Confused By Legionaire Tactics...

All right,now these guys with their big shield and small gladius are confusing me a bit.
Normally,as swordsmen,they should rely on breaking their formation upon engaging the enemy and getting as many men
in hand to hand combat as possible.Put I always see people saying that they relied on their formation very much,and if their
formation would get broken,they would be easier to defeat...
I always presumed that legionaries were holding their lines only when in the tustedo formation,to get protection from arrows...
I wonder why is this,and how come swordsmen rely on their formation,I mean,what was their fighting style when engaging an enemy?
Also,do you think that in the game,they will be used as 'normal' swordsmen ?

I think the idea behind the cohort (spelling ) was that a deep body of well trained, Well armed , Disciplened men was that it had a meat grinder affect on the enemy like a conveyor belt of armoured teath rolling towards you. Strike a man down and another takes his place. The depth of the formation also meant that if flanked the flank could turn at right angles and quite happily fight in two directions at once. Remember that these formations where used to defeat Germanic tribes Gauls and Britains. Fierce but disorgernized armies who favoured a mass charge to open a battle. Once they have smashed into the Roman shields and caused a few casualties it was down to an endurance test of fighting hand to hand, there would be only one winner.

I guess if they would of broken formation,they could be flanked more easily;
also I think the gladius isn't to great in hand to hand combat(being so small),and it was probablly effective only against light armor (or unarmored barbarians).
So due to the gladius' small size,it doesn't take to much space to wield it,so the soldiers can hold formation,only probllem with this move would be that the frontage(total number of men fighting the enemy) shall be very small indeed,making them even less effective in killing - indeed I wonder how the romans managed to achieve so many victories with this kind of foot troop...

Most close order infantry would rely on formation: you want men close by to cover your sides.

But the Roman soldiers did not use as tight a formation as spearmen, mainly because they used swords (and of course having a short sword only makes it worse)

I believe that is reflected in the shield design too. The heavy rectangular shield (Scutum) gives maximum individual protection but would do no good in a shieldwall as that would prevent the solder from using his weapon to stab with (the best way of using the Gladius)

The oval and especially round shields in combination with spears works better in the tighter shieldwall formation with overlapping shields.

The heavy Scutum and short sword was meant for going in as close as possible and the Scutum was good as a secondary weapon for bashing an opponent too. But they would try and maintain formation for mutual protection.

Of course we should not forget the Pilum and lighter javelin that also was part of the equipment. They was used in the charge to maximise the shock effect and for a longer missile exchange before melee started if the units didnt go in right away.


CBR

I also can't understand how the Roman Legions were so effective! I've always thought the short sword would have been at a massive disadvantage against any soldiers with more than a little armour.

In Medieval times the sword wasn't so much used to 'cut' enemies as it was 'bash' them, using the force of the blow rather than cutting edge of the sword to deliver the fatal strike.

I can see that during the Roman period people would have worn a lot less armour, but I still see the short sword, which seemed so popular, to be an ineffective weapon. Now I know very little about this period in history, but I remember someone saying the gladius was used in short stabbing actions, surely fighting in this way wouldn't have allowed a legionaire to transfer enough force through the breast plate and into the soldier behind, would it? Though the barbarians probably wore next to no armour, most of the Greeks, Macedonians, Seleucids, Carthaginians etc who the Romans defeated would have. How did they manage? I must be looking at this in the wrong way.

Somebody educate me!

A Gladius used to thrust is not bad weapon when it comes to armour penetration. Another thing is that lots of wounds would be to the limbs as both head and torso was difficult to hit both because of armour but mostly because of the shield.

Soldiers would get weakened by several wounds before a final and lethal blow could be made... of course some might get lucky with the first blow. We can conclude that that both from excavations of massgraves and ancient descriptions of combat.

And the heavy and large shield was an important part of the fighting style as it offered a lot of protection for a Legionnaire to close in with his sword (and it wasnt that short compared to the Gaul swords really)

But we should not forget that the Romans actually had serious problems when facing the Macedonia style phalanx with their long pikes. They won because they had good cavalry (allies) and using the multiple lines to have reserves that could exploit holes created between the subunits of the phalanx, as well as being able to cope with being pushed back at first.


