The Disobedient Roman Soldier

[EricD]

You could argue that in the sense of the pilum being the primary weapon, in the sense of it being thrown first before engaging in sword combat, but I do not see how else would you tie it, since many historians even doubt Vegetius's claim of two pilum's for most of the Roman period, meaning that at most they carried two, and the more likely, at most of the period, they carried only one.

So that is again one throw before engagement.

As exhaustively explained above: The ancient battlefield is full of potential missiles to be rethrown. Javelins and stones cast at you by the enemy can apparently easily be thrown again, as evidenced by the fact that the Romans took steps to prevent their missiles from being thrown back, and gave explicit permission to their troops to leave formation in order to collect more missiles.

Yes, absolutely.

Please don't tell me you are one of those "muh humanz are rational" contrarians that believes that mumbo jumbo of ancient soldiers playing tippy taps while staring at each other.

Because we have primary sources during the Italian Wars of men smashing into pike formations and impaling themselves on said pikes like utter maniacs.

Soldiers acting like enthusiastic forlorn hopes with no regard for their own safety is not up for debate.

It absolutely IS up for debate. The fact that you advance this nonsensical view demonstrates that it must be debated, because it is incorrect.

Listen: My primary hobby is historical European martial arts. I fight with longswords, that is my preferred sport. Blunt, but realistic in weight and handling. Some people in a sparring or competition bout are more aggressive, some people less. But do you know what most often happens when two opponents, unfamiliar with one another, face off in a competition bout with advancement or elimination on the line? They circle cautiously, often for some time, before either is willing to commit themselves to a blow, and the exchange is often very brief. That is with blunt weapons, where you are not going to be injured or killed by a single mistake as may be the case with sharp weapons. If people aare usually so cautious with blunt weapons in friendly competition, why would they be any different in real battle with sharp weapons and life and death on the line?

The medieval Italian fencing master Fiore dei Liberi wrote: "I, Fiore, said to my students that were obliged to combat in the barriers [i.e: Tournament combat] that combat in the barriers is a far lesser peril than combat with sword of sharp edge and point in arming jackets. Because for him that plays at sharp swords, on a single cover that fails, that blow gives him death."

I ask you: Would YOU impale yourself on a pike willingly? The fact that the primary sources which describe pike warfare in the age of pike and shot focus on instances like men impaling themselves willingly on pikes is because such an instance is unusual.

The fact that humans in mass violence think firstly about their own safety, secondly about protecting their comrades, and only thirdly about attacking or defeating the enemy is well evidenced throughout history. The fact that sometimes a man, by desperation or misjudgement or uncommon courage, attacks in suicidal fashion does not change the fact that generally speaking a human will instinctively seek to preserve his own life and safety first and foremost in any violent encounter. To quote Ardant du Picq: "Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second."

And further he states: "there is no shock of infantry on infantry. There is no physical impulse, no force of mass. There is but a moral impulse."

Ardant du Picq was no abstract theorist, but a career soldier who saw active service with the French Army in the Crimean War, and in colonial campaigns in Syria and Algeria. He died on active service in the Franco-Prussian War. His Battle Studies is rich both with scholarship of ancient sources and with his lived experience of real war and violence.

Even in a culture like the Romans, which prized single combat above all things, the Roman soldier wants scars and the social and economic advancement that comes with a successful performance in battle. He may be willing to die for his glory, but he's not seeking death actively. He may be seeking glory and the esteem of his community, and he may be willing to risk death, but he must live to enjoy those fruits. He may have been very different in culture and values to modern people, but humans remain the same in that our instinct for self-preservation is among the most deeply ingrained and most fundamental.

If your model for pre-modern mass violence requires for human beings to act like insane people and disregard their basic instincts for safety, it is a bad model. If your model requires for human beings to perform superhuman feats of endurance and exchange hand blows for hours, it is a bad model. Your model dehumanizes them, because it does not regard the people within these ancient armies and formations as human beings, with human emotions, fears, and instincts.

There can be no physical impact in a battle either, except for perhaps in very rare and brief circumstances. Here's a practical demonstration of why that is the case, from a group of modern hoplite reenactors in France:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLgtM6-47E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-4vzsxVFvE

These guys are testing out the theory of othismos in hoplite combat being a form of physical shoving being locked shields. What do these experiments demonstrate? Physical impacts of massed groups of humans, armed and in formation, are nonsense. Look particularly at the moment of impact in the first video. The two formations shatter, they fall apart, the encounter becomes not the braced shoving match which the physical impact model alleges would be the result, but an uncontrollable melee in which, if the weapons were sharp, both sides would suffer horrific losses. In the second video, they come together more gradually and push against one another, but look at the front-fighters stuck in the middle: They're being crushed! They can't even wield their weapons or even stay on their feet! The rear ranks pressing forward are tripping over them! Why would anyone voluntarily fight in such a way? It's self-evidently nonsensical and ineffective. A person needs space to wield weapons, and they need to remain on their feet to give effective blows with a hand weapon and to protect themselves with their shield. They cannot do that if they are throwing themselves into another group physically in such a way. That is a tactic for a rugby pitch, not a battlefield.

Perhaps the fact that those are reenactors makes you doubt these truths. Observe some footage of modern riots, which are the closest analogue in the modern world for an ancient battle fought with hand weapons and missiles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KgX-hb1amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLEjNpux5PY

These rioters are serious, too. They brought weapons to fight the riot police. They are swinging with real intent and fury. Notice how rioters and riot police advancing aggressively will stop and shuffle backwards when they perceive that they are getting too far away from their friends to either side. Notice the short exchanges of hand blows, notice how the rioters don't stand and physically impact with the charging riot police but are running away before any contact is made. To quote du Picq again: "they gave way before the moral and not before the physical impulse. They were already disconcerted, wavering, worried, hesitant, vacillating, when the blow fell."

This is how crowds of humans behave in violent situations. This is our closest analogy to what an ancient battle would look like, so our understanding of ancient battle needs to be informed by these realities. Neither rioter nor riot police have serious desire to kill the other, however they do face very real chance of injury. At the same time the likelihood of death or maiming which ancient battle possessed would if anything make the soldiers involved more cautious and more fearful than rioters and riot police are today.

[Common Soldier]

As exhaustively explained above: The ancient battlefield is full of potential missiles to be rethrown. Javelins and stones cast at you by the enemy can apparently easily be thrown again, as evidenced by the fact that the Romans took steps to prevent their missiles from being thrown back, and gave explicit permission to their troops to leave formation in order to collect more missiles.



It absolutely IS up for debate. The fact that you advance this nonsensical view demonstrates that it must be debated, because it is incorrect.

Listen: My primary hobby is historical European martial arts. I fight with longswords, that is my preferred sport. Blunt, but realistic in weight and handling. Some people in a sparring or competition bout are more aggressive, some people less. But do you know what most often happens when two opponents, unfamiliar with one another, face off in a competition bout with advancement or elimination on the line? They circle cautiously, often for some time, before either is willing to commit themselves to a blow, and the exchange is often very brief. That is with blunt weapons, where you are not going to be injured or killed by a single mistake as may be the case with sharp weapons. If people aare usually so cautious with blunt weapons in friendly competition, why would they be any different in real battle with sharp weapons and life and death on the line?

The medieval Italian fencing master Fiore dei Liberi wrote: "I, Fiore, said to my students that were obliged to combat in the barriers [i.e: Tournament combat] that combat in the barriers is a far lesser peril than combat with sword of sharp edge and point in arming jackets. Because for him that plays at sharp swords, on a single cover that fails, that blow gives him death."

I ask you: Would YOU impale yourself on a pike willingly? The fact that the primary sources which describe pike warfare in the age of pike and shot focus on instances like men impaling themselves willingly on pikes is because such an instance is unusual.

The fact that humans in mass violence think firstly about their own safety, secondly about protecting their comrades, and only thirdly about attacking or defeating the enemy is well evidenced throughout history. The fact that sometimes a man, by desperation or misjudgement or uncommon courage, attacks in suicidal fashion does not change the fact that generally speaking a human will instinctively seek to preserve his own life and safety first and foremost in any violent encounter. To quote Ardant du Picq: "Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second."

And further he states: "there is no shock of infantry on infantry. There is no physical impulse, no force of mass. There is but a moral impulse."

Ardant du Picq was no abstract theorist, but a career soldier who saw active service with the French Army in the Crimean War, and in colonial campaigns in Syria and Algeria. He died on active service in the Franco-Prussian War. His Battle Studies is rich both with scholarship of ancient sources and with his lived experience of real war and violence.

Even in a culture like the Romans, which prized single combat above all things, the Roman soldier wants scars and the social and economic advancement that comes with a successful performance in battle. He may be willing to die for his glory, but he's not seeking death actively. He may be seeking glory and the esteem of his community, and he may be willing to risk death, but he must live to enjoy those fruits. He may have been very different in culture and values to modern people, but humans remain the same in that our instinct for self-preservation is among the most deeply ingrained and most fundamental.

If your model for pre-modern mass violence requires for human beings to act like insane people and disregard their basic instincts for safety, it is a bad model. If your model requires for human beings to perform superhuman feats of endurance and exchange hand blows for hours, it is a bad model. Your model dehumanizes them, because it does not regard the people within these ancient armies and formations as human beings, with human emotions, fears, and instincts.

There can be no physical impact in a battle either, except for perhaps in very rare and brief circumstances. Here's a practical demonstration of why that is the case, from a group of modern hoplite reenactors in France:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLgtM6-47E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-4vzsxVFvE

These guys are testing out the theory of othismos in hoplite combat being a form of physical shoving being locked shields. What do these experiments demonstrate? Physical impacts of massed groups of humans, armed and in formation, are nonsense. Look particularly at the moment of impact in the first video. The two formations shatter, they fall apart, the encounter becomes not the braced shoving match which the physical impact model alleges would be the result, but an uncontrollable melee in which, if the weapons were sharp, both sides would suffer horrific losses. In the second video, they come together more gradually and push against one another, but look at the front-fighters stuck in the middle: They're being crushed! They can't even wield their weapons or even stay on their feet! The rear ranks pressing forward are tripping over them! Why would anyone voluntarily fight in such a way? It's self-evidently nonsensical and ineffective. A person needs space to wield weapons

A sword like the gladius that was used for stabbing and a spear can be used in tight formation, since you don't need a lot of room to thrust. To swing a a club or slash, you do need room.

Perhaps the fact that those are reenactors makes you doubt these truths. Observe some footage of modern riots, which are the closest analogue in the modern world for an ancient battle fought with hand weapons and missiles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KgX-hb1amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLEjNpux5PY

These rioters are serious, too. They brought weapons to fight the riot police. They are swinging with real intent and fury. Notice how rioters and riot police advancing aggressively will stop and shuffle backwards when they perceive that they are getting too far away from their friends to either side. Notice the short exchanges of hand blows, notice how the rioters don't stand and physically impact with the charging riot police but are running away before any contact is made. To quote du Picq again: "they gave way before the moral and not before the physical impulse. They were already disconcerted, wavering, worried, hesitant, vacillating, when the blow fell."

This is how crowds of humans behave in violent situations. This is our closest analogy to what an ancient battle would look like, so our understanding of ancient battle needs to be informed by these realities. Neither rioter nor riot police have serious desire to kill the other, however they do face very real chance of injury. At the same time the likelihood of death or maiming which ancient battle possessed would if anything make the soldiers involved more cautious and more fearful than rioters and riot police are today.

Modern riots are rather different from ancient battles in some important respects:

1. Rioters, unlike ancient armies, don't really train together in fighting. Ancient armies would have been. While ancient Celtic or Germanic armies might have behave a little more like rioters, even they would have been more organized in their fighting. And egen riot police wouls not have had nearly as extensve training in fighting in formation as a Roman soldier. So the fighting in a riot may not be repreaentative of what thr fighting would be lime by well trained soldiers.


2. The weapons the rioters used and the police used are quite a bit different. The rioters are not using long stabbing weapons lime spears and swords, what weaopons they have are more clubbing or hacking weapons, which require more room to use effectively. That is going to effect their fighting style.

3. Ancient armies were trying to kill each other. Modern riot police are not trying to kill rioters, and even the rioters, even when they seek to wound the police, are not necessarily trying to kill them. This again will effect the fighting style. Ancient writers differentiated a riot and an actual battle.


In any case, I think it might be useful in this discussion to discuss how the pilum actually worked.

1. The long iron shaft of the pilum was narrower than the tip, so once the head of the pilum penetraed the shield, there was very little reistance in preventing the iron shaft from traveling through the shield. Pilums with long shafts would be able to hit the soldier behind thr shield once the tip penetrated.

2. With a long shaft, and the tip larger than the shaft, it would be difficult to remove the pilum from the shield, ans wirh the entire weight of thr pilum hanging off the head, the long thing shaft is likely to bend. With a long pilum sticking out of your shield, your shield becomes to unwieldy to use.

Here is a video of a pilum being used. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxY3CzN2Kkc

[Imrix]

A sword like the gladius that was used for stabbing and a spear can be used in tight formation, since you don't need a lot of room to thrust. To swing a a club or slash, you do need room.

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.

Seriously, Vegetius lived and wrote his De Re Militari centuries after the timeframes when the gladius saw widespread use. He's the Roman equivalent of some rando browsing Wikipedia. You want people who know what they're talking about, try contemporary sources like Titus Livius, who wrote:

Accordingly, those who, being always accustomed to fight with Greeks and Illyrians, had only seen wounds made with javelins and arrows, seldom even by lances, came to behold bodies dismembered by the Spanish sword, some with their arms lopped off, with the shoulder or the neck entirely cut through, heads severed from the trunk, and the bowels laid open, with other frightful exhibitions of wounds: they therefore perceived, with horror, against what weapons and what men they were to fight. Even the king himself was seized with apprehensions, having never yet engaged the Romans in a regular battle.

The gladius was a brutal cutting sword, which means Romans needed room to swing it.

Modern riots are rather different from ancient battles in some important respects:

1. Rioters, unlike ancient armies, don't really train together in fighting. Ancient armies would have been. While ancient Celtic or Germanic armies might have behave a little more like rioters, even they would have been more organized in their fighting. And egen riot police wouls not have had nearly as extensve training in fighting in formation as a Roman soldier. So the fighting in a riot may not be repreaentative of what thr fighting would be lime by well trained soldiers.


2. The weapons the rioters used and the police used are quite a bit different. The rioters are not using long stabbing weapons lime spears and swords, what weaopons they have are more clubbing or hacking weapons, which require more room to use effectively. That is going to effect their fighting style.

3. Ancient armies were trying to kill each other. Modern riot police are not trying to kill rioters, and even the rioters, even when they seek to wound the police, are not necessarily trying to kill them. This again will effect the fighting style. Ancient writers differentiated a riot and an actual battle.

1) Neither did many ancient soldiers. EricD already covered at some length that there is little to no record of Roman combat training - endurance training, certainly, but it's highly likely that modern riot police train more for combat than ancient warriors. This should not be surprising. Modern society is far more able to support people taking time to train how to fight rather than more important tasks like harvesting food.

2) See above.

3) And, what, you think the threat of death will make people more aggressive?

[EricD]

A sword like the gladius that was used for stabbing and a spear can be used in tight formation, since you don't need a lot of room to thrust. To swing a a club or slash, you do need room.

Roman period sources, from Polybius to Caesar and Livy, consistently describe the Roman soldier needing to spread out and get room in order to fight effectively. You certainly can thrust with a gladius, and Polybius points out that it is serviceable for both actions, but it's cutting power is far more often remarked upon in primary sources. It's design and blade profile is short, heavy, and wide: This is a weapon very well suited for delivering powerful hacking blows. Which makes perfect sense as to why the Romans had to spread out to use it. If they were fighting in tight formation with thrusting weapons, they would have preferred spears, which are better at it.

Modern riots are rather different from ancient battles in some important respects:

1. Rioters, unlike ancient armies, don't really train together in fighting. Ancient armies would have been. While ancient Celtic or Germanic armies might have behave a little more like rioters, even they would have been more organized in their fighting. And egen riot police wouls not have had nearly as extensve training in fighting in formation as a Roman soldier. So the fighting in a riot may not be repreaentative of what thr fighting would be lime by well trained soldiers.

