Regarding the Gladius and Mail

[CNV2855]

I want to make a fair point with this: I think this might unlock a secret to success in Roman warfare: if such a model is true, then the advantage the Romans had was that they could maintain continuous contact with experienced, veteran leadership. As such, they were unrelenting and the front of their army was constantly battering away at the enemy.

If you read the entire article, which I suggest, he even mentions that Roman leadership would throw the aquila and standards into the enemy ranks to encourage their forces forward and into the melee.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That's probably got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

[CNV2855]

The many accounts of Roman standard-bearers carrying or flinging their standards towards the enemy to embolden the onslaught of their comrades (as at Pydna and in Caesar's invasion of Britain) are of obvious relevance in this connection (Plutarch, Aem. 20; Caesar, BG 4.25).

He's extrapolating on Philip Saban's work, but there's a citation for it... what you heard and considered dumb, and what happened in history may be two different things.

Something as simple as a Commander joining the fray and fighting with his men has been known to turn routes and certain defeat into victories. If a single person can rally an army, heavily objectified items probably could to. Why did the Crusaders brink the True Cross to Hattin? (lol @ any chance of it actually being the real cross)

Logically, I think he's almost certainly correct in his hypothesis. Imagine being a front line soldier, wildly stabbing. You kill a man, and...? Someone takes his place. This continues until you're killed.
Human psychologically doesn't work in this manner and could not take this strain; we're not terminators. Battles that last all day with two joined lines? Eh... even the physical exhaustion alone of standing there in gear, much less dodging attacks and fighting. Yarmouk lasted SIX days.

[ValentinianVictrix]

It was considered a great dishonour for a unit to lose its standards, I can think of no better way to do this than to throw them into the middle of the enemy! Ammianus gave the example of the Batavi and Heruli Auxilia units that lost the standard they both shared and the shame that brought upon those units until they managed to recover it during a later battle.

In relation to the mail question, most deaths in a battle appear to have been caused when one side routed from the field, the pursuers then managing to strike at the unprotected necks, back and legs.

The Spatha became the standard sword when the Romans started to encounter barbarian armies fielding greater numbers of cavalry, the swords longer length allowing the wielder to strike at the rider more effectively.

[Robert Vermaat]

He's extrapolating on Philip Saban's work, but there's a citation for it... what you heard and considered dumb, and what happened in history may be two different things.

Or you can read about incidents and recognize them for what they are because you know of the context.

What is described about the standards clearly signifies that these were incidents, based on local needs and circumstances. Unlike in modern reenacting, Roman battle standards were carried at the front of the line. Only a rank of fighters (the antesignani, ‘those who fight in front of the standards’) separated them from the enemy. Of course those carrying the standards were often killed, which often happened to junior commanders and all who led from the front. But then you only became a standard bearer when you had proven yourself in battle on earlier occasions.

So why were standards NOT flung into the enemy as a rule? Well, that’s because the main task of a standard in the first place is to act as a focal point and a signal to all troops, who won’t be able to hear all vocal commands over the din of battle. All soldiers look to the standards at some time for those reasons. Flinging tem away would be totally counterproductive, and therefore if it was done the reason would have been extraordinary. Adrian is right about that - losing a standard was a capital offense!

The ‘true cross’ was mounted on a wagon (as was common with main medieval army standards) and it was lost, not flung into the ranks of Saladin’s troops.

Logically, I think he's almost certainly correct in his hypothesis.  Imagine being a front line soldier, wildly stabbing.  You kill a man, and...?  Someone takes his place.  This continues until you're killed.  
Human psychologically doesn't work in this manner and could not take this strain;  we're not terminators.   Battles that last all day with two joined lines?  Eh... even the physical exhaustion alone of standing there in gear, much less dodging attacks and fighting.  Yarmouk lasted SIX days.

Sabin says a lot of things, some of them totally counter to Roman battlefield strategy:
"Why would parts of each line sporadically surge forward into contact? The key individuals would surely be the 'natural fighters' and junior leaders, who would encourage a concerted lunge forward to overcome the understandable reluctance among their comrades to be the first to advance into the wall of enemy blades. Roman sub- units such as centuries, maniples, and cohorts offered an ideal basis for such localized charges, whereas tribal warriors would mount less disciplined attacks led by the bolder spirits among them."

