|
Animal posted:I like it because it shows what happens when a moshpitting blob charges a disciplined wall of trained legionaries. And in the next scene it shows the consequences for a well trained soldier to break that discipline: he gets flogged and sentenced to death. The legions worked because the soldiers were more afraid of their Centurions than they were of the enemy. Film and TV depiction of the Romans often waaaay overplays the 'disciplined, organized Romans vs. the barbarian rabble'. The Gauls had been fighting Rome for a couple centuries, either directly or as mercenaries for the Etruscans, Samnites, etc., winning some battles and even a war or two, before Caesar decided they needed to be pacified. And a big part of Caesar's success was more political than tactical, dividing the various tribes and turning them against one another.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Family Values posted:Film and TV depiction of the Romans often waaaay overplays the 'disciplined, organized Romans vs. the barbarian rabble'. Romans would have approved of this -- they started it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Caesar has his biases, obviously, but he talks about Gaulish combat tactics in his book. In his battle against the Helviti, it's pretty much the opposite of the stereotype. They're the ones with the overly rigid formation, advancing with spears in a shield wall, until Roman javelins disrupt the formation and they fall apart against Roman charges. A lot of times when people talk about the Legions having better discipline than Gaulish troops, it's more that they could stand higher casualty rates without routing or losing cohesion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:
Wasn't that the case with Pyrrhus? His army consisted of highly trained veterans that would take months if not years to train while the only thing that the romans demanded of their people was a wiilingness to kill greeks
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
Roman discipline was all right, but the standout quality of Roman armies was military engineering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Caesar has his biases, obviously, but he talks about Gaulish combat tactics in his book. In his battle against the Helviti, it's pretty much the opposite of the stereotype. They're the ones with the overly rigid formation, advancing with spears in a shield wall, until Roman javelins disrupt the formation and they fall apart against Roman charges. the post-samnite roman legions were purpose-built for breaking phalanxes because that was the formation that everyone used. it's both easy to figure out and an incredibly strong formation that only requires your conscripted farmers to hold a stick and march unless something goes wrong. the roman system needs drill and training to be effective, but allowed them to pick phalanxes apart at the edges. aside from casualty tolerance, that's what people really meant when talking about legion discipline - they had the discipline to maintain a looser, more flexible formation without presenting opportunities to the enemy to break that formation apart. the phalanx might be more rigid, and thus come off as "disciplined" to a modern eye, but you don't need discipline to do the right thing when you're in the middle of the block. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Aug 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the post-samnite roman legions were purpose-built for breaking phalanxes because that was the formation that everyone used. it's both easy to figure out and an incredibly strong formation that only requires your conscripted farmers to hold a stick and march unless something goes wrong. the roman system needs drill and training to be effective, but allowed them to pick phalanxes apart at the edges. Your conscripted farmers were mostly skirmishing on the edges with slings and stuff though? The actual guys in the phalanx are supposed to be your trained infantry. Bear in mind they have to provide their own equipment, so they're not going to be random peasants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:that only requires your conscripted farmers to hold a stick
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:yes but how long is the stick When does a pointy stick become a spear and when does a spear become a pike and when does a pike become too ridiculously long?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the phalanx might be more rigid, and thus come off as "disciplined" to a modern eye, but you don't need discipline to do the right thing when you're in the middle of the block. Got any sources on that? That runs contrary to everything I’ve heard or run across incidentally about how those formations work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
But you need training to be able to maneuver without the phalanx turning into a blob of disaster, or to get people to stay in line
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:or run across incidentally
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:49
|
|
|
What are some battles in classical antiquity where deploying troops deep worked out? It seems like every time commanders tried it in hopes of a breakthrough in the centre, they instead got flanked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
