Romans tricks during battle field

[SAJID]

Hi,
How did roman fighter use tricks front of their enemy at battle field ?
How Roman fighter face their enemy at battle field ?


with best regards-sajid

[Bryan]

Hi,
How did roman fighter use tricks front of their enemy at battle field ?
How Roman fighter face their enemy at battle field ?

with best regards-sajid

I believe this guy can answer your questions:

Frontinus: The Strategemata

[Sextus Saturninus]

Sajid,

The Romans were masters at battlefield tactics. Their armies were composed of mostly infantry in the Principate with more cavalry integrated in the Dominate ( post Diocletian ). The Romans had almost unmatchable heavy infantry and usually tried to set the battlefield so it gave them advantages over the enemy. The soldiers were disciplined and would usually not rout. They stood their ground and fought. They threw javelins ( pila ) and then engaged with their short swords or ( in later periods) Spatha swords.

The Romans used tactic to trick their enemy, leading them to great battles at many sites and against many empires. The fighting tactic was to stab, no crazy slashing movements like in ridiculous Hollywood movies. The weapon of last resort was the large bladed dagger called a pugio. This weapon was favored for assassinations, being famously used in the murder of Julius Caesar and the suicide of Nero. Specialist troops in the auxiliary corps used other weapons such as bows, slings, and native weapons.

Overall, the Roman army fought like a group. They fought in rigid battle lines and stood their ground. In the later period, the soldiers still fought in lies but cavalry had gained the superiority in combat. The Roman army was unmatched during much of the Principate but after the crisis of the third century, the army weakened and eventually collapsed after Majorian in around 465 ad.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well... the Roman army began loosing men after 405 AD, due to increasing needs to cut spending as tax income slowly reduced, eventually having to cut about half the military in 439 after the loss of Africa, but Aetius maintained an extremely experienced and rather invincible Roman army until 454, when he was murdered they disbanded (some revolted too). There's no evidence Majorian had any professional Roman units in his campaigns that I am aware of.

As for battlefield tactics, the Strategemata and the Strategikon are the go-to reads. If you're looking for anything in particular I can probably find it in the Strategikon, which details flanking maneuvers, infantry warfare, etc.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Magister,

You are right that the last REAL PROFESSIONALS were the troops under Flavius Aetius. Majorian had some troops that were probably Limitanei or Foederati mercenaries. He had troops for his campaigns that restored partially the power of the empire but when he lost his fleet to invade Africa and take it back from the Vandals. Afterwards, he was murdered by the King maker - Ricimer ( have you ever wondered what would of happened if Majorian won back Africa? :-) ). By Romulus, there was nothing left to be called an army and the soldiers under John, brother of Orestes, were defeated by Foederati under Odoacer ( proving that some troops still did exist).



(P.S. I have read your arguments against the leather armor on the various forums and support your idea that leather musculata would be a stupid alternative to mail that is totally fine and better than leather)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

According to Sidonius Apollinaris, who presents surprisingly realistic accounts of the Roman campaigns and army of the 5th century, Majorian's army consisted entirely of Foederati. However, it should be noted that several Limitanei Garrisons remained intact until the 490's, and some even longer if Procopius can be relied upon.

The men who fought under Paulinus in 464 (he was a general of Aegidius) were probably local Roman Limitanei Garrisons from Armorica. The Limitanei Garrison at Batavis in Raetia held out until 476, according to Eugippius.

You are right in that Majorian is quite a character - in essence the badly-needed replacement for Aetius. His problem though was that he was subject to the whims of his Foederati soldiers, and the Burgundian Ricimer who was Magister Utriusque Militiae. Ricimer saw that Majorian was clearly not going to abide by the whims of the Burgundian King Gundobad, especially considering Majorian reversed the Burgundian gains in Gaul in 458, so when he had the opportunity Ricimer exploited the rift between the Italic and Gallic aristocracy, persuading the Italics to kill Majorian once the Foederati army had been sent back to Gaul in 461.

Yes, the Leather Musculata debate is quite a spectacle, lol. Thanks for your thoughts on it.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Sajid,

Do you have any other questions on the Roman military? I am always happy to answer questions that others have, and the rest of the forum would probably happily answer anything you would like to know more about concerning Rome.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Yes, the debate about leather armor in the Roman army is a heated argument. Some people claim that all Roman soldiers wore leather armor, especially in the late period. Some people claim that after Septimius Severus, all soldiers wore leather, even though at Dura, they found scale and mail fragments. Also, ancient authors only say some civilizations used leather as armor, though they are not Romans, and the leather was for troops who could not be burdened with heavy mail, the exception being Greek hoplites with the Spolas cuirass. Since soldiers were never recorded as wearing any leather garments beside their subarmalis, the idea that all Legionaries wore leather segmentatas or musculatas is ridiculous.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I prefer to call them Stratagems rather than tricks because that is what they essentially were.

Vegetius, using earlier military manuals, is useful in this respect, the Clarke edition is freely available on the internet but should be used with caution. Try and get a copy of the Milner translation which is much better.

[Timianus]

A much used "trick" was to buy off a segment of the allied (or main) troops from your opponent during a battle.

[Sextus Saturninus]

If you can buy off the enemy troops, there are less enemies and more allies!