CBR

A short sword does not neccessarily give a disadvantage in close combat, if anything it can be an advantage because it can still be wielded even in the tight press of combat, when longer weapons may not have enough room to be used effectively. A point of note is that the Spartans also preferred a shorter sword as their secondary weapon, also getting up close to their foes.

The gladius was primarily a stabbing weapon, although it could be a fairly efficient cleaver, and the Roman fighting instructors taught point over edge. Stabbing attacks are generally faster to make and faster to recover, whether successful or no, and are less likely to cause the attacker to become off balance - and thus vulnerable to a counter attack - unless they (stupidly) over-extend the thrust. Prefered targets for attack were inner thighs, groin, throat & face, areas generally poorly- or un-armoured, but allowing the potential for killing or crippling wounds. Another concern was that even when the opponent is unarmoured, blades can get snagged in the ribs when striking to the chest, and even a moments delay in returning to the guard position can be fatal. That is not to say that a possible thrust to the chest would be ignored, just that it wasn't the primary target, and from the comments above I think the effects of the thrust, even against armour, are being rather underestimated: this was something the Legionaires had to practice continuously, rolling their bodies into the thrust, just like a boxer rolling into a punch, so that not just the arm muscles drive the point home.

The Roman method of short thrusting attacks with the sword does indeed allow them to fight just as close ordered as spearmen, although they would have to open up enough to stab - the same as a spearwall would have to unless using overhand strikes - but quickly returning to the guard position.

A major part of Roman battlefield tactics was the flexibility of their organisation and formations, they could quickly move small squads of men along the line, reinforcing where neccessary and helping to exploit breakthroughs. More importantly it allowed the Romans to cycle the men actually doing the fighting so that the enemy faces a stream of fresh opponents, rather than fighting the same man until he drops dead or exhausted before the next Roman moves up. So in many ways the Romans would out-endure their enemy while slowly whittling them away with their gladii.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

The Roman method of short thrusting attacks with the sword does indeed allow them to fight just as close ordered as spearmen, although they would have to open up enough to stab - the same as a spearwall would have to unless using overhand strikes - but quickly returning to the guard position.

---

And overhand is the primary method of using a spear. A real tight shieldwall gives about 50-60 centimeter frontage per man. Romans are described as using around 90-100 centimeters.


CBR

Thanks Sinner and CBR.

Yes, it's clearly something I hadn't thought enough about, as your replies make it quite obvious why the legions were so effective! One more question...

Why didn't this method of fighting continue into the Medieval era? It seems like this sort of warfare would have been more than a match for the one-on-one fighting that became dominant in medieval times. Units of tightly packed men, with large shields and small swords would have prevented those with longer swords from using them effectively. As long as the unit kept close together, each man wouldn't have to worry about his sides and could concentrate on parrying away blows with his large shield then following up with a strike from his sword.

It seems the medieval style of warfare was the complete antithesis of the ancient styles. Phalanxes and Legions both relied on disciplined troops who fought together as one unit, whereas in medieval times it seems they just charged in, dispersed and then fought man to man. What went wrong? ~;)

As I described above the Romans had problems against the pike phalanx and they also had problems when facing heavy cavalry.

One thing that is important to understand is that the Roman Legion operated on a battlefield where cavalry wasnt that strong nor numerous. Missile weapons were also primarily javelins with only few slingers/archers (and they came from regions famous for such units: Balearic slingers, Cretan archers etc)

The later Imperial Roman army did actually change (around 3rd century AD) and used more cavalry (both horsearchers and heavy shock cavalry) and started using archers and the Roman Legionnaire also changed. The pilum was dropped in favor of a longer spear, but still light enough to be thrown if needed and the good old Legion was dropped and smaller units where used instead.

With cavalry being more dominant the role of infantry changed too. Instead they used more of a phalanx formation. The old way of flexible units operating in multiple lines isnt very good when facing shock cavalry.

