Roman military questions

[jackhergh]

So I have some questions and thought maybe you guys can help.

In the early Republic when the Romans were still using the phalanx formation, did their enemies like Veii and other Italian city states also used similar tactics?

The Romans eventually adopted the maniple system during the Samnite Wars because the phalanx was ineffective in the hilly terrain of the Samnites. If the Romans were forced to change the way they fought, how did other Italian city states and the Greeks in southern Italy (I'm guessing were also using the phalanx formation or similar tactics) deal with the Samnites?

Just how exactly do the Samnites fought anyway? Was it only the hilly terrain that made the phalanx ineffective or was it also the tactics they employed? In other words, would the Romans have won easily if the Samnite countryside were just flat farmlands?

At what point did the legionaries stop using the spear as their primary weapon? Wikipedia is quite confusing on this part. Did the triarii continued to use the spear until the Marian reform?

Why are hastati placed in front of the battle line if they are the rookies? Doesn't that just means they would suffer more casualties? Why not have the more experience princips in the front?

And lastly, I have this quote from wikipedia.
"In his 2006 "Caesar: Life of a Colossus," author Adrian Goldsworthy states that, "contrary to deeply entrenched myth," the pila did not bend on impact. The weight of the wood, the long iron shank and pyramidal barb alone sufficiently hampered any struck shield. In fact, the iron was sufficiently hard that pila were occasionally used as late as Caesar's campaigns as thrusting spears."
Now I haven't read that book so I can't tell, but is this the accepted theory now? And how wide spread was the use of pila as thrusting spears, or is this just a rare thing?

Thanks

 

[sophie]

I'm no expert, but here's my best shot at it.

So I have some questions and thought maybe you guys can help.

In the early Republic when the Romans were still using the phalanx formation, did their enemies like Veii and other Italian city states also used similar tactics?

Yes, I'm pretty sure they did.

The Romans eventually adopted the maniple system during the Samnite Wars because the phalanx was ineffective in the hilly terrain of the Samnites. If the Romans were forced to change the way they fought, how did other Italian city states and the Greeks in southern Italy (I'm guessing were also using the phalanx formation or similar tactics) deal with the Samnites?

I'm not sure on this one, but Samnites didn't automatically beat the phalanx. It wasn't some catch-all hard counter to the phalanx formation, although the great flexibility of the Samnite tactics did help it against the inflexible phalanx formation, phalanxes could still beat a Samnite army, it just depends on other things such as the experience of the troops, the composition (remember phalanxes were very strong when mixed with things such as an experienced heavy cavalry), and the man leading it. It's highly probable that other city states met with more success against the Samnites (and similar hill-tribes)

Just how exactly do the Samnites fought anyway? Was it only the hilly terrain that made the phalanx ineffective or was it also the tactics they employed? In other words, would the Romans have won easily if the Samnite countryside were just flat farmlands?

The Samnites, I believe used the manipular formation that the Romans popularized, or else used more guerrilla tactics; I can't remember. However, as I said, the phalanx was not necessarily ineffective against manipular tactics. A phalanx formation falters when it consists solely of a phalanx. Owing to the fact that a phalanx is a big block of dudes carrying very large (16 ft) spears, it is inflexible (actually I don't think this is right), and has a lot of trouble moving around, or rather it is easy to move around in, but it's hard to decommit once engaged, or something like that. A phalanx is very strong when it is supported by auxiliaries and cavalry which can protect the flanks and attack the flanks of the enemy, as Alexander used to great success in the 4th century. The strength of the manipular formation is its flexibility; the formation can shift and change as the battle develops, and there are reserves who can fill in wavering lines or attack exposed areas as they appear.

The Samnites probably developed this system owing to a scarcity of horses (which may have been a reason why the Romans picked up on it), making it more difficult for them to employ a system such as the phalanx.

At what point did the legionaries stop using the spear as their primary weapon? Wikipedia is quite confusing on this part. Did the triarii continued to use the spear until the Marian reform?

Probably likely.

Why are hastati placed in front of the battle line if they are the rookies? Doesn't that just means they would suffer more casualties? Why not have the more experience princips in the front?

