The mechanism of Roman line relief

[Mark G]

Back on trarii,

teh key points is

"they would charge the enemy in one compact array"

i.e., the trarii are an attacking weapon - a mass de descision.

Yet we have all taken that very same description to mean that they are a defensive formation for the army to withdraw behind.

Its not, yes the exhausted H and P recover beind it - but not defensively, rather , they recover and rejoin the attack which the T lead.

Hence my point - they wre to attack with, once they H and P had worn down the enemy (Rome frequently got lucky in that the H and P would win on their own, but thats a side effect from the plan).

[Patrick Waterson]

This episode with the Livian legion (340 BC) is the last known example of their doing so, and the triarii's success was the result of a ruse.  We also lack any instances of the triarii seeing off the enemy during the Polybian period (c.311(?) to c.107 BC).

I think it is not so much that triarii are envisaged as the decisive weapon that will sweep the enemy off the field as that a spear-armed unit needed some impetus behind it to be effective, hence the get-together-and-charge.  In the Polybian legion the battles seem to have been won or lost by the hastati and principes (or won by the opponent's cavalry) without the triarii affecting the issue.  This seems to have been design rather than luck.  It is perhaps worth noting that in the Polybian legion the heavy infantry of the triarii are cut down to 600 from the 900 in the Livian legion.  One would expect their number to be increased rather than reduced if they were in fact the arm of decision rather than a vestigial and no longer seriously used part of the army.

[Justin Swanton]

Slightly on topic are these videos of Viking swordfighting technique. Using both sword and shield together should be quite tiring after a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiIDl_mt2c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc

[Justin Taylor]

Yep I see line relief as a plan, not a confused event. In fact as a confused event it is a failure.

[Erpingham]

Back on trarii,


i.e., the trarii are an attacking weapon - a mass de descision.

Yet we have all taken that very same description to mean that they are a defensive formation for the army to withdraw behind.

Maybe it's the translation but I find it difficult to read the triarii's intervention as part of a well oiled attack plan.  Why did "It came down to the triarii" mean a desperate situation?  Why the implication that the enemy believe the enemy is lost and are shocked to discover formed troops still to be overcome?  Or are you suggesting the retreat of the first two lines is a ruse, to bring the enemy in pursuit mode within striking distance of the "masse de decision"?

[aligern]

I had a look at the Viking swordfighting technique videos and was not impressed. The two guys concerned are moving far too fast and too fluidly for my view of Vikings.  They take up too much space and hit with little power.  My view of Vikings/Anglo Saxons etc. is that the main task is protection with the shield. Many men  have little head or shoulder protection, their safety is dependent upon keeping the shield high and  being protected by the men either side. The blows will be delivers with a major vertical swing aiming to batter down she shield and hit the head. To that end the sword and long axe are very heavy, too heavy for a fencing style and too long for stabbing ala Romain.  The best depiction that I have seen of this style is the duel  in the 13th Warrior.  In the Dark Ages it is about giving and receiving mighty blows and your rating as a man sort of depends upon how you do it.

For Romans its all about winning. There is no false heroism, dealing death is a practical matter. Efficiency is what counts and I suppose the manliness of getting in close.

Roy

[Erpingham]

In the Dark Ages it is about giving and receiving mighty blows and your rating as a man sort of depends upon how you do it.

"And Matty struck the very first blow, and hurt Lord Arnold sore,
Lord Arnold struck the very next blow, and Matty struck no more "

The trouble I have with Viking (and A/S ) battle descriptions, and for that matter later Medieval ones, is the detailed descriptions tend to be one on one fights, often in a formal setting like a duel or a tournament.  This very individualistic style doesn't reflect line-of-battle fighting, any more than Gladiatorial combat reflects legionary drill.  However, it is really a different thread.

For Romans its all about winning. There is no false heroism, dealing death is a practical matter. Efficiency is what counts and I suppose the manliness of getting in close.

Roy

Do we know this from our sources, or is it speculation?  Isn't there evidence of "conspicuous gallantry" both among centurions and also velites (some of whom wear wolfskins so as their heroics will be more noticeable)?

[aligern]

I think that we know it from our sources and I recall from Lendon's soldiers and ghosts!

I suspect that soldiers need motivation to take the risks of fighting and part of that motivation is to live up to your society's  particular martial ethos. Why do the British celebrate Balaclava rather than the Alma or  Isandlhwana rather than Gingindlovu or Ulundi.  It is a matter of particular culture and what sticks in my mind is a Roman general executing his son because he disobeyed orders and fought a duel.  I cannot imagine a Celt doing that,, the son would be being heroically praied and given the best portion of the roast animal.

I know there are doubts about how far one can use the Tain as evidence for the fighting style and ethos of the Celts on the continent, but it is a story of great blows with magic weapons and the application of heroic risk taking force.  Roman accounts are much more prosaic and about pushing and stabbing (Marius v the Cimbri/Teutones) and caesar than about heroic moments.

Roy

[Mark G]

my point on triarii is that we get too hung up on bon motts about 'down to the triarii'. as though it was evidence of an organisational intention.

It looks far more like the 'RAF - Rare As Fairies' to me, than it does as evidence of a tactical doctrine.


We should be looking at the conception when the system was first developed, and then trace its development / evolution forward through time.

What I see, is that the original fighting men were essentially all triarii - long spear, big shield, fairly typical.

