful and well trained and resolute, Bad War was the result. The fact that such misadventures do happen does mean that they were the norm for massed violence. These were exceptional occurrences, and remembered because they were exceptionally horrific. For that matter, pitched battles themselves are very much the minority of warfare in all of pre-modernity.

[Mamlaz]

And yet the sources repeatedly indicate that missiles were exchanged throughout battle

...yes?

So?

That does not tie what you are claiming at all.

and that the Romans took steps to prevent their missiles from being thrown back at them. All this indicates that it was very common for two forces to throw missiles back and forth for some time. Do you have any actual argument besides "Nuh uh"?

No, they did not take steps.

The fact that the shaft of the pilum makes it harder to extract is an accidental feature that was gained by designing the head to be wider than the shaft for penetrative capability.

This is completely unsubstantial. Pre-modern people were not supermen, they were human beings just like you and me.

I was not talking about supernatural ability, I was talking about the utter acceptance of death, misery and violence being the norm.

Hell, the average human at those times would have seen dozens of little children dying before maturity in his own extended family before he even came of age.

but these notions about "romantic brutality" turning them into bloodthirsty maniacs with no regard for their own self-preservation belongs in a Conan the Barbarian story, not in a historical discussion. Similarly with these notions of "violent horsemonsters of old". This is nostalgic silliness, idealizing a lost golden age which never really existed. It's not a historical argument, and it is ignorant of human instincts. A soldier may choose to overcome his fear and fight on regardless, but even so they will, in the main, always seek to preserve their safety wherever practicable.

No it is not.

Cynicism, rationality etc. for the average man is a very modern thing, up until recently, the vast, vast majority of people acted on emotion and romantic notions of life and existence.

That is why Gaius Crastinus shouts to Caesar what he shouts, that is why Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, strips of his armor and charges half naked into breserk like frenzy onto the frontline of the English, that is why the Rus warrior at Bartha shouts into the heavens after climbing a tree, as he draws cuts on himself with his sword so he bleeds upon his pursuing enemies and dies instead of being captured etc. etc.

Fiore dei Liberi fought both duels and battles, with sharp weapons, and made that his life's vocation. His experience is valid.

Your usage of him for your argument is not.

Ardant du Picq was a real soldier, who saw actual battle, and interpreted ancient sources via his own lived experience. He was captured in action storming an enemy bastion at the Siege of Sebastopol. He, frankly, knows more than you or I do about these matters.

I would argue that I know far more than he does about the battles before his century.

So do you have an argument, besides "nuh uh"? Because I am showing you video proof of human behaviour in massed violence. You seem to want to disregard the facts because they don't agree with your romanticized notions about the past.

I literally gave you primary sources, after using the sources you yourself provided against you ofc, while you gave a couple youtube videos and completely nonsensical tying of reenactors and rioters in order to prove a point as if you are selling mist.

Here's a thing that JE Lendon remarked upon in his paper The Rhetoric of Combat:

Your quotes talk about pushing, blows, thrusts, repulses, and you argue on the basis of these metaphors...

This is a waste of time.

I did not respond to most of your text because mid response I realized it is useless, you just continue to sell mist.

I provided you with primary sources followed by literal imagery of the things provided in said textual descriptions.

I hoped for an actual rebuttal, not weightless word sprawling.

The fact that you actually tried to sideline what I provided with such wordsalad pretty much ends this.

Godspeed with trying to find something of actual worth to bring to your argument aside from rioting plebs and ww2 nits.

[Common Soldier]

Right, except 'the gladius was only used for cutting' is not something I have ever said, so your lack of reading comprehension is letting you down again. In my very first post on this tangent I said outright that it could be used for stabbing, only that 'nobody ever raved about how it did so'. In my second post on the tangent I explicitly addressed the distinction between the gladius being only used for one thing, and the gladius being for one thing over others, and where this is relevant to the wider discussion;

Srop lying.. You.most certainly denied .the gladius was used for thrusting and now that I peovded primary.sources you are pretending t.say somerhing elae. Here are you own words from post #63

The gladius is emphatically not a stabbing sword, though. Srop parroting pop-history twaddle and look at the thing

You most.clearly denied ir was a stabbing sword,, there is no dsnying you said ir, and it you go back.a change yor words now everyone one will know.you as a liar. Polybius clearly shows you are fompletely wrong, that the gladius was a stabbing sword as well as a cutting sword. It did both cuttng and thrusting, which you emphatically denied. Nor does your attempt to revise what you said avoid making you still wrong. Polybius did rave about its stabbing ability, calling it an excellent tbruster. You and EricD are wrong, and the fact the gladius was an excellent thruster undermines a key point in his argument . If, I as I have shown, the gladius was used actively for thrusting, it undermines thr claim that thr Romans couldn't fight in formations because rhey couldn't use their swords that way. This is clearly wrong.

I already linked back to EricD's opening thesis, which provides 3,700 words of diligently-sourced facts on the nature of Roman training. You can lambast me all you like for 'parroting EricD' but the guy is providing a dozen sources, frequent quotes, and arguing interpretations of other people's quotes. That is real facts, and I find it quite sufficient to draw on them.

A million words of speculation is still specularion. His diligently sourced facts did not discovery how Polybius repeatedly described how the gladius was uses for thrusting. Polybius specifically mentioned how unlike the Gaul's swords which could only be used for cutting, Roman swords could be used thrusting as.well as cutting. Providing sources of amateur renacters conducting hoplite battle, not even a Roman renanctment is not very impressive ressearch, since hoplite warfare was considerable different from the wa a Roman legion fought. His comments on Roman training is just speculation, when you boil down everything there are very little facts backing up his opinion. But EricD is more than capable.of defending his own views, and is much better at it than you, being both more polite and honest.

[EricD]

No, they did not take steps.

The fact that the shaft of the pilum makes it harder to extract is an accidental feature that was gained by designing the head to be wider than the shaft for penetrative capability.

Literally in Polybius, it's been quoted before:

"The wooden shaft of the javelin measures about two cubits in length and is about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long hammered out to such a fine edge that it is necessarily bent by the first impact, and the enemy is unable to return it. If this were not so, the missile would be available for both sides. "

This is the javelin of the velites. The Romans are taking steps to ensure that their missiles can't be returned to them. As for missiles being collected from the battlefield, Livy accounts of it directly in his 10th book, describing a battle with the Gauls during the 3rd Samnite War:

"The Gauls were standing in close order covered by their shields, and a hand-to-hand fight seemed no easy matter, but the staff officers gave orders for the javelins which were lying on the ground between the two armies to be gathered up and hurled at the enemy's shield wall. Although most of them stuck in their shields and only a few penetrated their bodies, the closely massed ranks went down, most of them falling without having received a wound, just as though they had been struck by lightning. Such was the change that Fortune had brought about in the Roman left wing. "

Missiles were collected from the battlefield to be thrown again. The Romans tried to ensure that theirs couldn't be returned to them, because that was a real concern. There is even enough of a lull in battle for Romans to move forward of their groups and collect more missiles. A stand off, with exchanges of missiles, was thus most probably the "default state" of ancient battle.

I was not talking about supernatural ability, I was talking about the utter acceptance of death, misery and violence being the norm.

Hell, the average human at those times would have seen dozens of little children dying before maturity in his own extended family before he even came of age.

No it is not.

Cynicism, rationality etc. for the average man is a very modern thing, up until recently, the vast, vast majority of people acted on emotion and romantic notions of life and existence.

That is why Gaius Crastinus shouts to Caesar what he shouts, that is why Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, strips of his armor and charges half naked into breserk like frenzy onto the frontline of the English, that is why the Rus warrior at Bartha shouts into the heavens after climbing a tree, as he draws cuts on himself with his sword so he bleeds upon his pursuing enemies and dies instead of being captured etc. etc.

Yes, absolutely people acted on emotion and their culture's notions about life. That is why the Roman soldier exulted in the glory of single combat, that is why Roman soldiers were honoured and rewarded for fighting and winning such monomachia, that is why Marcus Claudius Marcellus charged to meet a Gallic king in single combat, and why Publius Cornelius Scipio was leading his cavalry in person at the Ticinus, and why Henry V and Edward IV fought their battles at the forefront.

But Marcellus is an exceptional man. So was Crastinus, so was Harald Hardrada. These heroes were real, but they were remembered and remarked upon because they were exceptional men, men of uncommon courage and valour. They are exemplars because they are not normal. What I am interested in here in what was normal in ancient and medieval battle. And although cultural ideals about heroism and courage were very real, and very powerful, I don't believe they overrode a normal person's instinct to preserve themselves. Your own quote of Montluc remarked upon the Germans holding their pikes at the ends and fighting or fencing with them at pike's length. They would not have fought in such a way if such a mode of fighting was not practicable for them in their context. The fact that Montluc must give his own side a recommendation to brace their pikes like the Swiss (Another exceptional force) and rush in indicates that such a mode of fighting was not what was normal, but had to be specifically arranged or taught.

