"Roman Battle Tactics" Topic

Most of my wargaming has been in the Napoleonic era, although I am coming towards the end of building an 18th Century Jacobite Rebellion set-up.

I am planning in mid-2017 to start painting some of my massive number of Roman era figures, which I bought many years ago. In preparation for this I have been re-reading some of my collection of 80 or so books on the Roman era.

In Ross Cowan's Osprey "Roman Battle Tactics 109 BC – AD 313, there is an illustration (Plate A) of a pair of Centuries, one in in close order and one in open order. The close order one is at 3 feet spacing and has 8 ranks of 10 files. The open order one is at 6 feet spacing and has 4 ranks of 20 files.

To me, as someone who has spent 30 years in the British Army, this does not make sense. The Romans would have needed a fast drill to change from close to open order, and vice versa. Doubling your frontage to convert to open order and halving it to convert back to close order is not a sensible military tactic.

It seems to me much more likely that a Century in open order would have comprised 8 ranks of 10 files. To convert from open order to close order all they have to do is for the second and fourth ranks to take one step to the left and one step forwards (or even faster just move diagonally forward), and then they are in a close order formation of 4 ranks of 20 files.

Such a formation change would take no more than 5 seconds, as opposed to at least half a minute to double or halve their frontage. Illustration below:

Open Order

o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o
..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o

Close Order

oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo

Using the drill which I have shown above, the Century would then have exactly the same frontage whether it is in close or open order, which makes much more sense within an overall battle array.

Since all modern studies suggest that the Romans always operated in 2 Century Maniples (ie a Cohort operates as 3 Maniples, not 6 Centuries), then all they have to do to be in close order of 8 ranks, is to close up the Posterior Century behind the Prior Century.

I was wondering whether anyone had any comments or thoughts on this.

Rod

No comment other than I find it genuinely fascinating.

Drill is something I haven't done since my days in the Cadets but what you've suggested seems eminently sensible and – if the Roman military were anything – they were pragmatic.

Thanks

John T

Maybe the extended frontage was the whole point? Seems to me much like napoleonic British two rank formations vs. Fr three rank, the ability to get more pilae thrown, and that at potential flanks of the opponent in a tight formation, and to prevent overlapping of their own flanks, extending the frontage might very valuable and worth the time needed. I doubt it took that much risk to spread out/ tighten up, on the double. Plenty of reaction time for the era without firepower. Also the size of the battlefield might be much larger relative to the number of troops needed to anchor flanks.

It could also be as simple as having every even numbered man take 2 steps back.

Unfortunately there are several ancient authors who agree with Mr. Cowan. (They also cribbed heavily from each other)

The units seem to have been expected to have a standard frontage based on an 8 man file, with the 'best' men being No. 1 and No. 8 then No. 4 and No.5 so when the files 'doubled' there were steady men at the front and back. To change density the accepted method seems to have been for the back ranks to march in a 'U' up the gap between files so that No.1 and No.8 were side by side and 4&5 were then the rear rank. No fancy footwork involved, just follow the leader – I suspect that one thing that made Veterans is that they knew Left Foot and Right Foot while green troops were pretty clueless.

The various Greek states also sometimes used double depth files giving them the infamous 16 rank pike formations but the Romans generally seem to have preferred the flexibility of 8/4 deep formations.

Rapid change of formation does not seem to have been a particular feature of Greek or Roman armies, general practice seems to have been to pick a formation and stick to it – if a unit decided to change density, facing or some other formation change and got caught by surprise things tended to go pear shaped rapidly.

What ancient authors describe Roman (not Greek) open order – close order drill?

What ancient authors describe Roman (not Greek) open order – close order drill?

Polybius is as good as it gets. he does not get deep into the details.

Rod
While I can only claim a third of your service time, the first time I read Cowan's book I said to myself, "well Cowan has never been a soldier." He makes claims of which he has no evidence, then complains about others who make similar claims without evidence (see his argument on where century officers stood and who commanded the cohort). His conclusions defy almost 2000 years of Western military close order drill tradition. Your conclusions would be as valid as his, and probably more grounded in solid theory and practice. Anyone who has done a company or battalion parade (and I participated in three division sized parades as well and was a reenactor to boot, AWI and Imperial Roman) would find his conclusions odd, to say the least. I'd also agree with bsrlee, formations were probably pretty static at the points of contact.
In addition, we should not assume the Roman army had anything akin to a drill book. You could be assured that drill was heavily reliant on local conditions, which varied to a considerable degree in the Empire.
And I'll caution you on accepting that "all modern studies…operated in two century maniples." There is absolutely no proof that is how the Romans operated at all. Polybius and Ammianus (sp) are about the only extant sources the describe formations and they don't mention anything like that. My MA had a partial concentration on Roman history and I found most modern ancient military historians don't know their rear from a hole in the wall.

In what particular conditions would the different orders have been used? Would open order would have been used against primarily infantry armies fighting in close order on flat ground, where there was little chance of gaps being infiltrated and outflanking would have been advantageous against a relatively unmanoeuvrable opponent, such as pikes, and close order against more agile loose order irregulars such as Celts?

I would recommend this by Adrian Goldsworthy,
link
and
link
Both worth a read, and he's pretty good in my opinion.
I also think that they stopped operating in maniples when they adopted the cohort.

Well no-one really knows but your argument is pretty convincing. In the absence of any hard evidence I am always inclined to give credence to the views of these with practical experience. John Peddie wrote very convincingly on Roman/Punic logistics based on his experience as a supply officer in the Indian Army.

The idea of opening out the ranks sideways to expand the frontage of the maniple is popular partly because it would fill the gaps between units that are implied by the (few) descriptions of the "chequerboard" formation. Other proposed models simply involve alternate men stepping forwards, creating an open order without changing the width of the unit:

The exact mechanism for how the Romans "opened the maniples" is unclear, although several scholars have suggested that the easiest way would have been for the men in every other file to take one step forward.

This maneuver would produce a checkerboard open-order formation, where the man in the second rank covered down on the open space between the soldiers in the first rank (fig. 6). This model of Roman small unit mechanics is elegant, in line with the literary sources, and tactically plausible.

- Michael Taylor at link – an interesting summary of the evidence.

Parade drill and combat formations are two different things entirely.

I do not get the idea of "stepping forward". Anyone who has ever served understands that soldiers in ranks will step backwards, but never forward. Every drill manual I have seen, going back to the 18th century, draws an imaginary line across the front of the unit, over which no one ever steps.

This line runs right down the entire formation, from company to company, across the battalion, and it's the same for units deployed behind the first line.

Mick the Metalsmith said:

Parade drill and combat formations are two different things entirely

In modern times, yes. But not in the Roman era, or the Napoleonic era for that matter.

As Josphus said "Their drills were bloodless battles and their battles bloody drills". It was only by intensive training of those battle drills, until they became like clockwork, that soldiers prior to the mid-19th century survived, and those that were most efficient at doing them were the victors.

Rod

Agreed but modern drill has no bearing on what may have worked on the ancient battlefield since they have different goals. One is about getting troops to posistions smartly and the other has to do some fighting as well. I can see value in an extended frontage when deception, screening, dealing with elephants, skirmishers or dealing with the need for anchored flanks and gaps. Parade ground troops don't have that as a goal. What you say is fine if speed is the only consideration and I bet the centurions did just that if in a hurry but forming a skirmish line of open order with a wide frontage strikes me as being just as useful.
.

Some modern books suggest that the Romans used both Open Order, with 6 feet per man, and Close Order, with 3 feet per man. I understand that although both are mentioned in ancient sources, they are not mentioned in the same text, which leaves the possibility that they were used at different periods in history.

I started this thread because Ross Cowan's Osprey showed a drill for converting from Close Order in 8 ranks to Open Order in 4 ranks by doubling the frontage, which seemed unlikely to me. I therefore suggested an alternative simple drill of Close Order being in 4 ranks and Open Order being in 8 ranks, which keeps the frontage the same.

However, I am not convinced by the need for Open Order by the Imperial Roman Army. I can see that it would be useful for rear ranks to temporarily step back to allow space to throw their pilums, but cannot really see why they would want to have wider gaps between their files, since this does not seem to fit with their fighting techniques.

In my view the classic Roman chequerboard formation in three lines allows gaps to be closed easily, by bringing rear Cohorts or Maniples forward, without any need to extend the frontage of individual Cohorts or Maniples.

Troops are at their most vulnerable in mid-formation change. If they did have such drills for changing from Close to Open Order, and vice versa, then they would need to do them quickly to avoid the danger of being attacked whilst changing formation slowly.

I do not believe that Centurians would have decided on the speed of a formation change, to do things in a hurry or otherwise. Formation changes would have been an absolute drill, at a set speed, drummed into recruits by constant repetition.

Rod

Some modern books suggest that the Romans used both Open Order, with 6 feet per man, and Close Order, with 3 feet per man. I understand that although both are mentioned in ancient sources, they are not mentioned in the same text, which leaves the possibility that they were used at different periods in history.

But several ancient authors do specifically refer to "opening the maniples" (and indeed closing them) in battle – see references in the Taylor pdf that I linked to earlier.

The commander of a Roman foraging detachment under attack in the Third Macedonian War "formed the soldiers into a sphere, so that they might protect themselves with locked shields from the blows of arrows and darts" (in orbem milites coegisset, ut densatis scutis ab ictu sagittarum et iaculorum sese tuerentur), but the soldiers then "opened ranks by charging forward" to counterattack (ordines procursando soluissent).

It was necessary to open ranks mainly to obtain the offensive space necessary for effective swordplay: Julius Caesar, with his troops on the defensive against a horde of Germans, ordered his men to "open the maniples, so that they might more easily wield the sword" (manipulos laxare iussit, quo facilius gladiis uti possent).

Dio Cassius reports that Mark Antony's legionaries formed up with locked shields (συνασπίσαντες) in response to Parthian archers but then "opened the battle-line" (τὴν φάλαγγα ἅμα ἀνέπτυξαν) in order to facilitate hand-to-hand combat, very likely a direct Greek translation for laxare manipulos or soluere ordines.

It is perhaps possible that these passages refer to something other than the difference between Polybios' six-foot frontage and Vegetius' three-foot frontage, but there is clear contemporary testimony that some sort of opening and closing is going on.

GurKhan,

Interesting, thanks for that. I have about a dozen translations of "classics" (Livy, Tacitus, Caesar' Gallic Wars and Civil Wars etc), but had not come across that one.

I had seen Taylor's article on RAT and found it very informative.

I would guess that "locked shields" would be at about 2 foot spacing per man (I understand that shields were 2'6" wide) and such spacing would be similar to the Napoleonic British 22" per man. If 3 feet was the normal close order then this might refer to just changing between this and the even tighter locked formation, as opposed to opening right out to 6 feet per man, which I cannot really see the point of.

I have spent most of the last 40 years dabbling in Napoleonics. I have decided to start creating a Roman era set-up next year, so am doing some reading up on that era.

Rod

Now, you might think that with Marius` reforms some kind of fundamental change in tactics took place; that maniples were no longer THE manoeuvre element (sorry for using a gaming term here), but in cohorts being adopted, Roman tactics somehow got stream-lined (like the way in which people tend to think that the column is a completely different animal to the line in Napoleonic tactics?) and that cohorts were much more effective in allowing them to beat armies that they would otherwise had trouble with if they`d stayed in their little maniples?

I think this is the mistaken impression that we come away with – of thinking of an entirely new "cohortal" tactical system arising.

There it is; centuries & maniples however are still being used in 56 BC.

I believe that order was changed (and lines passed) by a dove-tailing the files of one century through another, via a simple side-step and advance.
In close order the centuries fought side-by-side, and in open order they fought with prior in front and posterior centuries in support.

Control is by file, and this is more simple I think than relying upon every other man "leading" – that is, side-steping and advancing, or obliquing to fill each interval.

Finding the cohort with no effective leadership; its leading officers dead or wounded, Caesar himself orders the maniples to open – but moving sideways whilst engaged was probably not an option at the battle of the Sabis River.

The disengagement of files of the posterior centuries could have been led from the rear – sounds a tad whacky but that`s where I suspect the orders may have been shouted/signalled from.

I`m not convinced with the idea that the half-file closed the order of the century – It makes for a thin line that might have been too brittle to with-stand enemy charges and that after all was the point of going to a close order.

With the example of Caesar at the Sabis, if the change of order (close to open) was to be carried out by a re-arrangement of files within the centuries wouldn`t Caesar`s order have been issued with specific reference to the centuries instead?

About open order though, the Romans also would have used open order in terrain that was not perfectly flat and unbroken.
And perhaps open order was not entirely a hopeless way of arranging troops in preparation for an attack, because if you were a swordsman attacking a Roman line would you really be tempted to charge in between the open files of their infantry?

This suggests to me that open order was the standard default battle array with close order being used either to receive charges or to engage in a pushing match or a "shield-fight" in the manner of a phalanx.

One thing about giving orders is that, then as well as up to modern times, the horn was used to relay orders. It was simply impossible in close quarters battle, to hear shouted commands throughout the unit. Not until modern wireless communications became common was the horn replaced as the primary signalling device.

We all think of the Cornicen as being placed in the front rank, but I would argue against that. The issue is this: The bell of the cornicen faces forward. That means that the majority of the sound also goes forward, with lesser energy going towards the side or rear. Now, in a thin line, such as 18th and 19th century battle lines, that isn't so great an issue. Those modern units also have large colors to help with movement commands and centering of the formation.

However, with deeper units, like Cohorts and Maniples, you need a great command range,and this is only really achieved by placing the cornicen in the rear rank. I would argue that, when faced with combat, this is the true position of the musician, as well as the signiferand even the Centurian. They lead from the front until the unit is ready for battle, then retire to the rear rank. Not only can the Centurian issue commands to the cornicen, and the cornicen easily reach all of the troops in the formation, but it adds to the strength of the Cohort by replacing the two non-combatants (cornicen and signifer) with actual soldiers. I mean, why leave two basically unarmed troops in the front rank who could become casualties or easily overcome and allow the enemy to begin penetrating the front ranks of the cohort? Yes, the signifer has a small shield, and the cornicen and signifer both have swords, but how effective could they possibly be fighting one-handed without a shield, or with a horn over one shoulder?

To further my concerns, note also that martial instruments in the 18th and 19th centuries had horns which had the bells pointing towards the rear of the musician, or "over the shoulder" as they were called. That let the music be heard throughout the column, rather than blowing forward and being only heard by a portion of the troops.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the issue.

here's a period image of an ACW band on Lookout Mountain. Note the position of the brass instruments.