RomanArmyTalk

Pages: 1 2

I was recently looking over a book I got a couple years back called the Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare. In the introduction of the book, the editor(Geoffrey Parker) writes:"In 1594AD Maurice of Nassau and his cousins in the Netherlands devised the crucial innovation of volley fire for muskets after reading the account of Aelian's Tactics(written 100AD) of the techniques employed by the javelin and sling shot throwers of the Roman Army, and spent the next decade introducing to their troops the drills practiced by the Legions"(CIHW page 4) 
 
I found this account curious since I had never heard of Aelian before, and I had recently been researching the use of the sling in the Imperial era. Further research into Aelian, found that he was a Greek author, who indeed wrote around 100 Ad, a treatise of tactics for either Trajan or Hadrian. His book, which was translated into English in 1616(by order of Maurice), focused mainly on Greek/ Macedonian phalanx tactics, which Aelian apparently thought preferable to those of Legions, though it supposedly did discuss some of the drills/tactics of the Legions. Most of the references I have found to the work were in regards to its impact on war in the 17th century, rather than its historic value. Upon looking on Amazon and other booksellers I have been unable to find Aelian's work, and its seems that that the last publication of the treatise was the original 1616 version!! (for which one antique bookseller online was offering for $900 US!!)Does anyone know anything more about Aelian, his work, or if there are any newer editions of it? Has anyone seen a copy in a library perhaps? I assume if it had any useful information it would have been re-published many a times by now, but I can't even find any instances of any modern authors citing the work, even in regards to phalanx tactics, for which he was mainly focused. 
 
--"Rufus"

www.slinging.org/ 
Check out this website on slinging. 
 
I too, want more information on this. I've read some info(I'll have to dig it up!) where the Roman army was in a battle and it described the heavy line infantry up front and javeliners and slingers casting over their heads. I think it was a 3rd century battle. I'm a sling nut and cast stones almost every day! 
Thanks 
Johnny

Get yourself a copy of Ancient World 19 (1989).

Thanks, Vincula.Will do. Good ole Ares.

There are several accounts in Tacitus and Josephus. Interestingly enough it seems during the Principate that slinging was not a skill set possessed by seperate units but was a skill taught to certain, perhaps all, regular infantry troops both legionary and auxiliary:we know of a Cohors Equitata being mentioned for its skills in slinging from a decree from Hadrian's time.(Goldsworthy discusses this, as does Gilliver) Both Josephus and Tacitus only really mention slingers in regards to siege actions which could point to them being of limited use in open order battles. 
 
It seems possible to me that if the Romans had troops trained in each Legion/Cohors to be slingers, then it makes sense they only would have been used during sieges or assaults on earthworks since large amounts of sling shot would have difficult to carry around, whereas the slings themselves could be carried by every soldier. Only during lengthy offensive operations against fortified areas would there have been time or need to forage for and cache large amounts of sling shot. During regular battles, the Romans never depended that much on missile troops anyway, and its is likely that archers and artillery would have sufficed. During sieges, however, some of the conventional troops, who would be otherwise made useless during such reduction operations, could now participate if they were trained as slingers, simply by dropping their armor, grabbing their slings and collecting some shot. Of course, not all of the troops could have been so skilled or used in such a manner, but they could have been something like the antisignani of Caesar's time. They could snipe defenders or simply cover the movements/operations of the sappers(ie: their fellow Legionaries/Auxiliaries) by putting up walls of sling shot. 
 
As for firing over heads, we know archers did this: Tacitus mentions it in the Annals three times, Jospehus mentions it in regards to sieges and open battles several times as well, Arrian does so later on. As for slingers the evidence is far less, though it is possible it might have occurred in special circumstances.

What is your take on the slinger on Trajan's column? 
He has a shield so he must be in close range of the enemy(behind then line infantry?). His stones are in the folds of his cloak for rapid movement. It seems when slingers were assaulting a fortification, the stones were piled in front of them(like the Assyrians). Also, look who's around him: Clubmen, archers and stone throwers. I'm sure you're familiar with the "Anabasis", the slingers were used in a very flexible manner. Also, Livy wrote about the battle with the Gauls on Mt Olympus. The archers, slingers and javeliners beat the Gauls into the ground. He noted how devastating the missiles troops were. After which, the Roman swordsmen went in and finished them off. You are right that during the Jewish war, the slingers seemed to be used only in a limited manner(assaulting Jotapata). 
Johnny

I believe the de-specialization of the slingers in purported to have occured during the Principate, and I think its clear from Livy and Caesar that in the Pre-Imperial period the slingers were specialized and were a distinct arm of the service. In the case of the column, the two scenes containing Slingers seem they seem to look like nothing more than Legionaries without armor. In one scene they are helping assault a city, in another they are defending a marching camp that is being built; we see them acting in a similar manner during the siege of Jotapata except they are defending the breastworks built for a siege. In obth cases they would have had plenty of time to drop armor and gear and collect sling bullets. 
 
The fact that they don't have special pouches and simply uses their cloaks may also be telling of a possible dual use. Similarly one of slingers seems to have a standard auxiliary shield. Kate Gilliver's article the Role Of Auxiliaries in the Roman Army at Mons Grapius, bascially concludes that the "regular" auxilia were so useful because they were so adaptable, whether as medium infantry, javelineers or slingers(archers had their own units of course). It seems very possible to me that the slingers portrayed are from a "regular" auxiliary unit. This is fairly likely since we know most of units that participated in the Dacian campaign, and none seem to(in name at least) specialized in slinging. 
Still, it is possible that there were slinger units and just no gravestones have been found for them.

As for firing over heads, we know archers did this 
 
Ummm, no they didn't. Archers, in common with slingers and artillerymen, 'shot' ('loosed' etc etc) their missiles. You need gunpowder in order to 'fire' a missile (the command 'fire!' usually being held to be a contraction of 'give fire'). I wince every time I see a TV programme or go to a re-enactment display and get told they are going to 'fire' the artillery. Do they really intend to burn their precious ballista, I wonder? Surely not ;-) 
 
If there ever was an ancient equivalent to the command, 'fire' would surely only ever have been used in the specific circumstance of igniting incendiary missiles. 
 
Sorry, I know this is a pointless piece of pedantry on my part, but it matters; believe me. 
 
Mike Bishop

Yes I know that, I was using the modern English word to express the act of shooting(also an anachronism) missiles. Yes I cringe too when it is portrayed in television or film as a command in ancient times.I however was communicating with fellow modern people, and in my view "firing" is the best general verb to communicate the release of missiles to fellow modern men(and women). 
 
By the way when is your revised Roman Military Equipment coming out?

Aelian's is one of three surviving manuals in the Hellenistic tradition, all covering very much the same ground but not identical. Asklepiodotos' is the earliest of the three; text and an old translation are available in Loeb. Arrian's contains the most Roman material; text and a (deliberately very literal) translation by DeVoto was published about ten years ago.

Quote:<hr>The account in Aelian's Tactics (written 100AD) of the techniques employed by the javelin and sling shot throwers of the Roman Army.<hr> 
If I remember right, Aelian's really all about the Hellenistic phalanx, with some material on cavalry formations. Slings and javelins don't figure much.

Hi All, 
 
Scholarship on Aelian is limited to the works of A Devine (in the Ancient World 19 already mentioned and also in several AHB articles) and ealier work by Dain in French. The translation and commentary by John Bingham (1616 and 162 should be available in a reprint made in the 1970s (I think) in most research Libaries (I got my copy for the University of Auckland, New Zealand so there should be copies elsewhere ). 
 
Geoffrey Parker's The Military Revolution has a facsimilie of William of Nassau's letter to Maurice regarding the institution of a countermarch a la Aelian for a continuous volley of fire and dated to December 5 1594 (IIRC) 
 
The genre of Tactica had a long history as a practical handbook - both Arrian and Aelian list examples going back to Pyrrhus and Iphicrates and Devine argues that Polybius' lost tactica and his description of the phalanx relate to this genre and were the ultimate source for the three later (surviving) works. Sorry I don't have refs with me. 
 
Anyway, my axe to grind with Aelian's tactica especially is that it was probably written for Trajan's Parthian campaign - he refers to Trajan having fought in 'great wars' and the period of peace which therefore probably dates the work to after 106 and the only practical context would be the Parthian campaign. The composition date most probably occured after 113. Also, although in the MS it mentions Hadrian it can only be Trajan (especilly mentioning '20 years ealier when I went to vist the divine Nerva'). Also it mentions the consular Fronto who can only be Frontinus - Aelian seems to have discussed the merits of his treatise with Frontinus (who is not known to have written a Tactica although he did write a De Re Militari and a Strategemata and possibly a work on the office of general and tactics in Homer). The MS mentions that Aelian was a priest and his meeting with Frontinus shows he was circulating in high political literary circles (Martial is also known to have conections to Frontinus). Other than that very little is known about him. Anyway Frontinus reassured him for some reason and Aelian went on to publish the Tactica for Trajan so that in it he could 'witness the marshalling of Alexander the Great's phalanx'. Dio records that Trajan wanted to emulate Alexander and it would seem that this was what Aelian wanted to appeal to. These works and the serious and not so serious reforms of the legion along phalanx lines were part of a greater Alexander fascination or emulation. See Wheeler's 'The Legion as Phalanx' (Chiron 9(?)). Alexander continued to exert a fascination on commander's campaigning in the east and contemporary historians tapped into this attraction and filled their works with anecdotes or information on Alexander which gave their work a greater chance of being read. Just think of Arrian, Polyaneus of Macedon's Alexander stratagems, and all the works listed in Lucian's How to write History being written for Lucius Verus' Parthain War in 162-166. 
 
Sorry if this seems confused - I am furiously typing it at work and trying not to be caught doing so! 
 
Cheers 
 
Muzzaguchi It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay Antiquity its due reverence - Erasmus of Rotterdam 
 
'Modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one asks' - Tolstoy War and Peace Ep. ii.1

I'm interested to know more about Aelian and his manual.

Does any copy exist?

There was mention of an "Ancient World 19" - Sorry, but what does this refer to, and are there printings of this that are available?

Hi Andy,

I have sent you a PM.

Cheers

Murray

I've always found the idea that Maurice introduced revolving lines into his drill from roman sources a bit odd, since the Caracole manouvre, (the "snailing" of cavalry in a circle where the closest pistoleers discharge while the ones at the back of the snail reload) can be found in illustrations from the mid-16th century and the infantry equivalent much earlier, possibly in the late medieval period. Given the tendency of early modern people (and medieval people) to attribute practically any innovation to "ancient example" (many 15th century authors simply could not get it around their heads that their beloved romans seemingly did not possess cannon, for example) it has always seemed more reasonable to me that Maurice did the usual trick of smoothing acceptance of his (very efficient) military reforms by linking them to ancient examples.

This is the first time I've seen people talk about Aeolian's manual in terms of its proper context, though. Keep it up!

Pages: 1 2

Anonymous

Anonymous

Vincula

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

mcbishop

Anonymous

Anonymous

Vincula

Muzzaguchi

A_Volpe

Muzzaguchi

Endre Fodstad