Yes. Why would you waste your best and most experienced troops in the beginning of the battle. The fact that the most experienced wait in the wings means that a.) they can get away to fight again if the battle goes poorly and you have to retreat, b.) they can easily be moved around to reinforce beleagered or weakening positions, and c.) when the enemy has thoroughly exhausted themselves fighting through your rookies, you now have a line of fresh, battle-hardened troops waiting for them. Why WOULDN'T you put your veterans in the back?

And lastly, I have this quote from wikipedia.
"In his 2006 "Caesar: Life of a Colossus," author Adrian Goldsworthy states that, "contrary to deeply entrenched myth," the pila did not bend on impact. The weight of the wood, the long iron shank and pyramidal barb alone sufficiently hampered any struck shield. In fact, the iron was sufficiently hard that pila were occasionally used as late as Caesar's campaigns as thrusting spears."
Now I haven't read that book so I can't tell, but is this the accepted theory now? And how wide spread was the use of pila as thrusting spears, or is this just a rare thing?

Thanks

Yes. Legionaires used pila against cavalry.

Now, I don't know very much about Roman History, being that I don't study it anywhere near as much as I study, say, early Modern Europe, but those are some observations I have made from a couple years playing/following the forums for EB. That being said, I eagerly await the doubtless inevitable Dachspwn to follow.

 

[Dachs]

Nah, you're doing just fine on your own.

I would like to add the minor point that Goldsworthy is one of the foremost authorities, both technical and tactical, on the Late Republican Roman military, so you can take his views on pilum use to be more or less on the spot

 

[jackhergh]

Thanks Owen.

So Rome did had some success using the phalanx against the Samnites? But eventually adopted the manipular formation that the Samnites were using because it offer more flexibility? Just wanted to make sure I'm understanding this.

And looks like I will need to pick up Goldsworthy's book one of these day. Thanks for that note as well.

 

[sophie]

Thanks Owen.

So Rome did had some success using the phalanx against the Samnites? But eventually adopted the manipular formation that the Samnites were using because it offer more flexibility? Just wanted to make sure I'm understanding this.

And looks like I will need to pick up Goldsworthy's book one of these day. Thanks for that note as well.

Not sure as I said I don't study this stuff very much. What I did say, however, was that it's possible that other city-states may have retained phalanx owing to greater success against the Samnites. That being said, I honestly have no idea how often the Samnites conflicted with other city-states, so this is all conjecture.

The Romans used the phalanx, but they probably switched to Manipular Formations (my guess being) that it is much more conducive to an infantry heavy army, especially considering that the Romans, like the Samnites, really didn't have much in the way of cavalry.

 

[Dachs]

It's worth noting that the rigid separation of armies into 'phalangial' and 'manipular' is rather overstating how much a technical development impacted war-fighting. Ultimately, the Romans beat the Samnites because they had more manpower and resources and could better mobilize that manpower and resources. Technical factors like manipular formations and whatnot are largely incidental or only a very small piece of the puzzle, as it were. Useful comments on that note can be found in Eckstein (2006).

 

[jackhergh]

ok thanks, both of you.

 

[sophie]

It's worth noting that the rigid separation of armies into 'phalangial' and 'manipular' is rather overstating how much a technical development impacted war-fighting. Ultimately, the Romans beat the Samnites because they had more manpower and resources and could better mobilize that manpower and resources. Technical factors like manipular formations and whatnot are largely incidental or only a very small piece of the puzzle, as it were. Useful comments on that note can be found in Eckstein (2006).

Oh definitely. The fact that they could effectively mobilize manpower and resources into armies was a big part of Rome's success, especially against the Italian City States as well as during the Punic Wars.

 

[Dachs]

Not just "a big part"; it's effectively the only thing that separated them from all of their other competitors in the Hellenistic Mediterranean state system.

 

[Lord Baal]

With that said, why were the Romans so much better at mobilisation than the other Hellenistic powers?

 

[Dachs]

This is a frustratingly poorly understood phenomenon, but usually it's traced to the unusual amount of autonomy Rome afforded most of its military allies after the Latin War. This conciliated them to Roman policy while providing Rome with a colossal amount of manpower. Such a policy was nowhere mirrored in the Hellenistic world, except (possibly) by the leagues of Achaia and Aitolia.