I don't think discipline was really the determining factor in legion vs phalanx, both were very well drilled and disciplined. The legion system was simply more flexible and adaptable to the situation at hand and Roman NCOs (for lack of a better term) like tribunes and centurions had more authority to make tactical decisions. At Cynoscephalae, for example, a military tribune noticed a weak point in the Macedonian line and ordered a couple maniples to attack there, turning what had been a fairly close battle into a rout for the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
Phalanxes required a ton of training, it's a very hard formation to keep if you're in motion. Training/fighting is basically what you did in summer between planting and harvest if you were a man of fighting age. The Macedonian level of professional training let them introduce innovations like "walk backwards" that a normal phalanx couldn't pull off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Legit question, how would a tribal society like the Gauls be able to constantly drill large groups of dedicated soldiers to be at the same level as post-Marius legions? What kind of cohesive unit were they able to form and maintain during the wars? It’s been years since I read Caesars travel blog in Gaul, but what I remember was that he defeated the Gauls thanks to engineer works to funnel large groups of Gauls where he wanted to fight them, and forming his units with their backs to a terrain feature so that they could not escape and they had to fight to the death. As for the Germanic cavalry tribes it seems to be some political scheming as in one page he is describing how he is marching there to kill their asses and then a few pages later he is marching WITH them back to Gaul like nothing happened and they were always his good buddies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What are some battles in classical antiquity where deploying troops deep worked out? Leuctra is probably the most famous example, where Thebes used a 50-deep column against Sparta's 12-deep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Phalanxes required a ton of training, it's a very hard formation to keep if you're in motion. Training/fighting is basically what you did in summer between planting and harvest if you were a man of fighting age. Nah, part of the reason why the Greek city-states never seemed to get much accomplished is that their discipline was pretty bad. The ones with hegemonies were exceptions to the rule, while the other cities were pretty shaky allies that never wanted to be there. I'm not sure how much training the upper-class levy really got. The hegemons skirted this somehow, with Athenians just having a standing army of mercenaries paid for by the Delian Protection Racket, the Spartans being crazy Spartans with their unusual society. The Thebans idk, but they ran out of Thebans really quickly and their hegemony collapsed in short order. Platystemon posted:What are some battles in classical antiquity where deploying troops deep worked out? At Leuctra the Thebans made a deep formation on one end of their battle line, directly opposite the Spartan section of their line. Rather than trying to breakthrough the entire formation, the intent seems to have just been to kill all the Spartans and ignore their allies. They either bowled the Spartans over or stabbed them all in record time, because the Spartan flank was obliterated and the rest of the army collapsed. It was another example where the hegemons seemed to be the only ones who really wanted to be there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Nah, part of the reason why the Greek city-states never seemed to get much accomplished is that their discipline was pretty bad. A Macedonian/successor state pike phalanx is very different than a classical hoplite phalanx though, and in the context of Rome vs successor states we're talking about a pike phalanx.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:A Macedonian/successor state pike phalanx is very different than a classical hoplite phalanx though, and in the context of Rome vs successor states we're talking about a pike phalanx. But GF is talking about a classical phalanx? He's comparing a Macedonian phalanx to a "normal phalanx".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Animal posted:Legit question, how would a tribal society like the Gauls be able to constantly drill large groups of dedicated soldiers to be at the same level as post-Marius legions? What kind of cohesive unit were they able to form and maintain during the wars? 'Tribal' gets thrown around a lot, as if the Gauls and other people were somehow uncivilized. They lived in city states and petty kingdoms and formed confederations to fight larger enemies just like the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks (pre-Alexander) and for that matter the early Romans were no less 'tribal' than the Gauls. As far as drilling goes, it occupied a lot of their time between planting and harvesting crops. Of course they didn't have a standing army of professional, full time soldiers like Rome (although Rome itself didn't have that in the early Republic, only later when Rome was large and rich enough to afford it), but the Gauls weren't untrained or unskilled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Remember that the Romans are using a lot of tactics and equipments adopted from the Gauls and Iberians. Primary use of javelins and the sword, tall shields, helmet design, looser formation; these are all things classical greeks would have associated with "barbarians"
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Also, the usual image people have of pitched battles in ancient times is usually two armies in a flat field. Media has created the impression of strictly disciplined legions forming shield walls against a screaming barbarian horde. In fact, the terrain was often highly variable (especially in areas that hadn't been cleared for civilization) and could be taken advantage of, and sometimes you just hosed up. For example, Caesar lost the Battle of Gergovia in 52 BC.  After struggling to cross the river due to Vercingetorix following him from the other side and destroying the bridges (he eventually lured him away with a bait force and rebuilt the bridges overnight), Caesar made a night raid on a hill that was supplying the town with food and water, allowing him to cut them off from supply and begin a siege. He had been working with another tribe, the Aedui, but Vercingetorix bribed a number of them to join his force instead. The 10,000 men that Caesar thought were being sent to help protect his supply train instead attacked it, forcing him to pull men away from the siege to defeat them. Caesar returned to the siege after the pro-Roman Aedui faction regained control and provided the promised soldiers to help them, and he started making his way around capturing Gallic camps. When he tried to order a false retreat to lure Vercingetorix off the mountain, the legionaries instead got super hyped and just kept going to assault Gergovia itself. When the pro-Roman Aedui arrived to help in the siege, they were mistaken for an enemy flanking attack and completely hosed everything up. While Caesar was trying to get everyone straightened out, Vercingetorix heard the commotion happening just below the walls and sent cavalry to back up his defenders. That was all it took. Caesar's brilliant tactics and complex maneuvering got utterly ruined by some convenient bribery and his soldiers going ham at the wrong time on the wrong people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
While we're on the general topic of ancient formations/counter formations, I'm perpetually impressed by the relative efficacy of the Hun/Avar composite horse archer as I'm working through the relevant historical narrative podcasts. The big question that I keep having is 1) what is the counter to this unit? Over a long campaign I can imagine that it's vulnerable to skill/horse attrition but it really seems to answer every question of warfare in the era, and 2) why did it show up so relatively late?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Sitting a walled city and hoping they don’t have engineers and get bored. They beat thing to do was surrender and let them rule you for 40 years until intermarriage and assimilation took everything back to normal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Sitting a walled city and hoping they don’t have engineers and get bored. Well that's the thing - the Huns and Avars were apparently pretty good at cracking open the city walls to get the delicious grain within.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
walled cities had various levels of effectiveness over the centuries as offensive and defensive technologies got the temproary edge. It feels like the Romans in their prime could basically take any walled target, usually without even bothering with a siege. But it felt like in the 14th century castles and walls were so advanced compared to the offensive technologies that an army's only choice was to hope that the threat of a siege was painful enough that the city would surrender. If they were forced to follow through on the siege their logistics were usually bad enough that the army would starve first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Well that's the thing - the Huns and Avars were apparently pretty good at cracking open the city walls to get the delicious grain within. And that’s why they were unstoppable
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Horse archers are just one of those fighting styles like a spear and shield that was just always useful in nearly every circumstance. It’s main limitation is just that horses are freaking expensive and feeding them is a logistical pain. Literally everyone who could afford them and train them used them including the Romans and Chinese. Im not sure what you mean though by ‘show up relatively late.” Horse archers appear as soon as cavalry does. I believe the technology for composite bows improved a lot from the classical to medieval so Avar bows would be a lot better than Achaemenid Persian, but I’m not sure how big a practical difference it made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Horse archers are just one of those fighting styles like a spear and shield that was just always useful in nearly every circumstance. It’s main limitation is just that horses are freaking expensive and feeding them is a logistical pain. Literally everyone who could afford them and train them used them including the Romans and Chinese. By "show up late" mean that masses of highly skilled horse archers don't really seem to bother the Romans much until the Huns get into the mix. I don't know of any times where "And the Romans got hosed up by some loving horse archers" comes into play before the Hun era, anyway. I could be ignorant of further examples. I guess there's the whole "Parthian shot" thing, but that is in my head as a tactical failure in over pursuit and overextension, not a lack of an effective answer. Your note about the composite bows improving could be it, though. Worse bows could mean that the horse archers have to get closer to the enemy, which makes them more vulnerable to return missile fire and/or being caught by a heavy cavalry manouvre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:By "show up late" mean that masses of highly skilled horse archers don't really seem to bother the Romans much until the Huns get into the mix. I don't know of any times where "And the Romans got hosed up by some loving horse archers" comes into play before the Hun era, anyway. I could be ignorant of further examples. I guess there's the whole "Parthian shot" thing, but that is in my head as a tactical failure in over pursuit and overextension, not a lack of an effective answer. I'm pretty sure that horse archers (or were they camels?) beat the crap out of Marcus Crassus troops at Carrhae. If I recall crassus outnumbered them by a wide margin and still ended up drinking a pitcher of gold for his trouble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:By "show up late" mean that masses of highly skilled horse archers don't really seem to bother the Romans much until the Huns get into the mix. I don't know of any times where "And the Romans got hosed up by some loving horse archers" comes into play before the Hun era, anyway. I could be ignorant of further examples. I guess there's the whole "Parthian shot" thing, but that is in my head as a tactical failure in over pursuit and overextension, not a lack of an effective answer. I actually know a little bit about bows and composite bows. Not much mind you, but the material with which they are built really, really do matter. Mongols were some of the most feared horse archers and it appears that the further south they went, the worse their bow performed. Something about the glue used not performing well in humid climate. I don't have a source for this info, I think i saw this in a documentary a while back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:I guess there's the whole "Parthian shot" thing, but that is in my head as a tactical failure in over pursuit and overextension, not a lack of an effective answer. I think you're really underselling the Parthians here. They were a rival to Rome for hundreds of years and their military power was largely built on cavalry, especially horse archers. They were very effective against the Romans, to the point where Rome's only major successes against Parthia came under Trajan and Hadrian, who did their best to avoid pitched battles with the Parthians and instead beelined for cities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I'm pretty sure that horse archers (or were they camels?) beat the crap out of Marcus Crassus troops at Carrhae. If I recall crassus outnumbered them by a wide margin and still ended up drinking a pitcher of gold for his trouble. Crassus' strategy was to hole up under his shields and wait for the Parthians to run out of arrows. This would normally be reasonable, but the Parthians brought thousands and thousands of spare arrows on their pack camels and could just keep going long enough to win even if only 1% of their arrows pierced the shields and armor of the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Animal posted:Legit question, how would a tribal society like the Gauls be able to constantly drill large groups of dedicated soldiers to be at the same level as post-Marius legions? I don’t remember where I heard that, and I don’t really believe the story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:For example, Caesar lost the Battle of Gergovia in 52 BC. It's an Asterix joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
It's quite possible that I'm underselling the Parthian horse archers. Is it simply a misconception then that the Huns and Avars were a greater threat to the Romans than the Parthians? Or is this also correlating to the Romans simply being worse at doing war in these later eras than they were under GOAT HW Champ Trajan?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
I don’t think these large issues are reducible to military technology
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:It's quite possible that I'm underselling the Parthian horse archers. Is it simply a misconception then that the Huns and Avars were a greater threat to the Romans than the Parthians? Or is this also correlating to the Romans simply being worse at doing war in these later eras than they were under GOAT HW Champ Trajan? Well they're different eras and also "greater threat" seems subjective. Like, yes, the Huns were a threat for a couple decades to the leftover bits of the Roman Empire, but Attila's reign (counting the time with his brother) was less than 20 years. On the other hand the Parthians were a rival to Rome at arguably the height of it's power for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Crassus' strategy was to hole up under his shields and wait for the Parthians to run out of arrows. This would normally be reasonable, but the Parthians brought thousands and thousands of spare arrows on their pack camels and could just keep going long enough to win even if only 1% of their arrows pierced the shields and armor of the Romans. That became his strategy after his own cavalry was massacred tho. *edit: as far as i remember anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:06
|
|