This video serves as part 2 in our series of recreating the Roman battle model. If you haven’t
already, check out part 1 so you’re up to date with our chronology of events until this point.
After going over the stages of pre-battle, moving into formation, approaching the enemy
and making contact, we can finally focus on the juicy topic of the battle itself...
Previously, I explained the phenomena of people wanting to stick together in the
chaos of battle. But this doesn’t mean they did it to the extreme of fighting shoulder to
shoulder and back to shield. This model, known as “othismos”, has been popular for Greek hoplites,
and Macedonian phalanxes, implying that entire units would push and shove each other in battle
until one side breaks, with the depth of ranks playing a key role. But even though Roman sources
often speak of armies “pushing” each other back, this is likely meant metaphorically. This can be
proven by the design of the Roman shield, which had a protruding metal boss, a horizontal grip,
and was not fastened at the elbow like the Greek Aspis shield, so we know it was not
designed to push with. We also have written evidence against the use of tight formations,
like Caesar at the Battle of the Sabis, when he noticed the 12th legion was too hard pressed
and ordered them to loosen their formations so they could use their swords more effectively.
Lastly, if battles were fought in relatively tight formations, there would be little need
for individual skill in combat, as it would be the unit’s overall cohesion that would win battles.
However, we know for sure that Romans, Gauls and Iberians had a large cultural emphasis on skilled
swordsmanship, which proves that men in battle must have had enough space to fight the enemy,
one-on-one. So it would be safe to say they held about 3 feet, or 1 meter, between themselves,
at least during the mid to late republican period, which is confirmed by Polybius. Only the
front line would overextend a larger distance to have enough space to comfortably fight,
before retreating back to the “safety zone” provided by the mass. In the last video,
I explained that frontrankers use far more of their shields than swords, which makes such
breakaways very easy to imagine, as their enemy is not continually pressing them. This model also
goes along with our 2nd point, introduced in the previous video, as it allows entire sections of
the army to move large distances. If a century is being pushed back, the unit behind could
comfortably take some steps back, without knocking each other over or compromising any space.
But the most useful part of this model is that it keeps the majority of units outside the moral
tension zone at all times, thus engaging only those necessary, and keeping the rest away from
extreme mental strain. Let’s not forget that those inside the combat zone would be looking
their enemy in the eye and fearing death at any moment. Their hearts would be pounding,
their bodies sweating and shaking with adrenaline - This is not a condition the body could endure
for long, and those behind them would be free from these extremes of mental exhaustion,
even though the stresses of dodging missiles and being the next one to fight are always present.
This model may he hard to take in at first, but is surprisingly common in human conflicts,
and can be seen in standoffs between rioting mobs and police, or in any boxing match, where all
parties are approaching each other with caution, only striking when opportunity presents itself
and then retreating to a safety zone, instead of lashing out continuous blows without rest.
Thus, much of the battle would be spent staring each other down and unleashing missiles and
insults, until one side worked up the courage to charge again. We can now more easily imagine such
battles lasting several hours if need be, until one side eventually breaks from the
continuous charges, flying missiles, or mental exhaustion. This “dynamic standoff” model seems
the most reasonable with our limited sources, with some of them even starting to make sense. Livy,
for example, records a battle in 310 BC in which the Etruscans purposely threw away their missiles
to motivate themselves to fight with swords, but this made it difficult for them to even
approach the Romans, who were continuously throwing javelins and rocks without fearing
enemy projectiles, before launching their own charge against the now disordered formations.
But if the depth of ranks does not increase the force or strength of a unit, then what was the
point of it? It was primarily to replace tired units, as it would only take minutes until the
front line of both sides would get exhausted, and they would ultimately have to disengage
to either catch their breath, or replace the tired and wounded. Another purpose of deeper
ranks was guarding the flanks, and we can see why flanking charges were so devastating;
not only because of the psychological shock, but also in forcing the ranks to squeeze together,
and denying them of a ‘safety zone’ to retreat to. This greatly hinders a unit’s cohesion and
ability to use their weapons effectively, which results in chaos, panic, and claustrophobia,
and was enough to break most formations and subject themselves to a slaughtering,
which is what happened to the Romans at the disastrous battle of Cannae.
Furthermore, space needed to be kept between centuries to not intermingle the men and to allow
access for commanders, messengers carrying orders, or even routing men to pass through. After all,
frightened men could knock over those behind them and break formations, and are as dangerous as the
actual enemy in this state. Having gaps between units was also an effective way to prevent the
spread of panic through the ranks, which could otherwise consume the whole army in a very short
amount of time… It is often assumed that barbarian armies came in disorganized battle lines, but most
of them had their own formations and battle dynamics to match the Romans. The Gauls, for
example, had each of their chieftains lead their personal retinues into battle, known as Ambacti,
consisting of up to a couple hundred men at best, which would likely also have space between them
for the same reasons the Romans did. Likewise, the importance of charges as being the decisive
factor in winning battles was very well known to them, and it was even engraved in their warrior
culture that Gallic nobility should be the first to enter battle, so the most skilled, experienced,
and well-equipped warriors were placed in the front ranks, to both deliver and absorb the
most frightening of charges. And countless other ancient armies followed this example.