The Middleages had all kinds of different quality infantry so not easy to generalise but one could say that nothing changed that much really. Infantry still operated in close formation and cavalry was even more the decisive arm. Its not true when you say they just charged in and fought man to man. A lot of medieval infantry wasnt trained as well the Roman Legions of course, but that didnt stop people from trying to survive and stick together ~:)

But most infantry (even dismounted knights) couldnt do the same type of manuvering as the disciplined ancient armies. We really only see that again in the mid/late 15th century when the Swiss showed how it should be done heh

When we look at weapons used it was primarily spears (and later pikes) and polearms. Such weapons are good versus cavalry and work good in tight formations too. And skirmishers mainly used bows or crossbows which meant javelin armed men where at a disadvantage.

A roman type soldier would basically be forced to face a tight enemy infantry formation without a chance of softening it up first with javelins (at least only be able to use them in the charge) and because of enemy cavalry any maneuvers would be more difficult. It would end up being phalanx v phalanx and then he might as well use long weapons like polearms or spears himself as the main weapon.

Of course we should not dismiss his training so Roman style infantry could still have won against lower quality medieval infantry but the role of heavy cavalry meant the infantry fight was not the all important factor, something the Romans already felt when facing Hannibal ~D


CBR

Though a short sword seems like it's puny and weak, it packs a massive punch when used and designed properly like the gladius. The thrusting power was very strong and the tight packed and ordered formations of the legions made it easy for the Romans to use their sheilds, knock back the opposing enemy, and stab them when off balance. THe coverage of the sheild gave them and those around them protection when retreating behind before lunging forward to do it again.

I dont' know about you, but to me this looks pretty formidable.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pics/orb-01.jpg

Well let me give you a baseball bat and I'll take a puny little 6 inch dagger and as soon as you go to swing the baseball bat I'll just step in and slip the dagger in. Theres advantages and disadvantages to all weapons but that should show you 1 big advantage of it

Also you have to look at pounds per square inch. A thrust will give much more PSI than a slash will. Causing it to do more damage as it gives a chance to puncture an organ, disable a muscle or hit an artery. Where as a slash will more than likely just rupture surface veins and will take up to an hour or more to disable them from bleeding wich is not optimum for combat.

As far as close formation goes for legionaires did they use there shield to push the man in front of them to keep the momentum of there unit going or did they not?

It is common for close order infantry to push there own men with there shields to keep there frontline going. This pushes the enemy back disrupts there formation better and when getting pushed back makes it harder to land a good blow

Very intersting and informative post especially you CBR. However you forgot to inform our young reader about 1 thing. Why cavalry became such a powerfull shock force. This was because of the wide spread use of Stirrups around 8th century A.D. This allowed the transfer of a blow both received and given to be transfered from the upper torso of the rider to his legs and then to the horse. Imagine using a lance going at a gallop hitting your target and consequentally flying off your horse due to the blow. So as always technology dictates armour, unit and strategy selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oaty

As far as close formation goes for legionaires did they use there shield to push the man in front of them to keep the momentum of there unit going or did they not?

---

No thats not part of their tactic. Polybius writes that Roman soldiers dont get any support from the rear ranks.

Imagine how a soldier fights: He would stand a bit like a boxer facing the enemy sideways with left foot in front. Thats the best for protection against enemy blows as well as for stability. Anyone pushing from the rear would completely ruin the soldiers ability to choose when to attack or move back defending against a blow. And that big protruding shieldboss doesnt make for for very comfortable pushing either.

Not that pushing didnt happen in combat and AFAIK there are several descriptions of units becoming too compressed with the frontrank not being able to use their weapons. But that wasnt a tactic but because of enemy action or too enthusiastic/badly trained rear ranks that didnt stop in time when charging. Generally it was a bad thing if it happened.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DthB4Dishonour

This was because of the wide spread use of Stirrups around 8th century A.D...

---

Sorry but thats not correct ~:p

There is no doubt that if a cavalryman can pick whatever equipment he wants he would pick a good saddle as well as stirrups for maximum stability and control when fighting from a horse. But large cavalry armies (including lots of heavy shock cavavly) was used before the introduction of the stirrup: the Eastern Roman/Early Byzantine armies are a good example.

The four-horned saddle that the Romans used gave an excellent seat and was definitely used in late first century BC but perhaps earlier.

Cavalry is both expensive to maintain as well as it takes long to train. The republican army never had good cavalry nor large numbers of it (only the upper class could afford it) and they relied mainly on allied cavalry to make up for the numbers and quality needed.

That did change after the Marian reforms that changed the army from a conscript army (where the soldiers had to buy their own equipment) to a fulltime professional army. But the cavalry arm did not develop right away until IIRC 1st century AD and in mid 3rd century the first all cav reserves where formed to be able to deploy to hotspots quickly.

Heavy cavalry units like Cataphracts were introduced in 2nd century based on the Sarmatian heavy cavalry but horsearchers were also a part of the cavalry force.

Having large borders to protect as well as facing several steppe nomad (that naturally had lots of cavalry) meant a general increase in cavalry numbers. It wasnt really techology that changed much but the enemies as well as the Romans opening their eyes to the importance of cavalry compared to the earlier republican times.

Well thats the short story and Im tired ~:dizzy:

A couple of links:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html


CBR

Gladius is for stabbing right? It does have great penetrating power when used in such action.

Very interesting info there guys,thanks! :bow:
Anyway,any weapon has advantages and disadvantages,and while a weapon will favor offence,another will favor defence,but there is one thing that usually decides battles,and that is discipline and valor.
I think the legionaires were trained a lot before being sent to battles,and even after that,they still needed experience on the battlefield to be truely efective.
Yeah ,their weapons played a (major) role,but I think not quite the role that their tactics played.
Also I believe that their charging effectiveness is close to none,due to the fact that they really lack the sutable weapons to be effecive in charging,it was the melee that they were good at,also ,a bit like spear troops,any fight with these would transform in to an endurance test,that is they killed slowly(but surely),and lacked the quick killing power that (some) medieval long-sword troops had.
It is a mistake to consider that,in the Middle Ages, everyone with heavy swords were knights or troops trained for proper using them,in fact I,at a museum here in my country,saw the various weapons used by conscripted peasants,and a lot of them were heavy swords,but that doesn't mean that they were any good at fighting with them...
I don't think the legionaires would of had too hard of a time with medieval heavy cavalry,I mean their tight formation when recieving the charge,and their large shields would of stopped (almost) any cav charge,would it not ...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael the Brave

Also I believe that their charging effectiveness is close to none,due to the fact that they really lack the sutable weapons to be effecive in charging,

---

Just because the gladius is short doesn't mean the Legionaire would have a poor charge. Consider what the charge actually is: nothing more than the initial closure to melee, usually at high speed. The high speed would mean that with certain exceptions it's relatively difficult to use any weapon with skill or finesse compared to once close combat is joined. A horseman has somewhat of an advantage when charging into combat, his horse is doing all the movement freeing the rider to more carefully wield and aim his weapon, whether it be sword, axe or lance.

You don't even need to directly attack during the moment of impact: a very effective technique used by Legionaires and other appropriately equiped troops is to just shield rush the opponent, attempting to knock them to the ground, making them very vulnerable to follow-up attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael the Brave

I don't think the legionaires would of had too hard of a time with medieval heavy cavalry,I mean their tight formation when recieving the charge,and their large shields would of stopped (almost) any cav charge,would it not ...?

---

Spears and other long pointy objects sticking out beyond the front line do help when receiving a cavalry charge: a horse &/or rider obviously may be impaled, reducing overall losses for the infantry since that rider won't be continuing combat, whether wounded or dead; the horse may balk at the idea of charging; and the rider himself might have second thoughts as well.

But no matter what weapons are being used, disciplined and deep ranks are vital if the cavalry do indeed charge: even a plate-armoured knight & horse will eventually run out of momentum trying to force a way through massed ranks and if they halt in the midst of the infantry then they're almost certainly doomed, their best hope being that the foot sloggers break before one of them hamstrings or guts the horse and the knight gets dragged down and killed if he doesn't just get struck down anyway.

Legionaires, with their generally disciplined and deep formations, would have been a difficult opponent for knights to defeat, even more so considering that the Romans would probably quickly adapt their organisation and tactics, arming some of their troops with spears - in effect reintroducing the Hastati - so that more survive the initial shock of impact. The mass of their armour and shield would help slow the cavalry after impact until eventually they're trapped among what are likely to be a bunch of very annoyed Legionaires.

Nevertheless it was western heavy cavalry that spelled doom for the aging Roman legionaire system of war. Gothic horsemen proved superior to Roman legionaires in a number of battles between the Eastern and Western empires after the split. Try the following link for information on the changing Roman army:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

Every military system eventually becomes outdated, be it the phalanx, legion, or anything else. Roman legionaires may have been better equipped and disciplined than most medieval infantry, but they still would not have been effective on a medieval battlefield. Their weaknesses against cavalry would only have been accentuated by improvements in western cavalry, which was the decisive force on the battlefield at the time. It wasn't until the age of gunpowder that cavalry was replaced as the dominant battlefield force.

The old style of heavy infantry Legionaire didn't die out because they were ineffective in combat, they died out because of economics and the increasing pressure along the borders. It became more cost effective to deploy cavalry and lighter infantry, able to cover just as much or more ground than the heavy infantry, while still being able to match or defeat the various intruders in combat. The 'Legionaires' who fought and lost against the Goths at Adrianopolis for example were a sorry shadow of their forebears and were defeated as much by the Goths own infantry and the surprise appearance of the majority of the Goth cavalry at their flanks and rear when it was assumed they were actually in the Goth encampment.

Considering that a Legionaire was just as well-equipped as the typical man-at-arms, maybe moreso, I'm curious as to why it could be thought that they would be ineffective on the medieval battlefield. Given their generally superior training and discipline, they would have been anything but ineffective.

Ultimately what led to the demise of heavy cavalry on the European battlefields was disciplined infantry, able and willing to stand their ground against cavalry charges, preferably while slaughtering them with missile fire during the charge itself. Yes, gunpowder could make that missile fire more effective, able to defeat most plate armour that would stop arrow/bolt fire, but the handgunners/arquebusiers would need the 'fighting platform' of a solid line of infantry to have a chance of surviving, never mind winning. This style of combat would have suited the old Legionaires quite well, they had the discipline to hold their line against charging horsemen and they even had their own limited missile capability.

Here's an 18th century view, from Edward Gibbon's The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire

Quote:

---

As soon as the Roman had darted his pilum, he drew his sword, and rushed forwards to close with the enemy. His sword was a short well-tempered Spanish blade, that carried a double edge, and was alike suited to the purpose of striking or pushing; but the soldier was always instructed to prefer the latter use of his weapon, as his body remained less exposed, whilst he inflicted a more danerous wound on his adversary. The legion was usually drawn up eight deep; and the regular distance of three feet was left between the files as well as ranks. A body of troops, habituated to preserve this open order, in a long front and a rapid charge, found themselves prepared to execute every disposition which the circumstances of war, or the skill of their leader, might suggest. The soldier possesed a free space for his arms and motions, and sufficient intervals were allowed, through which seasonable reinforcements might be introduced to the relief of the exhausted combatants. The tactics of the Greeks and Macedonians were formed on very different principles. The strength of the phalanx depended on sixteen ranks of long pikes, wedged together in the closest array. But it was soon discovered by reflection, as well by the event, that the strength of the phalanx was unable to contend with the activity of the legion.

---

Several sources refer to the ROman tactic of defending to the front and striking to the right. In other words you'd attack the guy your budy to the right was fighting while using your large shield (scutum) to fend of the uy to your front. Very effective against less disciplined troops.

A few other points. The rise and fall of the use of cavalry vs infantry is alwyas complex and often involves many complex economic and cultural factors. Essentially cav requires a lot more cost per man and is often people of a special social class rich enough to have ridden much of their lives. The exception to this is of course mounted pastorialists. In any case elitist, aristocratic societies tend towards small numbers of elite troops almost always mounted. This includes the Parthians of the RTW time period as well as the Western Europeans of latter ages. Disciplined infantry requires a larger "middle class". When due to many factors Rome lost it's middle class it became harder and harder to create disciplined infantry.

This is, of course, an oversimplification. In fact the cultural factors and military effectivness often enter into a positive feedback loop. For instance the growth of the English Yeomanry was because of their effectivness as longbowmen, this in turn led to a strong middle class in England that fed back in to make more longbowmen available. By contrast France's attempt to encourge longbow use in their own land was a failure, mainly due to their lack of any real commitment to creating a middle class along with it.

A legion charging frontally against a phalanx could easily get close enough to slaughter the first rank,but the problem was that the second,third etc. ranks would fight over the shoulders of their friends,but still ,what I am trying to suggest here is that the scutum would be a very effective weapon for taking on phalanx formations frontally by pushing the spears aside and knocking the enemy out of balance,giving enough time for the legionaire to close in for the kill....but,of course,in a real fight this could MUCH more complex,and unit training,discipline and VALOR would decide this more than any other factor...

Thanks for such an interesting discussion.

There is a TV series on the BBC at the moment (in the UK) called Battlefield Britain. In the first episode they discussed Boudicca's battle with Paulinus and posited that the battle took place just north of St. Albans on Watling Street (the Roman Road).

Anyway, they recreate the battles of course (using quite an interesting computer generated army technique) but they were saying that the Romans formed up in ranks, but with small wedges of men along their front line. These wedges forced the Briton infantry into a compressed area where they could be attacked on three sides, whilst the Romans remained behind their shields.

I'll try to clarify with a diagram...

("-" is a normal line of Romans, "^" is a wedge of Romans, and "o" is a line of Britons and "x" is a mashed up Briton.)

Code:

---

Initially...

--------------
  V  V  V  V

oooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooo

Then

--------------
oxVxxVxxVxxVxo
oooooooooooooo

---

Has anyone heard of this before, as it was new to me. Would it work?

The other battles they've shown are The Battle Of Hastings and Owain Glyn Dwr's battle at Pilleth. They will be showing the defeat of the Spanish Armada and The Battle Of Britain soon.

Romans used to stab in the lower belly, push back with the man sized shield and thrust. The gladius is perfect for that, it is a small sword that needs very little space to weild, making it a excellent weapon in a tight formation. The shield would hold back most weapons, and a quik stab in the belly is really all you need to immobilise someone (casualties were generaly pretty low)

Well, the Romans were made renound for their well trained army, because it fought in tight orderd & disiplined ranks. Unlike the less disiplined Barbarians who used sheer numbers & brute force to try & break through.

While in tight formation, the only way to beat Rome troops was flanking them, as Dr Chewbacca on time commanders likes to say, the Roman machine is for want of a better word, a meat grinder ~:idea:

btw, Have any of you noticed that when you group, & try to put say 3 units in line formation, they leave gap between them. Unlike in MTW they snuggle tight ? ~:mecry:

An easy way to understand these tactics is to observe riot police (marching season is a good time for this ~;) ) .
The idea is to push back with the shield, neat orderly soldiers behind the shields, crowded and disorganised chaos on the other, try swinging your baseball bat in a crowded pit at a [insert band name] concert.

The result is the enemy is crushed by roman shields on one side and pushed in by their own men at the back. Then the romans can stab to their hearts content while theres no space to swing a cat on the other side.

The short sword was an advantage in this situation, its quite easy (easier) to angle the shield for a stab whereas a large movement such as that needed for a larger (slashing, hacking etc.) weapon needs considerably more space and gap.
The shorter sword can also be drawn more easily in close combat as it is short enough to be drawn on one side as opposed to drawing the sword across the body.
Another less talked about advantage of the shorter roman sword is its stronger construction, longer swords are weaker swords if the weight is to be kept manageable, early iron swords were very poor and would bend in battle, there are accounts of swords needing to be straightened constantly as the metal was soft and later as tempering was better understood swords could break more easily due to quench cracks.

(and in responce to above)
A longer sword is more effective for attacking a phalanx formation, many longer two handed swords were designed with pike formations in mind, the idea is to hack at the pikes and work into the formation, being poked at with a headless pike isnt usually as fatal as a nice pointy one ~:)