I literally gave you primary sources, after using the sources you yourself provided against you ofc, while you gave a couple youtube videos and completely nonsensical tying of reenactors and rioters in order to prove a point as if you are selling mist.

This is a waste of time.

I did not respond to most of your text because mid response I realized it is useless, you just continue to sell mist.

I provided you with primary sources followed by literal imagery of the things provided in said textual descriptions.

I hoped for an actual rebuttal, not weightless word sprawling.

The fact that you actually tried to sideline what I provided with such wordsalad pretty much ends this.

Godspeed with trying to find something of actual worth to bring to your argument aside from rioting plebs and ww2 nits.

In the course of this thread, I have likewise given you quite extensive primary sources, from different ancient authors, in support of my model. Likewise, I have supported what I say with modern scholarship. I can further support what I say from observations from reenactment and from street riots, which are modern instances which give us some ideas of what massed violence looked like. I would trust a video of a street riot over a period painting, because at least I know that the video of the street riot is accurately representing what is happening, and there is no such guarantee with a painting or a drawing which may not have even been drawn by anyone who actually saw the combat. The fact that you call this "weightless word sprawling" indicates to me that you don't want to actually engage in a learning process, you just want what I am saying to go away.

War is horrific. It's not very romantic or glorious or cinematic, this is true. But I find it fascinating how armies found ways to overcome their very real fear of death and fight effectively anyways. I find it fascinating how humans, through the centuries, have been able to face this overwhelming fear and go on into battle anyways. The fact that this was not a matter of people heedlessly hurtling into each other does not change my appreciation and fascination for military history. I do not see why it should change anyone's views. The reality is almost always far more fascinating than the myth, to me anyways. What is so threatening about the idea that ancient soldiers indeed felt fear, and had to overcome it to fight? What is so threatening about thinking that there were lulls in battle as both sides needed to steel themselves for the next charge? It makes them human, that is no bad thing.

[Mamlaz]

Literally in Polybius, it's been quoted before:

Livy accounts of it directly in his 10th book, describing a battle with the Gauls during the 3rd Samnite War:

Firstly, as you said, that is for the velites and their javelins, not the legionaries and their pilum, on which I thought we were arguing on?

Secondly, I was not arguing that missiles were not re-thrown, I was stating that to argue that an army would base their fighting upon it seems bizarre.

The fact that Montluc must give his own side a recommendation to brace their pikes like the Swiss (Another exceptional force) and rush in indicates that such a mode of fighting was not what was normal, but had to be specifically arranged or taught.

Not normal for the French, who were not as much familiar with pike warfare by that time, but normal for the German and Swiss, as he literally states...

I may have overreacted above, but this was the reason why;

you are extrapolating your own wishful thinking from the sources I gave you even though they clearly state what I am stating.

How the hell can you re-read advice for men to brace their pikes and push into the fray as anything else but push pike is beyond me.

One literally states not to fence with the pike but march with it, holding it braced...and then your reply argues that they fenced with the pikes...

In the course of this thread, I have likewise given you quite extensive primary sources, from different ancient authors, in support of my model. Likewise, I have supported what I say with modern scholarship.

You have supported the prior discussions about your thoughts on how the Romans fought, but our discussion on direct impact violence between formation was separate from it.

I can further support what I say from observations from reenactment and from street riots.

No, those are nearly worthless compared to primary sources, especially riots which have absolutely nothing to do with warfare or battles.

It would be like comparing the herding of horses or cattle to cavalry charges.

I would trust a video of a street riot over a period painting because at least I know that the video of the street riot is accurately representing what is happening

...

and there is no such guarantee with a painting or a drawing which may not have even been drawn by anyone who actually saw the combat. The fact that you call this "weightless word sprawling" indicates to me that you don't want to actually engage in a learning process, you just want what I am saying to go away.

If you have many paintings showing the same damn thing then they do count.

I called it weightless word sprawling because that is what you did with the sources, those are literally descriptions of push pike word for word and you somehow in your mind tried to flower it up in some bizarre metaphor -esque follow through because you just cannot accept that people acted outside their instinct of fear and survival.

What is so threatening about the idea that ancient soldiers indeed felt fear, and had to overcome it to fight? What is so threatening about thinking that there were lulls in battle as both sides needed to steel themselves for the next charge? It makes them human, that is no bad thing.

I am not arguing against that, I am merely arguing that the fever of the drill, the formation and the group is how they overcame it.

[Imrix]

Srop lying.. You.most certainly denied .the gladius was used for thrusting and now that I peovded primary.sources you are pretending t.say somerhing elae. Here are you own words from post #63 You most.clearly denied ir was a stabbing sword,, there is no dsnying you said ir, and it you go back.a change yor words now everyone one will know.you as a liar. Polybius clearly shows you are fompletely wrong, that the gladius was a stabbing sword as well as a cutting sword. It did both cuttng and thrusting, which you emphatically denied. Nor does your attempt to revise what you said avoid making you still wrong. Polybius did rave about its stabbing ability, calling it an excellent tbruster. You and EricD are wrong, and the fact the gladius was an excellent thruster undermines a key point in his argument . If, I as I have shown, the gladius was used actively for thrusting, it undermines thr claim that thr Romans couldn't fight in formations because rhey couldn't use their swords that way. This is clearly wrong.

How actually dare you! No, I am not lying, and I take offense at the accusation when you by your own incompetence are reading into my statements an intent that was not there, and which I have, repeatedly, clearly demonstrated was not there.

Yes, I said that that gladius is not a stabbing sword. By which I mean, the gladius was not for stabbing, stabbing was not its primary purpose. How could I possibly mean that the gladius was never used for stabbing when I said outright in my first post on this tangent, "the gladius could deliver thrusting blows"? But as I have twice now explained, there is a distinction between what a weapon can do, and what a weapon is primarily meant to do. The gladius could stab. The gladius could bludgeon, even, with the pommel or the flat of the blade! But it was, in the main, a cutting weapon, and this can be seen in its broad-bladed, heavy design, and in historical accounts of the gruesome hacking wounds which it deals out.

A million words of speculation is still specularion. His diligently sourced facts did not discovery how Polybius repeatedly described how the gladius was uses for thrusting. Polybius specifically mentioned how unlike the Gaul's swords which could only be used for cutting, Roman swords could be used thrusting as.well as cutting. Providing sources of amateur renacters conducting hoplite battle, not even a Roman renanctment is not very impressive ressearch, since hoplite warfare was considerable different from the wa a Roman legion fought. His comments on Roman training is just speculation, when you boil down everything there are very little facts backing up his opinion. But EricD is more than capable.of defending his own views, and is much better at it than you, being both more polite and honest.

Oh pfuagh. I disagree strenuously with your assessment of how many facts there are backing this up, and I further disagree that amateur reenactors do not constitute useful research. These are people doing their level best to arm and armour themselves in period-accurate panoply, array themselves in period-accurate formations, and fight as period sources tell us these battles were fought. It is applied research, plain and simple, something that's a damn sight more liable to uncover how these conflicts actually transpired than any of our theory-mongering.

[EricD]

]Not normal for the French, who were not as much familiar with pike warfare by that time, but normal for the German and Swiss, as he literally states...

I may have overreacted above, but this was the reason why;

you are extrapolating your own wishful thinking from the sources I gave you even though they clearly state what I am stating.

How the hell can you re-read advice for men to brace their pikes and push into the fray as anything else but push pike is beyond me.

One literally states not to fence with the pike but march with it, holding it braced...and then your reply argues that they fenced with the pikes...

Right, he says don't fence with the pikes, because he views that as ineffective. But he wouldn't state that you shouldn't do that if that wasn't a thing that was being done! And it apparently works well enough for the Germans, because he says that they should not try to fight the Germans in that way, because they are better at it.

Secondly, what is the advantage of bracing your pikes and running in in such a way? When two forces do that to each other, as the Reislaufer and Landsknechts were known to do, it's just mutual impalement. The Swiss were so legendarily effective because most people, most of the time, will choose to get out of the way of a hundred braced pikes running at them wielded by screaming Swiss. They are so effective because they are so terrifying to face. Because of this terror, because of how shocking this mode of attack is. The tendency for people to get the hell out of the way of such a hedgehog of pikes running towards them is what allows for the pike block to penetrate the enemy's ranks, as Montluc describes. If the other group does not give way, then how could you penetrate their ranks? The fear effect of braced pikes allows for a group of pikemen to offensively break up enemy infantry, which they are described as doing throughout history from the Macedonian phalanxes down to the pike and shot era. The fact that at times two equally resolute forces, like the Reislaufer and the Landsknects, came together in Bad War doesn't mean that the overall norm for pike warfare was mutually suicidal collision. The normal result was probably the fencing at pike's length, as both sides would slow down, stop, and transition from forward movement to a balanced stance from which they could give and parry blows with their weapons.

