Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Tactics
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by WW2Freak (U8931980) on Wednesday, 11th July 2007
I think that Rome had horrible Tactics...
three ranks, with the hastati in the first rank (that nearest the enemy), the principes in the second rank, and the veteran triarii in the third and final rank, or sometimes even further back as a strategic reserve. When suffering defeat, the first and second lines, the Hastati and Principes, fell back on the Triarii to attempt to reform the line and allow for a counter attack or withdrawal of the other lines. Because falling back on the Triarii was an act of desperation, to mention "falling on the Triarii" ("ad triarios rediisse") became a common Roman phrase indicating one to be in a desperate situation.
Within this triplex acies system, contemporary Roman writers talk of the maniples adopting a checkered formation called quincunx when deployed for battle but not yet engaged. In the first line, the hastati left gaps equal in size to their cross-sectional area between each maniple. The second line consisting of principes followed in a similar manner, lining up behind the gaps left by the first line. This was also done by the third line, standing behind the gaps in the second line. The velites were deployed in front of this line in a continuous, loose-formation line.
The Roman maneuver was a complex one, filled with the dust of thousands of soldiers wheeling into place, and the shouting of officers moving to and from as they attempted to maintain order. Several thousand men had to be positioned from column into line, with each unit taking its designated place, along with light troops and cavalry. The fortified camps were laid out and organized to facilitate deployment. It might take some time for the final array of the host, but when accomplished the army's grouping of legions represented a formidable fighting force, typically arranged in three lines with a frontage as long as one mile.
A general three line deployment was to remain over the centuries, although the Marian reforms phased out most divisions based on age and class, standardized weapons and reorganized the legions into bigger maneuver units like cohorts. The overall size of the legion, and length of the soldier's service also increased on a more permanent basis.
As the army approached its enemy, the velites in front would throw their javelins at the enemy and then retreat through the gaps in the lines. This was an important innovation since in other armies of the period skirmishers would have to either retreat through their own armies ranks, causing confusion, or else flee around either flank of their own army. After the velites had retreated through the hastati, the 'posterior' century would march to the left and then forward so that they presented a solid line, creating a solid line of soldiers. The same procedure would be employed as they passed through the second and third ranks or turned to the side to channel down the gap between the first and second rows on route to help guard the legion's flanks.
If I was a Roman General, I would have put the Triarii In front, (since they are spear men...) then the Velites, so they can give covering fire as the enemy attacks, then the hastati, as a cover force for retreating, and the Principes as a final Force as the Velites, the Hastati, and Triarii recover... I would then have my light and heavy Calvary on the sides and the back incase of the enemy flanks me....
Overal, i think the Tactics the romans used were pretty bad... -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 12th July 2007
Romans never cared much about the fragility of their battlefield tactics that placed at risk their men as first of all since the very early ages the front line was made up of... numerous non-Romans (allies, slave-tribes etc.). The mere suspicion that plebians were such says it all (there is some valid suspicion that plebians were of different ethnic origins). That Marius later enlarged the notion of "Roman" was no much different to Romans patricians elarging the right of citizenship to plebians.
They gave rather more focus in their ability to re-gather their army in greater numbers. Unlike Greek states that they had a precious little 10-20,000 soldiers, Romans had easily more than 100,000 soldiers even since the very early phases but unlike Persians would not deploy them all at once but step by step, usually in chunks of 30-50,000 men. Hence, if they lost, they had 10 times more army waiting in some other land while the enemy had not much, thus doomed to lose.
The value of giving emphasis on diplomacy before, during and after wars (i.e. to gather simply more army) rather than finding successful battlefield tactics (something that Sun Tzu kept shouting from the other end of the Eurasian landmass) was known to the likes of Persians, and Greeks but somehow the cultural and political environment did not permit them to perfection it.
Notice that those Roman tactics you refer to though not developed for that reason, often resulted at bringing down the battlefield to a chaotic man-on-man fighting thus increasing the rate of deaths on both sides that suited of course the less trained armies as trained armies required a substantial number to be kept intact for their tactics to work. Romans of course did not play only on that as they knew (and were to a degree trained) in several battle tricks, but then at the end of the day who cares for 50,000 deaths (they had lost that in battles, long before they became a really powerfull city!!!) when you have another 250,000 waiting to enter war? Imagine that Alexander the Great operated mainly an overall 35,000 army while Athenians at their peak had an overall 30,000 men army (including the very old, the rookies and the city guards) thus in battles they could present a maximum 20,000 men while for Corinthians and Thebans it was an upper maximum 15,000 while Spartans had an overall army of 10,000 men. South Italy and Sicily had a larger Greek population than Greek cities in the motherland (thus it was called Greater Greece), but again all the cities would gather an maximum army of 100,000 - 150,000 men. Compare that to the 250,000 standing army that Rome could present against the army of Carthagenians (which was on a salary system thus poor (well they were rich) Carthagenians could not pay more and more to maintain large standing armies though two centuries earlier they had gathered an one-off amazing 300,000 men against the Greeks of Sicily, during the Persian wars (it was then that them gathered an equally amazing, equally one-off 100,000 for their standards).
However, Romans did not refuse army training to plebians and allies (like Greeks where it was the citizens that were mainly occupied with such) while they did not give high salaries for mercenaries and allies but promises on their leaders (loot, citizenship, land etc.), thus they had a different vision of waging war which appealed a lot looking at their long list of allies. For everyone of their enemies they had 3-4 good allies.
Yes their battlefield tactics had been at maximum average. But having so successful policies and diplomacy that ensured endless lines of armies they fully made up for it and had always the advantage. -
Message 3
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 12th July 2007
Shame they won with them really.
-
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 13th July 2007
Well, no, its better strategy that won; battle tactics are small letters compared to political-military strategy in a war. There is no point in winning a battle, the point is to win the war. Romans were losing battles but winning the wars.
-
Message 5
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Friday, 13th July 2007
I say Hear Hear to that.
-
Message 6
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Friday, 13th July 2007
Romans didn't lose many battles that we know of, did they ? Not compared to their victories ?
-
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 13th July 2007
E-Nik is about to tell us how the Greeks, on the other hand, won all their battles with tactically flawless displays of martial skill and organisation (but somehow contrived to lose the wars that mattered in the end).
Life's just not fair ... -
Message 8
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 14th July 2007
WW2Freak
Putting the Triari - the veterans - in the 3rd line had at least 2 advantages
1. the less experienced troops would fight with more confidencce knowing they had veterans behind them
2. if things went wrong and the front men started to break, the veterans would be there to hold the line and stop the rot
If you put the Triari at the front, you run the risk that if anything goes wrong and the Triari start to get pushed back, all the troops behind them will start to panic, leading to a wholesale rout.
Personally I am inclined to believe the Romans knew what they were doing when they developed their tactics and I think it's quite funny to see people of the 21st century trying to give them lessons in military tactics!
-
Message 9
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 18th July 2007
mssge 6.
i think youll find that the main sources we have for ancient roman wars are romans-the only battles recorded by romans in many cases where romans lost where usually against other romans!
unless those defeats glorified thr romans further that is.
and nations empires and states usually dont play up their defeats too much.
i dont think ive even heard of any parthian or carthaginian sources actually. -
Message 10
Posted by Bye_Jingo (U8587890) on Thursday, 19th July 2007
Beaten to it!
To the victor, the spoils. -
Message 11
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 20th July 2007
i dont think ive even heard of any parthian or carthaginian sources actually.Β
It doesn't matter - even if we had a Carthaginian book about Hannibal for example it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that his army was beaten by a Roman army. And to explain that result you have to look at their tactics, equipment & generalship, just as you would with any other successful army thru'out history.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.