New theory of Roman warfare?

I always thought about this actually. If youve got a hanfull of throwing spears, why wouldnt you keep tossing them until you ran out? The idea of throwing one then charging seems kind of stupid. Especially since tge roman formation would be far better at receiving a charge than giving one, which disorders the ranks. I also always found the lack of archers and missile troops to be conspicuous.

>>2803686
But There's only two pilums, how long can you keep doing that?

>>2803697
Not to mention that their shield was pretty cumbersome for skirmishing.

I don't buy it, the sources explicitly say how horrendous the sword wounds were, and manipular tactic in Polybius doesn't make sense for skirmishers.

someone's comment

It would be rather hard for me not only because roman period is not my area of expertise as historian but because most of my reading on the topic was in russian. As far as I can understand the problem most of modern research speaks about ranged combat as primary form of combat for legionaries.

Firstly I must note that I speak mostly about classical marian legions and their pre-marian predecessor. Late roman military is pretty different beast.

And it is very much logical - scutum as a shield is not very good optimised for a melee combat in close formation. It is too large and restrictive. In the same time it is perfect for a defense against projectiles in close formation. Gladius as a sword is also suboptimal choice for melee combat in close formation as the only target you can attack with it is one straight before you. You cannot really help a comrade next to you with gladius without breaking formation. And you can do this with a spear or even with a longer sword. The next point is that leg protection is very much rare for legionaries. And leg protection is really fucking important during melee combat in close formation (yes, even with a large shield at hand).

Therefore as far as I can tell romans perfected the traditional "barbarian" way of fighting - throwing stuff and obscenities at the enemy untill he was ready to break and charge to finish him afterwards. There is no melee combat at all if such tactic was performed pefectly. Also this solution is best for citizen militia types of armies becasue it is far less training intensive than greek or macedonian hoplite formations (and reason why pre-marian triaries were considered as elite reserve troops).

Sergarr said

I think the total war mod Europa Barbarorum uses this interpretation for pretty much all hellenistic infantry. Shock infantry was not really a thing and with perhaps with the exception of pre-ad Germanic tribes, all ancient peoples fought in organised formations as mixed skirmish/melee infantry.

It would also explain the conspicuous lack of formally trained non-mercenary archer units in ancient warfare.

It actually makes sense and would only amplify the rape machine the Roman legions were.

>>2803697

They would be continuously be resupplied from the back lines, so while the front was holding them back (pretty much in the same way riot police does today), the back line would be continuously be throwing javelins, legionaries were also armed with darts.

>>2803697
Thats a fair point. I wasn't aware tgey only carried two. I thought it was more like 5 or 6. Are we certain of this?

>>2803725
Yes but remember the metal quality of the day was no where near what it was in even the dark ages. Now im not sure how much of the shield was metal and how much was wood, but it seems to me that the suctum is actually better at defending against arrows than it is against melee attacks. Especially since a lot of the barbarians they fought against liked two handed weapons and shock tactis. Whats the same of that thracian two handed curved blade thing again?

>>2803750
The only metal parts are the center and the edge. The rest are made of wood covered with leather.

>>2803750
falx

>>2803750
they carried 2 for sure, could have got resupplied though or thrown them next to a stack of spares.

why didn't they use spears instead of short swords?

>>2803750
Pila were heavy and big, meant to stick to enemy shields, so that the metal spike would bend and render the shields useless.
>>2803856
They did, almost exclusively during the early republic.

>>2803861
so why did they use short swords instead spears later?

>>2803868
Versatile.

>>2803868
Different tactics.
Small shield+Spear = Phalanx-like formation and jabbity jab jab.
Huge shield + short sword = tank infantry that blocks and pushes and hacks away at close quarters.
Also this >>2803875
Infantry with swords and pila are more versatile
than spearmen who rely largely on keeping an intact formation.

>>2803856

they were Gauled hard and adopted their manner of battle, which was sword and shield intensive if I'm not mistaken.

The gladius Hispanus was derivative of a Celtic design.

