Latin Drill Commands

[caiusbeerquitius]

Tobias: The "laevum" version is more sensible, if you want to really do the in-step marching. "sin-dex" is so anachronistic, it couldn´t be worse. abbreviations for left and right... :roll:


David, you can find the commands in

Junkelmann, M., Die Legionen des Augustus, Mainz, 1986.

They´re in the very back of the book, I don´t have the page# at the moment.

[Tib. Gabinius]

I know but it isn't very usefull in teaching and commanding.
Laevum constist of more than 1 syllables (right word for Silbe?).
You will, esp. on parades, see, that not well trained troops above 4 persons will get really hard times to hold the step if longer words will be used.

And the best way to learn and hold a step is to shut down thinking, just hear the "singing". The really monotonous german "links rechts" or that "sin dex" will help.

I don't believe neither sin-dex nor laevum is close to historic reallity, but we don't know anything about that.


In the print of 2000 it's page 277 and 278.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Well, at least the "laevum" is latin.
It requires more training, that is right. However, there can be a similar "singing" established, just put the foot down on th "lae", and everything is fine.
"syllable" is right.

Received your parcel. How thick shall they be?

[Magnus]

Yay for proper Latin! There are many examples in classical Latin for the use of an imperative + 'NUNC.' E.g., "Incipe...nunc." Just Google this phrase and you'll see many more. This was why we started to use "MOVETE...NUNC." This lets the lads know exactly when to step off. Using the practice of the OPTIO at the back of a column (vide Connolly), we have found it's very often easier for the ranks to hear the optio call out the commands rather than hear the CENTURIO in the front. Maybe there were also hand signals from the CENTURIO for certain commands, e.g., "CONSISTITE." [holding up his hand as the CORNICEN earned his pay]

And boo for inaccuracy! You do realize you need to back up your theories with extant evidence on this forum right? Because so far all you've given is your opinion that Maurice's commands are improper, and your made up ones 1,500 years later are much better.

Marching in step...also a modern interpretation. Yes, I agree it makes sense for a formed body of troops, however we have absolutely NO evidence that the romans marched in step. We have absolutely NO evidence that the romans had an executive part of the word of command, in which to effect a drill movement.

Dave, you really need to stop applying your modern, ROTC way of thinking to roman reenacting. Were I you, in order to create a more accurate impression, check out some of the groups that have been around for a bit longer. Then research what they've done.

[rusty myers]

Ever tried a testudo out of step? :wink:

No evidence but a probably... in testudo? Essential. We usually march at a relaxed step anyway, not as stringent as a modern step, but mostly still in step for survival reason (caligae on your mates' heel... not a good way to remain friendly).

We just need to agree on basics, but is seems we never will. All I know is we look like romans when we use unified commands, and a gaggle when we don't. I just do not see why different groups insist on making theirs "Better" instead of just building on what we have done before.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Yes, let's start the discussion again....
There are evidences, but they can be read another way.
In written (e.g. Vegetius I,9, 1, Susanna mentioned in same discussion in our own forum a way of reading the Aenaes 7 of Vergil), painting (Chigi to go past in time), public propaganda (Trajanscolumn, Adamklissi) and so on.

It is possible, to read those sources another way or as coincidence, but the possibility should be accepted, both ways

Christian, do it like you think it should i trust in you.

[QF VARUS]

Of course we realize that all will not agree; however, we should not reject the notion of continous research and revision. As long as reenactors will spend hundreds of hours perfecting their kit/equipment, why not also focus on those things that make us sound and look like Romans too? We are in dangerous territory when anyone is told to stop asking questions, doing experiments to see what works, and revising their impression as better information comes along. Where would Herr Doktor Junkelmann be if he did not experiment with different ways to carry shields on a march?

Of course you're going to use whatever you feel comfortable with.

We are NOT applying a ROTC methodology to our research. If we were doing so, our work would be done by now. I am applying 22 years of Latin teaching and research. We are working with university colleagues to achieve the greatest possible accuracy. Please note that the manual has been revised since your experience four years ago at Fort Malden. Some things work; some don't.

The fault in your logic is that you state your premise as a conclusion: What you have been using is taken as ACCURATE; what others research and question is taken as being INACCURATE. Then, when we point out that there are many examples of Latin from the 1st century that would work well for 1st century drill, you claim that this must be LESS accurate than 5th century Latin. We do NOT claim to have created a perfect manual, but we will not stop researching. This is in the nature of academic inquiry.

I cannot help but notice [as a Latin teacher] that when I review drill manuals used by units, there are errors. This is no different than when an engineer hears or sees something wrong and comments.

Enough already. Let's try to keep this conversation productive rather than devolving into ad hominem or sarcastic attack.

[Magnus]

Of course we realize that all will not agree; however, we should not reject the notion of continous research and revision. As long as reenactors will spend hundreds of hours perfecting their kit/equipment, why not also focus on those things that make us sound and look like Romans too?

Based on who's perspective, yours? How can you explain to me logically that your qualifications as a latin teacher, outweighs anything done by Maurice in the 5th century? If you want to take it into a modern context, modern drill commands don't make much sense when you look at how people speak either.

Also, these "things" that make you look better in your mind, how can you even begin to justify them, when there is little or no evidence for them? Again, I'd love to see what you're using to cut and paste these new commands from. In fact, why don't you post these new commands you've created for yourselves in this thread, so we may all see what you've come up with? It may add weight to the argument you are presenting here.

We are in dangerous territory when anyone is told to stop asking questions, doing experiments to see what works, and revising their impression as better information comes along. Where would Herr Doktor Junkelmann be if he did not experiment with different ways to carry shields on a march?

Carrying out experimentation within known boundaries is one thing. Going from point A to point E, by making up B, C, and D because it makes sense to you is an entirely different manner.

Questions are great! The wrong questions or questions that turn up the wrong answers do nothing to advance our knowledge!

We are NOT applying a ROTC methodology to our research. If we were doing so, our work would be done by now.

You sure about that? This is a link to Cohort III's page from Legio XXX:
[url:2ifasdkl]http://www.geocities.com/legio_tricesima_cohors_tres/campusMartis/Commands2006.htm[/url]

So if this isn't up to date, why not share the "new" ones, or verify the fact that the page I linked to is in fact what you are using?

The link to it says specifically: "By a consensus of several roman renacting groups, legio XXX has adopted this list of drill commands."

Now I know for fact that includes the 24th, and Coh 2 of the 30th. About 2/3rds of that page goes beyond anything written down by Maurice, and beyond the basic descriptions in the precursor to his written commands. Not to mention the cadence as listed at the top. I know this page isn't 4 years old.

So where are you getting these ideas from? I know you as well as Cohort 2's group leader are both ex-military. If you weren't, would you guys be attempting this? I highly doubt it. Not to mention the addition of patrol tactics (not necessarily your group) and other activites for which we have no specific details on, nor base information. Just vague details from our writers like Josephus, Livy, Pliny, etc. etc. That to me says you are looking at these movements and such from a completely modern perspective, which is inherently wrong!

I am applying 22 years of Latin teaching and research. We are working with university colleagues to achieve the greatest possible accuracy. Please note that the manual has been revised since your experience four years ago at Fort Malden. Some things work; some don't.

Some things worked because we have accurate accounts of it, as well as Maurice's commands and descriptions. Anything beyond that, is purely made up. Of course, if you drill anything long enough, of course you can "make it work". That sure fire doesn't make it accurate or correct.

Again, state your resources and sources. And please don't use your resume as some kind of shield. A piece of paper with a PhD doesn't automatically put someone in the right.

The fault in your logic is that you state your premise as a conclusion: What you have been using is taken as ACCURATE; what others research and question is taken as being INACCURATE. Then, when we point out that there are many examples of Latin from the 1st century that would work well for 1st century drill, you claim that this must be LESS accurate than 5th century Latin. We do NOT claim to have created a perfect manual, but we will not stop researching. This is in the nature of academic inquiry.

There is no fault in my logic...here, I'll explain it to you quite simply. If you don't have evidence for something, you don't make it up. You don't do it. Again, if you can somehow qualify to the other forum members and myself that you're better suited to research a drill manual, 1,900 years later, vs Maurice's being 400 years too late, I'd acquiece to your expertise. But simply cutting and pasting latin from ancient sources and saying "Well, that seems to me like something they'd say for drill" is weak. At best.

Why? Because it's your modern mentality that is even posing the question in the first place. It's your backround as an ex-soldier and that of your colleagues whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is fueling this line of research.

I cannot help but notice [as a Latin teacher] that when I review drill manuals used by units, there are errors. This is no different than when an engineer hears or sees something wrong and comments.

Know what's rediculous though? I've had discussions with Matt Amt about Maurice's drill commands, as well as the latin teacher in my group, and they have no complaints about them. Yes, there are irregularities as was pointed out in previous threads dating back to probably 2001 on this forum. But, it is the best thing that we have, until something new in the form of a written account of drill is unearthed. IF ancient drill was as far from actual spoken language as it is today, then you are going to be waaaay out in left field.

Enough already. Let's try to keep this conversation productive rather than devolving into ad hominem or sarcastic attack.

Then I suggest you back up your claims with more than ideology and your resume. Hard evidence works the best, along with the sources it was obtained from.

[Caius Fabius]

I am still waiting for
1. proof that Romans marched in step (and I have military experience moving troops, as well as civilian experience moving people).
2. people to stop trying to fight in a Roman shield wall
3. people trying to make the Roman soldiers follow / use a modern drill manual.

But then I am a skeptic unless I can actually see references, artifacts or something other than, modern logic and intuition.

Of course, if you look at the modern commands used by the US Army FM 22-5, they are not 'proper English' either. But they get the job done, as long as the commander can remember what commands to use. (Good NCO's will cover for commander's mistakes, and guide around quarries, rivers and such, when the book soldier gets confused.) :roll:

[QF VARUS]

As I mentioned in my first posting, anyone wishing to test our work may email and ask us to send.

Re: not using things that are attested by evidence: does that mean that anyone who has attached a legionary label to his scutum cover will remove it because the practice is made up? What about the use of multi-colored cristae?

Other group members have already admitted that they are making up modern commands to fill the need for them.

What might be helpful here is to summarize some points:

1. Question One: Did the Romans march in step? The evidence is not clear. IF they did, we don't know what commands they used. Our unit is portraying 1st/2nd centuries. Thus, the language we use in our presentations, including drill commands, uses vocabulary appropriate for the time period. One thing that is definitely known: Latin pronunciation changed a lot between the 1st and 5th centuries. An additional problem, however, is what about the difference between the language used by civilians and the military? We know there was a BIG difference between literary Latin and oral Latin in the 1st/2nd centuries.
2. Question Two: In the absence of evidence, what is the best way to create an impression that is the best compromise between historical evidence and organizational need? Clearly, as Rustius has said, there is some need to present a 'soldierly' appearance. When we have done museum presentations, e.g., The Pompeii Exhibit in Chicago, we kept our speaking to an absolute minimum {because of the problem of evidence}.

We will be happy to provide documentation for all or our research.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Reinventing the wheel again eh?

I would at least stick to what is currently accepted... we worked this out for Lafe, and this would yet be another re-training exercise to work together. The folks who watch us do not know what we are saying anyway. Not to discourage you, just hate to see energy wasted redoing something again which I do not think will be markedly better or more accurate. My 2 cents.

Note sure what you mean about folks not knowing when to step off, we use the unit (Milites, Contuberni, Vexilallatio, Centuri) to prep and move to march with no trouble at all. We also use the formal command for forward march, Procedite et Intente, Move (Forward march at Attention, Move). You can also Procedite at Otiose (More relaxed) Testudinum (In Testudo) Laxate (route step) Cuneum (In a wedge) etc etc.

And even monkey can understand Procedite etc as Rusty has said.....
after only 2 events......... why fix something, unless it is really broken?

[Robert Vermaat]

Of course, if you look at the modern commands used by the US Army FM 22-5, they are not 'proper English' either. But they get the job done, as long as the commander can remember what commands to use. (Good NCO's will cover for commander's mistakes, and guide around quarries, rivers and such, when the book soldier gets confused.) :roll:

My point exactly. And even someone with a 100 years experience in teaching Latin can not know what 'worked' in the 1stc BC or the 5th c. AD., because no-one can. So let's stop thinking dogmatic about pronouncing Lain, or using the correct grammar - we have to start from the sources, and yes, if we need to make things up because the sources simply don't write about it, we can discuss it.

Re: not using things that are attested by evidence: does that mean that anyone who has attached a legionary label to his scutum cover will remove it because the practice is made up? What about the use of multi-colored cristae?

David, shall we stick to the matter of Latin commands? It's no use going at this in the sense of general inaccuracy. Either you're going to try to be as accurate as you can (knowing that 100% is always impossible) or you let go of the standard, but then you admit to that. Hiding behind inaccuracies in other fields is not a way to discuss this.

Other group members have already admitted that they are making up modern commands to fill the need for them.

Yes, that's true. There was a reference to the commands as listed in Junkelmann’s book. These are all fabricated (or so I was informed), and are based on modern commands translated into a correct as possible ancient Latin, by professor Stroh.
Of course you can use these, or translate your own commands. No problem! But then inform the public that this is what you did. And do not pretend that the use of these commands is *equal* to using commands as provided in an ancient source.

1. Question One: Did the Romans march in step? The evidence is not clear. IF they did, we don't know what commands they used.

I agree. This is where we start discussing and using modern logic, because we have a feeling what the Romans did or did not do.

Yes, I know some hate the ‘sin-dex-sin’(or dex-sin-dex’ which I was taught), and I can’t blame them. I am, though, in favour of some ‘military step’, even if I can’t prove if it was used or how it was used. Singing is an option, but somehow I can’t see some solemn parade through Rome accompanied by singing. Just my feeling here, of course. Maybe that ‘laevum’ is a better word, or ‘uno-due’ that some groups use.
But that’s the whole thing- it’s discussed, and where speculation is needed we admit that.

And of course, the outcome of these discussions will vary, and none is right or wrong. But none can claim that they are right or that they other is wrong either. See below:

Our unit is portraying 1st/2nd centuries. Thus, the language we use in our presentations, including drill commands, uses vocabulary appropriate for the time period. One thing that is definitely known: Latin pronunciation changed a lot between the 1st and 5th centuries. An additional problem, however, is what about the difference between the language used by civilians and the military? We know there was a BIG difference between literary Latin and oral Latin in the 1st/2nd centuries.

And there you have it: you are stepping into the unknown here. Maybe you are right about the commands used by Maurice, that they were not used during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Some words may indeed be too new. However, we also know from these military manuals that they depended heavily on older sources – Vegetius uses Polybius, Maurice relies heavily on Arrian. My interpretation (mind you) would therefore be that the commands in Maurice need not be “5th c. Latinâ€

[QF VARUS]

Valeri,

Well said. I apologize to all in the group if I have created the impression that we will attempt to pass our work off as being the actual words used by commanders in the 1st century. I can see by your well reasoned response that I was creating an impression that was NOT intended. I look forward to receiving my ordered copy of Doktor Junkelmann's book. It is very hard to come by in the U.S.
We pledge to add a comment to the public that since we don't know exactly what the ancients used, we have used words/phrases that would have been understandable to a 1st century Roman.
We can also hope that there may have existed drill manuals from the time period (1st century), but that does not seem likely. We know that Latin poetry (of that era) required regular metrical pacing, and there were handbooks on Latin grammar and etymologies.

In future posts, I think it would be helpful if we list the literary sources/references that we are using as a guide and discuss each one.

[rusty myers]

I just think there are better things to spend time on than re-doing "fantasy" research, which we are all doing and re-doing in this area.

If the incorrect tenses offend, suggest a fix ( IK have no doubt our tenses are sometimes off!, and I am willing to play with them a little), but I have no interest in having to learn yet another set of theoretical drills. We already face a special morning drill to coordinate the 3-4 drills of different units that we have for every event, wasting valuable event time. Maurice is good enough for our basis, and we build on it as we realize we need something, Until we unearth Caesar's guide to the Roman Army it will have to do...

[Tarbicus]

there is some need to present a 'soldierly' appearance

That's the only part I really have a problem with. It depends entirely on what a 'soldierly' appearance was to a Roman citizen, not to us. The hobnailed caligae with military belt and pugio may have sufficed enough, and anything else may well be just a modern slant based on our own preconceived notions.