You have supported the prior discussions about your thoughts on how the Romans fought, but our discussion on direct impact violence between formation was separate from it.

No, those are nearly worthless compared to primary sources, especially riots which have absolutely nothing to do with warfare or battles.

Frankly, battle in pre-modernity is something which hasn't been seen in our world for centuries. Modern warfare is far too different in nature or context to be used to understand ancient battle's mechanics, although we can still apply some of what we know of modern combat psychology to help us understand ancient battle. In modern war, even very brave and aggressive soldiers will still use cover and the ground to the best of their ability to keep themselves safe. Even the bravest risk-takers generally must have some good reason (Saving a comrade, say) to do the sorts of incredibly brave deeds which are awarded with the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honour, and how often are such heroes awarded these things posthumously? But as with Marcellus or Harald Hardrada, the men who win VCs are exceptional. The fact that a modern soldier takes cover and fights using the ground and concealment to keep himself as safe as practicable does not make him any less of a brave man, it just makes him sensible to the dangers around him. My argument, basically, is that ancient soldiers, for the most part, were mostly sensible to the dangers of close combat, and so most of the time would not hurtle themselves into each other bodily. Perhaps some times uncommonly brave men did, perhaps some times exceptional formations like the Swiss reislaufer would, but if the Swiss were so famous and so dangerous it was because they were rare and not the norm.

What was ancient or medieval battle, fundamentally? It was massed violence. It was large groups of humans, coming together as a massed group with intent to injure or kill each other with hand weapons, for a whole variety of reasons and motivations. So to find an appropriate analogy for such an occurrence, we need to find a modern context which replicates that to some extent. That is very hard to find. Modern war does not function in that way anymore, because modern weapons disperse the armies across the whole of a landscape. So we need to look at other contexts.

Combat sports like boxing, wrestling, or MMA give us some clues, because they are physically attempting to overcome each other by injuring the other, often to the point of unconsciousness in the case of boxing or MMA. There is genuine intent involved in combat sports, but they are only affairs of one against one.

Reenactment does, generally, use accurate reproduction armour and weapons and tries to recreate these battles as the sources indicate they were fought. You can consider them experimental archaeology. They're valuable, but it is true that they usually lack genuine intent.

Armoured combat sports, such as the Battle of the Nations, uses somewhat accurate armour and weapons, and has a lot more intent to injure than and intensity of violence than reenactment generally does. It has some aspects, such as the very small constrained arenas, which don't make it quite as useful, but still it's another data point. What do we see in a 150 vs 150 match at Battle of the Nations? In some parts of the field, they do come together and press on each other bodily (Again, a factor of how small the field is), but in much of the combat there is a distinctive no man's land between two lines which are separated at a stand off, while here and there aggressive individuals step in, take a swing, and then back off. Here and there brave individuals charge in and penetrate the enemy's lines and then, unless their friends immediately support them, they get beaten to a pulp.

So why do I say that street riots are a very relevant analogy for ancient battle? Firstly, they have genuine intent to injure involved. Not intent to kill, it is true, but both rioters and police are meaning to overcome the other by inflicting pain and injury. The physical violence at a riot can be very intense. Often the rioters arm themselves, and the riot police come with clubs and shields. Secondly, I would argue that the lack of training on the part of the rioters make them a valuable control group, because they demonstrate for us what the untrained, basic instincts of a group of human beings being violent are. They don't, generally, have lots of experience or training. Their actions and reactions are, mostly, a result of their basic instincts in this situation. Knowing what those basic instincts are lets us better understand how formations worked, because those instincts would still be there, and formations and armies would have to deal with them in various ways.

So while the street riot is not a perfect match, it's still a very valuable datapoint, along with various other ones (Reenactment, archaeology, primary sources, modern combat psychology, et cetera). None of our datapoints give us a complete picture in and of themselves, we have to use many different sources of data together to create an understanding of ancient battle. Ancient battle was complex and there's nothing in the world today which resembles it, so we have to find our data wherever possible. I think street riots are very

I called it weightless word sprawling because that is what you did with the sources, those are literally descriptions of push pike word for word and you somehow in your mind tried to flower it up in some bizarre metaphor -esque follow through because you just cannot accept that people acted outside their instinct of fear and survival.

Because a linguistic description of a battle is not a literal representation. It's not a photo or a video, it's another human being trying to describe what they saw or experienced for us, and they invariably use metaphors to do so. Whatever they saw is being filtered through whatever linguistic terms they choose to try and communicate it, and further filtered through your own understanding of those terms, and people in the 1500s lived in a very different culture than we do! Primary texts are invaluable, but we also need to be a bit mindful of these various points at which misunderstanding can occur.

Let us take, for example, some quotes from Polybius's account of the opening skirmishes before the Battle of Cynoscephalae, in book 18 of the Histories:

"Flamininus lay still encamped near the sanctuary of Thetis and, being in doubt as to where the enemy were, he pushed forward ten squadrons of horse and about a thousand light-armed infantry, sending them out with orders to go over the ground reconnoitring cautiously. In proceeding towards the pass over the hills they encountered the Macedonian covering force quite unexpectedly owing to the obscurity of the army. Both forces were thrown somewhat into disorder for a short time but soon began to take the offensive, sending to their respective commanders messengers to inform them of what had happened. When in the combat that ensued the Romans began to be overpowered and to suffer loss at the hands of the Macedonian covering force they sent to their camp begging for help, and Flamininus, calling upon Archedamus and Eupolemus the Aetolians and two of his military tribunes, sent them off with five hundred horse and two thousand foot. For the Romans, encouraged by the arrival of the reinforcements, fought with redoubled vigour, and the Macedonians, though defending themselves gallantly, were in their turn pressed hard, and upon being completely overmastered, fled to the summits and sent to the king for help.

[...]

Philip, who had never expected, for the reasons I have stated, that a general engagement would take place on that day, had even sent out a fair number of men from his camp to forage, and now when he heard of the turn affairs were taking from the messengers, and as the mist was beginning to clear, he called upon Heraclides of Gyrton, the commander of the Thessalian horse, and Leo, who was in command of the Macedonian horse, and dispatched them, together with all the mercenaries except those from Thrace, under the command of Athenagoras. Upon their joining the covering force the Macedonians, having received such a large reinforcement, pressed hard on the enemy and in their turn began to drive the Romans from their heights.

[...]

When the leading ranks reached the top of the pass, he [Philip] wheeled to the left, and occupied the summits above it; for, as the Macedonian advanced force had pressed the Romans for a considerable distance down the opposite side of the hills, he found these summits abandoned. While he was still deploying his force on the right his mercenaries appeared hotly pursued by the Romans. For when the heavy-armed Roman infantry had joined the light infantry, as I said, and gave them their support in the battle, they availed themselves of the additional weight thus thrown into the scale, and pressing heavily on the enemy killed many of them."

The metaphors Polybius deploys here are of weight and of pushing or pressing, but he's describing a preliminary skirmish of cavalry and light infantry. Are these forces literally engaged in a pushing match like a rugby scrum, such that the physical weight of more men is an important factor? Possibly. But given that this engagement before the main battle was a skirmish of light troops and cavalry, and involved multiple rounds of combats, retreats, and pursuits, and only engaged the Roman line infantry at the end, I would suggest it was likely a looser and more chaotic affair. So what is being pressed or pushed when these two mixed forces of cavalry and light infantry fight on the heights of Cynoscephalae? Of what significance is "weight"? It's a metaphor, to help the reader understand or visualize what's happening. "Weight thrown into the scale", to help you understand that the tide of battle was going back and forth like a scales does, and now one side is suddenly turning things in its own favour.

Everyone uses these metaphors, from Homer to modern military veterans writing their memoirs of campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's necessary to help make sense of the chaos of combat in language. So when an author in the 1500s refers to a "push of pike", well he might be referring to a literal push of body against body. He might also be referred to thrusting and stabbing with your pikes, pushing your pike into another person. He might also be referring to one force pushing the other back at pike point, which I think was a common result of less capable forces meeting a force like the Swiss. "Push of pike" can mean any number of things other than "pushing match a la rugby scrum". We have to pay attention to the context of these combats, as in the case of Polybius's account of Cynoscephalae, and try to create a model which is in line with what we understand of human nature, combat psychology, basic instincts, and physical realities of combat.

[Common Soldier]

How actually dare you! No, I am not lying, and I take offense at the accusation when you by your own incompetence are reading into my statements an intent that was not there, and which I have, repeatedly, clearly demonstrated was not there..

How dare you! You can take offense all you like, but I said was the trurh. You said "The gladius emphatically not a stabbing sword, though. Stop parroting.pop-history twaddle" .are your words in your.post #63. You are clearly saying the gladius was not a stabbing weapon, and in post 63 you blame rhe misconception on Vegetius. It is not my "incompetence" but your own failure, since you clearly stated in no uncerain terms the gladius is not a stabbing weapon. Well, you are clearly wrong. Polybius makes it clear the gladius.was a stabbing weapon, and numerous examples from ancient sources show the gladius was often used for.stabbing. The idea that the gladius was used for stabbing was bases on ancient historians of the time, not Vegetius nor pop history as you asserted. That it was also used for cutting, and cutting is one of its additional functions is what I have repeatedly said.

Yes, I said that that gladius is not a stabbing sword. By which I mean, the gladius was not for stabbing, stabbing was not its primary purpose.

What you claim you meant to say is not what you actually said, and.I deeply resent you calling me incompetent for resonding to what you actually wrote. And even your attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you dug doesn't work. You did not say "the gladius was primarily a cutting weapon, not a stabbing weapon", you said "emphatically was not a stabbing sword" , which means it wasn't used for stabbing, period. You were wrong. And the primary sources don't say it was primarily a cutting sword, nowhere do they say that. While Dionysius of Halicarnassus does mention thr sword cutting, he more freqently mentions it stabbing.

When comparing the swords of the Gauls to the Romans, Polybius said the longer Gaulic swords could only cut, while the Roman swords could thrust and cut. Nothing in what Polybius said implies cutting was a more important function, and his mentioning first the excellent thrusting ability of the Spanish sword could be taken to mean he thought its thrusting ability was more important.

How could I possibly mean that the gladius was not used for stabbing when I said outright that it could stab in my first post on this tangent?

Digger yourself deeper. You said in post #67 "...there is a profound difference between 'the gladius could stab' and 'the gladius was used for stabbing'. One suggest capability, the other purpose'. The gladius' purpose was to hack people apart." It is.clear from what you said.that the only intended use of the gladius was to cut, you did not say "the primary purpose was fo hack". It is clear from everything you said you thought the gladius was just a hacking weapon and that is wrong. The gladius purpose was to both hack AND stab, our ancient sources make that clear, but tha is not what you sais. I can stab with anything, with a pencil, but thst does not mean I use a pencil for.stabbing. You only changed your tune when I gave examples from ancient sources tonshow you were wrong. You could have written correctly, and qualified your statment with "primary", but you didn't. The failure was not mine, but yours to fail to say what you claim to have wanted to say. Its not my fault, I am not a mind.reader, all your words the gladius was not used for stabbing, you said it repeatedly.

The fact that the gladius was intended to be used for stabbing, and was actually used for stabning, undermines somewhat what you said in post #67, that the Romans fought in loose order in order to use their "secondary weapon" (i.e. sword). The Romans could use their secondary weapon in a tighter formation effectively, although if they did so they would nor be taking full advantage of the swords capability. But there could be other advantages in fighting in a tighter formation that offset not utilizing the swords full capability. Unlike what you implied, thd gladius could be effectively used in tighter formations.

.

But as I have twice now explained, there is a distinction between what a weapon can do, and what a weapon is primarily meant to do. The gladius could stab. The gladius could bludgeon, even, with the pommel or the flat of the blade!

But this where you continue to be wrong. Based on ancient sources and how they say it was actually used, it was intended to stab. Stabbing was one of the primary function of the.gladius as well.as cutting. Ancient sources like Polybius make it clear it was designed and used as a stabbing sword. It wasn't just an okay thruster, it was an "excellent" thruster, making you totally, absolutely wrong.

Your analogy to using thr gladius to blidgeon is invalid, since the gladius not intended to bludgeon with either thr pommel or blade. No ancient source said it was used that way or.thst it was used in combat that way, but ancient sources did say the gladius was used for stabbing in combat. Polybius never praised the gladius for its excellent clubbing ability.

But it was, in the main, a cutting weapon, and this can be seen in its broad-bladed, heavy design, and in historical accounts of the gruesome hacking wounds which it deals out.

Again, the ancient sources make it clear that you are wrong again. There is nothing in the ancient sources that said that cutting was regarded as more important than thrusting for the sword, and Polybius specifically emphasized the thrusting ability of the sword. Your example of Livy describing thr cutting feature of the sword.was only because that capability of the sword was unusual for the enemies experiencing it, they would have been familiar with thrusts due spears and javelins and no need to mention 85.

The gladius was intended to be used for thrusting and was used for thrusting. Contrary to your ignorancs, the gladius is an excellent stabbing sword, ancient sources like Polybius confirmed that and that it was actually used for thrusting. That thd gladius also had a purpose in cutting in addition to stabbing is also true, nobody said the gladius was a thrusting only.sword. you have repeatedly have said thr opposite, that the gladius was only for cutting, and that is incorrect.

Oh pfuagh. I disagree strenuously with your assessment of how many facts there are backing this up, and I further disagree that amateur reenactors do not constitute useful research. These are people doing their level best to arm and armour themselves in period-accurate panoply, array themselves in period-accurate formations, and fight as period sources tell us these battles were fought. It is applied research, plain and simple, something that's a damn sight more liable to uncover how these conflicts actually transpired than any of our theory-mongering.

While renanctors can provide some valuable insight, there are major poblems with using them as an example of how Roman legions fought.

1. First of all, the reenactors were Greek, not Roman ones. Greeks had different equipment and fought differently than Roman soldiers. There are Roman reenactors, so why not use one of them as an example? Unless the Roman reenactments did not support his argument?

2. Reenactors are primarily interested in not getting hurt, which will make them behave much more differently than real soldiers, who could be executed if they didn't fight well. Real soldiers had different motivations. 3. In thrn particular reenactment video, the fighting.looked amateurish, even though the equipment looked good. I was instantly reminded of Monty Python's reenactment of Peal Harbor by the womens group https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2wcfv9.

We have no idea of how accurately the fight was conducted compared to real ancient battles. I saw no evixence of any real orgsnization in the battle.

[Imrix]

How.dare you! You can take offense all you like, but I said was thr simple trurh. You said "The gladius emphatically not a stabbing sword, though. Stop parroting.pop-history twaddle" .are your words in your.post #63. You are clearly saying the gladius was not a stabbing weapon, and in post 63 you blame rhe misconception on Vegetius. It is not my "incompetence" but your own failure, since you clearly stated in no uncerain terms the gladius is not a stabbing weapon. Well, you are clearly wrong. Polybius makes it clear the gladius.was a stabbing weapon, and numerous examples from ancient sources show the gladius was often used for.stabbing. The idea that the gladius was used for stabbing was bases on ancient historians of the time, not Vegetius nor pop history as you asserted. You were completely wrong. Wha you claim you meant to say is not what you actually said, and.I deeply resent you calling me incompetent for resonding to what you actually wrote. And even your attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you dug doesn't work. You did not say "the gladius was primarily a cutting weapon, not a stabbing weapon", you said "emphatically was not a stabbing sword" , which means it wasn't used for stabbing, period. You were wrong. And the primary sources don't say it was primarily a cutting sword, nowhere do they say that. While Dionysius of Halicarnassus does mention thr sword cutting, he more freqently mentions it stabbing. And when comparing the swords of the Gauls to the Romans, Polybius said the longer Gaulic swords could only cut, while the Roman swords could thrust and cut. Nothing in what Polybius said implies cutting was a more important function, and his mentioning first the excellent thrusting ability of the Spanish sword could be taken to mean he thought its thrusting ability was more important. Digger yourself deeper. You said in post #67 "...there is a profound difference between 'the gladius could stab' and 'the gladius was used for stabbing'. One suggest capability, the other purpose'. The gladius' purpose was to hack people apart." It is.clear from what you said.that the only intended use of the gladius was to cut, you did not say "the primary purpose was fo hack". It is clear from everything you said you thought the gladius was just a hacking weapon and that is wrong. The gladius purpose was to both hack AND stab, our ancient sources make that clear, but tha is not what you sais. I can stab with anything, with a pencil, but thst does not mean I use a pencil for.stabbing. You only changed your tune when I gave examples from ancient sources tonshow you were wrong. You could have written correctly, and qualified your statment with "primary", but you didn't. The failure was not mine, but yours to fail t o.say what you claim to have wanted to say. Its not my fault, I am not a mind.reader, all your words the gladius was not used for stabbing, you said it repeatedly. The fact that the gladius was intended to be used for stabbing.and was actually used for stabning, undermines somewhat what you said in post #67, that the Romans fought in loose order in order to use their "secondary weapon" (i.e. sword). The Romans could use their secondary weapon in a tighter formation effectively, although if they did so they would nor be taking full advantage of the swords capability. But there could be other advantages in fighting in a tighter formation that offset not utilizing the swords full capability. Unlike what you implied, thd gladius could be effectively used in tighter formations. Again, you are quite wrong in what you said. The gladius was intended to be used for thrusting and was used for thrusting. Contrary to your ignorancs, the gladius is an excellent stabbing sword, ancient sources like Polybius confirmed that and that it was actually used for thrusting. That thd gladius also had a purpose in cutting in addition to stabbing is also true, nobody said the gladius was a thrusting only.sword. you have repeatedly have said thr opposite, that the gladius was only for cutting. Yoj only add the qualification "primary" only after you were shown to be wrong.

Again and again you assert the falsity that I said the gladius was not a stabbing sword, therefore I meant that it was only used for cutting, but that is not my meaning, only your interpretation of it - and bluntly put, an interpretation that speaks to your failure of reading comprehension. I plainly cannot have taken "the gladius was not a stabbing weapon" to mean "the gladius was never used to stab," when in the same. bloody. paragraph. where I first asserted that the gladius was not a stabbing sword, I also said "the gladius could deliver thrusting blows."

The gladius emphatically was not a stabbing sword, though. Stop parroting pop-history twaddle for a moment and look at the thing, it's a broad-bladed shortsword that has more in common with a falchion or a machete than any stabbing weapon. The idea that the gladius is a stabbing weapon is a mistake popularised by armchair nostalgia fantasists like Vegetius, and modern pop-cultural idealisation. The gladius won infamy as a gruesome cutting sword among the armies of Makedon and other Diadokhoi kingdoms, who were already deeply familiar with excellent cutting swords like the forward swept kopis. The gladius could deliver thrusting blows, but no one ever raved about how it did so.

When I say the gladius was a cutting sword, my meaning is that whatever else it could be used for, it was primarily meant to be used to cut. That is my meaning. That has always been my meaning. I will waste no further time on you.

[Common Soldier]

Frankly, battle in pre-modernity is something which hasn't been seen in our world for centuries. Modern warfare is far too different in nature or context to be used to understand ancient battle's mechanics, although we can still apply some of what we know of modern combat psychology to help us understand ancient battle. In modern war, even very brave and aggressive soldiers will still use cover and the ground to the best of their ability to keep themselves safe. Even the bravest risk-takers generally must have some good reason (Saving a comrade, say) to do the sorts of incredibly brave deeds which are awarded with the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honour, and how often are such heroes awarded these things

You ignore the examples of 18th and 19th century warfare. Ten's of thousandz of soldiers marched toward entrenched positions, facing muskets and cannons far deadlier than any ancient army ever faced, suffering horrific loses yet for the most part the armies did not break and run as you assert they would, but bravely followed orders despite the losses. Picketts's charge Gettysburg, assault at Cold Harbor, there are dozens of examples from the American Civil War alone, of thousands of men marching bravely forward while soldiers next to them are dropping like flies. That is a realiry you are ignoring. Are you.asserting mdn of the 18 and 19th century were much braver than ancient soldiers? Numerous examples from real history show peopme fighting the way you assert they would not. If 18th and 19th century could fight like that, then why not the Romans? Real history proclaims you wrong.


We have dozens of examples of thousands of men marching into danger across open fields, knowig full well the danger, yet doing it anyways.

My argument, basically, is that ancient soldiers, for the most part, were mostly sensible to the dangers of close combat, and so most of the time would not hurtle themselves into each other bodily

Soldiers in the American Civil War were well aware of the dangers, yet routinely marched into great danger so they could engage in close combat with the enemy. ACW soldiers routinely hurtled themselves into each other upon orders from their commanders. It was not rare occurences , so if 19th century soldiers did it, there is no good reason to think ancient Romans didn't either.

What was ancient or medieval battle, fundamentally? It was massed violence. It was large groups of humans, coming together as a massed group with intent to injure or kill each other with hand weapons, for a whole variety of reasons and motivations. So to find an appropriate analogy for such an occurrence, we need to find a modern context which replicates that to some extent. That is very hard to find.

We can easily find analogies to ancient battles in 19th century battles up until the later parr of the century. Soldiers still fought battles marching in formation as they did in ancient times. And we are fairly well informed about 19th century battles.

Combat sports like boxing, wrestling, or MMA give us some clues, because they are physically attempting to overcome each other by injuring the other, often to the point of unconsciousness in the case of boxing or MMA. There is genuine intent involved in combat sports, but they are only affairs of one against one.

And these combat sports operate under rules, which real combat did not have. And since they are individual fights, they don't represenr actual battles as you point out.

Reenactment does, generally, use accurate reproduction armour and weapons and tries to recreate these battles as the sources indicate they were fought. You can consider them experimental archaeology. They're valuable, but it is true that they usually lack genuine intent. Armoured combat sports, such as the Battle of the Nations, uses somewhat accurate armour and weapons, and has a lot more intent to injure than and intensity of violence than reenactment generally does. It has some aspects, such as the very small constrained arenas, which don't make it quite as useful, but still it's another data point. What do we see in a 150 vs 150 match at Battle of the Nations? In some parts of the field, they do come together and press on each other bodily (Again, a factor of how small the field is), but in much of the combat there is a distinctive no man's land between two lines which are separated at a stand off, while here and there aggressive individuals step in, take a swing, and then back off. Here and there brave individuals charge in and penetrate the enemy's lines and then, unless their friends immediately support them, they get beaten to a pulp. So why do I say that street riots are a very relevant analogy for ancient battle? Firstly, they have genuine intent to injure involved. Not intent to kill, it is true, but both rioters and police are meaning to overcome the other by inflicting pain and injury. The physical violence at a riot can be very intense. Often the rioters arm themselves, and the riot police come with clubs and shields. Secondly, I would argue that the lack of training on the part of the rioters make them a valuable control group, because they demonstrate for us what the untrained, basic instincts of a group of human beings being violent are. They don't, generally, have lots of experience or training. Their actions and reactions are, mostly, a result of their basic instincts in this situation. Knowing what those basic instincts are lets us better understand how formations worked, because those instincts would still be there, and formations and armies would have to deal with them in various ways. So while the street riot is not a perfect match,.......Ancient battle was complex and there's nothing in the world today which resembles it, so we have to find our data wherever possible. I think street riots are very.

As you said, ancient battles are complex, and the lessons you learned from street fighting is causing you to arrive at false conclusions. We do have an alternative, which you ignore. We are fairly well informed of 18th and 19th century battles. We might not have videos of them, but we have enough paintings, first had accounts and other documents to have a good idea of how the battles were conducted and fought. Why are you not using them to draw your lessons?

[Common Soldier]

Again and again you assert the falsity that I said the gladius was not a stabbing sword , therefore I meant that it was only used for cutting, but that is not my meaning, only your interpretation of it - and bluntly put, an interpretation that speaks to your failure of reading comprehension. I plainly cannot have taken "the gladius was not a stabbing weapon" to mean "the gladius was never used to stab," when in the same. bloody. paragraph. where I first asserted that the gladius was not a stabbing sword,I also said "the gladius could deliver thrusting blows." When I say the gladius was a cutting sword, my meaning is that whatever else it could be used for, it was primarily meant to be used to cut. That is my meaning. That has always been my meaning. I will waste no further time on you.

You keep saying "you meant" but what you said was "The gladius emphatically was not a stabbing sword", your words. From what you said, and your comparison to using the gladius, you regarded the gladius as no more.a.stabbing sword than it was a club - theoretically but just wasn't used that way. Since Polybsius specifically the sword was used for thrusting, and we have examples of it being used as such, what you said was wrong, plain and simple.

Regardless of what you claim to have meant, we can all agree the gladius was a thrusting sword as well.as a cutting sword, and stabbing was one of the main functions of thd gladius, along with cutting, and that thrusting played an important role in Roman combat.


Since the evidence clearly shows the gladius was a thrusting sword.and used as a thrusting sword, it follows that the Romans could properly their main secondary weapon in tighter formations, completely undermining your argument that the Romans had to be in open formations to use their swords properly. But the Romans didn't, they could effectively use their swords as thrusters in tighter formations , they didn't need open formations to use them as yousaid in post #67. While thenRomans might want to be in open formations to use the full capabilities of their swords, the fact remains Romans could use their sword in tighter formations.

[Hanny]

Yes, because the numbers and the tied lines are utterly asinine.

Methodology is set out in prior chapters, if you had read the book you would understand the graph, sadly that is not the case.

In order for them to even assume such numbers they would need to locate burials from all major battles fought and then excavate the remains and analyze every single skeleton in order to make an assumption from what whichever percentage of them died from.

The rather well known, Big Battle Land Warfare Database does use a methodology, you just dont know what is, yet claim it to be wrong without knowing what it and what its used for.

It is quite honestly the most "just pull it out of your ass" thing I have seen in a long time.

From the poster taking exception to a books content he does not know, yet knows its wrong.

Yes, because Polybius, Caesar, Plutarch, Sallust, and Livy are obviously not historical sources at all.