There are serious reasons to doubt how much training as formations ancient armies were doing. I would not be surprised to find that modern riot police train in formation-fighting more than the ancient Greeks or Romans did. What bits in the texts we do have about the training of the republican Legions indicate that their training focused much on the individual martial ability, and strength and endurance of the soldiers, not of formation maneuvers

2. The weapons the rioters used and the police used are quite a bit different. The rioters are not using long stabbing weapons lime spears and swords, what weaopons they have are more clubbing or hacking weapons, which require more room to use effectively. That is going to effect their fighting style.

Again: Primary texts indicate that the Romans had to spread out to fight effectively. Even Asclepiodotus notes in his description of the phalanx that the densest possible formation is only used when the phalanx is defensively withstanding an opposing attack, but must spread out again to attack the enemy. The Romans too only come together in dense formation when they need to take shelter from enemy missiles, but spread out again when they actually need to fight aggressively. You need space to fight.

3. Ancient armies were trying to kill each other. Modern riot police are not trying to kill rioters, and even the rioters, even when they seek to wound the police, are not necessarily trying to kill them. This again will effect the fighting style. Ancient writers differentiated a riot and an actual battle.

Yes, a riot and a battle are different things, but a modern riot is still the best analogy available to us in the modern world for understanding what massed violence with hand weapons looks like. If riots look like this without intent to kill, and with both sides knowing that the other does not generally intend to kill them, then how much more cautious and fearful would soldiers in the ancient world be? They would surely know that hand-to-hand combat carries with a very good chance of being maimed or killed. Why would the chance of death make them any more aggressive or willing to enter hand to hand combat that modern riot police are? As I noted before, even the riot police will back up when they notice themselves getting too far forward and too separated from their supporting comrades, for fear of being beaten to a pulp by the crowd. How much more fearful would ancient soldiers be, knowing that they might not be merely beaten but killed by horrible sharp steel? I would be terrified! You would be too. So why would the Romans not be?

In any case, I think it might be useful in this discussion to discuss how the pilum actually worked.

1. The long iron shaft of the pilum was narrower than the tip, so once the head of the pilum penetraed the shield, there was very little reistance in preventing the iron shaft from traveling through the shield. Pilums with long shafts would be able to hit the soldier behind thr shield once the tip penetrated.

2. With a long shaft, and the tip larger than the shaft, it would be difficult to remove the pilum from the shield, ans wirh the entire weight of thr pilum hanging off the head, the long thing shaft is likely to bend. With a long pilum sticking out of your shield, your shield becomes to unwieldy to use.

Here is a video of a pilum being used. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxY3CzN2Kkc

Yes, the pilum is difficult to remove from a shield, both burdening the shield and ensuring that you can't throw the pilum back at the Romans. This is another step they took to ensure that their missiles can't be returned to them, which means that literal exchange of missiles in battle was a common thing in the period.

And if you're an enemy of Rome, and a pilum is now stuck in your shield and you can't use said shield, are you going to stand and exchange blows with the onrushing legionaries without the protection of the shield? You've just been deprived of your best protection on the battlefield, and of the psychological sense of safety that the shield brought with it. I think, more often than not, Rome's enemies turned and fled after the pila were flung, without any blows being exchanged.

[Common Soldier]

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.

The gladius could cut, yes, but it could also stab as well. If all the Romans wanted was a cutting sword, they wouls have gone for the longer spatula. The tip of the gladius is.ok for thrusting, since unlike medieval thrust centered swords they were not trying to go through cracks in plate armor, ans many of their opponents like the.Germans would.'t have any armor besides a shield

Seriously, Vegetius lived and wrote his De Re Militari centuries after the timeframes when the gladius saw widespread use. He's the Roman equivalent of some rando browsing Wikipedia. You want people who know what they're talking about, try contemporary sources like Titus Livius, who wrote:
The gladius was a brutal cutting sword, which means Romans needed room to swing it.

Where does Tacitus say rhe gladius was only used for hacking? Vegetius was in a much better position to know what the Romans did than someone just sitting in a chair spouting opinions. Vegetius was a soldier, not an arm chair scholar like Livius, who as far as I can tell never served the Roman army. In any case, the fact that Liviuz described the hacking properties of the sword didn't mean it wasn't used for thrusting as well.

But yes, for use in hacking the Roman formation would still have to be somewhat more open than the Greek phalanx to use effectively. But the gladius was a relatively short sword, meaning it could be used in tighter spaces. And it also doesn't mean that Romanz fought in disorgsnized mobs like rioters.

1) Neither did many ancient soldiers. EricD already covered at some length that there is little to no record of Roman combat training - endurance training, certainly, but it's highly likely that modern riot police train more for combat than ancient warriors. This should not be surprising. Modern society is far more able to support people taking time to train how to fight rather than more important tasks like harvesting food.

Roman soldiers trained full time, and experienced soldiers would have seen lots of battles. Fighting was their full time job. In contrast, for the vast majority of riot police, riot control is not their.full time job, and an a few weekends of training won't make them nearly as proficient as a Roman soldier who did it full time for a living. For most "riot police", riot control would be only a small part of their duties and not their peimary function.

And while we don't have a lot of detail on Roman training, formations lime the tesudio could not be used effectively without training. In the videos show, you see a bunch of rank amateurs show on both side. The police fighting the rioters had poor.formation and clearly showed a lack of training and discipline. Having a few sessions on riot control won't make you an expert.

And in the riot, point out the leader who was directing the fighting on either side? Ancient battles had commanders and leaders directing the fighting, none of which I see displayed in any of the video. What the vidoes showed was a bunch of amateurs doing random fighting. That is not a battle. A battle has a plan, structure, people directing the fighting, none of which a riot has.

Here is an example of trained riot control police reacting. Notice unlike the previous riot videos, where the police were just guys stsnding around with shields, these police keep good formation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oHAl85RbS5w

3) And, what, you think the threat of death will make people more aggressive?

Yes. If you know that it is kill or be killed, you are going to be more aggressive. The riot police are not teying to hurt people, the Roman soldiers were. If you killed the enemy and defeated him, you could loot the bodies, which was a common problem if the battle was still going on in other areas. I don't really see much evidence of riot police lootig the bodies of rioters.


To think that a riot is the same thing as a battle is like thinking that this is an accurate recreation of the Battle of Pearl Harbor:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2wcfv9

[Common Soldier]

Roman period sources, from Polybius to Caesar and Livy, consistently describe the Roman soldier needing to spread out and get room in order to fight effectively. You certainly can thrust with a gladius, and Polybius points out that it is serviceable for both actions, but it's cutting power is far more often remarked upon in primary sources. It's design and blade profile is short, heavy, and wide: This is a weapon very well suited for delivering powerful hacking blows. Which makes perfect sense as to why the Romans had to spread out to use it. If they were fighting in tight formation with thrusting weapons, they would have preferred spears, which are better at it.

If the Romans wanted just a hacking weapon, they would used something like the kopis. Thrusting was important too. And because the Romans spread out more than in a phalanx or spear formation, did not mean they fought as a disorganized mass as you seem to imply. Thr reason the Romans adopted the relatively short gladius instead of longer sword was because the gladius could be used in tighter quarters than longer swords.

There are serious reasons to doubt how much training as formations ancient armies were doing. I would not be surprised to find that modern riot police train in formation-fighting more than the ancient Greeks or Romans did. What bits in the texts we do have about the training of the republican Legions indicate that their training focused much on the individual martial ability, and strength and endurance of the soldiers, not of formation maneuvers

Formations like the tesudo and the phalanx require some training in order to work, and we known they were used. Many riot police.are not full time, and likely only have had a few traning sessions before being handed riot gear and pressed into service. And riot police.are not expected or trained ro fight organized groups of other riot police simarly equipped. They are trained to fight unorganized mobs, a much different scenario.


I would say a Roman soldier had as much training and more real experienced than even dedicated modern riot police.

Again: Primary texts indicate that the Romans had to spread out to fight effectively. Even Asclepiodotus notes in his description of the phalanx that the densest possible formation is only used when the phalanx is defensively withstanding an opposing attack, but must spread out again to attack the enemy. The Romans too only come together in dense formation when they need to take shelter from enemy missiles, but spread out again when they actually need to fight aggressively. You need space to fight.

And again, that does not mean they fought as a bunch of random individuals either. We know how.medieval pike and early modsrn armies fought, and assert the.Romans, who.were full time professionals by thenearly empire, fought with less discipline and structure? I don#t accept that.