Actually Roman tactics would be to await those undisciplined enemy attacks, quickly counter them and move into the gaps. Small units attacking themselves would be open to enemy counter-attack and give away their tactical advantage of discipline and missile support.

But indeed, battle that lasted all day would usually involve a lot of marching and counter-marching, and of course waiting. And when battle was eventually joined, there would be lulls in the fighting in order for the men to catch their breath.

[Nathan Ross]

(Plutarch, Aem. 20; Caesar, BG 4.25).

I'd always thought there were several instances of this 'throwing the standard' thing happening, actually - although perhaps these are the only known examples?

"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides." (Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus, 20)

"And while our men were hesitating... he who carried the eagle of the tenth legion... exclaimed, "Leap, fellow soldiers, unless you wish to betray your eagle to the enemy. I, for my part, will perform my duty to the commonwealth and my general." When he had said this with a loud voice, he leaped from the ship and proceeded to bear the eagle toward the enemy. Then our men, exhorting one another that so great a disgrace should not be incurred, all leaped from the ship."  (Caesar, Gallic War 4.25)

In the Plutarch example, it's actually an Italian doing it - and Plutarch seems to think that the veneration of the standards was one of thier customs, rather (perhaps) than being native to the Romans!

[CNV2855]

Thank you Nathan. I'm sure men did all sorts of exceptional things in exceptional circumstances.

The vast majority of men would be stunned by the gore and brutality even in veterans, I think. Read an account of the very, very few who have seen combat and are willing to talk about it, and they'll get choked up over shooting someone 70 years ago, and still haven't fully recovered emotionally.

One quick point, think of the mechanics of a battlefield. The lines probably were joined tenaciously for first few moments of the battle, sure, but as people started falling, as the gore became obvious, the screaming, with most men being wounded, very few being killed outright, you have a large amount of soldiers, with equipment on the ground. People behind them becoming increasingly traumatized or unwilling to fight...

This creates an obstacle. As someone not in the front ranks, are you going to step over your wounded and dying comrades, and all of their gear? It's very easy to trip when fighting, especially when you're burdened with equipment and a helmet. What about the enemies wounded? A wounded man can still kill you. I bet this alone prevented them from maintaining melee for a sustained period, except in certain very unique circumstances (like flinging a standard - resulting in a lot of casualties). They'd probably back up, let the wounded men die... and join battle again on clear terrain, repeating this.

So, I think you have to envision it being pretty crazy, emotional, and men just backing up. If you get in a street fight and you take a punch, or if two men scrap and trade a few hits, they'll almost always back up and stand off and posture.

Posturing being a common term in military parlance, and something many books have been written about and studied in military academies, since Vietnam. Simply put, the evidence is that most men pretend to fight than actually doing so. They do this even when this pretense puts them in mortal danger, with some estimates that up to 90% of soldiers don't actually fight. Now it's something that's indoctrinated out of them, much like squires being brought to slaughterhouses, modern soldier training has changed to reflect this notion.

Just getting soldiers to stand there and actually fight, gives one army a huge advantage over the other. Not all armies were Roman... so I'm not saying Saban is specific to Roman fights, but melee battles in general (obviously there are exceptions, every battle was different).

Something else is battlefield mass. The main reason for the French disaster at Aquitaine was that men drowned in their armor. How horrible it must have been, to be pushed forward by several hundred men behind you, forced face first into the mud...then trampled, unable to even raise your head to breath. Someone else getting pushed on top of you, and people drowning up to three-four high. It's almost too terrible to think about what those men had to go through. War is far too romanticized that the reality is quite shocking when you think about it from a personal perspective. More men died in their armor, unwounded, mud in their face than by Longbows or English with bills.

The inverse happened at Visby, which we were discussing in a previous post. The Gotland soldiers/farmers tried to lure the Dane's intro crossing muddy, marshy terrain in their heavy armor...but when they found it had dried up due to the Summer heat, they were massacred by the Danish who crossed without issue.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Christopher, you simply cannot compare what fighting was like in ancient times to fighting now. The Romans were brought up in a society which valued life quite cheaply. For example, if a father did not want his new born child it could be strangled or left on a rubbish heap for someone else to take. When you read Ammianus he almost takes a sickening delight in telling how entire towns were slaughtered, men, women, children and even the animals. A Roman soldier was inured to a way of life we could not possibly even dream of and we have no idea how the ordinary Roman soldier viewed life or death, especially if it was someone else's who was pointing a sharp object at them.

