Roman Army Drill

[M. Demetrius]

In Latin class, they'll say there are some variations of vowel pronunciation. But in a general sense, considering that those calling drill are generally not Latin students, we usually say to pronounce the vowels as if they were Spanish or Italian, hoping to get something that is more standardized, for the sake of the troops' ears.

For some of the vowel variations, and accented syllables, we relied on Wheelock's Latin and other Latin language textbooks. We add that C is always like K, G is hard, not soft, V is generally like U, and there are dipthongs, such as ae, au and oe that don't follow the rules. We don't really bother with the suppositions that B and P may have been much closer in sound, and that G and C (as in Gnaius and Cnaius) might have sounded nearly identically. We are, frankly, more reciting a list of words than speaking the language. But then, that's the point, isn't it?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

... in Spanich and Italian language you have the sound "-ay" for the letter "e" ... in French it's not the same sound it's more like the sound for the first letter "a" in the word -> "a-way".
In Latin language i think it's the same way of Spanich and Italian language for the "e" letter ... in fact it's the right pronounciation with "-ay" in english.

Thank you for the clarification. I ran an example of such a word at http://www.vocabolaudio.com/it/fedele to see what you mean. I guess I can hear something like a soft "-ay" for the second "e" in "fedele," (?) but as far as I can tell, the pronunciation of the long "e" is by far not as strong as I have heard English speakers make it. For instance, "okay Jose" - in this expression, "Jose" is pronounced similarly to "okay," whereas the "-e" in "Jose" should not be as accentuated as the "-ay" in "okay." Correct?

Here is the book on Roman pronunciation of Latin some of you asked about: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7528

[Scipio_Africanus]

For instance, "okay Jose" - in this expression, "Jose" is pronounced similarly to "okay," whereas the "-e" in "Jose" should not be as accentuated as the "-ay" in "okay." Correct?

I am not an expert, but yes, what you said is correct. (Of course, we speack about the global pronounciation in a country, who can be different according to the region in the country).

In example :

In France one letter, "o", can change in pronounciation, according to the fact that you are in the south or in the north.

So I stay continue to have the point of view, that we can have just a real good idea of the right pronounciation in the ancients language, but we will be never sure.

Thank you for the link to gutenberg

[M. Demetrius]

Again, we know the pronunciation guide that we use in reference to the Tactica specifically, is flawed. All we were hoping for was some kind of standardization, so people from Brooklyn, West Texas, Boston, Savannah, and Kansas would all be saying pretty much the same words in the same way.

Feel free to pronounce any word any way you think is more correct. Probably we'll all get the same meaning from it, more or less.

[Vindex]

This was posted on RAT a while back (by Mike Bishop I think) and may be helpful in the pronounciation department. The site is principally about inscriptions, but the research includes the spoken inscription.

http://cias.ncl.ac.uk/Inscripta/

[M. Demetrius]

Regardless of our efforts at pronunciation (good link, that one, though: thanks!) the real issue is the choices of the words used, and how those words are selected for inclusion in the list. If I make up a command, it's just my made up command, regardless of how perfectly I pronounce it.

That doesn't make it historically correct, no matter how long it or how widely it gets used by people in the hobby.

[Vindex]

Regardless of our efforts at pronunciation (good link, that one, though: thanks!) the real issue is the choices of the words used, and how those words are selected for inclusion in the list. If I make up a command, it's just my made up command, regardless of how perfectly I pronounce it.

That doesn't make it historically correct, no matter how long it or how widely it gets used by people in the hobby.

Very good point.

[Endre Fodstad]

I remember we had a big discussion like this once with the title "use of the drum - military cadence" a few years back. Can't find it, though.

All we know for sure of what Vegetius knew of the "military step" is that it took 3 months for a recruit to learn.

...and that he relates it to marching, in order to prevent the colummn from being broken up.

But for what it's worth, (and we'll not solve this argument here) every metope that shows soldiers marching on the Adamklissi monument, and practically every coin shows soldiers marching in step.

This one came up in the last thread as well, and I decided to point out the problem in the argument by presenting a 12th century image of cavalry charging in step. Which is extremely common, and which I regard it as highly unlikely that they trained their horses to do. But it sure looks neat on an illumination or in stone. Thought the original artist.

I really don't get it when people who try to depict 1st century legionaires insist on using versions of Maurice's drill. It is half a millenium too late. Would you accept someone showing up with equipment half a millenium out of period? I realize that people really, really want foot drill for their displays, and that written sources sadly are rather scarce on the subject, but I think a far more useable method would have been to use contemporary descriptions of battle manouvers and work backward from them instead.

[Macedon]

Regarding the question whether voice commands should be given in singular or plural, I cannot speak about Latin, but ancient Greek commands would normally be given in singular as attested in all sources.

[M. Demetrius]

@ Macedon: I can see why either might be used, but what we did was simply to copy what we found. Some singular, some plural, without any particular discernable pattern as far as we could tell. We started off with a rule that we would convert them all to plural, then decided it would be better just to mimic the original text where we could find it.

@ Andre: Have you looked at the copious footnotes in the Tactica?

If it took 3 months to learn the military step as relates to how to prevent the marching column to be broken up, it must have been more complicated instruction than "Keep this distance between you and the guy in front of you" That could be done in an afternoon.

And again, we use Mauritius because it exists. We are intellectually certain he built on older works and probably many authors, but we don't have those works to cite. Yes, 500 years is a long time, but amazingly, he duplicates commands that we DO have from Julius Caesar's day, which led us to the conclusion that perhaps his other commands were likewise based on previously known command sets.

As to Adamklissi vs Trajan's Column (different artists, different place) the soldiers on TC are shown not in step, on Adamklissi in step. We concluded that both are correct, and sometimes soldiers were in lockstep, and sometimes not. A testudo formation in random step gets people's feet stepped on. Seems plausible that it would be easier to learn to march in step first, then close up for testudo at the right time. But anyone is certainly allowed to disagree, and march in route step any or all the time.

but I think a far more useable method would have been to use contemporary descriptions of battle manouvers and work backward from them instead.

Actually, there was a bunch of that involved in the setup. But really, do you have some sources you can cite that would shed some light on the subject?

***

One thing we found in great supply while putting together the Tactica were people who told us, "I know you're doing it wrong" but were not so forthcoming when we asked them "Ok, so what is right, then?" I'm not picking on anyone's statements in particular here. Just sayin'--

[M. Demetrius]

One time, in frustration while trying to settle some argument over some drill command, I remember saying "Well, we have eleven commands that we can use, then, because no others exist from the -th Century. We have a command for "draw swords", but none for "sheath swords". So if ever we have the troops draw them, they have to carry them in their hands for the rest of their lives until we find a command cited somewhere, right?"

But seriously, it would be a good idea to look at the extensive footnoting beforehand. We used sources that very likely many of the readers of this meager post have never heard of. Some of the sources are not easily obtainable, some were from books that are available only to a few. One of our members has access to the Library of Congress, and was able to find books to reference that are very rare. It's not a perfect work, it's not intended to be a mandate to anyone, it's just a pretty well researched command set that can be backed up by ancient sources spanning six centuries or so. Anyone or any group who wants to use some other list is perfectly free to do so.

If you come to an event that uses the Tactica as its command set, however, you'll find that the one calling drill will probably pronounce things according to our limited pronunciation guidelines, and uses commands taken from this list, not some other. If anyone goes to an event that is governed by another list, (s)he should make it a point to get their list and study it to be ready to do what's asked with as little confusion as possible. Easy enough, right?

[Robert Vermaat]

it would be a good idea to look at the extensive footnoting beforehand. We used sources that very likely many of the readers of this meager post have never heard of. Some of the sources are not easily obtainable, some were from books that are available only to a few. One of our members has access to the Library of Congress, and was able to find books to reference that are very rare. It's not a perfect work, it's not intended to be a mandate to anyone, it's just a pretty well researched command set that can be backed up by ancient sources spanning six centuries or so. Anyone or any group who wants to use some other list is perfectly free to do so.

I can wholeheartedly agree with David. So far, it's the best I've seen around and it beats inventing Latin commands (Marcus Junkelmann) or translating modern command of the British army straight into latin (way too many groups in the past) by 100%. Now you might find some commands odd (I had my problems with oblique moves once) - fine - don't use them. But first read the arguments.

The only point you'd have to address is the material from Syrianus magister (formerly the Anonymus Byzantinus). Last time I read your Tactica it was still dated to the 6th century, but Philip Rance has (once more) conclusively re-dated it to the Middle Byzantine Period. That may not have to alter any conclusions mind you (Roman military traditions could easily span centuries), but still.

P. Rance, 'The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzantinus)', Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100.2 (2007) 701-737:

The evidence upon which Kçchly and R
stow originally granted De Re Strategica a Justinianic date was never more than tissue-thin and has been left yet more threadbare by recent scholarship. This paper is intended to complement the insights of Baldwin, Lee and Sheppard, and Cosentino by identifying five additional dating criteria that are incongruent with a sixth-century date and more consistent with a middle Byzantine context.

I'd be happy to send you the pdf of the article if you want to read it.

[Vindex]

Yes, 500 years is a long time, but amazingly, he duplicates commands that we DO have from Julius Caesar's day, which led us to the conclusion that perhaps his other commands were likewise based on previously known command sets.

The British Army commands to form a square were discarded with the change of tactics and therefore battle drills changed too (although the sqaure was used to great effect in the European armies in the Napoleonic era but please don't ask me to cite the VERY last use...my source is 1871) BUT they are still used now for ceremonial parades such as the Trooping of the Colour and Sandhurst Passing Off Parades (albeit two ranks) and at various other passing out/off parades. So that's 140-ish years. And one supposes that the reason they have remained is that they move soldiers from A to B effectively and efficiently and there is no reason to change them.