You keep claiming that authors support you, they do not, your not posting bad history, your not posting history at all. Please stop that, you have been doing it throughout, as your willingness to take authors works out of context, is highly annoying and dishonest and the result is posters cannot take the good points you make, as your to hell bent on passing off your bias as history.

Livy does not support you, nor does any of your other taken out of context quotes do any more than show how your willing to use out of context comments to support your bias.

"Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observance of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war. Without these, what chance would the inconsiderable numbers of the Roman armies have had against the multitudes of the Gauls? Or with what success would their small size have been opposed to the prodigious stature of the Germans? The Spaniards surpassed us not only in numbers, but in physical strength. We were always inferior to the Africans in wealth and unequal to them in deception and stratagem. And the Greeks, indisputably, were far superior to us in skill in arts and all kinds of knowledge."


"But to all these advantages the Romans opposed unusual care in the choice of their levies and in their military training. They thoroughly understood the importance of hardening them by continual practice, and of training them to every maneuver that might happen in the line and in action. Nor were they less strict in punishing idleness and sloth. The courage of a soldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession, and he only wants an opportunity to execute what he is convinced he has been perfectly taught. A handful of men, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to slaughter."


-Livy

Polybios has more of the same, but does not give discipline as the cause of Romes superiority.

Plutarch describes how the parthians 'were awed by Roman discipline and watched the men maintain equal distance from one another as the marching lines re arraigned in silence without confusion"


Sallust descibing how Legions manoeuvre, "Backwards and forwards in different directions, at short distances from each other, and in the line of march, to keep close to their standards and not to straggle. This was the roman discipline brought into proper condition and rendered effective."

So how many casualties missiles are inflicting is irrelevant, missile exchange and other forms of fighting at a distance is still probably the main feature of actual battle when both sides are cohesive and fighting.

Its relevant to show missile fire was largely ineffective in casualty causality, its relevant to show in 8 hours a legionary can only spend under 1 minute in performing missile fire before depletion of munition.Its relevant to show your notion of what happens in a battle is not based on fact, but your pre conceived biased ideas, as your the one describing a legionaries activities in the battlespace contrary to accepted norms, and the authors you keep mentioning who explain it differently to you.

So in other words: The author believes, on the basis of their extensive research, that the normal configuration of combat was for there to be space between the two opposing armies front lines, and the edge of combat moves up and down across this space as both sides advance and retreat. If the primary feature of battle was hand to hand combat, and soldiers fought continuously within range of each other, how could these controlled back and forth movements be possible?

In actual meaning the author is explaining who, when in a organised formation under discipline performed what/when and why. Not how you describe the undisciplined, legionaries at all now is it.

A clue lies in watching combat in riots, as I have been stating. I am going to link this video again, because it is a good demonstration of what I mean

Not really, they are all non lethal activities, no one is killed. Attempted murder with a cutting instrument shows around 70% such attempts end in death.

Notice how small groups of the police, or the rioters, can give ground gradually when they have come too close to the opposing side for comfort?

Except formations acting in concerted action are indications of organized, trained, disciplined movement, usually in response to higher command instructions. All of which your main argument is arguing against.

A few paces back, swing another strike to dissuade pursuit, a few more paces back. And notice also how the pursuing side, rioters or police, does not just sprint all out after a retreating group? They are mindful of wanting to stay with their group, because to get isolated means getting beaten to a pulp.

Except your the one advocating the undisciplined legionaries acted as individuals, not as organised trained formations. Your the one claiming P Sabin is on your side, when he is not.

Sabin face of battle
"Why would parts of each line sporadically surge forward into contact? The key individuals would surely be the 'natural fighters' and junior leaders, who would encourage a concerted lunge forward to overcome the understandable reluctance among their comrades to be the first to advance into the wall of enemy blades. Roman sub- units such as centuries, maniples, and cohorts offered an ideal basis for such localized charges, whereas tribal warriors would mount less disciplined attacks led by the bolder spirits among them"

Discipline is relative not and absolute, Romans were more disciplined than those they defeated, the appointment of aggressive leaders down to maniple level is not an indication of undisciplined individual behaviour, its an indication of organised/planned/trained behaviour to effect victory.

This article is from the 1920s, do you have more recent scholarship? I would also note that this particular article states that in the Republic, soldiers were often led out immediately after enrollment in the legions to go find the enemy. My whole original essay in this thread was concerned with the Republican period, and focused on Polybius and Caesar for that reason.

Polybios cover the Republican period 264 BC and ends in 146 BC. You have misused the roman military oath to support your claims, when your not using the oath from the right time period."The discipline and dedication of the citizen-soldiers help explain Rome's success in conquering a world empire" Polybius, "The Roman Army"

The right answer is the right answer, be it from Livy or polybios when they wrote, or 1926 or 2020. Yes, newly raised legions, were sometimes committed to battle without being worked up, you used the Trebbia as an example, where polybios tells us "that their legions would be all the better for a winter's drilling," according to scipio. You go on to explain a rear attack from ambush as a flank attack, and fail to notice Roman armies frontage is vastly greater than the cathaginians could be based on how both livy and polybios describe the formations, ie it was Rome who had any advantage on the flanks. Only in the centre, the two most experienced legions, as body cut there way through the carthaginian centre and marched on to placentia and safety, the rest were lost, and not to missile fore either.

Firstly, what is your source on this oath?

Its from Aulus Gellius, you know the author who gives us the military oath and what it means and is the reference used in every book covering the Republican period for the military oath.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20oath&f=false

Gellius gets it from a lost work by Cincius Alimentus, who gives us his oath for the 2PW in which he fought, so we know first hand what the oath was in the 2PW, and Gellius records it for us, and for you to then misuse.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41299371
Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities.

Lose your military equipment in combat 3 times, and its a capital offence/crime, thats why the oath allows you to regain it and overide the orders of your supperior.

[Mamlaz]

Methodology is set out in prior chapters, if you had read the book you would understand the graph, sadly that is not the case.

The rather well known, Big Battle Land Warfare Database does use a methodology, you just dont know what is, yet claim it to be wrong without knowing what it and what its used for
From the poster taking exception to a books content he does not know, yet knows its wrong.

Please, enlighten me.
I mean this without sarcasm.

I genuinely want to know how they came up with those numbers.

Right, he says don't fence with the pikes, because he views that as ineffective. But he wouldn't state that you shouldn't do that if that wasn't a thing that was being done

Again you do with this...

Just accept what is written, it is not that hard.

Go back and re-read the sources I gave, they are far too direct for you to sideline.

Secondly, what is the advantage of bracing your pikes and running in in such a way? When two forces do that to each other, as the Reislaufer and Landsknechts were known to do, it's just mutual impalement.

No, because armor. (Sometimes, so much of it https://i.imgur.com/Ogh1Eur.jpg )

To that point, here is two pike formations engaging each other, a troop that not flee before the Swiss.

"The Swiss took heart and made to charge again with a big force, and came to fight the said landsknechts hand-to-hand, but I assure you that the Swiss found a marvellously good band to resist them, and for a long time I thought that the Swiss would lose the battle. However, the landsknechts were not very numerous, and believe it that there were not more than 5,000 fit [men] at the point of combat.

And the first Swiss to arrive were repulsed, and I assure you that since then I never saw a band of landsknechts and harquebusiers that did its duty so marvelously. And the said Swiss forced to detach 400 halberdiers that they had, and went to attack the harquebusiers who were 800, so that they made them flee, and then these halberdiers attacked the landsknechts from the flank. When all is said and done, the battle was lost. And the landsknechts were so badly supported, for the French infantryman were neverd or willing to fight: when they saw the second force of Swiss, they all fled." - Florange

So here you have your fearful and fleeing men, but you also have the disciplined men who repulse a Swiss pike formation onslaught.

The Swiss were so legendarily effective because most people, most of the time, will choose to get out of the way of a hundred braced pikes running at them wielded by screaming Swiss. They are so effective because they are so terrifying to face. Because of this terror, because of how shocking this mode of attack is. The tendency for people to get the hell out of the way of such a hedgehog of pikes running towards them is what allows for the pike block to penetrate the enemy's ranks

and yet nearly every battle against the Swiss resulted in wholesale slaughter of their enemies, well, till the battle of Bicocca ofc.

If the enemy routed before impact, they would have just ran away, and the Swiss would not be able to slaughter them, since in many occasions they had very few cavalry to speak off.

Because a linguistic description of a battle is not a literal representation.

Let us take, for example, some quotes from Polybius's account of the opening skirmishes before the Battle of Cynoscephalae

With this I again disagree with you.

Because the examples I found are very specific, and describe actual advice and information on weapons combat, they are not vague descriptions of an entire battle, but descriptions of specific clashes within a battle or, you know, literally advice as to how to use your damn weapon.