As to the fallen wounded posing a threat, most people felled by a spear thrust or from a slash of a sword are highly unlikely to do anything other than be in a great deal of pain and wont have anything other than survival on their minds.

[Bryan]

Flinging the standard into the Macedonian phalanx did cause massive casualties, which is what the Praefectus Socii had in mind when he did it, because the Paeligni were being driven back. By throwing the standard into the enemy's ranks, he forced a merciless counter attack, which halted the phalanx's advance, giving time for the rest of the Roman line to form.


I'd be wary of making generalized claims about reluctance to kill, especially anything modern stemming from Grossman's  On Killing or On Combat, or SLA Marshall. Both are incorrect and have largely been discredited. 

From my own experiences in combat and from my extensive reading on the subject, people don't generally fear killing, they fear risking their lives and getting hurt. Give them a sword and most will be reluctant to get close and use it, but give them a javelin and few would be hesitant to throw it. Give them a spear, they'll fight better than with a sword (given an additional bit of reach), but distance of the enemy is still close enough that their fears may get the better of them. Give them a pike that outreaches the enemy line, they will advance with vigor and enthusiasm. Give them ranging weapons like slings and bows and a hundred meters of open space and they will have no reluctance to kill. This holds true for modern warfare as well, the more distance the easier it gets, defensive stand off is the essence of the most efficient infantry weapons in history, short swords are rare for a reason, because they involve the user getting so close to the enemy that they themselves are at a high risk for death or serious bodily harm...Those willing to repeatedly risk their lives in close combat would be rare enough that they'd make up a minority of a Roman century. And this was the day and age where virtus was paramount and a life lost in battle was not something to mourn sadly. 

"Out of  every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”

This is the truest quote about soldiers I've ever heard, as accurate for ancient warfare as it still is for modern warfare.

[CNV2855]

Well life of children was certainly cheap. It was a sad fact that before the 20th century, most children did not survive to the age of 1. Some figures, in some societies, place the mortality of 8/10 babies not making it the first 12 months of their life. One society didn't name children until they had passed their first birthday.

The life of a Roman citizen though?

Cicero's trial over the corruption of the Roman Governor of Sicily, who was guilty of murder, stealing state funds, and even trying to bribe the very court that was prosecuting him all seem to be serious offenses which would warrant death. Despite conviction, he was fined and released.

The Roman Citizen enjoyed several rights, even their slaves came to, no matter where he traveled within the Empire. They certainly and seemed to enjoy a great deal of protection. Still, there's no doubt that the army itself which was mostly comprised of people seeking said citizenship, was a massive meat grinder. This may have changed going into the later centuries, but the 1st century Roman Citizen was subject to many of the same rights we are today.

Don't overestimate the tenacity of our ancestors. They lived harsh lives, and men were much harder than those of today, but they still suffered the same emotion and psychological pain we do. All this information regarding combat wasn't that of just the Romans, but of all pre-modern warfare, and several pre-modern European societies were nearly as soft as we are.

From my own experiences in combat and from my extensive reading on the subject, people don't generally fear killing, they fear risking their lives and getting hurt.

I completely agree. Wasn't the bow/sling (ranged combat) the single most important military invention in our history? It basically was responsible for the creation of armies, large battles, and war as people feared death less than when we were still running around with clubs and knives.

As to the fallen wounded posing a threat, most people felled by a spear thrust or from a slash of a sword are highly unlikely to do anything other than be in a great deal of pain and wont have anything other than survival on their minds.

Are you sure? Most modern homocides involving stab wounds are bloody, long, and horrifying. People often take 20+ wounds until they're mortally wounded, and continue to fight for their lives for minutes.

People, when under enough stress and enough adrenaline in their blood, can receive a gunshot wound which is far more traumatic than a slash/thrust, and not even know they were hit until they feel the blood. I'm sure there were more than a few soldiers who were able to shrug off the pain and keep fighting until the very, very end. We overestimate the number of wounded who died.