Yes, a riot and a battle are different things, but a modern riot is still the best analogy available to us in the modern world for understanding what massed violence with hand weapons looks like. If riots look like this without intent to kill, and with both sides knowing that the other does not generally intend to kill them, then how much more cautious and fearful would soldiers in the ancient world be? They would surely know that hand-to-hand combat carries with a very good chance of being maimed or killed. Why would the chance of death make them any more aggressive or willing to enter hand to hand combat that modern riot police are? As I noted before, even the riot police will back up when they notice themselves getting too far forward and too separated from their supporting comrades, for fear of being beaten to a pulp by the crowd. How much more fearful would ancient soldiers be, knowing that they might not be merely beaten but killed by horrible sharp steel? I would be terrified! You would be too. So why would the Romans not be?

A riot isn't very representative. A better comparisonwould be with late medieval and modern battles and how they were fought, and of which we are better informed.

Yes, the pilum is difficult to remove from a shield, both burdening the shield and ensuring that you can't throw the pilum back at the Romans. This is another step they took to ensure that their missiles can't be returned to them, which means that literal exchange of missiles in battle was a common thing in the period.

And if you're an enemy of Rome, and a pilum is now stuck in your shield and you can't use said shield, are you going to stand and exchange blows with the onrushing legionaries without the protection of the shield? You've just been deprived of your best protection on the battlefield, and of the psychological sense of safety that the shield brought with it. I think, more often than not, Rome's enemies turned and fled after the pila were flung, without any blows being exchanged.

It seems to me the most effective use the pilum would be to throw it en masse and depriving the enemy of their shields and vulnerable. Then charge.

[Imrix]

The gladius could cut, yes, but it could also stab as well. If all the Romans wanted was a cutting sword, they wouls have gone for the longer spatula. The tip of the gladius is.ok for thrusting, since unlike medieval thrust centered swords they were not trying to go through cracks in plate armor, ans many of their opponents like the.Germans would.'t have any armor besides a shield

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.

Where does Tacitus say rhe gladius was only used for hacking? Vegetius was in a much better position to know what the Romans did than someone just sitting in a chair spouting opinions. Vegetius was a soldier, not an arm chair scholar like Livius, who as far as I can tell never served the Roman army. In any case, the fact that Liviuz described the hacking properties of the sword didn't mean it wasn't used for thrusting as well.

We know precisely Jack and Squat about Vegetius' station in life, and Jack just left town. All that survives him to us is his writings, so no, we don't know that he was a soldier. We do know that De Re Militari was written more than 300 years after the Romans had conquered most of their empire, meaning that Vegetius is in no way a contemporary source when he writes about Roman military history, and should be considered deeply suspect on that basis. Livy might have been a scholar rather than a warrior, but at least he lived during some of the wars he wrote about.

Roman soldiers trained full time, and experienced soldiers would have seen lots of battles. Fighting was their full time job. In contrast, for the vast majority of riot police, riot control is not their.full time job, and an a few weekends of training won't make them nearly as proficient as a Roman soldier who did it full time for a living. For most "riot police", riot control would be only a small part of their duties and not their peimary function.

Yes, the Romans trained, but what did they train? EricD covered this extensively in his opening essay, demonstrating that Roman soldiers primarily trained for endurance and individual skill, with the closest thing to formation fighting being that they may have undergone marching drills as a formed body.

Yes. If you know that it is kill or be killed, you are going to be more aggressive. The riot police are not teying to hurt people, the Roman soldiers were. If you killed the enemy and defeated him, you could loot the bodies, which was a common problem if the battle was still going on in other areas. I don't really see much evidence of riot police lootig the bodies of rioters.

No, I'm sorry, that's laughable. In the face of the threat of death, people become fearful and less aggressive. If someone has their back against the wall and knows that they have no option but to fight or die, that can give them extraordinary courage - or it can reduce them to a gibbering wreck. But battle is not so simple. Battle is chaos, with ample room to flee or hide and preserve one's own life.

EDIT:

A riot isn't very representative. A better comparisonwould be with late medieval and modern battles and how they were fought, and of which we are better informed.

I'm sorry, better informed? Are you serious? If you have video footage of the freaking Battle of Castillon on your hard drive, please, by all means, present it to us.

[Cyclops]

I am interested by the discussion around physical shock in battle. Its clear a lot of battle manoeuvres can result in one side breaking before actual contact. Things like fancy crests, filed teeth and warpaint attest to the effectiveness of psychology on the battlefield. Cavalry charges and raised falxes must have led to a lot of back wounds.

Group psychology also applies: a line of men in holds ground or advances more readily than individuals. Once engaged (standing at or very close to striking distance) its very difficult to disengage without breaking. The Romans are described as advancing to contact, delivering strokes with their short swords and rotating into and out of contact with the enemy. If true those are evidence of extremely disciplined fighting, going against what we might expect based on human fight or flight responses.

We've had discussions about this on this site before and the literature is readily available on line about ancient battlefield graveyards, from the Bronze Age onwards. A lot of battlefield injuries are back wounds (obviously inflicted after one side flees) but there are also "defensive wounds", wounds to the front of the body surely only inflicted after one or both combatants agreed to enter the same small space to fight. We find men with healed wounds too, so its clear warriors experienced and often survived multiple fights involving melee: they didn't always die in rare hand-to-hand events or after racing off before contact.

The literature bears this out too: depictions of knights show lone knights and bodies of horsemen advancing to contact, and in fact battlefield graves bear this out (I recall one skeleton that had been split from shoulder to pelvis from in front, probably an axe blow of incredible force). Likewise writers from Herodotus to Urs Graf describe the push of pike (IIRC Graf preferred the shorter Swiss pike to the longer German one as it wobbled less).

While there are exceptions typically "shock" troops (those expected to advance to contact more readily) were higher status: a crusading knight outranks a skirmishing turcopole, and an armoured footman would be higher status than a lowly archer.

Part of the motivation to fight was a "warrior ethos" extolling courage and discipline: these are part of the Roman self image like many other societies. Training and status help a warrior overcome the natural instinct to avoid contact: they also help them remain in and return to formations after shock events like pursuit or a melee. One can compare the conduct of the British and French cavalry at Waterloo: the British cavalry made one (truly magnificent and devastating charge) and were spent, cantering higgedly piggedly after most of the officers were wounded or kiled. By comparison the deadly 9adn far more experienced) French lancers mopped up their British opponents and then spent a lot of the afternoon charging over the crest in the face of canister to swirl about the unshaken squares over the ridgeline: an heroic example of elite discipline, requiring the men to fall back and find one another then reform and return to what was frankly a pretty hopeless and terrifying attack.

This sort of complex manoeuvre and recovery can be seen at Kynoskephalae, where the Roman right rescues the left after a savage fight against the unformed Makedonian phalanx. Its an example of a unit prepared to engage in multiple melees, breaking off contact when needed.

Its not an either/or equation when we discuss the difficulty getting men to fight face to face.: it was hard, but it was done.

We do it in the boxing ring, on the streets (especially outside nightclubs) and in battle. Its hard but a well motivated and rewarded soldier can bring himself to do what looks suicidal (read some VC commendations, there was a recent Australian recipient Afghanistan in whose party trick was drawing short range machine gun fire by running zigzags).

In groups its easier and we have plausible descriptions of disciplined bodies of men overcoming their fear and advancing to (or receiving) contact, supported by archaeology. The literature is full of exaggerated and misleading examples like in Braveheart, and its natural to react to these improbable depictions, but clashes of arms did occur.

[EricD]

We know precisely Jack and Squat about Vegetius station in life, and Jack just left town. All that survives him to us is his writings, so no, we don't know that he was a soldier. We do know that De Re Militari was written more than 300 years after the Romans had conquered most of their empire, meaning that Vegetius is in no way a contemporary source when he writes about Roman military history, and should be considered deeply suspect on that basis. Livy might have been a scholar rather than a warrior, but at least he lived during some of the wars he wrote about.

Yes, this is why I based my essay primarily around Polybius and Caesar who were both military men. Polybius may not have commanded Roman armies like Caesar did, but he did accompany them on several campaigns, including the siege of Carthage. In the defense of Livy however, he may have been a scholar but he drew upon Roman military texts which are lost to us today, such as Cato the Elder's De Re Militari.

