the use of the drum - military cadence

[Endre Fodstad]

If there is no need for a cadence, no evidence for it, and we have established that its use is primarily something stemming from a modern military mind, I really don't see why people bother arguing. It's like arguing that the romans had to have modern 20-meter tall electrical blast furnaces and puddling furnaces, because they had steel, and because that's how modern people make steel. It is a really difficult if not impossible position to take simply based on reenactor's tradition.

Can the same maneuvers be done with out staying in step, I am sure they could, but that would require some practice and I am not sure that you would see the same precision that you see the "Old Guard" or "Silent Drill Team" do. How much practice, I would not even want to guess with out knowing more exactly how they did move/march/walk on the battlefield or parade ground, but given a 16-25 year enlistment, I am sure that there was plenty of time to learn

Yep. And of course, military tattoo-like precicion isn't exactly what you need when manouvering a unit as long as it does what you want it to do. And the drill platoons sure do spent a lot of time perfecting those crisp manouvers themselves. The roman army had no need of rifle-juggling when in battle!

Now, nothing I have stated is nothing new or rocket science, but it is ingrained in all us military types that is how it was done, and how it was always done from the time"you know who was a corporal" and we were privates and cadets. Its a bit hard to imagine another way, when the ingrained way does work.

Precicely! This has also crept over to the roman military theorists of today - it is the way an organized military has to do it because it's the way we do it. Modern bias, simply put.

But don't take my word for it. Try it out yourself. The Strategican comes in a paperback edition over amazon dirt cheap and contains all the commands

[Tarbicus]

An arm's length behind the legionary in front isn't enough anyway, I'd say.

Okay, I'm taking the discussion away from the post industrial European world completely, and want you to try and imagine that Romans weren't European at all, but the predecessors of the Zulu nation, and then mix it a little and think of the Roman army as not post-Marian, but post-Shaka Zulu.

Here's a startlingly comparative essay on Shaka Zulu's reforms and the re-organisation of the Zulu army, even down to the kraal being under the supervision of the regimental commander, colour coded shields (there's another argument), "They acted as the state army, the state police, the state labour gang.", practiced regularly, and much more: http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol044sb.html

The Zulu army travelled hundreds of miles in a short space of time, sang in battle, manoeuvred as groups tactically, had tactical units (regiments formed by age - recognise this?), used shields and spears, gave commands to change direction, etc, etc.

Now ask yourself, would we even be having this conversation about even the need for a uniform cadenced march had we been re-enacting a Roman army that had evolved in south Africa and not Europe?

I'm suggesting it's a far more suitable analogy than any post-gunpowder European one. That said, do you think that the foot soldiers at Hastings or Agincourt marched and manoeuvred in step to a cadenced beat?

[Robert Vermaat]

Not been in the army, have you? Marching in step is not a feature of long-distance marching carrying full marching equipment for a number of reasons (#1 probably being that it isn't very healthy to carry a large pack and not being allowed to keep to your own style of walking, and #2 that it is in fact more exhausting than just letting you set the beat yourself).

I know that, I've been in the army.

And why are you telling me this? I never insisted that the Romans marching step. Knock down your own straw men will you? :evil:

My point was merely to give some arguments that the Romans may not have found marching in step an alien concept. This could have been used for formation countermarching or on parades.

A much stronger point is that when close order linear movement starts to appear in military use in Europe, marching in step is clearly stressed by peacetime drill manuals - for the kind of shoulder-to-shoulder marching manouvres we are certain the romans did not employ.

What sort of ‘shoulder-to-shoulder marching manoeuvres’ are you referring to? Drill? Parade? Battlefield formations? And why are you certain the Romans did not employ them?
If you’re talking about battlefield formations, of course the Romans did use such formations. Vegetius describes some of the very tight formations where each man occupied a space of 3 ft. only. Yes, that type of very close formation (synaspismos in Greek) would hardly allow room to use their weapons, but apparently it was till called for from time to time.

I just quick-read through the entire Strategikon chapter XIIB 8-17 (the sections describing infantry formations and infantry drill) and I am at somewhat of a loss on how one could come to the conclusion that it is describing someone that has to march in step

A valid point, but not made by me, but by Timothy Dawson. I will have to look it up myself, maybe he's way off like you say.

[Robert Vermaat]

Do people actually attempt to step-march cadence in the Testudo? My experience with the formation suggests the opposite; 20 men in a turtle formation are much better off doing the slow shuffle than attempting to set a beat - after all, marching is step is not any guarantee against some people outpacing others, it's just a way of ensuring everybody walks in the same way.

That may hold water for a relatively small force of 20 men.
But when you need to perform similar formations with much larger forces it pays to control the actual movement, or else run the risk of confusing the formations or even create gaps.

The Strategikon (east roman medieval as it is)

It isn’t. It’s not ‘regional’ (eat roman) nor ‘late’ (medieval).
The manuscript was written in the 6th c., true, but has nothing whatever to do with anything medieval. It’s Roman, based on and going way back on Roman training manuals and even shows links to ancient Greek military tradition.

actually says pretty much straight out that attempts to achieve uniformity of order command - i.e. any complex manouvers - should not be attempted when battle is joined, as it only confuses matters and slows the units' response to the enemy's actions..

Not when battle is joined, I agree, but all the more so before battle is joined.

[Tarbicus]

Not when battle is joined, I agree, but all the more so before battle is joined.

Rob, what's so complex about walking the men out to parts of the battlefield to create the initial formation? Skirmishers, etc, are already covering the rest of the army while it forms up. All it needs is marshalling of the groups so that Cohort I goes first, etc, etc, but they don't need to be a crack drill squad to get from A to B. When in position, if it needs to be tidied up, they simply dress ranks.

If the Strategikon is such a detailed description of what armies should do, why doesn't it mention that they should march in step? Could it be that sometimes absence of evidence actually can be evidence of absence?

I still suspect the precision step of more modern armies is based on a need to precisely aim rifles in a precise direction so that they can be aimed and hit a specific group of targets, especially when the smoke of battle makes it impossible to even see those targets; the volley being akin to a spread artillery shot, and the cannon being multi-barrelled, highly mobile, and fast loading with feet instead of wheels. Even Napoleon saw the value of an army marching dispersed so as not to clog up roads, so long as they could concentrate swiftly for battle.

[Endre Fodstad]

And why are you telling me this?

Because I was responding to Marcus Caecilius Avitus and you snuck your post in between ours?

(I later edited in a response to your comments to save posting again when I noticed. I apologize for any confusion.)

What sort of ‘shoulder-to-shoulder marching manoeuvres’ are you referring to? Drill? Parade? Battlefield formations? And why are you certain the Romans did not employ them?

Spesifically, Napoleonic and War of Manouvre formation movement. This was used - on paper at least - both during battle and for drill and parade - and it was literally shoulder to shoulder; depending on the size of the soldier it could get to less than two feet.

That may hold water for a relatively small force of 20 men.
But when you need to perform similar formations with much larger forces it pays to control the actual movement, or else run the risk of confusing the formations or even create gaps.

Perhaps. Or perhaps not? In an example from Napoleonic drill again, there appears a new set of directives in the danish-norwegian armies around 1815 (after war was was joined, based on experiences from the engagements fought) that states that when forming up or moving quickly from collumn into line, there is no need to attempt to use drill square formations in or before battle - to speed up the process, the officers just have to position the rightmost men properly and that the remaining men form up based on the position of the standards and the rightmost man - they run into their positions: that text states that this is a far more effective method of forming a battle line than attempting to manouver it into place.

It’s Roman, based on and going way back on Roman training manuals and even shows links to ancient Greek military tradition.

So is a lot of 12th-14th century Platonic and Aristotelean philosophy (of course not military)...does that make it medieval or greek?:twisted: I would think it a mistake (and the translator in his introduction agrees with me here) to try to pin it down as a Roman or Greek text in a rear view mirror vision of history - it is a very practical text based on the recent military reforms of its day and remains directly relevant to the byzantine army for almost three hundred years or even a bit more - it is a part of a living and developing tradition, with links both backwards to ancient greeks and later links into byzantine military practices and texts. A side point, anyway. Some would, going by the Byzantines' own definition of themselves, just call it Roman all the way up to 1453.

Not when battle is joined, I agree, but all the more so before battle is joined.

Perhaps...or perhaps not. But again we have no evidence of that. Tarbicus' point is excellent - the Zulus are in all probability a better analogy than modern or Napoleonic armies in many ways, and they most definitely conducted formation movement of large bodies of troops without marching in step...to a standard the british were quite impressed by.

The evidence of absence is not necessarily the evidence of absence (and I know you know that, Tarb ). But again, considering that we have no evidence of it in relatively detailed texts (again, of course, I only have an english edition of the Strategikon and Vegetius - if Dawson reads medieval greek and Dennis has missed some vital translation, this entire argument falls flat on its face, of course) and that it appears that both small (my 20 lads - in fact the military historian who led us was quite adamant that we not march in step to preserve the 1608 "feel" of the unit) and large (Zulus in Shaka's system) units are quite capable of manouvre without it (not to mention that it appears quite possible to manouvre infantry around in the middle ages and early modern era until the War of Manouvre period without any need for marching in step, for that matter), I'd say that the case gets stronger and stronger in the other direction. If neither the theoretical evidence or the practical experience suggests it is necessary, the conclusion seems to be rather apparent.

[Robert Vermaat]

Not when battle is joined, I agree, but all the more so before battle is joined.

Rob, what's so complex about walking the men out to parts of the battlefield to create the initial formation?

Nothing, but between forming up and full engagemment there can be a lot of manouvring to do with units and lines you don't want to fall apart, especially not since in that phase the enemy is so close by.

If the Strategikon is such a detailed description of what armies should do, why doesn't it mention that they should march in step?

That's easily explained - like the other manuals of the age, the Strategikon displays that irritating habit of NOT describing what seems to be obvious and what the author thinks he does not need to explain to his readers. But we want him to! :twisted:
Likewise, Maurice never explains about when to throw plumbatae, only who carried them with them... :x

[Sean Manning]

How does the "military pace" of Vegetius fit into this? Obviously that refers to route marching not tactical manoeuver, but it suggests that the ancients had a concept of a fixed number of standard-sized paces per unit of time.

My understanding is that modern cadenced drill developed to permit sophisticated tactical manoeuvers in the late 18th century/Napoleonic periods. Given the sophistication of battlefield manoeuvers which large Roman armies were capable of, I'd personally be surprised if they did it without a cadenced step. But I need to look at some of the examples of armies without such a step to see if they did anything comparable ...

[Robert Vermaat]

And why are you telling me this?

Because I was responding to Marcus Caecilius Avitus and you snuck your post in between ours?

Ah, OK!

(I later edited in a response to your comments to save posting again when I noticed. I apologize for any confusion.)

It’s Roman, based on and going way back on Roman training manuals and even shows links to ancient Greek military tradition.

So is a lot of 12th-14th century Platonic and Aristotelean philosophy (of course not military)...does that make it medieval or greek?:twisted:
It would make it a Medieval comment on ancient Greek thought. And so is the Strategikon, you can't call it 'east Roman' or 'medieval' because that would only refer to place and time of writing (and 'medieval' is a period label that does not even holds water for the Byzantine culture), not the style, subject or cultural context of the manuscript.

I would think it a mistake (and the translator in his introduction agrees with me here) to try to pin it down as a Roman or Greek text in a rear view mirror vision of history - it is a very practical text based on the recent military reforms of its day and remains directly relevant to the byzantine army for almost three hundred years or even a bit more - it is a part of a living and developing tradition, with links both backwards to ancient greeks and later links into byzantine military practices and texts.

That translator may well be of such an opinion, but another, Philp Rance, holds a different view. He's shown plenty of parallels between earlier Roman tactics and manuals, parallels that clearly show that the Strategikon is by no means about 'recent Byzantine military reforms', but mostly going back on drills and tactics that were used already during the 2nd c. and before that.

Not when battle is joined, I agree, but all the more so before battle is joined.

Perhaps...or perhaps not. But again we have no evidence of that. Tarbicus' point is excellent - the Zulus are in all probability a better analogy than modern or Napoleonic armies in many ways, and they most definitely conducted formation movement of large bodies of troops without marching in step...to a standard the british were quite impressed by.[/quote]
I fail to see any resemblance between the heavy infantry of the Greek hoplite armies or the Roman armies and the very light infantry of the Zulus, who moved so fast they outpaced even cavalry.
Any gaps in a Zulu front line would hardly matter, but for a Roman battle line such a gap could mean defeat.

If neither the theoretical evidence or the practical experience suggests it is necessary, the conclusion seems to be rather apparent.

If that's the case then we agree. But I'm not convinced (yet) that this is the case. Napoleonic manouvring may not reflect Roman manouvring - maybe we should look at Scottish sciltrons?
Zulus are disqualified in my book. :twisted:

[Robert Vermaat]

How does the "military pace" of Vegetius fit into this?

We've talking about that (and indeed all of this) before:

Cadenced marching

Marching in step

The use of the drum in the Roman army.... :wink:

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

Looks like I missed out on some good discussion during my trip to the wilds of Yorkshire :!:

Both Jim and Endre have made some compelling points for their standpoint, as I would expect.

What concerns me is the interpretation of the written evidence. Just because a fact is ommitted it cannot be taken that it did not happen. A reason for this is that the authors were writing for a contemporary audience and some comments would be ommitted as there were 'taken as read' or 'common knowledge'. How many times in 'Caesar's Gallic wars' are we told about the length's of marches with no comments of soldiers eating drinking or conducting ablutions? This didn't meen that eating drinking or bodily functions didn't take place, they were just not commented on.

The other point is that both opposing standpoints do the same thing. in absence of evidence they make an assumption and try it for fit. Thus far both fit!

So commenting about 'debunkig...myths'. Is a little rash. All we can say; is after all this debate we are no further on :roll:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would agree there! :lol:

[Endre Fodstad]

(and 'medieval' is a period label that does not even holds water for the Byzantine culture)

The medieval label is mostly one of convenience anyway: there is nothing to be medium(sic) between in large areas of Europe. Many historians call Sung China "Medieval China" without batting an eyelash, after all. Imprecice? Sure, but as I said the byzantines didn't exactly call themselves byzantines, now did they?

That translator may well be of such an opinion, but another, Philp Rance, holds a different view. He's shown plenty of parallels between earlier Roman tactics and manuals, parallels that clearly show that the Strategikon is by no means about 'recent Byzantine military reforms', but mostly going back on drills and tactics that were used already during the 2nd c. and before that.

I think you misunderstood me. I wrote that Dennis view it as a part of an evolving tradition rather than as a purely backward-looking text; which is pretty much the same as everybody looks at it. The organizatorial models seem to refer to Maurice's reforms though - or do you know of earlier reference to the tagma/bandon/etc than the Strategikon?

Overall, I feel the argument for rests almost solely upon the idea that marching in step is absolutely necessary for movement up to and after battle in formations. I feel that this is not the case - complex infantry manouvers were carried out by armies of all stripes until the first mentions of marching in step appears in the mid-to-late 17th century or so. We could chase Zulus (which I still think are quite relevant - their drill emphasised dressing of ranks and straigthening out units) and schiltrons (which, you have to remember, probably only means "close together/close order" - the texts it is taken from says things like "they were all together in a schiltron") and Napoleonics until our fingers bleed, but I ask again: if there is no real evidence of a practice, and no evident need for it, is it not time for people to "kill their darlings" on this subject?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No, not at all!
You could also say the Helvetii were equatable to the Zulus, as they also would have dressed their lines, if Caesar is correct in saying the fought in a phalanx formation, yet we also know they were looked down on for their lack of discipline.

[Tarbicus]

Zulus are disqualified in my book. :twisted:

Well here's perhaps the root of the problem; Western historians unwilling to see a paradigm or analogy outside of their immediate Western historical experience.

Discuss :twisted:

So commenting about 'debunkig...myths'. Is a little rash. All we can say; is after all this debate we are no further on :roll:

Just to explain clearly;

The myth is; "You can't manoeuvre into position without a 'Napoleonic type' of cadenced step on the battlefield, therefore the Romans must have done it."

The debunking is; "We've actually done it in tighter formations without impaling anyone, and there's evidence for its discouragement."

No, not at all!
You could also say the Helvetii were equatable to the Zulus, as they also would have dressed their lines, if Caesar is correct in saying the fought in a phalanx formation, yet we also know they were looked down on for their lack of discipline.

And the evidence for marching to a cadenced step is what?