"National Roman Legion"

[Magnus]

And whether it's ever proven to be "Historically Correct Roman", it sure makes it easier to do things like wheels, column right, etc., when everyone is on the same foot beginning the turn. I personally think it looks better.

The funny thing is I agree...I love drill. I love military precision and unison especially on a formed body of troops. But...as you say Dave it's an unknown as to what extent if any the Romans did it.

I hope I can get a good turn out for one of my camp-outs to try it without the modern way of doing it.

[jkaler48]

I found another US Legio XIIII GMV (Wisc) other than the National Legion one: http://www.legionxiiii.com/index.html
Anyone from that unit often on RAT?

[texascavtrooper]

I think that IF the Romans did in fact have some type of drill, and I believe they did. There training would have been second nature and when the command was given they would have stepped off with the foot they were trained to without even thinking about it. All of us that have been in the military do the same thing all the time and don't even realize it. So it is fair to say the Romans would have done the same on a whole. If one or two soldiers were out of step they would feel that and get into step. I see it in soldiers all the time. When you are part of a well drilled unit you know where you are in the formation and who is around you, what they are doing and so forth. I agree with Matt that if someone got out of step they would just get back into it with a half step. As well as the little gaps that form in a line would be filled easily without the worry of them being punched through. I just think there needs to be more drilling!!! If there was one set drill book it would be a lot easier to come together and work as one formation. We can all wish.


Matt I sent you a PM.

Bryan

[Hibernicus]

One of the fun things about drilling is watching even non military guys fall in step when a group of guys is walking about. Ex: 7 of us ganged up on a part of our storage area last weekend, hot dirty work, and then went up the block to a fundraiser event at the corner to get some icy cold lemonade... once we hit the sidewalk, after a few paces we were all in step.

... naturally

[Caius Fabius]

When the enemy presses the centuria becomes compressed. Being on the same foot to counter push is best. Keeps the men together. Men in front tend not to step apart or step out if they step together.

Stepping apart creates gappage in the ranks. A good enemy will exploit those small openings, especially an enemy who's fighting without strong command and control, with lots of "hero" combatants.

Also, if men are on the same foot, distances for thrusting remain uniform. It makes it easier to toss pila.

It's also disconcerting for an opponent to see a wall of shields advancing in step like a single minded entity.

It also helps the men stay aware of each other.

This assumes that the Romans fought in a medieval shield wall or a scrum like the Hellanistic pikemen, or SCA heavy combat fighters, instead of the looser formations recorded by historians. If each man has more than a meter squared of space in normal formation, he won't be stepping on other feet?

[Magnus]

Yep, which is why the "being in step" theory doesn't really apply.

[caiusbeerquitius]

The small relief band on the arch of Orange is really telling here. The motions displayed are impossible in a dense formation. Polybios says that each legionary had 6x6feet space in the front, whereas the phalanx only had 3x3 (ca. 180 by 180 cm and 90 by 90 cm) Vegetius gives 3 feet front and 7 feet depth. looking at the arch of Orange Polybius seems to give the best account. Covered by a large shield with a certain width, a three foot wide "slot" would give a soldier only between 30 and 15 cm space for his arm. I wonder how one would fight with a sword in such a formation - the scenes on the arch of Orange would be impossible, anyway.
See especially here:
www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_easygallery/act,photos/cid,278/Itemid,135/

The dense formations as seen on Trajans column and the Column of Marcus are 1.st artistic convention (compare to the Parthenon frieze) and 2nd propaganda / monumental art. IMO the dense formations were used, but rather during sieges , for defence, etc.

One might also consider the lack of possibilities for soldiers to show virtus in a too dense formation.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

This assumes that the Romans fought in a medieval shield wall or a scrum like the Hellanistic pikemen, or SCA heavy combat fighters, instead of the looser formations recorded by historians. If each man has more than a meter squared of space in normal formation, he won't be stepping on other feet?

Yep, which is why the "being in step" theory doesn't really apply.

Hmmn, don't we run the risk though, if we deny they fought in tight-ish formations of actually allowing the initial scenes of gladiator to take place?

I have heard time and time again that scene being scorned because it portrays one on one fighting and so on, but from the above postulations, and taking into account what has already been mentioned about the enemy taking advantage of gaps, these scenes would not seem too far fetched then.

The dense formations as seen on Trajans column and the Column of Marcus are 1.st artistic convention (compare to the Parthenon frieze) and 2nd propaganda / monumental art. IMO the dense formations were used, but rather during sieges , for defence, etc.

One might also consider the lack of possibilities for soldiers to show virtus in a too dense formation.

As I have said above, didn't the barbarians usually fight apart for exactly those reasons? (and the larger swords requiring extra swinging space). If the above theories to taken into consideration, if the cohorts did start as a shield wall, I have no doubts by the end of the battle they would not.

I thought the whole point of the effectiveness of the roman killing machine was they stayed in formation, not allowing the battle to disentegrate into small duels, where the romans would surely be maulled? (Unlike their barbarian enemies)

[Hibernicus]

would give a soldier only between 30 and 15 cm space for his arm. I wonder how one would fight with a sword in such a formation

All a soldier needs in a press is enough room for his gladius to slide through or over the shoulder of the man in from of him. He doesn't even need to stab hard or fast.

I also think that we need to take some care when interpreting with a modern mind the words of ancients when describing combat. A certain spacing may be an ideal ( and we too often read 3 feet when it shoud read 3 "roman" feet).