Yes, the Romans trained, but what did they train? EricD covered this extensively in his opening essay, demonstrating that Roman soldiers primarily trained for endurance and individual skill, with the closest thing to formation fighting being that they may have undergone marching drills as a formed body.

Well, Polybius does include this intriguing quote from his account of the Roman wars with the Gauls prior to the Hannibalic war, in Book 2 of the Histories:

The Romans are thought to have managed matters very skilfully in this battle, their tribunes having instructed them how they should fight, both as individuals and collectively

So some degree of unit-level training was perhaps being carried out. However in the context of this particular quote, the Roman tribunes are giving their maniples instructions on how to fight in that particular engagement. We don't have much indications for how the Romans trained at the unit level during the campaign other than in particular battle instructions such as this one. They may have been doing so, but we don't know for sure. We do know that they trained as individuals, and we do know they had elaborate procedures for fortifying the camp and stationing their night's watches and picquets, but training in battle maneuvers outside of battle-specific instructions such as this one is a big question mark, frankly. And the mechanics of the maniple in battle, as best we understand them, don't really need a lot of training at the unit level either, unlike the Macedonian syntagma which must drill as a phalanx to be effective. I would be unsurprised if modern riot police do, in fact, train as formations more often than the Romans did.

No, I'm sorry, that's laughable. In the face of the threat of death, people become fearful and less aggressive. If someone has their back against the wall and knows that they have no option but to fight or die, that can give them extraordinary courage - or it can reduce them to a ibbering wreck. But battle is not so simple. Battle is chaos, with ample room to flee or hide and preserve one's own life.

Of course fear can be overcome, if it could not then men could not fight at all, but even when they are consciously choosing to set their fear aside they will still seek to maintain their own safety and reduce chance of injury as far as they can. Men who serve in war today, far braver men than I, feel fear in battle. Even though they overcome said fear, they still use cover and take care of their own safety as far as they are able to do so.

I am interested by the discussion around physical shock in battle. Its clear a lot of battle manoeuvres can result in one side breaking before actual contact. Things like fancy crests, filed teeth and warpaint attest to the effectiveness of psychology on the battlefield. Cavalry charges and raised falxes must have led to a lot of back wounds.

Group psychology also applies: a line of men in holds ground or advances more readily than individuals. Once engaged (standing at or very close to striking distance) its very difficult to disengage without breaking. The Romans are described as advancing to contact, delivering strokes with their short swords and rotating into and out of contact with the enemy. If true those are evidence of extremely disciplined fighting, going against what we might expect based on human fight or flight responses.

We've had discussions about this on this site before and the literature is readily available on line about ancient battlefield graveyards, from the Bronze Age onwards. A lot of battlefield injuries are back wounds (obviously inflicted after one side flees) but there are also "defensive wounds", wounds to the front of the body surely only inflicted after one or both combatants agreed to enter the same small space to fight. We find men with healed wounds too, so its clear warriors experienced and often survived multiple fights involving melee: they didn't always die in rare hand-to-hand events or after racing off before contact.

The literature bears this out too: depictions of knights show lone knights and bodies of horsemen advancing to contact, and in fact battlefield graves bear this out (I recall one skeleton that had been split from shoulder to pelvis from in front, probably an axe blow of incredible force). Likewise writers from Herodotus to Urs Graf describe the push of pike (IIRC Graf preferred the shorter Swiss pike to the longer German one as it wobbled less).

While there are exceptions typically "shock" troops (those expected to advance to contact more readily) were higher status: a crusading knight outranks a skirmishing turcopole, and an armoured footman would be higher status than a lowly archer.

Right, but what does "advancing to contact" actually mean? I would argue that it does not mean two groups hurling themselves together like a car crash, as Mamlaz earlier argued, for the reasons I have already given. Far more likely, I think, would be a jogging or slow run towards the enemy, and then slowing down and stopping around the edge of measure (That is, the distance at which you can strike with a hand weapon like a sword or spear). Even if the force involved is well trained and experienced, if the enemy is not turning and running then I think the charging force must slow down and stop in order to transfer from charging to actually fighting. My experience fencing with the longsword has taught me that you need good grounding and balance to fight effectively, so they have to stop in order to fight if the opponent resists.

This sort of complex manoeuvre and recovery can be seen at Kynoskephalae, where the Roman right rescues the left after a savage fight against the unformed Makedonian phalanx. Its an example of a unit prepared to engage in multiple melees, breaking off contact when needed.

That does not accurately describe what happened at Cynoscephalae. I am going to bring us back to Polybius again:

Philip's right wing acquitted themselves splendidly in the battle, as they were charging from higher ground and were superior in the weight of their formation, the nature of their arms also giving them a decided advantage on the present occasion. But as for the rest of his army, those next to the force actually engaged were still at a distance from the enemy and those on the left had only just surmounted the ridge and come into view of the summits. Flamininus, seeing that his men could not sustain the charge of the phalanx, but that since his left was being forced back, some of them having already perished and others retreating slowly, his only hope of safety lay in his right, hastened to place himself in command there, and observing that those of the enemy who were next the actual combatants were idle, and that some of the rest were still descending to meet him from the summits and others had halted on the heights, placed his elephants in front and led on his legions to the attack. The Macedonians now, having no one to give them orders and being unable to adopt the formation proper to the phalanx, in part owing to the difficulty of the ground and in part because they were trying to reach the combatants and were still in marching order and not in line, did not even wait until they were at close quarters with the Romans, but gave way thrown into confusion and broken up by the elephants alone.

In other words, the Macedonian wing broken by the Romans first was broken up by the charge of Roman elephants, it was not formed in battle array, and it did not even wait to fight the Roman infantry. Only then was the Roman tribune able to take his 20 maniples and outflank Philip's right wing troops, engaged in driving back the Roman left.

Its not an either/or equation when we discuss the difficulty getting men to fight face to face.: it was hard, but it was done.

We do it in the boxing ring, on the streets (especially outside nightclubs) and in battle. Its hard but a well motivated and rewarded soldier can bring himself to do what looks suicidal (read some VC commendations, there was a recent Australian recipient Afghanistan in whose party trick was drawing short range machine gun fire by running zigzags).

In groups its easier and we have plausible descriptions of disciplined bodies of men overcoming their fear and advancing to (or receiving) contact, supported by archaeology. The literature is full of exaggerated and misleading examples like in Braveheart, and its natural to react to these improbable depictions, but clashes of arms did occur.

Yes, men in battle can overcome incredible fear to face combat, but firstly we have to acknowledge that the fear exists and, even being overcome, will shape how men act and behave in violence. Secondly, we have to redefine our image of what "contact" and "shock" means. Contact does mean both sides coming together for exchanges of blows and clashes of arms, but these were necessarily a brief stage in a battle. The riot videos I posted above have plenty of examples: The combatants get close, strike a few blows, then back off swiftly to get back to a safe distance, where they can rest and mentally brace themselves for the next exchange. This is in line with the behaviour of fencers in the HEMA bouts I have fought in and observed: Two fighters circle, they approach, they exchange blows, and then they retreat. Professional boxers, who have incredible endurance and skill, likewise will exchange blows and then retreat and circle again. That is likely what is going on between the front lines of two embattled armies in Antiquity.

As for shock: It must be understood that shock is not a physical impact, but a psychological force. Here is another riot example:

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

Riot police on horseback charge into a group of protesters here. The protesters give way and recoil backwards as a group, opening up an empty space in front of the horses. They fear being trampled, and so they give way. That is how shock would likely work on the ancient battlefield, when one side is so terrified of the other that they recoil away and create an empty space into which the attacking force can advance.

In fact, I think riots are such a valuable analogy for ancient battle because the rioters are untrained, normal people. They demonstrate for us what the natural human instincts in a massed violent situation are. Training and experience can overcome instinct, but only to an extent, and instinct is still powerful.

[Common Soldier]

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.
We know precisely Jack and Squat about Vegetius' station in life, and Jack just left town. All that survives him to us is his writings, so no, we don't know that he was a soldier. We do know that De Re Militari was written more than 300 years after the Romans had conquered most of their empire, meaning that Vegetius is in no way a contemporary source when he writes about Roman military history, and should be considered deeply suspect on that basis. Livy might have been a scholar rather than a warrior, but at least he lived during some of the wars he wrote about

Vegetius was well informex about military matters, and he is one of primary sources of the Roman army, while for all we know Livius descriptions could be just the result of his overactive imagination. Do you have skeletons from ancient Roman battles showing all the gruesome wounds he describes? If so, provide it. And Vegetius.is a lot, lot closer in time to the early empire than you.
.