Even the pictorial depictions showing the retreat before other pikemen as you state they would, they most often still show the opposite as well, here horsemen charging and being impaled on pikes;

https://i.imgur.com/gQVQhbB.jpg




In addition, more imagery;

https://i.imgur.com/zWRIkOf.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uubVUjZ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uzDlmYf.jpg

(these are high res, zoom in to the infantry)



https://i.imgur.com/Qj2v6Z9.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/urDbA77.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/oWN5LG1.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/EgmHsjS.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/NEEbG8O.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/N5xCR7U.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/86slISD.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Vc08qBv.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/4yGE3PG.jpg?1


Seems a bit too much of the same over a 250 year time period for it to be a rare occurence, don't you think?

[EricD]

You ignore the examples of 18th and 19th century warfare. Ten's of thousandz of soldiers marched toward entrenched positions, facing muskets and cannons far deadlier than any ancient army ever faced, suffering horrific loses yet for the most part the armies did not break and run as you assert they would, but bravely followed orders despite the losses. Picketts's charge Gettysburg, assault at Cold Harbor, there are dozens of examples from the American Civil War alone, of thousands of men marching bravely forward while soldiers next to them are dropping like flies. That is a realiry you are ignoring. Are you.asserting mdn of the 18 and 19th century were much braver than ancient soldiers? Numerous examples from real history show peopme fighting the way you assert they would not. If 18th and 19th century could fight like that, then why not the Romans? Real history proclaims you wrong.

Let's talk about Pickett's Charge.

On the 3rd day of Gettysburg, 12,500 Confederate soldiers marched out towards the centre of the Union lines to try and break their way through. Did those 12,500 men arrive all at once as a single mass to fall upon the Union defenders? They did not, otherwise perhaps they would have broken through.

Historians often estimate nowadays that 50% of the Confederate force became casualties, so let's set aside that 50% for now and talk about the 6,250 Confederates. Did those 6,000 men all arrive at the top of the ridge? No, they did not.

Some ran away entirely, many others lagged behind and took cover, only a comparatively small portion of the entire Confederate force actually made it up to the top of the ridge to contend the position with the Union defenders. So despite discipline, training, and no small amount of courage, the men of the Confederate Army could not just disregard their fear of death or injury. The same is seen throughout the era of the musket. Indeed, the battles of the American Civil War were so bloody because the armies, generally, were very reluctant to charge with the bayonet in order to decisively end a combat and drive the other side to rout. The two sides would stand around within range, blazing away with musketry for hours and gradually inflicting huge losses on each other, but neither were willing to go into close combat. Truly close combat, face to face, seems to be uniquely terrifying to humans in violence.

You keep claiming that authors support you, they do not, your not posting bad history, your not posting history at all. Please stop that, you have been doing it throughout, as your willingness to take authors works out of context, is highly annoying and dishonest and the result is posters cannot take the good points you make, as your to hell bent on passing off your bias as history.

And similarly, people keep exaggerating my arguments and my position past the point of reason in order to try to disprove what I have been arguing throughout this thread.

Yes, the Romans possessed discipline. My point is that it was neither perfect nor absolute, nor unconditional. It could, and did, fail at times. More often it seems to have failed by excessive aggression rather than by cowardice. Even so, they were still likely more disciplined than many enemies, such as a Gallic or Germanic tribal levy. Additionally of note: How does Roman disciplina manifest itself? I would argue that perfect formation drill or maneuvers was not the mark of their discipline. The mark of Roman discipline was building a fortified camp at the end of a long day's march under load, and then setting a system of night watches in place. Their campaigning discipline was considerable, and is a considerable military advantage over their enemies as well. Particularly, such campaigning discipline transfers well to siege warfare, which is the really decisive operation of ancient wars.

Sallust descibing how Legions manoeuvre, "Backwards and forwards in different directions, at short distances from each other, and in the line of march, to keep close to their standards and not to straggle. This was the roman discipline brought into proper condition and rendered effective."

Yes, I do think the Romans were maneuvering in battle backwards and forwards, holding to their standards, and following the directions of the local centurion or tribune in their section of battle line. Maneuvers such as Claudius Nero shifting to the other end of the battle line at the Metaurus could not have been possible if the soldiers would not follow their leaders in battle. Part of the terrifying nature of the gladius charge would have been the Romans suddenly ending the skirmishing phase and charging in as a mass, much more suddenly and swiftly than other armies more accustomed to prolonged indecisive skirmishing. But this is not so fundamentally different in terms of battle behaviour from how the Gauls likely fought under their own tribal chieftains. It's perhaps more orderly in comparison, more skilled and practiced, but not fundamentally different in nature. But I still hold, as Polybius indicates, that their mode of fighting was more loosely arrayed, not a disorganized mob as people keep alleging I am saying, but also not a phalanx or a shield wall. They are are accounted as moving and fighting as individuals within their maniples, and that the rear ranks in a maniple cannot press upon or support the front. This all indicates quite a degree of latitude for individual movement and deeds of arms within the Roman unit. They may follow the commands of a centurion or a tribune, but their officers likewise seem to have a great deal of tolerance for individual aggression, although not without confines. Virtus was an important ethos in the Roman army, but they recognized the value of disciplina as well.

And yes, the Romans trained. I discussed their training in my opening essay. But what was the nature of their training? As far as I can tell, they often trained for physical strength and endurance, and they trained for individual skill with their weapons. They also had to have been educated in the processes and procedures of the Army, in entrenching the camp and setting the watch, and what are the signals for battle, and how to assemble a century or a maniple. But going through Caesar's De Bello Africo, I found another quote about Roman training to indicate its nature:

"Faced with an enemy of this kind Caesar proceeded to train his forces, not as a commander trains a veteran army with a magnificent record of victorious achievements, but as a gladiatorial instructor trains his recruits. How many feet they were to retreat from the enemy; the manner in which they must wheel round upon their adversary; the restricted space in which they must offer him resistance — now doubling forward, now retiring and making feint attacks; and almost the spot from which, and the manner in which they must discharge their missiles — these were the lessons he taught them. For it was surprising the amount of worry and anxiety the enemy's light-armed troops were causing our army, what with their making the cavalry chary of engaging for fear of losing their mounts, since the light-armed troops kept killing them with their javelins, and with their wearing the legionaries out by their speediness; for no sooner had a heavy-armed soldier, when pursued by them, halted and then made an attack on them than their speed of movement enabled them easily to avoid the danger. " (De Bello Africo, Chapter 71)

In context, this was an occasion when Caesar was faced with an enemy with better light troops and skirmishers than he had, so he had to improve his men's abilities in skirmishing. Some of this training is clearly indicated for a unit-level, "the manner in which they must wheel round upon their adversary" I would suggest. Others are more about individual skill, "the manner in which they must discharge their missiles". Note also the comparison of Caesar as a trainer to a gladiatorial instructor. Gladiators, of course, fought as individual combatants.

Note how much movement is necessary in the training Caesar is accounted as giving these men. This is not a matter of a rigid, dense, parade group formation as is often conceived when we think about Roman tactics or Roman discipline. These men must be spread out in order to move forward and back easily. It is a mode of fighting that requires discipline, you need to stay by the standards and follow your centurion. But it also requires a great deal of individual skill, and no small amount of individual courage, because to be spread out to move in such a manner means you are not hemmed in to all sides like a Macedonian pikeman would be. Space to move means also that the option of flight is there. If the Roman legionary stays in the fight it is of his own choice, out of his own courage and desire for glory. That too, as much as discipline, was greatly valued by the Romans as a cause of military success.

Its relevant to show missile fire was largely ineffective in casualty causality, its relevant to show in 8 hours a legionary can only spend under 1 minute in performing missile fire before depletion of munition.Its relevant to show your notion of what happens in a battle is not based on fact, but your pre conceived biased ideas, as your the one describing a legionaries activities in the battlespace contrary to accepted norms, and the authors you keep mentioning who explain it differently to you.

Accepted norms can, in fact, be wrong. The academic work of the guys I've been citing have been working to demonstrate that the accepted norms were mistaken.

Casualty infliction is also a flawed measure for the relevance of activity in ancient battle, because we know from all military history that the majority of casualties do not happen in actual combat between resisting groups, but the majority of casualties happen in the rout, when one side turns and runs. When they turn and run, then they can be slaughtered in droves. So the majority of casualties are happening when one side is running away, which means that the really decisive action of battle is what turns the enemy to the rout, where you can kill them. Missile fire before firearms has never turned the enemy to a rout by itself, it is true. However missiles are part of what batters an opposing side psychologically until they decide that flight is better than fight. The really important factors are what causes the other group to turn and run, because really massive casualties only happen when, in flight, one side has stopped resisting.

Again: The bayonet. The bayonet didn't kill many people in battles in the 18th or 19th centuries, but it was still an important part of the tactical environment because the fear of the bayonet was able to make enemies run away.

Not really, they are all non lethal activities, no one is killed. Attempted murder with a cutting instrument shows around 70% such attempts end in death.