Before we continue, a quick word from our sponsor, Atlas VPN. It is an easy to use software
with a clean display that can make the internet accessible and secure for anyone! Atlas VPN allows
you to easily change your IP Address to get real and organic search results when browsing the web,
ensuring that no one can track your activity or private information. What’s more is you
can use it to unlock content on Netflix or other streaming software that is otherwise geo locked to
another location. Simply select the country you want to access, click “connect”, and you’re all
set! You can now enjoy access to new content on streaming services, and even local prices
for online shopping. AtlasVPN also comes with an inbuilt system for blocking ads and malware. With
just one AtlasVPN subscription, you can protect an unlimited amount of devices, and ensure you are
always safe from data trackers, malware, while also enjoying the full extent of the internet!
Atlas VPN has the best deal on the market, so make sure you take advantage of their
limited summer deal! For just one dollar and 83 cents per month, you get all these
benefits plus 3 months extra! Click the link in the description to sign up today!
Regarding the Roman command structure, there is, interestingly, no definitive evidence for there
being a commander of each cohort during battle. According to modern scholars, the 6 centuries
that made up each cohort operated individually throughout the battle. The 80 men within each
century were able to achieve this flexibility thanks to 3 officers. The Centurion, who acted as
the unit’s commander, would lead and inspire the men from the front. Due to psychological factors,
it wasn’t the missiles, but the charges that played the decisive role in routing the enemy and
spreading panic. Modern studies have proven that the more aggressive and respected a centurion was,
the more likely his century was to rout the enemy in front of them, as his men will be more
confident and courageous in his presence, which is far more terrifying to their enemy. In fact,
it is precisely the quality of aggression that the Romans prized in their centurions,
with even Caesar saying that armies that see aggressive centurions as a
role model are more likely to be victorious. Unsurprisingly though, centurions had a high
mortality rate. The next key officer was the Optio, the second in command of the centurion,
who would stand in the back row to dissuade the unit from deserting and encourage them to fight
on. The last important officer was the Signifer, who’s key qualities were bravery and courage,
as he stood in the middle and held the unit’s proud standard up high. If the unit was a cell,
he was the nucleus, around whom the men could easily spot and rally to in the chaos of battle.
Thanks to these 3 officers, Roman centuries were able to operate like an “amoeboid” cell,
capable of altering its size, advancing, and falling back as it saw fit. The discipline
and small size of these units gave the Romans a key advantage over many of their opponents,
as they were able to launch more frequent and coordinated charges at the enemy,
as opposed to less disciplined barbarians,
of which only a few brave men would step up to lead charges.. Supporting this model are Livy’s
references to battles consisting of repeated charges and steady attacks and withdrawals.
We can also imagine the famous Roman “checkerboard” formation working here,
as the enemy will be drawn to attack the overextended centuries,
while only exchanging missiles with those behind. Most wouldn’t dare abuse the gaps,
as that would expose their flanks to enemy missiles and charges on all sides, and risk
being squeezed in and swiftly slaughtered… So this formation not only creates a trap for the enemy,
but also a system of continuous random waves of charges against the enemy,
as well as a way to make a steady and cautious withdrawal for heavily exhausted or wounded
centuries. In this way, we have satisfied our 3rd point of replacing tired men. In his commentaries,
Caesar even mentions fresh cohorts replacing tired ones at Ilerda, so perhaps these mechanics could
work on a larger scale, but we can't be sure. Battles were as diverse as the surrounding terrain
and the people fighting them, so depending on these, Roman armies would use different
formations and tactics. And they would have to adapt to any exceptions to our general model;
For example, if their enemy finds a way to expose the gaps in the checkerboard formation,
they could plug the holes and fight as a single battleline; when fighting cavalry, they could
tighten the formations and use their javelins as spears instead of projectiles; and if their enemy
had larger units, the centurions behind could send their optios with several men to bolster
the size of those in front.. You could see how disciplined and flexible subunits gave the Romans
a significant advantage over many of their foes. Lastly, it is important to understand what to do
after the enemy breaks. Vegetius warns to never overextend in a rout, as at any moment, the
enemy could rally, form a line and counter the now disorganized pursuers, and the exact reverse could
occur. Some battles are known to have been lost in this way. A highly disciplined army will know not
to make such a mistake, and to send the cavalry and light infantry forward instead. These troops
are perfect in these situations, as their speed adds even more panic to fleeing units, and even
if the enemy does rally, they can quickly fall back and let the infantry take over once again.
I hope you enjoyed this deep dive into Roman infantry combat. But there is still much more
we have to cover, like cavalry combat, hoplite warfare, and field strategies and maneuvers. So
consider subscribing and clicking the bell icon to stay updated. I would like to express my thanks to
our loyal and generous Patreons for helping make this video. I hope to see you all in the next one!