the use of the drum - military cadence

[Endre Fodstad]

Perhaps one of the issues here is the ground covered. Rough ground would be very difficult to cover in step. But level ground is a differnt matter. Bear in mind that the roman road network was established specifically for the rapid deployment of troops and that parade grounds (outside forts) were ostensibly flat.

Well, we did most of our long-distance marching on level fine roads out in the training grounds...not paved, but level as a table.

Surely this is an area where the absence of evidence allows reenactors to trial options and take a pragmatic approach.

Yep. If we can do all the things the Strategikon describes after training it for some time without needing to march in step, I think Occam's Razor will do the rest. If not...the case isn't quite as closed. I just struggle with the tendency for many reenactors (myself included) to let "practicality" (or rather, what they define as practicality: there isn't always just one way to do something practically, after all) be more important than the sources. Yes, the romans were humans, but let's face it - there is almost two thousand years between them and us, and assuming that our modern behaviour always will mirror theirs is a mistake, in my opinion. That applies equally for people in the 17th century (and often later) verseus us as well, for that matter.

So because the later written drill was for a type of formation the Roman's didn't use such a drill would not be used by the Roman's :? ? lol: :lol:

Hey, you opened the wild speculation box! What I was implying is that marching in step, historically, tends to be associated with close-order shoulder-to-shoulder drill, not the more open formation the romans (and byzantines, and most others) had to perform to have room to handle their weaponry. Closing the ranks to a more or less shoulder-to-shoulder (shield wall) formation is also covered by the Strategikon; once again, no mention of marching in step.

The drum issue is fair enough; we don't have the evidence for it. I think - and of course you have the right to disagree - that the same situation applies to marching in step.

[Tarbicus]

I have done my share of expeditions with packs and the people I walked with tended to do so in step.

That's not the subject of the thread, though. It's about the Roman use of a drum (or any instrument I suppose) to help men keep time and pace with each other. Groups of people do tend to fall into step, but it looks to me, so far, that there should be no factoids out there encouraging people that the Romans had a military cadence, that they used a musical instrument to keep time to, or they had any ancient version of the modern "Left,.. left,.. left, right, left."

They sang - that's attested to in the sources. Still doesn't mean they marched in step like Napoleonic line infantry.

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

I can't really explain our differences in experince in marhing in/out of step. Maybe I only know really rythmic people 8)

All your points ae well made but you make no stronger point for marching out of step than I have for in step. :? I'm not making wild speculation. I'm trying to apply some reasoned speculation based on human nature where history leaves a void.

The drum issue is fair enough; we don't have the evidence for it. I think - and of course you have the right to disagree - that the same situation applies to marching in step.

Actually with the drum issue we have evidence against it (contextual carvings but no depictions). We know drums were around because of the Etruscan painting of the musicians, one holding a duf (or something similar). Marching in step or out of step we just have an absence of evidence.

A lot is made of the lapsed 2000 years and obviously we can never be really sure, but people are people. In researching Roman history, once you get past the initial differences the thing that strikes me as you get deeper are the similiarities.

[Tarbicus]

once you get past the initial differences the thing that strikes me as you get deeper are the similiarities.

It's surely irrelevant in this case. It's like saying the Romans only used missile weapons because modern armies do.

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

It's surely irrelevant in this case. It's like saying the Romans only used missile weapons because modern armies do.

Is it? Ok time to stop drinking!

I'd actually take the evidence of singing as support for marching in step, because of how difficult it is to march against an established rhythm. I'm sure some clever person may be able to tell us if rhtyhm is nature or nurture which may sway the discussion onto it's next course hock:

[Tarbicus]

Some of the Roman music I've heard, I wouldn't be so confident about there being any chance of marching in step at all :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It helps in formation manouvers to keep in step, but then that assumes they did not just form into formations in a haphazard manner.
Marching long distance is perhaps another matter, which would not require keeping in step, assuming that the march formation was loose and not in formation. But if the desired marching formation in enemy country was to mimic the battle formation, some sort of cohesion would be required.

to say there was not a method of keeping the units in step is just as much a hypothesis as saying they did have one.

Ships were often commanded by infantry commanders in the Roman fleets too, so they were not So different Tarbicus. The Romans actually
developed a way of fighting with ships to favor their infantry prowess....?

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

Some of the Roman music I've heard, I wouldn't be so confident about there being any chance of marching in step at all

Yeah, but it would be fun to try! 4000 Roman's doing the pachanga! :lol: :lol:

[Tarbicus]

to say there was not a method of keeping the units in step is just as much a hypothesis as saying they did have one.

It's not really, as there's not a single shred of evidence for a cadence or timing on the march, so I have a big problem with factoids about how there must have been because we'd do it. I dare say there's an argument for the cadenced step being necessary only once rifle infantry were the norm to avoid them shooting each other, or some such. Up close sword combat is a very different beast and we have one source describing it as leaping out from the wall, stab, leap back again. Did they do that in time? I don't see the relevance of the ship analogy either, I'm afraid. I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but it should be very obvious that I don't believe the existence of something based on the arguments so far - that's all, nothing more. If someone comes up with a source text or absolute proof otherwise I'd shout "Oh, cool!" just as much as anyone else.

Yeah, but it would be fun to try! 4000 Roman's doing the pachanga! :lol: :lol:

Well, I suppose it's latin :wink:

[Marcus Julius]

Trying to keep on the topic of this thread, I'll start by saying that it's my strong belief that they did march in cadence, at least on the battle field. Longer marches with all the gear, it's not a crucial, but anyone who has done manoeuvers in close order battle formation knows, it's critical to keep from tripping over each other or stomping on each other's heals.

That being said, now back onto the topic of the thread. With the Roman military being more "professional" and disciplined than many of their Greek predecessors, may not have needed the drums to stay in step. Just as has been suggested, the cadence of marching feet is enough to keep a drilled squad in step. It may have been necessary for many of the Greek city states before them, because for most (excluding Sparta, of course) most of the men were tradesmen first, and soldiers second. Thus, they lacked the discipline and experience to march without the drums.
Additionally, with drums not being a necessity, it's one more non-fighting member that you don't have to feed and pay on the campaign.

[Tarbicus]

We need to compare how close is close formation, and would the danger of tripping be relevant?:

http://garyb.0catch.com/enemies/enemies.html

http://garyb.0catch.com/century/century.html

http://garyb.0catch.com/site_map.html

We also need to ask how strictly marching in time on the battlefield would cope with the hundreds of pila (and presumably shields) strewn in front of any advance. Once we start to add the real world detritus, bodies, wounded, shields, missiles, etc, of the battle ahead of our Romans, the orderly image begins to disintegrate IMHO.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

to say there was not a method of keeping the units in step is just as much a hypothesis as saying they did have one.

It's not really, as there's not a single shred of evidence for a cadence or timing on the march, so I have a big problem with factoids about how there must have been because we'd do it. I dare say there's an argument for the cadenced step being necessary only once rifle infantry were the norm to avoid them shooting each other, or some such. Up close sword combat is a very different beast and we have one source describing it as leaping out from the wall, stab, leap back again. Did they do that in time? I don't see the relevance of the ship analogy either, I'm afraid. I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but it should be very obvious that I don't believe the existence of something based on the arguments so far - that's all, nothing more. If someone comes up with a source text or absolute proof otherwise I'd shout "Oh, cool!" just as much as anyone else.

Yeah, but it would be fun to try! 4000 Roman's doing the pachanga! :lol: :lol:

Well, I suppose it's latin :wink:

Your beliefs are your right Jim, just others are entitled to voice their own. :wink:

Well, there was more to 'sword fighting,' than just jumping out of line occasionally. The volley would be a co-ordinated effort, or perhaps it was just the guys 'chucking spears as they felt the mood?

The Greek formations were all about a cohesive shoving match..

the fact that the Romans were marching in smaller formations to fight,
would require some sort of co-ordination, even if it was just to stop the guys behind the others raking the heels of the guy in front with his hobnails.

The ship reference is about co-ordination and timing, something just as important to a manouvering army as to a formation of ships, something perhaps the Romans did not learn from the Greeks, who knows.
But the fact that they were fighting on sea as on land lends it some relevance in my mind ,

I would doubt the ability to manouver a large army could be accomplished without timing of some sort, Jim and this is not a factoid, so would you quit referring to it as such, this is just my opinion , you don't have to agree at all. Just as I don't have to agree with you either, unless you happen to say something I have thought of already, and think possible. It is a very free world, and I value my freedom of thought as much as my freedom of speech.

[Tarbicus]

Read what I just added at the end of my last post, Byron. I don't think the timing holds water at all once we start to add the other stuff that isn't a standing enemy. I don't think you looked at the spacing between individuals that I posted.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That would not mean they did not start in formation and step at all, that is just the chaos of war thrown in, not proof timeing was not required to get the ball rolling. I have no doubt that the detritus of the field would disrupt formations!

[Tarbicus]

So why bother at all? The centurio takes his century to a position. They advance, keeping up with the centurio. The centurio shouts for them to charge, they charge. All the way through this they're spaced far enough apart not to trip over each other, and as long as they don't wander off into the woods all's fine. The line can be dressed at a stop to offer a concerted front (which happened during Caesar's civil wars), there's no need for a rifle volley type of timed throw (pila ended up all over the place I'm sure anyway), and once they engage the enemy directly it's more a free for all anyway as each individual legionary at the front attacks another individual enemy.

Here's a theory for you - the cadenced timing as envisioned today comes from the need to strictly coordinate rifle volleys and reloading, and ensure riflemen would face the same direction for aiming the rifles at a distant enemy. That's the only reason for it.