>>2803938
Being this wrong. Google when the Gallic wars were. Gladius was used since 4th century BC

>>2803955

How convenient, that's right around the time Gauls sacked Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia

393 BC, how strange. Maybe there's a connection between this event and the adoption of the gladius.

>>2803938
What I'm surprised is that they didn't adapt the Cantabri tactics of light cavalry that threw javelins and darts. That would've been a great asset against the Germanic barbarians.

>>2803733
While this is a good analysis, Roman infantry frequently adopted a formation where each legionnaire would stand 6 ft apart and fight as a more singular unit, this is well documented in ancient sources as being used against impenetrable walls of enemies when the legionaries would even throw down their sheilds (and possibly swords) to pull the enemy sheiks wall apart.
The scutum was also a terribly effective Melee weapon and is many times spoken of as being used to batter enemy soldiers till there were too weak and then finishing them with the sword.
I think you just missing out on the individual power of a legionary when unleashed to fight

>>2803975
You might be right but it seems more likely they adopted it from celtiberian troops.

>>2803733
>Gladius as a sword is also suboptimal choice for melee combat in close formation


And weeeeeeeeeere done here. Much better than a longer sword which you need room to swing with, gladius could go in and out like a piston.

>>2803733
>>2803992
The more I look at Roman tactics and equipment pre-4th century AD, the more I realize that not only the Romans Borged the qualities of their enemies, they streamlined it.

They took the best aspects from the Greeks, Dacians, Germanics, Celts, Parthians/Sassanians, Iberians, Armenians, Berbers, Arabs, etc. and made the legion into an all-round group. They maximized missile warfare sans composite bow & crossbow while ensuring they could get optimize the melee capabilities of the gladius.

The "barbarization" of the Western and Eastern armies took an interesting divergence for both realms. The Eastern Romans, of course, took a serious emphasis on cavalry due to the fact that their Asiatic opponents were horse-based. The early Byzantines excelled in mounted archery in the 5th and 6th centuries thanks to exposure to the Persians as well as the Scythians and especially the Huns. Later on, they adapted equipment and better composite bow designs from the Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Seljuks, and Cumans. In this case, the cataphract was the horse equivalent to the pre-4th century legionnaire; a soldier that combined projectiles to soften and weaken the enemy while retaining close-combat capability for the final push to shatter the line.

The Western Romans lost a lot of their original doctrine and equipment thanks to the Germanic recruits. The spatha is evident of Celtic/Germanic style of swordsmanship since it allows more slash; contrary to the thrust preference that the gladius had. They even brought back the use of spears; thus having the Late Western Romans go from ranged + close combat to ranged + mid-range (arm's length instead of face-to-face stabbing action). So instead of assimilating the barbarians, the barbarians assimilated them and the worse part is, the Romans did it willingly.

>>2803660
All sections were upgrades from the first ones in the legion.

Now hear me out. The reason why the Romans have said equipment is because they would receive skirmish warfare. Men on foot fighting against chariots or horses or even very light infantry could not keep up the range. They woudnt be able to fight back as they received fire.

As for charging, they would hide behind their shields as they smash against another formation. They did charge. Also, they used javelins as spears in a number of times.

Do keep in mind that battles are rare. Field battles are not what they are usually facing. The most of what they did were sieges. I think most of the reason as to why the gladius is a thing is because Romans would have to take fight sieges and the shield fits perfectly against a door as the sword allows for incredible versatility at close range.

So they are heavy infantry with missile weapons. They occupy any role that way.

>>2804002
Exactly. My only criticism with the gladius as well as most other swords pre-Charlemagne was the lack of crossguards; otherwise they're exceptionally good. I have a soft spot for the falcata, machaira, xiphos and kopis particularly.

>>2803907
The only thing that baffles me is that the Romans didn't bother to design portable crossbows. The Han Chinese made excellent use of troops that would act as skirmishers with rapid-firing crossbows and of course, the Greeks made use of it as well.

If you had an advance screen of Roman crossbowmen with proto-pavises or anchoring their scutum somehow as a bulwark, just imagine the sort of suppression fire and sniping they could to any enemy formation. Not only disorganized war bands of Germanics and Celts, but it's been proven later on in history that having steady crossbowmen can ward off mounted archers. That would've been invaluable in the wars against Persia as well as Attila's aggression.

>>2804066
Exactly. Spears and other pole-arms would've been more suitable against heavy cavalry opponents like the Persian cataphract, but they were always in conjunction with mounted archers so it's not as simple as having formations and wedges deterring a cavalry charge.

Having javelins + sword/shield is the best of both worlds that a Roman legionnaire could have. And unlike the phalanx, you don't have to worry about having level ground or relying on only forward charges.

>>2804091
> My only criticism with the gladius as well as most other swords pre-Charlemagne was the lack of crossguards;
You don't need them when you have a scutum in the other hand, it's not like they were doing Hollywood-style blade-to-blade duels.

>>2804119
I understand that, but it's ideal to protect the other guy's sword from sliding down and hitting your fingers/wrist. Plus you have the added feature of bashing an opponent's eyes or throat with the crossguard like a knuckleduster.

Another comment from the thread. seriously guys check it out

Romans weren't stupid. Gladius indeed worked well enough for the melee. It just shows that legionaries weren't primary melee troops. Gladius is very much fine as back up weapon to stab fools with it. It is useful when enemy disorganized mob attempt to swarm you provoked by your missile fire. It is very much usefull to finish off the trampled down foes when your formation breakthrough enemy line (which again disorganized by your missile fire). But it is not very useful if you plan to fight another heavy infantry formation in melee. I can imagine that the sword like gladius can be useful in direct contact situation between two "shieldwalls" but there is very little evidence of occurence of such events. People usually not so suicidal to throw themselves on the intact shieldwall. It will not end well for the front rank as being trampled down is very bad for health.

Also at some point when they started to be more melee focused (in later periods), they discarded the gladii in favor of old-fashioned spears and deriatives of cavalry spatha (which were longer than gladii).

The prime bonus of closer-rank formation in meelee is that soldier in formation is able to help his comrades by attacking targets on the left or on the right of him. Such attacks are far harder to defend from. And this is the reason why people who often fought in close formation in melee always preferred longer weapons and especially spears and like.

>>2804129
Gladius is a stabbing sword, you're not gonna swing it around hitting other people's swords. On the other hand, crossguards would have made stabbing from behind a wall of scutums quite difficult.

>>2804146
Yes, the gladius isn't going to slash, but the other guy's will since that's what Roman enemies tended to do.

It doesn't even have to be as long as the crossguard of a knightly sword, but at least something that allows some protection to the hand while allowing ease of movement in thrusting.

>>2804137
>I can imagine that the sword like gladius can be useful in direct contact situation between two "shieldwalls" but there is very little evidence of occurence of such events.

It was very common.

The prime bonus is cohesion and concentration of force. you don't need to hit the dudes on the side because the dude in front of you will fuck you up. If you kill enough dudes in front of you you win.

>hy people who often fought in close formation in melee always preferred longer weapons.

tell me why sword and shield historically performed well against the phalanx and other spear formations, longer sword are actually more useful in more chaotic 1 on 1 type fighting.

>>2804162
You very much could slash cut and stab with the gladius it wasn't a specialised slashing weapon but you can stand still and i can cut your head off with a gladius.

>>2804168
>i can cut your head off with a gladius.
With that little momentum? I think you'd have to hack a couple of times.

>>2804175
Yeah probably but it would still fuck you up.

>>2804164
i ain't siding with that guy but

>tell me why sword and shield historically performed well against the phalanx and other spear formations,

they avoided the pointy bits. you can't attack the phalanx at the front unless it's broken up

>>2804168
I meant in tactical doctrine. The prime emphasis was to stab and thrust. Especially against unarmored Germanic and Celtic tribesmen.

I still respect the shit out of Ancient swords and I never really cared for slashing compared to thrust in terms of pre-modern melee combat. Only if you're fighting on horseback or a one-on-one match like a duel or gladiatorial deathmatch that slashing would be acceptable. Otherwise in a tightly-locked battle involving Roman infantry, you're gonna injure your fellow comrades as well as leave you open for a counterstroke.

>>2804162
> the other guy's will
This is why you have a scutum. You don't try to parry with your small sword Hollywood-style when you have a huge bad-ass rectangular shield to hide behind.
>>2804168
> i can cut your head off with a gladius.
I really doubt. Cutting a head off isn't easy with a sword, this is why people mostly used axes for execution.

>>2804180
I wonder what a proto-tercio in Roman times would look like? You have a corps armed with long spears (10-12 feet) while you have guys with the gladius and something like a buckler shield?

In support of these formations, you have a mix of typical Roman legions. Would they fare better or worse if they had this?

>>2804198
Could be good but generally dilution isn't a good thing. Only real need for spears was against cavalry.

>>2804180
Good thing you can wait till it is slightly broken up by using missiles, and then charge it while knocks the few spears to the side or just flank it. as soon as it turns chaotic that 18 ft sarissa is useless and you are gonna have a one sided slaughter on your hands.

>>2804202
>Only real need for spears was against cavalry.
This is true, but this could act like a battering ram for the infantry. You have the regular legions weaken the enemy line and when you know they're faltering, you send in the proto-tercio. No wild tribesman and his guys are going to be able to get close enough to put the proto-tercios in harm's way. Even if they chop away the spearheads and try to bridge the gap, the buckler-gladius guys gank the opposition.

>>2804198
>I wonder what a proto-tercio in Roman times would look like?

Probably like a phalanx.

>>2804231
no phalanx wouldn't work at all far too inflexible.

>>2804228
softening up then withdrawing for spear men seems somewhat counterproductive, better just soften up then charge with cavalry. I can see spearmen as skirmishers to jap and prod with, maybe throw some spears before falling back and sending in the swords.

>>2804211
is there any instance of this happening? when the Romans fought the Greeks they usually got through because of the terrain breaking up the phalanx

like the battle of cynoscephalae

>>2804249
I *assume they were pelting them with javelins the whole time. Uneven terrain is one thing but combined with men moving and shifting trying to dodge or avoid missiles it can accelerate the breakup, on a small scale like 10 spear men vs 10 swords men the swordsmen could close and cut them to pieces. All sources confirm that as soon as the phalanx broke they stood 0 chance.

The dory was much more versatile and users stood a better chance in small scale engagements against swordsmen.


if romans were to use spears they would certainly use dory's over sarrisae

another

Try to imagine - you are some barbarian (gaul for example) and you have formation of romans before you. They throw javelins and stones at you. What do you do? You will throw javelins, stones and other shit at them. By the way it the primary reason why pilum is bending on contact. To deny the enemy a free weapon to throw back. But they have armor and big ass shields. So their fire is far more effective than yours.

Next choice? Charge at them with your superior longer sword (or axe, or spear)? They are in close formation and still have big ass shields. You in the same time just a part of slightly organized mob. This is a not a winning propostion. At the moment of contact there would be far more romans than barbarians because of the losses during the charge and roman denser formation. Yes, maintaining a close formation during a charge is hard. Really hard. So romans will just mop up the dispersed survivors with superior numbers.

The next variant - to advance at them more slowly while maintaing formation and enduring the losses from missile fire. It is hard. You need a really motivated and trained guys for it. And such guys are usually in short supply, they are chosen warriors, chieftain guard and veterans. And again - there would be more romans at the moment of contact and they will win again through superior numbers even if your warriors are individually better.

And this is how roman way to deny a melee combat worked. People aren't suicidal. They do not charge at organized enemy formation while knowing that they will not win. And no you cannot really just drown the romans in bodies of your warriors. Rome was an advanced agricultural society with a higher density population and better production capabilities. So they had more people than you and they have ability to equip more of these people than you can equip yours. Roman legions were a Red Army of Ancient Era so to speak.

File: lel.jpg (74KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 850x400px

>>2804496
Its the russian zerg meme again.

>>2804211
>Good thing you can wait till it is slightly broken up by using missiles

Did you learn military history from Toal War?

>>2804538
No, was my statement wrong? you are aware of what a pilum was and of auxiliaries i presume?

>>2804546
The macedonian phalanx was pretty resistant to missiles; there were simply so many spears in the air that only few javelins would get through it.

I'm pretty sure I can finda source for it if you like

>>2804496
muh asiatic hordes

>>2804557
so what, you bombard it for a bit and some people get injured, maybe some lose their nerve alittle.

The phalanx isn't going to charge you with their 18ft sarrisae.

The Romans also had siege engines like Scorpios.

>>2804496
>outnumbered in most of their greatest victories
>they just zerg em man like those russians!


This thread is fucking terrible bunch of LARPers reading a forum and posting their own unsupported fan theories. When the Russians failed, they were zerging. When they won, it's because Stalin actually let his generals go to work and they used 21st century shock tactics to win, they moved in squads like any other modern army and they won through organization and technology. Almost every time they zerg'd it went to shit, so they stopped doing that-with retard exceptions from Stalin who did more than any German to hamper the Soviet war effort. You'd know that if you read a book.

You're right about formations allowing for local superiority at the point of contact. You're right about it being hard to advance under missile fire, which is why battles like Marathon are so revered in history. You might even be right about romans being defense and "luring" the enemy into a charge and then moving their reserves to fill gaps like living duct tape. Their equipment suggests a style like that and it certainly fits with how Caesar describes his battles, when he says he went into the infantry and fought with them at Alesia, he probably just squeezed into a formation with 5 guys covering him in shields or something, doesn't make sense to risk the brain but it does make sense to boost morale without having to truly endanger yourself too much. Caesar says he did this at multiple battles and it's always when he needs to hold the line somewhere, his battles rear like he just holds the line and plugs the gaps until the enemy gives up, which sounds like they were an endurance-based force that could just outlast it's enemy, which would suggest a system of reserves, how exactly it worked is unknown.

But this is all conjecture, nobody really knows because nobody described it, kind of like how we dont describe exactly how modern squads work in news because people just sort of know.

File: Nikolai Vatutin.jpg (24KB, 260x390px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 260x390px

>>2804596
preach it brotha!

>>2804596
>You'd know that if you read a book.
Fucking faggots always say this and never provide any books to read.
What are some good books on Russian warfare and tactics in WWII?

>>2804653
Stalingrad by Antony Beevor

Marshal K.K. Rokossovsky: The Red Army's Gentleman Commander

I just post things from the forum btw


Phalanx is a great formation. But phalanx (both classical greek one and macedonian too) have an inherent weakness - it is tactically inflexible and cannot do anything against enemy ranged/skirmishing force. Therefore phalanx is only viable either against similar enemy or as a part of combined arms approach with supporting skirmishers/cavalry (what Phillip and Alexander did and why they both were Great).
And practically all other ancient era (inclduing pre-classical greeks, egyptians, persians) cultures fought in a way similar to romans - with a great emphasis on the ranged combat as the way to soften the enemy before decisive charge.

And medieval times we have a guys with access to proper heavy cavalry and poor schmucks who did not have such access. Stirrupped cavalry is superior to the infantry as a shock force in every possible way. So no one really bothered to train dedicated infantry force for a very long period of time. Medieval cultures did not have the ability to mass enough firepower to stop a cavalry charge reliably. And stopping the cavalry charge by maintaining formation is hard. It requires significant amount of training and leadership. And if you spend your resources on training these poor schmucks there is no real reason not to use them as proper cavalry.

