Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Changes in the Roman Army
#1
Quote:armour is armour... a shield is just a shield... a sword is just a sword... There is in fact no real reason to fundamentally change battlefield tactics... between the first organised soldiery and the founding of the 'city state' and the 19th century... the Napoleonic period also reintroduced the same tactics and organisations that the Romans used... none of them require or need any changes in basic tactics or organisations... for the arms and armour change very little, if at all.

I think most people studying the late Roman period - or indeed any period of ancient military history - would probably disagree with that!

If organisation and tactics were so obvious or organic, and changed so little, there would be no need for lengthy discussions such as this one... :-|
Nathan Ross
Reply
#2
Whilst most people agree that the 'Ancient Legion' as discussed is a fantasy on Vegetius's behalf, I would caution against that being totally the case. Vegetius told his reader that he was using other authors works as part of his Epitome, most of those works are now sadly lost to us. So in effect Vegetius' work contains the shadow of these other works. The legion he described is probably a mixture of older and current practice. All the weapons he described the troops as using, and probably the armour as well, were those used by the troops when he wrote.This is also true of the description of the officer ranks in the legion he described. Yet the legion is made up and also formed up using older titles.

I have always harboured the suspicion that Vegetius' description of the legion was culled directly from he books he had access to. The information he gives is too precise for him to have completely made it up. I further believe that this legion was in existance up to when Diocletian became Emperor and that it was Diocletian and then Constantine who reformed the legions. Vegetius clearly blamed Constantine's reforms for the state the Empire was in when he wrote the Epitome and wanted the pre-Constantine/Diocletianic legion and field army reforms reversed.

So in efffect when Vegetius wrote that a legion was 6000 men strong, and showed its make up, it was correct as far as he was concerned because thats how he read it's composition was made up in his books.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#3
Nathan, a friend send me this. He will have a full translation soon. My friend is replying to what he believes it reads and also with Renatus' translation.

"Yes, the anonymous author is saying, in slightly wordy fashion, that the way to avoid a unit ending up understrength through men removing themselves (or perhaps making away with themselves) because they find they dislike military service is to over-recruit by 50 or 100. The precise reason for the one or the other figure is not clear: I conjecture that either there were two distinct grades of recruiting area or (more likely) that there were two sizes of military unit."

Food for thought?
Reply
#4
Quote:Mark wrote:
I'll go further - for any suggestions of a change in organisational structures really should be accompanied by a reason as to why. Steven/Antiochus thinks it may be due to non-Earthly and cultural mathematical reasons; but whilst I don't agree, it is a reason that by-passes the other more obviously logical reasons - which I believe to be tenuous at best for the arms and armour change very little, if at all.

Why have you bought this into the debate? There are views presented in a discussion that I don’t agree with but I don’t feel the need to go out of my way and air my opinion. Obviously another attempt by you to hijack another thread and this is blantant trolling. As for your thesis, it will be nothing more than bending the primary sources to conform to your military experience. Too many know all know nothing retired miltary personal had done that before and you won't be the last.

Well, I could simply quote your own 'quote' back to you.....

But what I will do is express my sadness and certainly apologise that you misunderstood and misread what I wrote. However, I wrote it and therefore I must take some of the blame that you read it so.

It was most definitely not trolling, but a statement of simple style and understanding and factual basis. I, perhaps indeed partially due to my personal experiences, but also due to upbringing, basic mental processes and a belief in deductive reasoning and a wish to always drill down and 'understand why' would always seek a military 'reason' for military tactics and organisation.

What I was pointing out, that would actually support your views, is that if military organisation was defined by Cosmological Principles, Mathematical Relationships and Tribal Culture then it could neatly side-step many of those 'reasons'. [removed]

The fact that you don't accept any views of people with real military experience, however, is why your theory is never likely to gain popular acceptance - and that would be sad, because you may be right. There is a reason why Sun Tzu, Vegetius, etc are still read today and that's because sound military experience doesn't and won't change - denying that people who have that experience will always relegate you to a distant armchair.
Reply
#5
Quote:
Mark Hygate post=352219 Wrote:armour is armour... a shield is just a shield... a sword is just a sword... There is in fact no real reason to fundamentally change battlefield tactics... between the first organised soldiery and the founding of the 'city state' and the 19th century... the Napoleonic period also reintroduced the same tactics and organisations that the Romans used... none of them require or need any changes in basic tactics or organisations... for the arms and armour change very little, if at all.

I think most people studying the late Roman period - or indeed any period of ancient military history - would probably disagree with that!

If organisation and tactics were so obvious or organic, and changed so little, there would be no need for lengthy discussions such as this one... :-|

Why would they - unless they are imagining something in isolation? What, fundamentally, has changed in the period of your original statement?

I'll suggest a review from the other end - give a standard Roman century/cohort any practicable variation of the weapons used and argue why it couldn't be used on the battlefield. If it could be used, then perhaps it was....
Reply
#6
Quote:Vegetius told his reader that he was using other authors works as part of his Epitome, most of those works are now sadly lost to us.