It's Visby itself that shows us that several of the men had been wounded in previous battles, survived their wounds, and fully recovered. Wounds we'd immediately think were deadly without the advent of surgery and antibiotics. Nevertheless, the dying and dead did serve as an obstacle on the Battlefield. Their equipment was probably picked up and used frequently.

"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”

This is the truest quote about soldiers I've ever heard, as accurate for ancient warfare as it still is for modern warfare.

I agree. This is something I wish I could see. The berserker at the Battle of Stamford bridge that held up the entire Saxon army, without armor, slaying 3 dozen Saxons with an axe before being killed by deception. The Romans have a similar account in the form of Horatius Cocles, who also made a last stand at a bridge, and was able to hold off an army long enough to save Rome.

I'd say there's quite a bit of truth to both. The 1%'ers were probably terribly effective as nobody would be eager to fight a man who had no fear, and was dispatching your comrades with ruthless efficiency. I really wish we knew what Viking berserkers took to become so entranced. They'd kill friend or foe in their blind rage, they were clearly intoxicated. A good way to multiply the number of 1%'ers in your army though.

---

If armor provided troops with a degree of superiority or aura of invulnerability, regardless of its true effectiveness, then I'd say it's already done it's job. That may be why there are examples of butted mail out there, or other armors which were probably ineffective. The soldiers themselves would not know until it was too late. WW1/WW2 helmets? Rarely stopped a bullet. But any little bit helps, especially when it comes to getting your soldiers to risk their lives in the first place.

[Bryan]

---

If armor provided troops with a degree of superiority or aura of invulnerability, regardless of its true effectiveness, then I'd say it's already done it's job.   That may be why there are examples of butted mail out there, or other armors which were probably ineffective.  The soldiers themselves would not know until it was too late.  WW1/WW2 helmets?  Rarely stopped a bullet.  But any little bit helps, especially when it comes to getting your soldiers to risk their lives in the first place.

It does that now. In the US Army we had helmets that could even sometimes deflect rifle rounds. We had ballistic plates covering our chests, backs, and sides that stopped numerous rifle rounds each. Our torso, neck, and groin, sometimes the upper arms, were wrapped in kevlar panels that could stop shrapnel and pistol caliber rounds. All told, we weren't even close to being invincible to rifle or fragmentation, but wearing all that crap made us feel that way. That made us more willing to risk all. In addition knowing that you wouldn't be abandoned, and that if you were wounded you'd be treated well by physicians, that too gives motivation to risk all. Lastly, knowing that in case you are killed or seriously wounded, you will receive some sort of pension or your family will be paid off. Funny that the Romans were doing all of those things by the Principate era, extraneous body armor and good medical evacuation and treatment plans, and legit pensions for burial/death, retirement, discharge for medical.

[Crispianus]

 WW1/WW2 helmets?  Rarely stopped a bullet.  But any little bit helps, especially when it comes to getting your soldiers to risk their lives in the first place.

Rather off topic but then the thread has wandered so far.... You may be suprised to know that it wasn't the intention for the helmets to stop a bullet during WW1 at least not ones that were shot directly at you, most helmets were designed with "Shrapnel" in mind or low velocity impacts(Shrapnel the shotgun type shell that sprayed an area the shape of a cone with small round metal balls in a downward slanting airburst) the British/US Brodie helmet was tested by pistol shot which was sufficient for this purpose, and proved effective in defending against this type of attack...

An interesting book thats worth having a look at and covers the subject during WW1 pretty well... you might note they also tested cloth armour....

Helmets and Body Armour in Modern Warfare, Bashford Dean 1920

Body armour was offered for private sale thoughout WW1 some more effective then others ...

Shrapnel : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrapnel_shell

[Fabricius Carbo]

Indeed tin WW1 the h4lmet was designed to give protection from 'air burst' artillery shells exploding over the trenches.
America designed the M1 helmet to give better overall head protection and from 1943 the British were issuing the similar Mk3 'Turtleshell' helmet, it was used right up to the 80s.
It's one of the frustrations of modellers trying to depict Commonwealth troops in the latter half of the war  nearly all figure kits come with the Mk2 'Brodie' helmets, which were still used by some units and longer serving men weren't always issued new ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_III_helmet

[Crispianus]

Indeed tin WW1 the h4lmet was designed to give protection from 'air burst' artillery shells exploding over the trenches.
America designed the M1 helmet to give better overall head protection and from 1943 the British were issuing the similar Mk3 'Turtleshell' helmet, it was used right up to the 80s.
It's one of the frustrations of modellers trying to depict Commonwealth troops in the latter half of the war  nearly all figure kits come with the Mk2 'Brodie' helmets, which were still used by some units and longer serving men weren't always issued new ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_III_helmet

Its interesting to note that most later helmets already had test designs in WW1, particulary in the US but were dropped in favour of ease of production(huge quantitys need quickly), cost or simply because they looked too much like the enemies....
Cost and ease of production could be applied to some types of ancient armour just as easily, particularly when supplied by the state, however the later use of mail and apparant phasing out of segmentate may represent an attempt to rational the system with an armour type that whilst it may not be the cheapest to produce is easily repaired, long lasting, practically one size fits all, which could potentially make savings in the long run... it would also be difficult to damage it so extensively as to make it useless in combat, whereas a broken strap or hinge with segmentata could make it difficult to wear or move...

Just my thoughts on it not written in stone...

[CNV2855]

My point was that ancient societies, without the benefit of the internet or instant communication, would have a hard time quantifying exactly how effective a piece of equipment is unless it's completely obvious.  

We're in the age of the internet, in 2016, and arguing whether mail or segmented plate was better?  We are all basically making assumptions, and guessing.  Nobody really knows, because nobody has actually fought and had real weapons impact the armor with them in it.

In an ancient society, with more difficult communication?  They'd more or less be guessing as well, with some people having the benefit of the accounts of veteran troops who actually got hit in the armor.  How could their leaders really know for sure whether Segmentata saved 22% more men from X type of wounds?   They couldn't.  It'd come down to preference and what the troops who wore the stuff told them, or purchased, and continued to use.

Then, without the printing press, how could they relay that information?  They'd have to rely on word of mouth.  After a while, without fighting in battles, shit like that just gets lost or misinterpreted.  I guess after a while the state would eventually say, "You know what?  Pick a [deleted by moderator] type of armor that we KNOW works, that's effective, that's easy to repair, simple and let's just universally go with THAT."  

That's probably why Segmentata got phased out.   I really think by going off topic, we've uncovered the truth. The Roman leaders in the 3rd Century knew mail was effective, and just couldn't quantify whether Segmentata really saved enough lives, or how much more effective it really was, to justify keeping it around and standardizing it in state run fabrica when mail was the baseline and just all around easier.  

It's exactly like military assault rifles!  Which is the best?  We use m4s.  Why?  Because they're light, modular, relatively accurate, short barrel length, easy to aim, no recoil, light ammunition, our troops are familiar with it, and it's very [deleted by moderator]effective at killing people.

Other countries use other assault rifles.  Why hasn't the world adopted one universal rifle?  Because even combat troops have preferences, and it's SUPER hard to qualify which is the best gun.  In the end, it's the skill of the soldier that really matters.  A soldier with good aim and an m4 will kill someone without good aim and a FN-SCAR.  It took 50 years for the world to realize that 5.56 ammunition was better than bigger rounds due to wound channeling, and now that we have, even Russia has gotten away from the AK-47 and it's 7.62 round and adopted a 5.56 caliber rifle.  Yes, some rifles are more reliable, some are more accurate, but in the end it doesn't really matter.

Before this, soldiers bought what they preferred.  For three hundred years, a lot of people within the legions personally preferred Segmentata enough to trust their lives to it.  They used the stuff despite the harsh maintenance, complexity, and how much of a pain in the ass it was.  That tells me that Segmentata worked. When it came to state preference, they just picked the standard armor and ran with it.  Segmentata could've been the superior armor.  I'm not sure the Romans knew either way, for sure, especially if we don't, so in the end it didn't matter.

In the end, I think Segmentata was probably slightly better at saving people.  It just wasn't superior enough to warrant it displacing mail as the standard armor, esp. when mail has so many other good qualities.