Flexibility of the Legion

[Coriolanus]

Salve, citizens.

The legionaryt fought many different enemies under may different conditions, and the Roman tactical doctrine called for scouting, screening, scherimsing and forraging. My question to you is how flexible were the Legion? Did the milites gregarii march, build camps and fight, while the velites and auxilliaries screened and plundered?

Would a Legate send a Century on a stand-alone mission, or would this be looked at as reckless behaviour?


---


On a different note.
I am interested in expanding my library and reference base on the Roman Republic and the Roman Legions. The topics have always facinated me, but was never the focus of my studies. Now I have the time, and will, to read.

Can you recommend any titles or sites I should start with?

As a newcomer to this illustrious community, I must say that I am impressed with the knowledge gathered here.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Harald,
I PM-ed you about your signature. :wink:

The legionaryt fought many different enemies under may different conditions, and the Roman tactical doctrine called for scouting, screening, scherimsing and forraging. My question to you is how flexible were the Legion? Did the milites gregarii march, build camps and fight, while the velites and auxilliaries screened and plundered?
Would a Legate send a Century on a stand-alone mission, or would this be looked at as reckless behaviour?

Well, of course the legionary infantry would (when you are talking about the late Republic and early Imperial period, anyway) be especially trained as the heavy infantry, while the auxilia would be able to fight in a more flexible role.

On a different note.
I am interested in expanding my library and reference base on the Roman Republic and the Roman Legions. The topics have always facinated me, but was never the focus of my studies. Now I have the time, and will, to read.
Can you recommend any titles or sites I should start with?

Ah, maybe you'd best ask this question anew, in the references and reviews section?

As a newcomer to this illustrious community, I must say that I am impressed with the knowledge gathered here.

Thanks! We can all take credit for that.

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

Basically, legionaries could do more than troops of any other army. They could fight, skirmish, and scout, as well as dig and build. Strictly speaking, velites WERE legionaries, just more lightly equipped. They seem to disappear around the time of Marius, before regular auxiliary units are formed. In the meantime, it was common to hire allied troops to fulfill various functions. Any Roman troops could build camps, and they were all certainly all too capable of plundering!

I'd say that sending out a century of legionaries on some mission or other would be perfectly normal. Obviously a good commander isn't going to send them into a situation where archers or cavalry are needed, or where they'll be hopelessly outnumbered. It depends on the mission! Use the right tool for the job, and all that.

One thing to keep in mind is not to envision ancient warfare through the eyes of today's Internet mind-set. Things typically moved at a walk back then, so any legionary was perfectly equipped. In fact, they were better at walking farther with heavier loads than most folks were. An infantry force can out-march a cavalry force simply because men can take more strain over long distances than horses can. And a force of legionaries marching without their baggage train could easily catch any column moving only as fast as its own ox-carts--those things are slow! We know from accounts of the Jugerthine wars that even Republican legionaries were perfectly capable of catching and defeating tribes trying to wage "guerilla" warfare.

So don't sell those legionaries short! Vale,

Matthew

[Jona Lendering]

Can you recommend any titles or sites I should start with?

We have a thread, which used to be sticky, called "the indispensable books". There are many websites on the Roman legions; I am not able to judge the sites on tactics or armor, but I have collected all information on the history of the units here.

[Marcus Julius]

I have come to learn that Julius Caesar was very impressed with the Batavian horsemen (cavalry auxilia) and their ability to swim in full gear. They were likely used quite often for scouting, screening, diversions and such.

As for the plunder, I think you'd have a hard time keeping any unit, if you didn't allow them their share of the spoils.

[tommy303]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the first cohort had the nominal staff and logistics base to act independently of the rest of the legion; the other cohorts did not and were therefore not detached for special missions on their own, other than perhaps garrison or construction duties.

[Matthew Amt]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the first cohort had the nominal staff and logistics base to act independently of the rest of the legion; the other cohorts did not and were therefore not detached for special missions on their own, other than perhaps garrison or construction duties.

Huh, that sounds a little odd. Never heard it myself but haven't really looked! It became very common to send pairs of cohorts off on detatched duties, but if one of those had to be the first cohort then what could the rest of the legion do? I doubt it would be stuck at the fort waiting for enough staff to march. What's really needed? An officer in charge (tribune or centurion), some wagons and carts for whatever food and supplies. The men all carry their stuff. March on!

Matthew

[Praefectusclassis]

Actually, I'd say it was the other way around. Since the aquilifer would be nominally part of the 1st Cohort, the legion is where the 1st cohort is. Centuries and cohorts were sent off on separate tasks all the time.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

and the Roman tactical doctrine called for scouting, screening, scherimsing and forraging

Salve. Currently I am reading a book by Peter Connolly - "Greece and Rome at War" in which the author states several times that scouting and screening were actually not much emphasized by the Romans and this, according to the author, led to disasters that could have been easily avoided otherwise.

[sonic]

The difficulty with this thread is that Coriolanus did not give a timescale to his original question.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that in the campaigns to conquer Spain, from c200BC onwards, the original 'manipular' legion began to send small detachments out to fulfil specific duties, and that these may have comprised one maniple each of Hastati, Proncipes and Triarii, and so have been the origin of the 'Cohort'. Therefore the practice of sending out detached units began relatively early when it comes to our knowledge of the army.

As to scouting, I always thought that the Romans on the whole were quite poor at scouting, since they believed that there was a limited need for it in Italy. Then Hannibal arrived and things began to change, with scouts taken from the Allies, especially the Numidians.

Yet there are many examples of Romans being attacked by surprise or of having to fight an 'encounter' battle where both armies 'bumped' into each other by accident. Even the great Caesar was attacked by surprise, and wasn't Cynoscephelae an encounter battle?

(Unfortunately, I'm doing this from memory, and my memory is renowned for being terrible!!)

I think that maybe there was an underlying arrogance to the Roman elite, where they expected to win whatever the circumstances, and so all too often they neglected to send out scouts to locate the enemy as they were seen as simply not being necessary: the Romans were going to win anyway, so why bother? :?

A decent scouting option would probably have saved thousands of Roman lives at Cannae!!

In the Imperial period things do appear to have improved, since I cannot recall any instances of major Roman forces being ambushed. (I do not count the Teutoburgerwald disaster, since circumstances dictated that scouts were not needed!) However, this may be due simply to the large scale movement of troops now common resulting in the forces involved being simply too large to ambush etc.

Yet it was common in Greek warfare to send light troops ahead to occupy hills and other significant points that guarded the line of march - for example, The March of the Ten Thousand. It would be surprising if the Romans failed to learn from these predecessors, since in many cases they were only too willing to copy and learn from their enemies.

______________________________

Ian (Sonic ) Hughes

[Avatar]

Hallo der, Harald. Fint å se flere nordmenn her!

Back on topic: I recall reading somewhere(I've forgotten the source) that on occasion, the officers would gather a select group of legionaires skilled in certain things(like scouts, night fighters, etc), and give them some specific task. The nightfighters in the example above might be sent off to do a quick raid on an enemy, or sent off to do a little sabotage in the middle of the night. The scouts might be sent on patrol. Recruits drawn from the loca area or another similar people(such as Celtic recruits from Italy fighting in Gaul) might also be sent on various duties in the local area where knowledge of the local people might prove useful.

Like I said, I've forgotten the source, but I recall reading a few years ago, so it may well be erraneous... I think it was from a textbook we used in school, so, like I said, it's possibly outdated or even wrong. But it speaks alot about flexibility in the legions.

[Matthew Amt]

The difficulty with this thread is that Coriolanus did not give a timescale to his original question.

Very true! But we get a lot of "timeless" questions around here.

A decent scouting option would probably have saved thousands of Roman lives at Cannae!!

I don't see how. The two armies were camped in full view of each other for a day or two before the battle. The Romans had an excellent line-up and good troops, and were pretty much winning in the center until they got hit in the rear by Hannibal's cavalry! It was bad leadership, not bad scouting.

In the Imperial period things do appear to have improved, since I cannot recall any instances of major Roman forces being ambushed. (I do not count the Teutoburgerwald disaster, since circumstances dictated that scouts were not needed!)

Oh, but didn't Varus use his trusty German auxiliaries as scouts? That should have worked perfectly! Oops...

Yet it was common in Greek warfare to send light troops ahead to occupy hills and other significant points that guarded the line of march - for example, The March of the Ten Thousand. It would be surprising if the Romans failed to learn from these predecessors, since in many cases they were only too willing to copy and learn from their enemies.

Doesn't Caesar mention numerous little cavalry skirmishes? Those would have been scouting forces, very often. I think there are similar actions in many other campaigns.

Valete,

Matthew

[Roy]

I don't see how. The two armies were camped in full view of each other for a day or two before the battle. The Romans had an excellent line-up and good troops, and were pretty much winning in the center until they got hit in the rear by Hannibal's cavalry! It was bad leadership, not bad scouting.

Good scouting might have discovered the forces hidden on the flanks though.

[Paullus Scipio]

Sorry Roy, but I think you may be getting a little confused here --- as Matt said, the armies, including the cavalry on both flanks were in full view of each other on a flat plain at Cannae.
Hannibal did successfully ambush the Romans on many occasions, notably the battles of the Trebbia and Trasimene, so your point about Roman lack of reconnaisance/scouting skills is quite valid.
The Romans were handicapped by the lack of enough good quality light cavalry, which Hannibal's Numidians provided in abundance.
In those circumstances, we should not criticise them too much - no doubt Roman generals were well aware of the fact, but were powerless to change the situation . They just had to play the hands they were dealt.

[Roy]

Ah yes, probably was confused with one of those other battles, thought that part of the African troops that attacked the Roman flanks were hidden :oops: