Battle Strategy Meetings/Staff Meetings

[M. Demetrius]

Building from this thread http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roma...ander.html

Who would be present in the Praesidium for a meeting to decide on strategy and battle assignments for the whole army?

Secondarily, since not every tribune and centurion could possibly be in the tent if there were three or four legions involved, what subsequent meetings were held to distribute the battle orders to the various cohorts/legions involved in the army? It seems clear that on occasion certain groups were assigned to do a specific task (e.g. Caesar's infantry cohort hidden in his cavalry at Pharsalus, much to Pompey's chagrin). Those orders had to be communicated to the smaller units somehow.

Was there a major strategy meeting and assignment/overall battle plan issued then a group of smaller units throughout the castrum to set the battle in motion?

[Frank]

The answer is again, we don't know exactly.

Best guess imho and at least, what you usually read in books about roman army:
The legate
The primipilus iterum aka primipilus II as chief of staff, if available.
The tribunus laticlavius
The praefecus castrorum
The tribuni militum legionis
The prefecti and tribuni of the auxilia / alae onsite
The primi ordines
and a few librarii for documentation.

As I have written in this other thread about the cohort commander, according to Josephus and Appian the tribunes did forward the orders to the centurions.

If we look at an army of a province governor with more than 1 legion, this group would perhaps become too big. So I expect a smaller meeting first. But I have no clue, if there is something known e.g. about Germanicus staff meetings.

Well, the inner coutyard of the praetorium would be big enough, but that could never work in Britannia, where it rains 300 days a year 8-)

[Nathan Ross]

We should bear in mind that the officer corps of a Roman army would be quite different to that of an army today - they would be members of the aristocracy, either senatorial or equestrian, accustomed to public oratory, in senate meetings and law courts, and accustomed also to a fairly strict social hierarchy.

An initial 'strategy meeting' might be imagined (as Frank says, we don't, I think, have any actual evidence for them!) to have been a quite informal affair, with the governor or general and his fellow-senatorial legates, their laticlavius tribunes and maybe a few of the equestrian officers. Also perhaps a senior military man, one of the praefecti castrorum (who probably held equestrian status) to add suitable gravitas and virtu... The role of praefectus fabrum varied throughout Roman history, but if he was still a sort of chief of staff or logistics officer he would have been present too. The governor would also have had a number of cohortales, young hangers-on, who may also have been in attendance. So a group of perhaps around a dozen men, most of them social equals - depending on time available, it could even have been conducted over dinner.

Once this meeting was concluded, orders could be issued in a more formal way. An assembly of officers, perhaps - the legates and tribunes (who already knew what was happening) seated with the general upon the tribunal of the principia hall, or equivalent on campaign, with the primipilares and primi ordines and the auxiliary commanders gathered before them. I don't know if there's any evidence for written orders being given, but it would make sense: the commander's accensus, perhaps, or the beneficiarius consularis, could write these out on tablets and distribute accordingly.

Once this was done, the tribunes, centurions and other officers could return to their units and pass on the relevant details to all concerned.

As I say, this is purely hypothetical, but seems more in keeping with the Roman mentality than the idea of everyone clustering around the general as he gestures at a big map with a pointy stick!

[Frank]

I don't know if there's any evidence for written orders being given, but it would make sense: the commander's accensus, perhaps, or the beneficiarius consularis, could write these out on tablets and distribute accordingly.

Actually, there is evidence for written orders. The roman army was a huge buerocracy. But rather orders about daily business (about tasks, personell or the famous tessera), not about tactics before combat. Well, perhaps such critical messages were usually destroyed after reading.

It was the responsibility of a librarius consularis or librarius legati to write such orders e.g. an order forwarded to an auxilia cohors commander. The librarii of the tabularium legati legionis (actarius, librarii, excacti, exceptores, scribae) are reporting to the cornicularius, the highest rank of principales. The cornicularius was the leader of the office dealing with the commanders correspondence. Therefore the cornicularius was also responsible to guarantee the correctness of form and content of transcriptions. In some cases (of high importance?) the cornicularius wrote the entire document or a part of it personally, in order to prove this. Therefore i guess that the cornicularius and one of his exceptores (stenography) was attending staff meetings.

I doubt the beneficarii consularis were responsible. Perhaps one of them was involved sometimes, because the beneficarius was obviously a jack-of-all trades.

[Renatus]

It was the responsibility of a librarius consularis or librarius legati to write such orders e.g. an order forwarded to an auxilia cohors commander. The librarii of the tabularium legati legionis (actarius, librarii, excacti, exceptores, scribae) are reporting to the cornicularius, the highest rank of principales. The cornicularius was the leader of the office dealing with the commanders correspondence. Therefore the cornicularius was also responsible to guarantee the correctness of form and content of transcriptions. In some cases (of high importance?) the cornicularius wrote the entire document or a part of it personally, in order to prove this. Therefore i guess that the cornicularius and one of his exceptores (stenography) was attending staff meetings.

A detailed statement like this requires some authority to support it. Do you have a source that you can quote?

[Frank]

It was the responsibility of a librarius consularis or librarius legati to write such orders e.g. an order forwarded to an auxilia cohors commander. The librarii of the tabularium legati legionis (actarius, librarii, excacti, exceptores, scribae) are reporting to the cornicularius, the highest rank of principales. The cornicularius was the leader of the office dealing with the commanders correspondence. Therefore the cornicularius was also responsible to guarantee the correctness of form and content of transcriptions. In some cases (of high importance?) the cornicularius wrote the entire document or a part of it personally, in order to prove this. Therefore i guess that the cornicularius and one of his exceptores (stenography) was attending staff meetings.

A detailed statement like this requires some authority to support it. Do you have a source that you can quote?

Sure. Unfortunately the most books like "The complete roman army on 200 pages" don't deal with details. For a first deeper look into the subject of roman military administration I recommend the books below. Further articles and ancient sources are found over there.

Alfred von Domaszewski, Brian Dobson
Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres, 3. Aufl. 1981, oder 2. Aufl. 1967
Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher Bd. 14
ISBN 3-412-05280-9.
http://archive.org/details/dierangordnungde00domauoft
(this is the full original of 1905, still not so much disputed or corrected. Imho, a MUST READ for everybody interested in details about the roman army strucure, if able to understand german. I recommend the pdf-version and a good pdf-reader, beause ebup is a mess regarding the footnotes)

David Breeze, Brian Dobson
Roman officers and frontiers, Mavors Reihe, Steiner Verlag 1993
ISBN 3 515 06181 9

Joachim Ott
Die Benficarier
Historia Einzelschriften Heft 92
Steiner Verlag 1995
ISBN 3 515 06660 8
http://books.google.de/books?id=iMQhiKRc...&q&f=false

K. Stauner
Das Offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus (27 v. Chr.–268 n. Chr.): eine Untersuchung zu Struktur, Funktion und Bedeutung der Offiziellen militärischen Verwaltungsdokumentation und zu deren Schreibern.
Bonn: Habelt, 2004. Pp. 500.
ISBN 3-7749-3270-0

Especially Stauner focuses on the librarii and offices of a legion and all the known document types solely on 500 pages including all epigraphs known regarding librarii. Of course a lot of statements and conclusions are disputable, as always. I just repeated/summarized the findings and opinions of these scholars.

For a first overview about details on the offices and the principales of the roman army the google-books I linked are sufficient. However, it is always better to get the full version from a library. Unfortunately some of these sources are in german. I hope that at least Domaszewski is available in english somewhere. I guess in english Birley, Breeze and Dobson as well as other authors dealing with the Vindolanda-Tablets in detail are a good start.

[Nathan Ross]

Actually, there is evidence for written orders... But rather orders about daily business

Yes, obviously the Romans were famously keen on writing things down. We have plenty of 'daily business' stuff from Vindolanda, Dura, Egypt etc (although I don't know if the division of administrative labour is as accurately known as you imply!). But of course I was referring more to tactical orders - which perhaps would have been erased fairly promptly...

Actually I wonder how much tactical, or even strategic, instruction would have been needed. In most cases, Roman-era battles appear to have been tactically pretty simple affairs, and once deployed the majority of small-unit commanders and their men would only have had to follow the procedures they had practiced on the drill field. In an age before firearms and motorised transport, most battles would have happened in quite a small area, and everyone involved would have had a good idea of the lie of the land and relative dispositions of forces.

So detailed tactical instructions may only have been necessary if the commander was using some strategem or other - concealing flanking troops, or exercising a fake withdrawal, perhaps. In these cases, verbal instructions could be given to the few senior officers in charge of the units concerned, or even to the unit as a whole, on the field of battle (as I think Caesar did, or claimed to have done, on occasion).

Once battle was joined, it would be up to the commander (or his nearest subordinates) to respond to events as they saw fit. There's the case from the Gallic War, for example, of Sextus Pompey taking command of a force of cavalry at a critical moment.

Something like Arrian's battle plan against the Alans doesn't feature anything, I think, that would present difficulties to trained men or trained officers. All the subordinates have to do is obey orders, listen for relayed horn signals and follow the standards. In this case, and perhaps in most cases, the commander reported his plan up to his senior (the emperor), not down to his junior officers - they just had to do what they'd been trained to do!

[Renatus]

Sure. Unfortunately the most books like "The complete roman army on 200 pages" don't deal with details. For a first deeper look into the subject of roman military administration I recommend the books below. Further articles and ancient sources are found over there.

I wasn't asking for a book list; I was putting in a plea for people to quote their sources. The list you have given is useful but are there any primary sources that set out the scenario that you describe? As far as I know, there is no translation of Domaszewski into English; Brian Dobson simply reproduced the original essay, preceded by an update (in German).

[Frank]

... but are there any primary sources that set out the scenario that you describe?

I don't know of a single primary source covering the entire scenario. The famous "Manual of the Roman Army and Civil Administration" did most propably never exist.
Like usual it is a puzzle of hundreds of epigraphic and textual sources, which lead to a more or less reasonable conclusion and overall picture. In case of roman military administration the main sources are papyri, ostraka and tablets from Egypt, Africa, Dura and Vindolanda.

Brian Dobson simply reproduced the original essay, preceded by an update (in German).

I know Dobsons annotations. He critizises Domaszewski mainly, whenever he talks about the strategic background and the reasons for certain army structure and processes. The details about the structure itself are still pretty correct since 1905. But I hoped that a standard like Domaszewski was translated anytime.

[Renatus]

I don't know of a single primary source covering the entire scenario. The famous "Manual of the Roman Army and Civil Administration" did most propably never exist.
Like usual it is a puzzle of hundreds of epigraphic and textual sources, which lead to a more or less reasonable conclusion and overall picture. In case of roman military administration the main sources are papyri, ostraka and tablets from Egypt, Africa, Dura and Vindolanda.

It's as I thought. In that case, such a scenario should be presented as a possibility or even a probability but not in absolute terms.

[Nathan Ross]

The famous "Manual of the Roman Army and Civil Administration" did most propably never exist.

I continue to hope that the disciplina Augusti referred to by Aemilius Macer (Vegetius's "constitutiones divi Augusti et Hadriani") is exactly that, and a copy will appear one day, containing everything...

disciplina Augusti Book IV.48.78: "Before commencing hostile actions, every centurion will report to his tribune and receive the written orders prepared in triplicate by the accensus of the legatus. All centurions will wear regulation bright pink combat tunics and leather battle armour...(etc)"

:grin:

[Frank]

It's as I thought. In that case, such a scenario should be presented as a possibility or even a probability but not in absolute terms.

Basically everythig is just a propability if it comes to roman history, even if you have a 200 page ancient source. Just look at Vegetius :unsure:

I guess I used subiunctive formulations in some sentences. If you tell me, which indicative sentence you dislike most, I could check the sources, and we can discuss, if subiunctive is appropriate or not.

[Frank]

I continue to hope that the disciplina Augusti referred to by Aemilius Macer (Vegetius's "constitutiones divi Augusti et Hadriani") is exactly that, and a copy will appear one day, containing everything...

Aaah the famous Disciplina. Perhaps it is just an idea or esprit de corps supported by a bunch of edicts and letters and not what we would expect. ad:

[Renatus]

I guess I used subiunctive formulations in some sentences. If you tell me, which indicative sentence you dislike most, I could check the sources, and we can discuss, if subiunctive is appropriate or not.

I don't intend to get into a fight over this but, as far as I can see, the whole of the passage that I queried is in the indicative.

[alekaras5811]

Actually, there is evidence for written orders... But rather orders about daily business

Actually I wonder how much tactical, or even strategic, instruction would have been needed. In most cases, Roman-era battles appear to have been tactically pretty simple affairs, and once deployed the majority of small-unit commanders and their men would only have had to follow the procedures they had practiced on the drill field. In an age before firearms and motorised transport, most battles would have happened in quite a small area, and everyone involved would have had a good idea of the lie of the land and relative dispositions of forces.

So detailed tactical instructions may only have been necessary if the commander was using some strategem or other - concealing flanking troops, or exercising a fake withdrawal, perhaps. In these cases, verbal instructions could be given to the few senior officers in charge of the units concerned, or even to the unit as a whole, on the field of battle (as I think Caesar did, or claimed to have done,

I have been reading this thread with great interest and I have to say that the above statement brought out a very strong emotional response for me. I would have to respectfully dissagree that anything involving a full legion or more can possibly be described as simple affairs. No matter how proffessional, technically and tactically proficient the officers troops, allies and supporting arms(Calvary, artillery) there must be coordination. No matter how professional no one has a cristal ball, everyone down to the century level must at minimum know at least the commanders intent, unit disposition in relation to terain as well as artillery coordination. Not to mention reserves and Calvary employment. Perhaps there were no written orders but concidering Romans kept records on everything else to me seems unlikely. As a rich Patrishian how are you going to impress your peers at the senete without records of your tactical achivment? How are you going to blame others if things do not go well? So I submit that at minimum there must have been pre-battle coordination meetings of all key subordinate leaders. At least if it involved anything more than everyone get on line and wait to receive a charge. I would also point out that moving a small number of troops might be easy. Moving several hundred is hard and takes planing and coordination, moving several thousand, to do even something as simple as going to the messhal is impossible. Honestly I am speaking from personal experience, I have held every leadership position for non commissioned officers up to Battalion operations chief (700 men) and I have participated in a six battalion, plus supporting arms attack of a city. I can not site an ancient primary source as proof of my opinion but I would bet parts of my anatomy on the opinion that only the most incompetent leader would go to battle without a coordinated plan in writing. If for no other reason than to cover his behind. It also just occurded to me that even if the legatus and his tribunes were morans the prefectus legionis, primus pillus and the other senior centurion were proffessionals and would step in and do what must be done. If for no other reason for self preservation. I hope my comments contribute to the subject in a positive way.