VIRTUS embodies not just strength or toughness, or bravery but also duty and soldierliness.. doing what is needed under the most adverse circumstances. Sometimes it can take all one's being to not rush out to attack, but to wait, even if you are one passus away from an enemy soldier or from reaching the top of the wall first.. waiting for the order to advance... arrows and sling stones and sticks and rocks and all manner of debris and horror pommeling your scutum... and the enemy's taunts burning your ears... discipline and duty

[Caius Fabius]

Hmmn, don't we run the risk though, if we deny they fought in tight-ish formations of actually allowing the initial scenes of gladiator to take place?

I have heard time and time again that scene being scorned because it portrays one on one fighting and so on, but from the above postulations, and taking into account what has already been mentioned about the enemy taking advantage of gaps, these scenes would not seem too far fetched then.


As I have said above, didn't the barbarians usually fight apart for exactly those reasons? (and the larger swords requiring extra swinging space). If the above theories to taken into consideration, if the cohorts did start as a shield wall, I have no doubts by the end of the battle they would not.

I thought the whole point of the effectiveness of the roman killing machine was they stayed in formation, not allowing the battle to disentegrate into small duels, where the romans would surely be maulled? (Unlike their barbarian enemies)

Where do these ideas come from? Not the historical writings, which show individual combats, room to fight, and duels, but movies and drawings from the 20th century? You might take a moment to read "Soldiers and Ghosts" by Lendon?

As far as the Roman foot being different, with 3 different measurements from different times, the overall distance lost is less than 8 centimeters, from 5 Roman feet, so the soldier was not packed shoulder to shoulder, unlike the previous phalanx or later shield wall.

The Roman superiority was from training to work together, covering each other in depth, being able to fight for long periods (trained with double weight weapons), flexibility of small units to the situation, and logistical superiority over most opponents. Loads of other factors, but fighting in a shield wall is not one of those cited by ancient sources unless you refer to the tortoise formation. Also see Connolly, Peddie, and Goldsworthy for Romans fighting in a semi-open order. I tend to forget the Wargames rules, and cool films and stick to what we can find in the historical record.

Why did the battle sequences in "Gladiator" suck? To me it was because the Romans didn't throw their pila. :lol:

[Tarbicus]

I'm with CF on that. How many dead bodies are underfoot when modern 'combats' happen? How much slippery blood and guts? How many missiles and spent pila?

Unless you recreate these conditions the analogy is anachronistic surely?

[jkaler48]

If I remember correctly the rear ranks were able to fill in for casualities
and relieve the front ranks as they became exhausted so the formation
must have had enough "wiggle room" to allow those evolutions.
Certain formations may have been tighter: The wedge for example.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Where do these ideas come from? Not the historical writings, which show individual combats, room to fight, and duels, but movies and drawings from the 20th century? You might take a moment to read "Soldiers and Ghosts" by Lendon?

I would love to. These ideas all come from what I have read and learned here on RAT alone. I just find it hard to understand how when one praises the initial scenes of gladiator (sure the missing flying pilla did suck) one is told they are innacurate due to close quarters combat, and that the evidence is on monumental collumns. The next momment this evidence is being decried as artistic license, and we are having a debate that they indeed did fight in looser formations.

Im sorry, I don't seem to sound crass or rude (I know it may sound like it at times), but I am just confused. I am using the Gladiator analogy not because I base any historical fact on the film, but because it is a common point of the film many of us refute as unauthentic.

Just seems to me like a slap in the face of those who were told the scene was not how the roman army fought, while what is being discussed here in this discussion (which is way off topic btw) could well have allowed that particular scenario to happen. Especially, as how has already been mentioned, the barbarians which fought rome regularly would be aware of their tactics and exploit any particular weaknesses.

I don't have a problem accepting they could use a looser formation, but that it would have been a lesser used tactic and only used rarely. Anyway, once again, sorry if I have come across as rude or anything, it is not my intention.

Yuri

[Magnus]

That I have seen, the best legionary combat was in the first episode of Rome, Season I.

I'd basically dismiss the whole opening scene in Gladiator in terms of authenticity...it was horrible. The legions relied on their formations with some spacing in between individual soldiers to grind their enemies down. In Gladiator they degrade into some silly melee because they didn't do what the Romans actually did.

The bottom line is that you need some space to move, otherwise you can't fight.

[Buggnkat]

I believe that is the exact point, the Roman Army was well trained and a disciplined fighting force. They trained as hard (actually harder) than they fought.

Anyone who served in the military knows when they see a well disciplined unit in drill that they usually will fight just as; if not more, efficiently. Legions were trained for years, and by reading, have found that Legions are considered seasoned and "trustworthy" (meaning will not break in battle, this is born out by Ceasars own writings about the 9th and 10th Legios) after 5 years. Take a Legion that has fought together and knows each man in their cohort intimately and you will have a force that can't be overcome on the battlefield very easily and wont panic. To demonstrate what I am saying, during the civil war in Greece, the 10th Legio broke when cavalry ran through them. Pompei would not give chase as he thought it was a trap as the 10th NEVER retreated nor broke in battle.

As for formations, have you ever seen a counter column executed? There isnt a large amount of room between columns, but each column passes by the other without too much touching unless it is horseplay. I can see a Legionare being replaced by a simple turn and side step to the rear, to be replaced by a fresh Legionare. Efficent use of manpower and use of all available men.

Greg