Speidel conjectured in an article about Vegetius' legion, that Vegetius probably had the same problem like modern historians. He found no exact figures in his sources, because ancient authors were very often not interested in such details,

So Vegetius started to design some figures which looked reasonable. For example, a contubernium must have a leader like in late empire, so we have a decanus and decanus means 10 men, with the decanus himself 11. 10 contubernia plus a centurio are 111, and so on ....
Fully wrong, but reasonable.

So yes, a lot of information Vegetius gives us about the ancient legion seems to be correct, but not the figures.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#7
Quote:Whilst most people agree that the 'Ancient Legion' as discussed is a fantasy on Vegetius's behalf, I would caution against that being totally the case. Vegetius told his reader that he was using other authors works as part of his Epitome, most of those works are now sadly lost to us. So in effect Vegetius' work contains the shadow of these other works. ..............

So in efffect when Vegetius wrote that a legion was 6000 men strong, and showed its make up, it was correct as far as he was concerned because thats how he read it's composition was made up in his books.

Actually, given that I/we only have access to the ancient works that remain, would (indeed will) actually suggest that Vegetius only needs one work to hand and one additional piece of information (I am not disagreeing with arms and armour (apart from as above))...

And that is: Polybius (mainly indeed just Book VI); and the generally accepted knowledge that the First Cohort was 'doubled' in size when 'full' legions still existed.

Nothing else is needed to suggest why his legion ends up as it is - although he does use some updated terms and terminology.
Reply
#8
Mark wrote:
What I was pointing out, that would actually support your views,

Oh please spare me the charade!

Mark wrote:
But I am aware you don't like criticism, so I accept you don't wish potential support either.

I have no problem with constructive criticism. I learn from it. But all I have ever had from you is subtle ridicule. I made it a policy to ignore you. I would ask that you do the same.

Mark wrote:
The fact that you don't accept any views of people with real military experience, however, is why your theory is never likely to gain popular acceptance, - and that would be sad, because you may be right. There is a reason why Sun Tzu, Vegetius, etc are still read today and that's because sound military experience doesn't and won't change - denying that people who have that experience will always relegate you to a distant armchair

The dog continues to bark while the caravan moves on.
Reply
#9
Quote:
ValentinianVictrix post=352230 Wrote:Whilst most people agree that the 'Ancient Legion' as discussed is a fantasy on Vegetius's behalf, I would caution against that being totally the case. Vegetius told his reader that he was using other authors works as part of his Epitome, most of those works are now sadly lost to us. So in effect Vegetius' work contains the shadow of these other works. ..............

So in efffect when Vegetius wrote that a legion was 6000 men strong, and showed its make up, it was correct as far as he was concerned because thats how he read it's composition was made up in his books.

Actually, given that I/we only have access to the ancient works that remain, would (indeed will) actually suggest that Vegetius only needs one work to hand and one additional piece of information (I am not disagreeing with arms and armour (apart from as above))...

And that is: Polybius (mainly indeed just Book VI); and the generally accepted knowledge that the First Cohort was 'doubled' in size when 'full' legions still existed.

Nothing else is needed to suggest why his legion ends up as it is - although he does use some updated terms and terminology.

Vegetius actually tells us what other works he consulted when he wrote the Epitome, unfortunately I do not have Milner's translation to hand or I would be able to quote which one's he stated he consulted.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#10
Quote:give a standard Roman century/cohort any practicable variation of the weapons used and argue why it couldn't be used on the battlefield. If it could be used, then perhaps it was....

Which might be a fun theoretical exercise - the same sort of thing is very popular with computer gamers and military strategists - but 'if you can't disprove it, perhaps it was true' is not, I think, the best historical methodology! I'd prefer starting with the evidence we have and what we know about it, and proceeding with extreme caution in the direction of what we don't... :-)


Quote:Vegetius actually tells us what other works he consulted when he wrote the Epitome, unfortunately I do not have Milner's translation to hand or I would be able to quote which one's he stated he consulted.

Cato (the Elder), Celsus, Frontinus and Paternus are mentioned in the text. Milner suggests that V knew most of these through epitomes - that of Verrius Flaccus on Cato, for example.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#11
'Epitome, Epitome, they've all got Epitome'!

(Sorry I could not resist that one!)
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#12
Quote:
Mark Hygate post=352233 Wrote:give a standard Roman century/cohort any practicable variation of the weapons used and argue why it couldn't be used on the battlefield. If it could be used, then perhaps it was....

Which might be a fun theoretical exercise - the same sort of thing is very popular with computer gamers and military strategists - but 'if you can't disprove it, perhaps it was true' is not, I think, the best historical methodology! I'd prefer starting with the evidence we have and what we know about it, and proceeding with extreme caution in the direction of what we don't... :-) ...........

Indeed, and I quite agree - but my point is that, because I fundamentally would argue that the arms and armour didn't really change that much, then the tactics and organisations didn't have to.