Also you must understand another thing - perfomance on the battlefield is not a single most important thing. Set-piece battles were rare and as generals in later period found - pikemen are fucking useless outside such battles. During sieges, raids or as garrison force arqebusiers were far better choice. The same problem plagued medieval infantry - even if you train them enough so they will have the guts to stand their ground in face of a charging knights so what? You know just have a relatively large and slow moving army while your probable enemy have a faster moving predominately mounted troops. Stategy and logistic concerns trump tactics.

>>2804712
Romans weren't different. They fought in the way their neighbours (and practically every other culture at the time) did. Throwing stuff is a very basic way for human to deal with enemies. An ape probably started to throw stones at this mean-looking feline way before she managed to envision a stick as melee weapon.
Romans just perfected this way of fighting.

>>2803750
What enemies used two handed weapon s. Asides from pikemen, horsemen, and the dacians.

>>2804739
probably not a huge amount but I can see 1 handed weapons being used with 2 hands for extra power and i'm sure there were a few 2 handed weapons around. Pike wasn't invented till early middle ages btw.

>>2804669
Thank you.

Is Zhmodikov right?

>>2803995

Of course, the gladius was copied directly from the swords of Celtiberians, but Roman field tactics were at least reshaped in a Gaulish image after Brennus' sack and occupation of Rome.

>>2804211
>just flank it

This is primarily what happened the times Rome fought against phalanx formations. Most of these battles were lost by Greek commanders who made poor tactical decisions and the more flexible, reactionary Roman units would move to flank exposed phalanx formations.

>>2804717
>she
wot

>>2804717
>An ape probably started to throw stones at this mean-looking feline way before she managed to envision a stick as melee weapon.

Extremely unlikely. throwing takes lots of hand-eye coordination and balance on two legs. Not to mention the mental prerequisites.

Simple bone/wooden clubs, and rocks can be used as very simple force multipliers in melee that don't require tons of complex movements. Stanly Kubrick had it down imo.

>>2803660
The idea of the legionary primarily being a skirmisher is silly. That's not how sources describe them fighting.

However a lot of people in that thread and this have said the equipment, the shield and armour, were too burdensome to allow it. That's bullshit. Roman armour was pretty light and even large bulky shields don't weigh you down that much.

File: plumbatae -thrown.jpg (110KB, 979x500px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 979x500px

>>2803750
Late Roman infantry did carry 5 ranged weapons called Plumbata. They were very heavy, weighted down with lead, but could be thrown very far. Vegetius (who is usually a very untrustworthy source but this seems like he's being truthful) says that legionaries could pelt the enemy with plumbatae well before they got within range of javelinmen or archers.

>>2805212
>legionaries could pelt the enemy with plumbatae well before they got within range of javelinmen or archers

not unless the average Roman right arm was literally a piston.

sure they didn't have a ballista type device to hurl them long distance?

>>2804717
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(07)00801-9?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982207008019%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

>At the Fongoli site in Senegal, we observed ten different chimpanzees use tools to hunt prosimian prey in 22 bouts. This includes immature chimpanzees and females, members of age-sex classes not normally characterized by extensive hunting behavior. Chimpanzees made 26 different tools, and we were able to recover and analyze 12 of these. Tool construction entailed up to five steps, including trimming the tool tip to a point. Tools were used in the manner of a spear, rather than a probe or rousing tool.

>>2805190
Its not about the weight, the shield is large enough so it doesnt allow you to make the entire throwing movement.

To get most range you need to put your body into it.

It would make some sense desu
>Jam the scutum into the ground in front of you
>Guy behind you lifts it up over your hear
>You toss your spears
>Next guy hands his forward
>Rinse and repeat until the enemy is forced to charge
>Lift your shield up and hold the line until something breaks and they are enveloped

>>2804091

Late roman period infantry with crossbows were becoming a thing. Some of their cavalry were even using them as a shock weapon like Pistolers would. But this was in the late Roman period, and is hard to really get a good grasp of what they were working with since very limited source material on it.

The technological innovation was there at the time of the roman Empire, it was an issue of too much centralization in the highest office causing instability in the state below along with economic stagnation as the currency system was undermined to prop up the corrupt and heavy state.