I am sure the same will apply to the ancient world, whichever formed body of men we are considering. Language and dialects change, but the requirement to form up under command (and under fire/attack) does not change.

[Mark Graef]

Vortigern Studies wrote:

The only point you'd have to address is the material from Syrianus magister (formerly the Anonymus Byzantinus). Last time I read your Tactica it was still dated to the 6th century, but Philip Rance has (once more) conclusively re-dated it to the Middle Byzantine Period. That may not have to alter any conclusions mind you (Roman military traditions could easily span centuries), but still.

P. Rance, 'The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzantinus)', Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100.2 (2007) 701-737

I'd be happy to send you the pdf of the article if you want to read it.

I definitely would like to read the article. I will send you my address via PM.

The later date for peri Strategikes is very interesting. This actually strengthens the position taken in the Ludus Militis Tactica, i.e. that the Early Imperial Taktika of Asclepiodotus, Aelian, and Arrian described the dominant tactical theory for infantry in the Roman world, from at least the time of J. Caesar to Maurice.

The only chapters we used from peri Strategikes were the ones dealing with infantry tactics, 21-25, which Denis noted were similar to certain chapters in Asclepiodotus, Aelian, and Arrian. The author formerly known as Anonymus Byzantinus even admits at one point that he is merely transmitting the terminology and descriptions of the "ancients."

The edits required to correct the LM Tactica will be minor. Nothing is set in stone; we had planned on making continual improvements and corrections as more evidence came to our attention.

I appreciate you pointing out Rance's findings; I have read some of his other articles lately but I missed this one.

[Mark Graef]

I really don't get it when people who try to depict 1st century legionaires insist on using versions of Maurice's drill. It is half a millenium too late. Would you accept someone showing up with equipment half a millenium out of period?

I realize that people really, really want foot drill for their displays, and that written sources sadly are rather scarce on the subject, but I think a far more useable method would have been to use contemporary descriptions of battle manouvers and work backward from them instead.

Your skepticism is understandable, Endre. At face value, it does look like a severe anachronism.

The practice of Maurice-based drill by 1st cent. Roman reenactment units goes back almost 20 years now in the US; however, the rationale and justifications for the use of Maurice as a source are not well known, nor have they been explained in any depth, until recently.

The short explanation is that the system of infantry drill outlined by Maurice was not a Byzantine innovation, but had been around and well known for some 700 years by the time the Strategikon was written.

Phillip Rance and others have noted that the Strategikon draws heavily on earlier works on tactics (Maurice even says in his preface that he consulted the "ancients") and that clues in the text hint that much of the infantry drill was copied from a much earlier source, quite possibly a Latin drill "handbook" that is suspected to have existed.

To tie Maurice's drill to the early Imperial era you have to look at the still extant works by authors of earlier tactica, which were written for Roman audiences: Asclepiodotus (ca. 50 BC), Aelian (ca. AD 106), and Arrian (ca. AD 135). These describe the same principles of infantry drill as Maurice: the doubling and undoubling of files to change depth and width of formations; changes of front by facings and pivots, and countermarches. These principles can be used by heavy, medium, and light infantry, and unit formations of almost any size.

These tactica have long been dismissed as antiquarian works on the Macedonian phalanx, and obsolete at the time they were written. However, Nik Sekunda in his 2001 work Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160's BC convincingly argues that the Imperial era tactica were all derived from The Art of Tactics written by the philosopher Poseidonius of Rhodes circa 110 BC. Furthermore, he demonstrates this was not an antiquarian work on Alexander's army but was based in part on the contemporary Seleucid army, which had undergone some 40 years of "Romanization" — the adopting of Roman style arms and armor, unit formations and organizations, ranks, and methods.

Poseidonius was the most eminent philosopher/polymath in the Roman world in his day, and was pro-Roman in political outlook. He was known personally — and greatly admired — by Cicero and Pompey the Great. Julius Caesar almost certainly drew source material from Poseidonius' treatise on the Celts of Gaul; Caesar probably read The Art of Tactics as well.

Poseidonius not only described the dominant tactics of his day, but influenced infantry tactics throughout the rest of Roman history — and beyond.

Elements of the tactica show up in Onasander and Frontinus' Stratagemata. Vegetius acknowleged the tactica, but chose not to include them, either out of bias or an inability to read Greek. Nonetheless, some descriptions of tactics appear in his Epitome, probably derived from Frontinus' lost Art of War.

I don't think a reasonable reconstruction of 1st cent. Roman drill, and the Latin commands used, could be derived from contemporary descriptions of battle maneuvers alone. I believe the best approach is to meld the historical record with the principles and theories from the sources outlined above.