Yes, the Romans trained, but what did they train? EricD covered this extensively in his opening essay, demonstrating that Roman soldiers primarily trained for endurance and individual skill, with the closest thing to formation fighting being that they may have undergone marching drills as a formed body.

We simply don't have a lot of detail on Roman training, period. Vegeiusius is among our best and detailed source on Roman traning, but since you dizmiss everything he says because what he says doesn't match what you want to believe, you have no sorces that support your opinion. Movements like tesudo won't be effectively excecuted, yet we don't have any training that we know must have existed for that manuever. Absence of evidence is not as you repeatedly assert evidence of absence. You have no basis to.assert your opinion as fact. If training on fighting in formation made them fight better, the Romans would that..

No, I'm sorry, that's laughable. In the face of the threat of death, people become fearful and less aggressive. If someone has their back against the wall and knows that they have no option but to fight or die, that can give them extraordinary courage - or it can reduce them to a gibbering wreck. But battle is not so simple. Battle is chaos, with ample room to flee or hide and preserve one's own life.

What do you s.laughable is you and your total ignorance. I mean total. We have numerous accounts of people doing exactly whar you claimed they didn't. Events like Picketts charge, Charge of the Light Brigade. Or even the charge of the French knights in the Battle of Agincourt, where rhe knights faced a hail of arrows and yet still persisted in their march. Yes, men can flee in battle, but that is what discipline and training is for, to prevent precisely that. Experienced troops are less likely to flee than raw green troops, as experienced commanders know.

And soldiers can be and sometimes were executed for fleeing. A soldier knowing he will be killed as a coward will likely choose risking an honorable death in battle than being klled as a coward. Roman legins that fled were punished, by being decimated wirh soldiers randomly being randomly being chosen and killed by their own fellow soldiers.

Also, you fail to take into account the rush of adreniline. Soldiers could so filled with rage, anger, or other emotions that they can charge, being heedless of danger, in their rush just not think about it. If things like banzai charges exist, you don't know what you are tslking about and since they did, you don't.

EDIT:
I'm sorry, better informed? Are you serious? If you have video footage of the freaking Battle of Castillon on your hard drive, please, by all means, present it to us.

Where did I talk about videos please point out where? But we do have contemporary paintings of battles, showing the formation of troops, something we don't have for the Romans. Our written documentation is better, we have letters from the Civil War and Revolutionary Wars from soldiers on the eve of battle, we have training manuals talking about drilling and formations that we don't have for Roman armies. Ans we have more detailed accounts of battles modern era battles. We can tell from the accounts and illustrations of the battles that they they were not fought the way you describe. You really are asserting that Roman soldiers would act in a more cowardly manner than theie modern counterparts and I do not see the facts supporting your assertion.

Why do you insist without any actual evidence that the Romans would fight like a disorganized mob? Why wouldn't they have foufht in a more organized manner like we know modern armies did? Given the degree of organization they gave to their camps wnd other matters, why inist the Romans fought as a random mob?

Finally, you forget that soldiers in battles had commanders who were giving orders. If the orders weren't obeyed, soldiers could be and were executed. Battles were not conducted the way the women in the Monty Python skit recreated the Battle of Pearl Harbor https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OO27A8xllA

[EricD]

Where did I talk about videos please point out where. But we do have contemporary paintings of battles, showing the formation of troops, something we don't have for the Romans. Our written documentation is better, we have letters from the Civil War and Revolutionary Wars from soldiers on the eve of battle, we have training manuals talking about drilling and formations that we don't have for Roman armies. Ans we have more detailed accounts of battles modern era battles. We can tell from the accounts and illustrations of the battles that they they were not fought the way you describe. You really are asserting that Roman soldiers would act in a more cowardly manner than theie modern counterparts and I do not see the facts supporting your assertion.

There are videos of street riots which will demonstrate for you both the instinctive behaviours of untrained people in massed violence, and the modified behaviours of trained experts in massed violence (The riot police).

You alleged that we have better understanding of medieval and early modern battle than of street riots. Given that we have video footage of street riots, and not of medieval battles, this is a laughable statement. We have a much better understanding of modern riots than of medieval battles. Medieval battles are just as obscure and difficult for us to understand as ancient battle is.

Why do you insist without any actual evidence that the Romans would fight like a disorganized mob? Why wouldn't they have foufht in a more organized manner like we know modern armies did? Given the degree of organization they gave to their camps wnd other matters, why inist the Romans fought as a random mob?

Finally, you forget that soldiers in battles had commanders who were giving orders. If the orders weren't obeyed, soldiers could be and were executed.

The Romans weren't a chaotic mob, nobody is saying that they were. But neither are the riot police, and the riot police too are cautious in their movements, they don't rush in mindlessly, they are mindful of their safety and of the danger, and engage in hand to hand combat in relatively brief clashes with longer periods of stand off against the mob. The behaviour of the riot police is likely very similar to how the Romans were behaving in battle. These are the modern trained experts in this kind of violence, why disregard what is before your own eyes?

And you keep on repeating that commanders are giving orders. How exactly do you think orders could be transmitted from a commander? Think about this in real terms: Ancient battle is chaotic. It is full of the noises of arms and horses, full of screaming and shouts, the thud of weapons against shields. It's full of dust, confusion. The ancient army doesn't have radios for a commander on high to talk to people across the battlefield, the ancient army does not have maps with which to plot and coordinate movements, and the situational awareness of a commander on one part of a battlefield could be totally unaware of what is going on in a different part. In a real sense, the troops on the left flank of the line are fighting their own battle independently from the ones on the right flank. The Romans, quite wisely, created a robust system of subordinate leaders, the centurions and optios, each responsible for only a small part of the battle line, because of these difficulties of command and because of the inherent chaos of battle. A general might lay out a plan for his subordinate leaders prior to the battle, as Caesar tells us he did at Gergovia. But once battle is joined, he has very limited means of controlling or directing the battle outside of his own limited area of awareness. This is why it was common in armies of the period for the general to personally lead the cavalry, because the cavalry was a fast-moving force which the general could keep under his personal direction, and once a battle is joined a general is only able to direct whatever force he keeps at his personal disposal. Hannibal is accounted as taking personal leadership of the centre of his line at Cannae, because the controlled retreat of the centre was critical to his plan, and he could only direct it by being the commander on the spot.

You say that these armies fought in an "organized", but we must better define and understand what "organized" actually means. An army in battle may appear loose and chaotic, and may still be well organized and determined. Battle is chaotic by its nature, and I believe that the Roman armies thrived because they adapted themselves well to the chaos of war.

[Hanny]

OP is posting not bad history, but not history at all.

Sabins etc combat models give missile casualties in the 10 to 15% range, ie its a very small contribution to the casualty rate in combat, all the models attribute close combat as the principle causality.


https://orca.cf.ac.uk/29039/1/2012andersaophd.pdf
Roman Light Infantry and The Art of Combat The Nature and Experience of Skirmishing and Non-Pitched Battle in Roman Warfare 264 BC – AD 235




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


The military oath, ( giving to to the Legions commnders the authority to execute/punish them for infractions without the use of a civil court) sacramentum, till 216 was that they would not desert from the army, and not leave the ranks except to fight against the enemy ( fighting in advance of the standard) or to save a Roman citizen. Later to regain their ( it was their weapons) weapons if lost, which evolved into regain any weapon( the state provided the weapons).


By the time of the Empire it had changed.


SACRAMENTVM
ME OMNIA IMPERATORIS IVSSA FACTVRVM ESSE
CONTRA HOSTIS SVMMA VI IN ACIEM PVGNATVRVM
NVMQVAM AB SIGNIS DECESSVRVM
NVLLO MODO IMPERIVM POPVLI ROMANI LAESVRVM
NISI HANC FIDEM CONSERVABO
IVPITER ME DELEAT




The oath:
I will always fulfill commands given to me,
I will fight with an enemy in phalanx,
I will never abandon standards,
I will not harm to the Roman empire and nation of Rome,
if I do not keep it,
Ivpiter (Jupiter) will destroy me.

[Morifea]

@Hanny: A fine addition to my collection. Have some rep.

[Common Soldier]

There are videos of street riots which will demonstrate for you both the instinctive behaviours of untrained people in massed violence, and the modified behaviours of trained experts in massed violence (The riot police).

You alleged that we have better understanding of medieval and early modern battle than of street riots. Given that we have video footage of street riots, and not of medieval battles, this is a laughable statement. We have a much better understanding of modern riots than of medieval battles. Medieval battles are just as obscure and difficult for us to understand as ancient battle is.

A riot is not a battle. In a riot, police are not trying to kill the rioters, where in a battle, soldiers are trying to kill. Please show me in modern videos where the police were hacking limbs off, that claim is assurd and laughable. A riot is not a battle, even the ancients knew that. The rioters are not being directed by leaders, you don't have officers innthe rioters ensuring they are fighting, and rioters are not executed after the riot aftet they failed to fight and obey orders.

We know later armies fought in organized formations, there is no reason to insist the Romans didn't either. From the actual evidence of Roman camps we know the Romans were very organized, so why insist that the Romans fought like a drrunken mob?

Many of the police involved in fighting a riot don't have any particular traning, othet than a few sessions. Simply because they are wearing riot gear doesn't mean the police wearing the gear are experts. Hear is example of obviously trained riot police, and they are much different from your example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oHAl85RbS5w

PS - I did not mean to say that we have better knowledge of early modern battles than modern riors, but we have better knowledge than ancient battles. Our knowledge of modern riots is not relevant, since riots have key differences from battles.

The Romans weren't a chaotic mob, nobody is saying that they were. But neither are the riot police, and the riot police too are cautious in their movements, they don't rush in mindlessly, they are mindful of their safety and of the danger, and engage in hand to hand combat in relatively brief clashes with longer periods of stand off against the mob. The behaviour of the riot police is likely very similar to how the Romans were behaving in battle. These are the modern trained experts in this kind of violence, why disregard what is before your own eyes?

Riot police have a high priority of not injuring either rioters or themselves, Roman soldiers did not have that priority. The riot police are cautious to avoid injuries on either side, Romans did not have.thst caution since they were certainly not trying to avoid causing injuries to their opponents. Riot police motivation, goal, and tactics are much different, making them a poor model of a Roman soldier.

And you keep on repeating that commanders are giving orders. How exactly do you think orders could be transmitted from a commander? Think about this in real terms: Ancient battle is chaotic. It is full of the noises of arms and horses, full of screaming and shouts, the thud of weapons against shields. It's full of dust, confusion. The ancient army doesn't have radios for a commander on high to talk to people across the battlefield, the ancient army does not have maps with which to plot and coordinate movements, and the situational awareness of a commander on one part of a battlefield could be totally unaware of what is going on in a different part. In a real sense, the troops on the left flank of the line are fighting their own battle independently from the ones on the right flank. The Romans, quite wisely, created a robust system of subordinate leaders, the centurions and optios, each responsible for only a small part of the battle line, because of these difficulties of command and because of the inherent chaos of battle. A general might lay out a plan for his subordinate leaders prior to the battle, as Caesar tells us he did at Gergovia. But once battle is joined, he has very limited means of controlling or directing the battle outside of his own limited area of awareness. This is why it was common in armies of the period for the general to personally lead the cavalry, because the cavalry was a fast-moving force which the general could keep under his personal direction, and once a battle is joined a general is only able to direct whatever force he keeps at his personal disposal. Hannibal is accounted as taking personal leadership of the centre of his line at Cannae, because the controlled retreat of the centre was critical to his plan, and he could only direct it by being the commander on the spot.

They shouted, used hand gestures, standanrds and flags, bugle calls, and a variery of other methods. Commanders often were on horse even for infantry so the troops could see them. Roman helmets did not cover the ears like Greek helmets precizely so the Roman soldier could hear better, including orders shouted out.

We know that modern armies in the 18th and 19th century fought in orgsnized formations, without radios, and cannons and guns would have made those battlefields noiser than ancient Roman battles. Are you asserting despite all the evidence 18th and 19th century battles were fought without formations, with soldiers strictly as disorganized mobs?


PS - Ancient writers like Dionysius of Halicarnassus clearly describe the Romans using their swords for thrusting. https://archive.org/stream/romananti...nuoft_djvu.txt. Dionysius wrote during early imperial times, and a number of other ancient sources also describe ths Romans using thrust as well So the claim that it was just Vegetius that claimed the Romans used their swords for thrusting is not accurate.

Here is a good video.discussing the gladius and cites a number of ancient sources that describe the Roman sword being used for thrusting as well as cutting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LG77KxRSN8

[Imrix]

Vegetius was well informex about military matters, and he is one of primary sources of the Roman army, while for all we know Livius descriptions could be just the result of his overactive imagination. Do you have skeletons from ancient Roman battles showing all the gruesome wounds he describes? If so, provide it. And Vegetius.is a lot, lot closer in time to the early empire than you.

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.

We simply don't have a lot of detail on Roman training, period. Vegeiusius is among our best and detailed source on Roman traning, but since you dizmiss everything he says because what he says doesn't match what you want to believe, you have no sorces that support your opinion. Movements like tesudo won't be effectively excecuted, yet we don't have any training that we know must have existed for that manuever. Absence of evidence is not as you repeatedly assert evidence of absence. You have no basis to.assert your opinion as fact. If training on fighting in formation made them fight better, the Romans would that..

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.

What do you s.laughable is you and your total ignorance. I mean total. We have numerous accounts of people doing exactly whar you claimed they didn't. Events like Picketts charge, Charge of the Light Brigade. Or even the charge of the French knights in the Battle of Agincourt, where rhe knights faced a hail of arrows and yet still persisted in their march. Yes, men can flee in battle, but that is what discipline and training is for, to prevent precisely that. Experienced troops are less likely to flee than raw green troops, as experienced commanders know.

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."

Where did I talk about videos please point out where?

You asserted that we are better informed about late medieval battles than modern riots, and you did so right here:

A riot isn't very representative. A better comparisonwould be with late medieval and modern battles and how they were fought, and of which we are better informed.

We have video footage of modern riots, we do not have footage of medieval battles.

[Mamlaz]

As exhaustively explained above: The ancient battlefield is full of potential missiles to be rethrown.

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.

It absolutely IS up for debate. The fact that you advance this nonsensical view demonstrates that it must be debated, because it is incorrect.

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

Listen: My primary hobby is historical European martial arts.

I also dabble in it.

I fight with longswords, that is my preferred sport. Blunt, but realistic in weight and handling. Some people in a sparring or competition bout are more aggressive, some people less. But do you know what most often happens when two opponents, unfamiliar with one another, face off in a competition bout with advancement or elimination on the line? They circle cautiously, often for some time, before either is willing to commit themselves to a blow, and the exchange is often very brief. That is with blunt weapons, where you are not going to be injured or killed by a single mistake as may be the case with sharp weapons. If people aare usually so cautious with blunt weapons in friendly competition, why would they be any different in real battle with sharp weapons and life and death on the line?

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.

The medieval Italian fencing master Fiore dei Liberi wrote

Dueling is not battle.

I ask you: Would YOU impale yourself on a pike willingly? The fact that the primary sources which describe pike warfare in the age of pike and shot focus on instances like men impaling themselves willingly on pikes is because such an instance is unusual.

No, they literally describe it in wave off.

There are even war manuals who entice it.

The fact that humans in mass violence think firstly about their own safety

In violence enticed groups they don't.

And further he states: "there is no shock of infantry on infantry. There is no physical impulse, no force of mass. There is but a moral impulse."

Ardant du Picq was no abstract theorist, but a career soldier who saw active service with the French Army in the Crimean War, and in colonial campaigns in Syria and Algeria. He died on active service in the Franco-Prussian War. His Battle Studies is rich both with scholarship of ancient sources and with his lived experience of real war and violence.

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

Here's a practical demonstration of why that is the case, from a group of modern hoplite reenactors in France

These rioters are serious, too.

...sigh

There can be no physical impact in a battle either, except for perhaps in very rare and brief circumstances.

This is how crowds of humans behave in violent situations.

No, this is, and not only is it, but it is in the most intense example of it;

push pike warfare;


"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

Followed up imagery;

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/kba/0016-1/871

https://i.imgur.com/fkXOXB8.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Mgua75o.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/B4AfheE.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4ar5SDN.png

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


how about cavalry charging pikes, seems insane init?;

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/kba/0016-1/826

https://i.imgur.com/qx7qPK4.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/hVX43zd.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DEu4Hf4.jpg



...and you think men before their pike and shot age, who carried the protection and safety of a shield, could/would not?

[Hanny]

T N Dupoy, The evolution of weapons and warfare.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...tomi-bkasin-20


p288 has a set of data that shows the correlation of men per metre, hours in contact, from 400 BC till the present and has all weapon systems, that yields a theoritical killing potential.


The Sarissa is top untill the advent of the longbow which is not matched till the rifled musket, gladius is well ahead on casualty infliction, pila are not even on the graph, since against anyone with a shield, it just takes away the shield, which is what its designed to do.


https://i2.wp.com/www.dupuyinstitute...y-edited02.jpg


Scroll down to The Historical Relationship Between Weapon Lethality and Battle Casualty Rates


If the notion that missile weapons were causing most of the casualties, dispersion would have ocured to counter its effects well before the advent of fire arms, but thats not the case, we find Romans ( close order 3 feet between maen as oposed to 6 feet open order) and Greek putting more men in the same space, 1.5 feet per phalangite, and multiple ranks behind with weapon reach to allow more pikes on the same frontage) not less.


Munda lasted 8 hours, how did Caesers side lose 1k to 30k on Pompey side ( with 13 legions throwing 2 pila a man, thats c50k Legionaries and 100k pila) if missile fire was as effective, long lasting, as claimed?.


Tacitus "Shower your blows thickly; strike at the face with your swords' points".

Why?, because if you sever the neck vertebra, above the shoulder, which the gladius is rather well designed for, he drops like a rock, paralyized from neck down, and cant harm you any more.

[Mamlaz]

T N Dupoy, The evolution of weapons and warfare.

p288 has a set of data that shows the correlation of men per metre, hours in contact, from 400 BC till the present and has all weapon systems, that yields a theoritical killing potential.


The Sarissa is top untill the advent of the longbow which is not matched till the rifled musket, gladius is well ahead on casualty infliction, pila are not even on the graph, since against anyone with a shield, it just takes away the shield, which is what its designed to do.


Scroll down to The Historical Relationship Between Weapon Lethality and Battle Casualty Rates


If the notion that missile weapons were causing most of the casualties, dispersion would have ocured to counter its effects well before the advent of fire arms, but thats not the case, we find Romans ( close order 3 feet between maen as oposed to 6 feet open order) and Greek putting more men in the same space, 1.5 feet per phalangite, and multiple ranks behind with weapon reach to allow more pikes on the same frontage) not less.

That book seems to be complete bollocks.

It took the English hundreds of thousands of arrows to take out a few thousand Frenchman, it took the Parthians allegedly from half a mil to 1 000 000 arrows to take out 10 000 Romans and wound some thousands more, that is, if we completely sideline the English knights/men at arms and the Parthian cataphracts(as pop history, documentaries, tv and movies already did).

[Hanny]

That book seems to be complete bollocks.

Ok, so war Collages can stop using it to teach from then, and start using you and your internet posts.https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a255111.pdf

[EricD]

OP is posting not bad history, but not history at all.

Sabins etc combat models give missile casualties in the 10 to 15% range, ie its a very small contribution to the casualty rate in combat, all the models attribute close combat as the principle causality.

Yes, because Polybius, Caesar, Plutarch, Sallust, and Livy are obviously not historical sources at all. And, for that matter, neither are Goldsworthy, Sabin, Zhmodikov, Quesada-Sanz or the other academics I have cited as well. Clearly not history in the least, because it disagrees with your preconceptions.

As for the casualty rate: Yeah, casualties inflicted by missile exchange were probably low in absolute terms. But we also know that relatively few casualties were inflicted at all when both forces stood resolute and resisting, and most of the casualties in the battle would be inflicted when one side routs and flees and the other cuts them down from behind. Ancient sources almost always attribute far more massive casualties to the losers than to the winners, indeed Pyrrhus's battles were renowned because, quite unusually, he apparently took heavy losses in them. Sometimes the exact numbers of casualties to each side strain credibility, but the general theme is that the loser dies far more than the winner. And we know that most of these casualties come in the rout. Most people who die in an ancient battle, as far as we understand at this time, don't die in the fight but in the pursuit afterwards. 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.

Roman Light Infantry and The Art of Combat The Nature and Experience of Skirmishing and Non-Pitched Battle in Roman Warfare 264 BC – AD 235

I am going to quote a key passage from this thesis which you have provide, from the author's discussion of combat techniques (Pg. 195):

"As already noted, the Bellum Africum, includes a passage where Caesar also instructs his men in fighting techniques which emphasize a back-and-forth movement in the battle-line (Caes. BAfr. 71). Just as in Vegetius’ passage above, the notion of advancing and retreating is prevalent. Tacitus likewise implies that soldiers naturally extended and contracted their lines, and when this was not done in a controlled manner, the legions could end up in quite loose order, which made them vulnerable. Tacitus tells usthat due this exactly what happened to the Vitellian legions at the second battle of Bedriacum, because they were without a commander (Hist. 3.25). We might liken this type of back-and-forth movement in combat to modern combat sports such as boxing, where fighters are most effective when they are literally ‘on their toes’. Being overly static in life-or-death combat may not have always been advantageous against an enemy intent on landing a killing blow. This is certainly what Dio believes to have been one of the causes behind the Varian disaster. He claims that the freedom to advance and retire on behalf of the Germans was one of the factors that gave them the advantage over the legionaries in the Teutoburger Wald, thus implying that the Romans could not do so (Dio 56.21.4). To be sure, giving ground when necessary is arguably what allowed for lulls in combat: both forces could back away from each other to take the breaks that we hear of in our descriptions of pitched battle"

And further on Pg 197:

"This back-and-forth movement does not necessitate giving ground behind the standards, as Caesar points out. This is because the front line of soldiers is both stationed in front of their own standards, and a short distance away from their opponents. Because of this space between the opposing armies, when using the back-and-forth technique, the only ground that is given, is that ground which is first taken with the initial advance into this space. As mentioned above, this technique is also made necessary by the position of the standards, which determine the pace of general advance and positioning of the entire unit. They restrict the soldiers from advancing too far beyond them, or retreating behind them. Thus, the position of the standards necessitates that the antesignani adhere to a generally established front line, so this back-and-forth motion could have been necessary to ensure that this line was held. For example, if several soldiers advanced too far beyond their standard, they would have to return to hold their line and prevent themselves from being enveloped by the enemy or exposing any significant gaps or dangerous ‘kinks’ in their line. They would presumably make this return whilst facing the enemy, thus creating the back-and forth movement."

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 continously within range of each other, how could these controlled back and forth movements be possible? 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KgX-hb1amo

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? 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. This sort of gradual advancing and retreating, maintaining a distance just out of striking range, would explain the advancing and retreating across a battle which might last for hours. It is also a model which allows for missiles to be thrown, which primary sources indicate was done throughout a battle, and gives the soldiers at the front adequate resting time between hand to hand exchanges so that they could actually have the endurance for an hours long combat.

Training Soldiers for the Roman Legion

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 enrolment 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.

SACRAMENTVM
ME OMNIA IMPERATORIS IVSSA FACTVRVM ESSE
CONTRA HOSTIS SVMMA VI IN ACIEM PVGNATVRVM
NVMQVAM AB SIGNIS DECESSVRVM
NVLLO MODO IMPERIVM POPVLI ROMANI LAESVRVM
NISI HANC FIDEM CONSERVABO
IVPITER ME DELEAT

The oath:
I will always fulfill commands given to me,
I will fight with an enemy in phalanx,
I will never abandon standards,
I will not harm to the Roman empire and nation of Rome,
if I do not keep it,
Ivpiter (Jupiter) will destroy me.

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. "Acies" was often used by Roman military authors to refer to the battle line. The traditional three line formation was the triplex acies. When Caesar forms his men into a single line, he calls it a simplex acies. We know that the Roman battle line acted and behaved and was equipped and arrayed very differently from a phalanx, so translating "acies" as "phalanx" is highly misleading.