People are beaten into unconsciousness at riots. People end up in intensive care after riots. People die in riots. They're an intense form of violence. Disregarding that is a fairly ignorant statement.

Except formations acting in concerted action are indications of organized, trained, disciplined movement, usually in response to higher command instructions. All of which your main argument is arguing against.

Except your the one advocating the undisciplined legionaries acted as individuals, not as organised trained formations. Your the one claiming P Sabin is on your side, when he is not.

Sabin face of battle
"Why would parts of each line sporadically surge forward into contact? The key individuals would surely be the 'natural fighters' and junior leaders, who would encourage a concerted lunge forward to overcome the understandable reluctance among their comrades to be the first to advance into the wall of enemy blades. Roman sub- units such as centuries, maniples, and cohorts offered an ideal basis for such localized charges, whereas tribal warriors would mount less disciplined attacks led by the bolder spirits among them"

Discipline is relative not and absolute, Romans were more disciplined than those they defeated, the appointment of aggressive leaders down to maniple level is not an indication of undisciplined individual behaviour, its an indication of organised/planned/trained behaviour to effect victory.

That's exactly my point. Most people are reluctant to be the first to advance into a wall of blades and likely death. Small localized charges along the length of the battle line, interspersed with longer periods of stand off and missile exchange, was how the Romans gradually wore their opponents out until they finally broke and ran. That's exactly Sabin's model, because I took that model from reading Sabin. The centurions were, by the accounts of Caesar, heroic individuals who had the force of leadership capable of making men follow them into contact, the most difficult task on any battlefield.

Discipline is not absolute. Roman discipline was not perfect. It may still have been more than what their enemies had. War isn't always about being the best, sometimes it's just about being better than the other guy. Polybius comments upon how the Romans have far better discipline than the Greeks in their entrenchment of the camp every night, even though we know Hellenistic tactics in the phalanx require more close order drill and organization than Roman maniples do. My comparison in my original essay was comparing Romans to modern militaries, because often we repeat myths which represent the Roman armies as these robotic automatons, complete and perfect in their obedience, when the reality appears to be quite different.

[Hanny]

People are beaten into unconsciousness at riots. People end up in intensive care after riots. People die in riots. They're an intense form of violence. Disregarding that is a fairly ignorant statement.

A few examples for you to ponder.

It was your video that has zero fatalitys in it, its your video that has no one under orders to kill, or anyone charged with attempted murder. If you cant be bothered to understand your own video, and whats not in it, thats your problem/ignorance not others.

The Roman legionaries were not very well-disciplined soldiers.

Ignorant statement contradicted by every author you go on to use. Its you who say this, its not to be found in the texts of the authors you then misuse.

They also didn't train much as formations or groups.

Its you who say this, its not to be found in the texts of the authors you then misuse

Its your ignorant statement contradicted by Vegetius, who you used, who also explains:

That for 4 months a recruit was trained how to,

Marching
drills comprised/How to march with all of your equipment/How to properly pack equipment/How to march in formation/What specific trumpet signals mean/Formation training/How to form a specific set of formations/How to identify the trumpet signals and flags for each formation/When certain formations are used/Physical conditioning/Small unit tactical training


Tiro was a raw recruit, the Discens a trainee, and the Miles a basic trained soldier, none were assigned to a legion in the field as replacment as they were not yet ready for that. Then came Armatura, training for combat/individual and group training.

Each legion had the following instructors
Campidoctor; drill-instructor.
Doctor armorum or armatura; weapon-instructor.
Doctor cohortis; drill-instructor of the cohort/maniples

4 months basic training, is longer than basic training in the British Army, nearly twice that of the US army.

Training Soldiers for the Roman Legion
S. E. Stout
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3288082

Firstly, what is your source on this oath? Secondly, the translation of "Acies" as "Phalanx" is both doubtful from a linguistic perspective and misleading from a historical perspective.

As i posted, this is the oath of a 2PW Triari, only your ignorance of what the oath was and who took it can explain your post.

And similarly, people keep exaggerating my arguments and my position past the point of reason in order to try to disprove what I have been arguing throughout this thread.
The academic work of the guys I've been citing have been working to demonstrate that the accepted norms were mistaken.

Except that you make claims that are contradicted by the authors you say support your claims, problems all your end with your cherry picking, not with others.

Let's talk about Pickett's Charge.

So another historical period you know little about then. Your new here, try using the boards search function on Pickets charge. example http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-have-a-chance


The one thats ends in a bayonet charge to contact.

Indeed, the battles of the American Civil War were so bloody because the armies, generally, were very reluctant to charge with the bayonet in order to decisively end a combat and drive the other side to rout.

Odd that you use an example that has the CS forces close with a bayonet charge to take the position, including Art who they attempt to turn on the US, only to then be charged by the US and destroyed in close combat.

Please, enlighten me.
I mean this without sarcasm.

I genuinely want to know how they came up with those numbers.

Then purchase, and read the book.

[chriscase]

Please remember to constrain your attacks to the contents of posts rather than members. Also, stick to the topic as defined in the OP.

[Sar1n]

I'm afraid that between your ignorance of evolution of Roman army in the specified period and selectively picking the passages, you got quite carried away.

Roman army evolved from the classical Greek hoplite warfare, which is a remarkably formalized type of combat, emphasizing periods of shield press to break the enemy, while skirmishing and other phases of battle are deemphasized. The formal separation of hastati, principes and triarii is most likely a legacy of that, a system formalizing rotating the troops during lulls in combat. But Romans, fighting often in rough terrain and against enemies fighting in different way, had to adapt. Scutum, first of these adaptations, allows user to protect himself without relying on assistance from his fellow, but you've wrongly interpreted it, because it's definitely not a shield for skirmisher or loose order combat. It's too unwieldy, limiting user's movement and situational awareness in loose order, but allows him to stand his ground in formation without having to rely on shield overlapping. In a similar manner, gladius is best employed by a soldier in close quarters, tight combat, but without having to rely on support from rear ranks, as happened with hoplite spears. But it's too short for open melee, spatha would serve better in such case, which is why late Imperial Roman army adopted it to replace gladius. Finally, pilum is not a skirmisher javelin. It's too heavy, giving the user low range and low ammunition. But it's a great shock weapon, disabling the target's shield right before closing in for melee. Again, Romans had better things in inventory for skirmishing.

The equipment points toward main role of Roman legionary being heavy infantryman, fighting in close, ordered formation. While the intensive period of shield press couldn't be maintained for long periods, we have many accounts of legionaries engaging in prolonged, ordered melee, most likely maintaining distances that allowed changing of frontline troops and not pushing into intensive combat....but not fighting in open order either. For example, this is what Cassius Dio wrote about battle of Phillipi:
"For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword, as they were at first cautiously looking for a chance to wound others without being wounded themselves."
This is a legacy and continuation of the ordered combat of the citizen militia hoplite. A hoplite, Camillian or Polybian legionary came from the relatively wealthier part of society-wealthy enough to afford full gear, and would see the combat mostly as his duty. Discipline, holding his place in formation, those were seen as parts of the duty, doing his part in the army. While the battle could present opportunities to display individual valor and gain status and monetary reward, it wasn't that usual to seek those out. After all, a typical legionary of the time had at bit of both already. He had more to lose and less to gain than, say, a Gallic or Thracian warrior. Of course, you had the usual...thrill seekers, those willing to risk much more than usual for status, those arrogant and impetuous, believing in own superiority or wanting to display their skill in arms...the equestrian and patrician orders especially produced those.
But it wasn't the norm. You've noticed the awards for those who went above and beyond the call of duty in battle. There wasn't an award for restraint. Because that was the norm.

What you completely missed is how this mentality gradually changed in the period on which you focus. In Second Punic War, Rome started feeling serious manpower shortage among classes from which were legionaries usually recruited. The standards of wealth for recruits have lowered, and eventually, a corps of velites was established for those too poor to afford proper legionary gear. And with this lowering came change of mentality. More legionaries, and epecially velites, saw the service not as a duty, but as means to gain wealth. Armor of dead enemy is worth much more to the guy who can't afford it than to the guy who can already afford a dozen.
During late republic, the practice of abolishing the wealth requirements for recruits and shifting the cost of equipment toward state and commanders became commonplace. The dominant motivations of legionaries gradually shifted from duty to gain of wealth and status. This enabled rise of warlords like Marius, who formalized the practice, Sulla and Caesar. And it changed their behavior. Discipline that was previously taken for granted had to be sometimes enforced, and troops motivated by the material gains were more liable to display aggressive behavior. But they legacy of the disciplined militia remained, as did the traditional style of warfare, even though made more flexible. The mentality that drove Roman to fight in disciplined, ordered formations when asked remained, as evidenced by the Roman civil wars where veterans of various campaigns tended to stand their ground and outlast the green recruits, rather than beat them through aggression as one would expect based on your hypothesis.