Looked at from 'above' (indeed a classic 'wargamer' view): the Greek/Macedonian armies of Alexander and Successors; the Romans; the Byzantines; the Medieval period; the Horse and Musket period - are all essentially similar. Lines and 'Blocks' of men, horses and equipment on a contiguous battlefield. Any General throughout all those periods could have sat and moved and discussed tactics with another.

Only the advent of rifling, the subsequent increase in range and accuracy, leading to the development of machine-guns in one direction and the long-range artillery in another, via the debacle of trench/siege warfare from the American Civil War to its culmination in WWI; lead to a revolution in tactics, enabled subsequently by radios and mechanization, that required dispersion and speed.

I must ask, from your original point, what you believe (in that particular microcosm) changed so much that it would influence a set of changes for the Late Roman period (4th-5thC)?

Were there, particularly, two different organisations that both used the terminology of 'legio', yes I believe there were. Were the 'old' border/limitanei legions and auxiliary troops most probably less well recruited and often under strength compared to the field armies of the period, yes most likely. Were troops now often permanently detached from their notional parents, extremely likely. But none of that necessarily means that the basic organisations changed fundamentally - why even make the effort?
Reply
#13
Quote:I must ask, from your original point, what you believe (in that particular microcosm) changed so much that it would influence a set of changes for the Late Roman period (4th-5thC)?

Cavalry.

Rome necessitated its changes because it fought the Sassanids, who unlike the disorganized Parthians could coordinate large armies and effective defenses, as well as invade (And at one point almost conquer) the Roman Empire.

And then came the Huns, with a completely new style of warfare and the 7-lathe bow, revolutionizing Roman cavalry by the mid-6th century.
Reply
#14
It might be worth hiving off the posts in this thread that do not discuss Late Roman unit sizes into one called 'What is the evidence for the evolution of Roman warfare?'

There is evidence for a gradual evolution in the Roman style of warfare. We go from the early days when the Roman army was more like a Greek one, with the troops armed similarly to Greek hoplites. It then starts to evolve after contact with the Celtic and Germanic tribes who use longer swords and have throwing spears. This led to the armies which had several lines of infantry armed with the pilum and sword and a reserve line composed of veterans with a long spear. This then changes to the 'classic' legion where all the line infantry are armed with the pilum and sword. After contact with the Parthians and Sassanids there is a gradual change from the pilum to a spear that can be both used to thrust or thrown with a similar effect to the pilum (Spiculum). The infantry also start to be armed with a javelin and also throwing darts so that they can start to affect the enemy at a greater distance.There is a further change once the Romans come into contact with those armies featuring large numbers of charging cavalry, including the Sassanids, Goths, Huns, Alans, Vandals etc. The infantry at this stage are being armed with a much longer spear, at least 8 feet long and they are supported by archers forming the rear ranks. Eventually the infantry is armed with a spear up to 12 feet long and they fight in a style similar to the phalanx.

The evolutions appear to have been as a result of the main type of opposing forces they faced. So in the early days where the 'barbarians' fielded a large number of infantry we have the pilum/heavy throwing spear and sword combination to the fore. When the Romans start encountering enemies fielding large numbers of mounted troops they start to change to a longer spear which is used to fend off the cavalry.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#15
Quote:
Quote:I must ask, from your original point, what you believe (in that particular microcosm) changed so much that it would influence a set of changes for the Late Roman period (4th-5thC)?

Cavalry.

Rome necessitated its changes because it fought the Sassanids, who unlike the disorganized Parthians could coordinate large armies and effective defenses, as well as invade (And at one point almost conquer) the Roman Empire.

And then came the Huns, with a completely new style of warfare and the 7-lathe bow, revolutionizing Roman cavalry by the mid-6th century.

Yes, but as it is advised to ask - so what?

The enemy is now mainly cavalry and so the spear is re-introduced/re-vitalised as it is better at holding off cavalry and also, once more, becomes longer to boot; likewise the sword becomes longer (or, similarly, everyone switches to the pre-existing spatha) - in both cases the lessening in infantry hand-to-hand combat (and thus the prime drivers for pila + gladius); but still obviously pretty effective as it has been the armament of most auxiliaries for over 300 years.

also.....

In order to be able to engage with cavalry at the range of the bow they themselves are using, there is then also then a switch to greater bow use; enabled in part by the use and incorporation of a fair number of barbarians/foederati who have been used to the bow from both as the primary hunting weapon. I also am lead to believe that the first crossbows/manuballista(?) appeared then; which would make sense since they require a great deal less long-term training - just as was re-discovered in the medieval period - and lamented on to boot!

These are not "revolutionary" - these are simple variations on a theme and using, in most cases re-using, existing technologies.

In every case - the troops still need to be organised, moved, fed, housed with nothing 'spectacular' to drive change.

You specify "Cavalry" in particular - what then is the fundamental change that has happened between a Polybian/manipular legion unit of 300 cavalry of the 3rdC BC and a Byzantine tagma of 300 cavalry nearly 1000 years later?
Reply


Forum Jump: