Discussing Roman drill commands (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Robert Vermaat]

After a further complaint, two things:

1) everyone is entitled to their opinion, based on facts or educated guesses, but always backed up as well as possible. The possession of academic degrees or being a teacher does not make one more right than others, without presenting evidence.

2) this thread is to discuss the commands of the Roman army, NOT who is more entitled to say something about ancient Latin - discuss that in some other thread - NOT this one!!!

[Robert Vermaat]

To get this thread back on track, I'll start off with some intitial commands needed to form up before the march. Only one is from the Strategikon (marked in RED). Opinions, please! What is correct, incorrect, and why?

Ad signa Form Up (Fall In) On The Banner
The command ‘Ad’ always means ‘to’ or ‘by’, suggesting a movement. This order means lit. ‘to the standard!’
All soldiers gather round the draco/vexillum/banner from all corners of the field. The word ‘signa’ is to be preferred above ‘bando’, as the latter seems too late for early/mid-4th c. use.

Ad aciem Form Line
Lit. “to the rankâ€

[QF VARUS]

All of the following contain forms that can be verified in Caesar, Cicero, Livius, Plinius, and others. There is no way to properly respond to your post without using grammar.
1. AD SIGNA="To the standards." [no problem] We often add the verb to say AD SIGNA FORMATE =" Form to the standards"
2. AD ACIEM= "To the battle line." This implies soldiers are probably getting ready to fight. We use ACIEM FORMATE= "Form a battle line." A triple battle line would be ACIEM TRIPLICEM FORMATE.
3. SIMPLICEM ORDINEM = "a simple rank/column." This works, but this command has no verb. We use AGMEN FORMATE to mean "Form a single file column." You could say "SIMPLICEM ORDINEM FORMATE," but I agree that a verb is not always necessary to express a command.
4. In order to say "by 3s" or "by 8s" in Latin , you need to use the distributive forms of the numbers. Thus, we have
AGMEN [A] BINIS FORMATE= "Form a column by twos."
AGMEN [A] TERNIS FORMATE= ...by 3s
AGMEN [A] QUATERNIS FORMATE = ...by 4s
AGMEN [A] SENIS FORMATE = ...by 6s
You could even get fancy and say: AGMINA DUO A QUATERNIS FORMATE= "Form two columns by fours."
AGMEN [AB] OCTONIS FORMATE = Form a column by 8s
Why not "AD OCTO" ? AD = "To, toward" in classical Latin; AB = "by, from, by personal agent." The phrase 'AD OCTO' would not be found in the Latin used by commanders in the 1st century. This phrase would mean something like 'to eight,' but it does not mean "by 8s." It might also be used in the 1st century to mean "around 8" as when someone is counting. E.g., Quinte, quot amores habuisti ? "Quintus, how many loves have you had" Quintus: "Ad octo." = "around eight."
5. AD SECUNDO: See supra about "AD." SECUNDO is the dative or ablative of the ordinal number "second." AD needs to take an accusative form. You could use AD SECUNDUM for "to the second." You could also just say "SECUNDO" in the dative to mean "to the second [rank]" or in the ablative to mean "in the second [rank]."
I have really tried NOT to sound like the CENTURIO in "Life of Brian." I hope I have succeeded.

I will be very happy to further explain any of these if you like, but I will be very busy in the near future getting ready for Roman Days and other upcoming events [like the end of our term and reading student papers].
Cheers,

[Robert Vermaat]

All of the following contain forms that can be verified in Caesar, Cicero, Livius, Plinius, and others. There is no way to properly respond to your post without using grammar.

That's no problem David, as long as it's only in relation to the commands I agree. It's basically what I want to hear. But, of course, with the proper proof.

Why not "AD OCTO" ? AD = "To, toward" in classical Latin; AB = "by, from, by personal agent." The phrase 'AD OCTO' would not be found in the Latin used by commanders in the 1st century. This phrase would mean something like 'to eight,' but it does not mean "by 8s." It might also be used in the 1st century to mean "around 8" as when someone is counting. E.g., Quinte, quot amores habuisti ? "Quintus, how many loves have you had" Quintus: "Ad octo." = "around eight."

Well, there we have the crux of this discussion.

a) This command is a given. it's proven from a source, so I see no way around it.
You see no use for it for your period, because you claim that it's not proper Latin for the 1st. c

b) Can you show me (and I took good notice of your grammatical arguments) that it was indeed not the military command used in the 1st c.? Because the claim that "The phrase 'AD OCTO' would not be found in the Latin used by commanders in the 1st century" for me needs a bit more to back it up than the knowledge of common in-the-street-Latin of the 1st c. I think you need to show that the military spoke only perfect Latin, to disqualify the 'bad Latin' used in the source that we have.

I've written my arguments against Maurice's Latin being classified as 'Late Latin' or '5th c. Latin' above, and I would like not to go into this too deeply here (but I'll gladly discuss that in a separate thread later).

[Tib. Gabinius]

Perhaps i'm a bit offtopic but if we start to argument like that:

I think you need to show that the military spoke only perfect Latin, to disqualify the 'bad Latin' used in the source that we have.

without a view on the type of source

or that

Can you show me (...) that it was (...)not (...) used in the 1st c

we could get a problem in reconstruction generally.
I hope Robert, you don't feel harresed by that comments, that isn't my intention.
But we have to prove a use of something to rebuild something, otherwise we could wear Berkasovos in mid 1st also.
Pro. Stroh like Dr. Junkelmann knewn Maurice, and they decided not to use them or Arrian, and they had their reasons, but this would be the discussion already.

In my eyes this discussion cant be seperated from the sourcehandling, and dealing with the sources.

To know what kind of latin is used or brought over from a source, we'll have to look at the "who, where, when, for what..." and so on.
My two cent
That there is a development in language (like the use of "pagani" and "civilians") is proofed and is readable in the oxford english dictionnary.

[Robert Vermaat]

But we have to prove a use of something to rebuild something, otherwise we could wear Berkasovos in mid 1st also.
Pro. Stroh like Dr. Junkelmann knewn Maurice, and they decided not to use them or Arrian, and they had their reasons, but this would be the discussion already.

In my eyes this discussion cant be seperated from the sourcehandling, and dealing with the sources.

To know what kind of latin is used or brought over from a source, we'll have to look at the "who, where, when, for what..." and so on.

Tobias, like I said to David above, I don't mind discussing the sources, but I had hoped to limit that to the use of commands. Meaning, discussing Maurice in the sense that we don’t go deeply into the man, his presumed authorship of the Strategikon, etc.

Bring it on. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

To get this thread back on track once more, I'll continue with some more general commands needed to form up before the march. Those from the Strategikon are marked in RED. Opinions, please! What is correct for which period, or incorrect, and why? Alternatives from old texts, from poetry (Tobias?), or even translated from modern ones?

Intente Attention
Individuals snap to the position of attention, straighten their back and hold their hasta straight, waiting for more commands.
Laxate At Ease
Individuals are permitted light movement given their right foot does not leave the ground; they are not allowed to talk. Formerly ‘Otiose’.
Both of these commands are from first-century groups. I have no Late Roman alternatives for them.

Silentium Silence
Soldiers stop making noise
Mandata captate! Observe orders!
Command to draw the attention of the soldiers, similar to ‘silentium’
Parati Ready
Soldiers get ready, immediately followed by a command for some sort of action.
When ranks have been properly closed, and the line is about one bowshot from the enemy, and the fighting is just about to begin, the command is given: 'Ready'
Nemo demittat bando Don’t leave the standard
Soldiers do not advance in front of the standard, nor fall too far back behind it.
Dimito Dismissed
Soldiers are dismissed from the formation. Lit. ‘fall back’, as in the order “Nemo demittatâ€

[Salvianus]

I would not use 'bando' but rather 'signum'.

We also substitute 'signum'. for C4th-5th displays :-) )

[Tib. Gabinius]

To check if the strategikon-commands are correct for the late romans you can try to compare them with these of Lydos and Leon (last one in greek).

If they are similiar i guess they are correct for byzantinic time. But if use these i wouldn't change to signum, cause the sense is the entire unit, like Dr. Reichkron showed in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift already.

It would need a philolgical to check the contents of older sources, and i don't feel able or think about knowing all of them that well, to construct anything. I just showed some examples i remembered.

[Robert Vermaat]

To blow some life into this discussion, I've decided that all can be discussed here, including the topics that I at first meant to avoid to keep the discussion on the straight & narrow.

The only thing I would still like to ask of the contributors is that they complement any claims with arguments, which is of course one of the rules here on the forum.

I had a discussion with Philip Rance the other day about drill commands. Philip Rance can safely be regarded as the current expert on Maurice's Strategikon. This is what he had to say about the source, the Latin and the commands:

I was wondering why these old Hellenistic treatises were still read and used?

I think one could suggest various reasons. Soldiering is of course often a brutal business; the reading and appreciation of classical manuals allowed officers, especially those equipped with the requisite literary education, to intellectualise their subject and provided them with a high-brow technical vocabulary in which to discuss their profession. Eric McGeer came up with the marvellous phrase "a military katharevousa" to describe this phenomenon. This was also, I'm sure, part of the appeal of these same texts to English and of course Dutch generals in the 17th century. Certainly by the middle Byzantine period, and very probably by late antiquity, Aelian's "Tactica Theoria" had become THE military classic (similar in status to Vegetius in the West), which was read not so much because of its technical content (though the fundamentals of drill remain constant) but more as an expression of social and professional status. For example, Anna Comnena, listing the military accomplishments of her father Alexios I (1081-1118), does not omit to mention that he knew Aelian's work well. There are similar comments about several other emperors and princes in this period, which suggest that there was a social and intellectual caché attached to knowing Aelian. In addition, my friend John Lendon has suggested to me that during the Roman Empire and late Antiquity these hellenistic military manuals may have served as reading aids or technical glossaries for those wishing to read the battle descriptions etc. in classical literature.

I have started (or attempted to start) a discussion about Maurikios’ Latin commands. Unfortunately, I have found that there is some hesitation among especially the 1st-c. Roman re-enactment groups to use these commands. Most argue that the Latin is ‘wrong’ or even ‘late’, and they seem more comfortable with modern commands translated into Latin. While some words (like ‘bando’, for instance) can indeed be argued as being later rather than earlier, I have argued that Maurikios, like his predecessors, would have been likely to fall back on earlier writings rather than invent the wheel himself. So did he find all these commands in Arrian or Aelian? I’ve therefore hypothesised that one of the sources that Maurikios used could have been a lost treatise that included the Latin commands that he used in the text, rather than the Latin being Late Latin that cannot be used before the 3rd century.

My (limited) experience of 1st-C. re-enactors is that they use Latin commands which they themselves have devised in a vacuum of contemporary evidence. On the one hand, they are correct that we cannot assume that the Latin commands in the Strategicon are ancient or even especially old - Latin remained the official language of the East Roman army up to the 630s, so even a command first introduced in 600 would be formulated in Latin. Indeed, some of the commands for cavalry appear to be relatively recent; those for infantry offer better prospects for long-term continuity. On the other hand, as you say, one would not expect the Latin commands in the Strategicon to be radically different from ancient practice, especially given the inherent conservatism and traditionalism typical of military institutions, and considering that many of the infantry drills in the Strategicon are very basic procedures ("extend/shorten the line", "turn left/right", "about-face" etc.) - why would the later Roman administration invent an entirely new vocabulary for these standard manoeuvres? Certainly, if modern comparanda are valid, British infantry regiments (on ceremonial occasions) still execute tactical evolutions to commands that would be familiar to their counterparts 400 years ago. The charge that the Latin in the Strategicon is too "late" for first-century usage involves complex and often inconclusive philological arguments, especially as we know very little about how an average 1st-C. legionary or auxiliary spoke Latin. We should not assume, as some re-eactment groups appear to, that 1st.-C. soldiers received commands in the literary idiom of Cicero or Seneca, still less of a modern Latin primer for school use - all armies (and navies) of all periods have their own professional jargon, an important ingredient of which is the debasement of philologically correct forms. It is perhaps more accurate to classify the idiom of Maurice's commands as "Vulgar Latin" (i.e. vernacular dialects differing from the "standard" literary register in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar), but this does not necessarily mean "late"; it more often means "previously unattested", which is a comment on the rarity of relevant sources (of sufficient technical content and "low-brow" linguistic register) rather than the actual chronological development of Latin. Even where, in a small number of cases, the Latin of a command in the Strategicon is demonstrably "late" that does not preclude the existence or "prehistory" of that command in a more correct phonological form at an earlier date. This would at least seem to be a better foundation for research than simply inventing faux Latin commands ex nihilo, especially as so little is known for certain about first-century drill and comparisons with the content of modern drill regimes run the risk of anachronism.

As to Maurice's source/s, I in fact argue in my forthcoming book that the chapters on drill, in which the Latin commands are concentrated, are based on an earlier technical document, like a "drill-manual", but assigning this material to a specific chronological stratum is difficult. The best one can say, in my view, is that some of it is definitely recent; some of it may be older, possibly much older.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

It is not a surprise if I say that I use Mauricius command but adaptated to the IVe century tactics. I take a lot of latin locution in Ammianus Marcellinus and late panégyrics...

[Robert Vermaat]

It is not a surprise if I say that I use Mauricius command but adaptated to the IVe century tactics. I take a lot of latin locution in Ammianus Marcellinus and late panégyrics...

Has your list changed much since last year? Could you send me a list by email please?

[jkaler48]

Found this old thread while searching for additional material for: "Official" Ludus Militis Drill Manual "TACTICA" and other links
http://www.ludusmilitis.org/index.php?topic=148.0

[M. Demetrius]

The TACTICA doesn't pretend to be a Late Roman drill set, but hoped to provide the best amalgam of various writers' lists of commands.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

In terms of Late Roman, it would probably be best to go right off the strategikon, with latin commands though.