Changes in the Roman Army

[Mark Hygate]

Gentle evolutionary change, sometimes even retrograde when desirable, not revolutionary.

As with most large and complex organisations over long periods of time, the development of the Roman army from the 2nd to the 5th centuries shows signs of both evolution and revolution, besides continuity.......................

Nathan,

Thank you, but a note to stress that I think the titling of the thread has lead us away from what I was talking about.....

For almost all the things in your post are perfectly valid, but aren't anything to do with tactics!

Tactics - the art & science (indeed management) of deploying troops on the battlefield and subsequently moving them around to tactical effect; which can also include things (that we see Romans address) like formations on the march, etc.

But nearly all the things you are citing were part of change from the Imperial to the Later Roman periods are not linked to the effect that arms and armour have on tactics. They are, however, socio-economic, political and indeed strategic changes.

Whilst I may not entirely agree with your (and others as we have discussed before) view that the Romans were originally very aggressive pila throwing hard chargers and then later more defensive; that doesn't mean that deciding when to hold and when to charge aren't important elements in a battle, but they can be equally achieved with whatever the current weapon mix is. In addition, how to fight with the weapons a soldier has is down to training in a particular, arms and armour-related, style - but, because there was so little change relatively, the basic tactics don't change.

Ancient period soldiers - just like I argue up to the late 18th and early 19th century did - fight in contiguous formations of practicable width and varying depth (dependent on desired effect) with weapons that are essentially similar. On that basis whether the soldier effectively fights with a sword or a spear (or even a bayonet) of varying lengths, both still engage in basic hand-to-hand combat at the tactical level. They may have short-range weapons be they javelins, pila or thrown axes (or even early pistols); or longer range slings or bows (or early muskets and even artillery) and that then dictates how they move around and subsequently engage.

All throughout nearly 4000 years from the earliest armies all are constrained by the speed of foot-marching and the possibilities of horse-speed and thus cavalry - the weaponology available dictates the tactics and they really don't change much.

-----------------------
On the latter part of the thread I would suggest that the period of change being discussed that lead eventually to the delineation of border troops and the creation of the first central field army would be the stationing of II Parthica near to Rome with the Praetorian Guard at the very end of the 2nd Century.

In more detail I would almost suggest:

- up to the end of the 1st Century AD a period of almost continuous expansion, for many reasons, but definitely legion-based

- the 2nd Century AD sees firm consolidation (post Trajan/Hadrian) and the fixing of most borders and the troops to control them and the switch to leaving legions more-firmly based and the use of vexillations from those legions more and more.

- the 3rd Century AD sees the involvement of a central reserve to add weight to existing and ad-hoc armies

- The beginning of the 4th Century AD (post-Constantine) sees the change finalise with the old-style legions and auxiliaries firmly based on the borders and the creation of the field armies we then see attested in the ND. The limitanei still remain effective and are used, probably more locally, as temporary (pseudo-comitatenses) attachments to the field armies.

M2CW