Experiences like the Samnites up in the hills, the first celtic incursions, and I suspect also the increase in manpower which came from the beginnings of Rome's growth all triggered a need for a change in style.

So the three line deployment was devised.

But the Hastatti were initially just a heavier form of skirmisher than the velites, and with a heavier javelin and a better shield (buts still not much armour, and so fleeter of foot).  sort of like under 21s to the velites school boy leagues.  Potential not yet realised.

then the principes and the triarii fight 'properly' with long spears and big shields - the first fighting line of principes, and the second fighting line of veteran Triarii.

It soon proved that actually this heavy javelin followed up with a stabbing sword worked quite well, so the H and P were made more uniform, to maximise that.

But the fully equipped fighting men were still the triarii with full armour, spear and shield - the actual experienced veterans, remember, not a bunch of pensionable home guard types.

And further on, it was found that in fact there were hardly any times when the Triarii were being called upon so well did this pilum/sword combination work, and eventually even the triarii were similarly equipped as well.

remembering that most of the battles which we have good records for involving the Republican Romans seem to be over before the Triarii are called upon.

So the 'down to the triarii line fits in with the young men self agrandising, and as much in self bosting about who does all the work, as in gentle mocking of the older men or in defining a really tough fight)

If 'down to the trairii'was indicative of the need to retreat behind a defensive reserve, then the battle would be considered lost when the Principes were beaten.

But if DTTT was idicative of an unexpectedly hard battle requiring the use of the veterans, then the triarii were the weapon used to win the big battles.

So a hard battle would then be one which did require the triarii - but that is not to indicate that the triarii were a last resort, but rather that this opponent happened to be harder than others, - we actually had to use the veterans.

and hence, Triarii were the wqepon to win the big battles, the sort of thing you use to force a decision which is still in doubt - a fighting reserve.

Virtually every wargamer i have met has a conception of the Triarii being a defensive last resort, their usage indicating that the battle is almost lost.

Rather, I think it makes much more sense to view them as the expected battle winning weapon which time and usage gradually turned into something hardly required - unless it was a particularly tough day.

the difference is quite significant, I think.

[Erpingham]

Virtually every wargamer i have met has a conception of the Triarii being a defensive last resort, their usage indicating that the battle is almost lost.

Rather, I think it makes much more sense to view them as the expected battle winning weapon which time and usage gradually turned into something hardly required - unless it was a particularly tough day.

the difference is quite significant, I think.

The reason why almost all wargamers have this conception is the almost universal modern view (well, as universal as it can be when classical history is no longer studied) is that "Down to the Triarrii" means you are in the last chance saloon.  This is the interpretation I was taught at school, for example.  This is not to say it is correct but if you take your idea and translate it accordingly "it came down to the masse de decision" doesn't seem to have the right level of desperation.  I do agree though that things rarely got so bad that the triarii were needed in any form.  It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the relative use of the three lines - I suspect that a minority of actions were fought by the first line alone, the majority by the first two and probably the smallest number involved all three.

[Patrick Waterson]

Originally the triarii were not part of the line of battle at all: they were camp guards.  This would lend a new level of desperation to ad triarios ('down to the triarii').  At some point between 437 and 394 BC they became the third line, and this seems to have coincided with the change from a piecemeal relief system by sending small numbers of maniples up to weak points in the first line to a formal system of whole line relief.

The manipular system (sans triarii) appears to date from pre-500 BC (much earlier than expected), as Dionysius of Halicarnassus refers to a portent just prior to the final battle of the 505-503 BC Sabine War in which the Romans' hussois (a Greek word specifically used for pila) gleamed with fire during the night.  He adds a description of the weapon, and it is a pilum - no doubt.  So while the battle between Tarquin and the Roman Republic fought in 509 BC has all the elements of a hoplite battle (each side's right wing was victorious but the battle as a whole was indecisive) it would seem that the Roman Republic quickly abandoned the hoplite model, moving to a scutum-and-pilum-based soldier who fought in maniples and deployed in two battlelines (later known as the hastati and principes).  This may have come about because of the hit-and-run nature of the Sabine War, or because a substantial slice of the Tullian first class, who provided the hoplite-type infantry, sided with Tarquin rather than with the Republic (or were wiped out by Lars Porsenna), or both.  Or there may have been other reasons.  In any event, pila-and-scutum equipped infantry seem to have formed most if not all of the effective fighting force from 503 to 437 BC.

Hence the Republic's battles, at least down to 437 BC, were fought without triarii on the field.  From 394 BC one sees them lined up behind the principes, albeit not taking an active role unless all else fails, and from c.311(?) BC (after 314 BC but some time before 280 BC) they are reduced in establishment and from c.107 BC they start being abolished entirely. 

One may also note that when the 'Livian' legion (300 skirmishers, 900 hastati heavy foot, 1,200 principes heavy foot, 900 triarii heavy foot) changed to the 'Polybian', the number of hastati (1,200 heavy foot) marginally increased while the number of skirmishers shot up from 300 leves to 1,200 velites.  This leads me to conclude that hastati could not have been skirmishers, otherwise the 'Polybian' legion would not have needed 900 additional skirmishers to do the job for them.

Mark's idea of the triarii as 'la Garde' is an interesting one, but to me the logic of rating them as an arm of decision when to our knowledge they only ever decided one battle - and that by using a ruse - is somewhat questionable.

Patrick

[Mark G]

when do you date the principes changing from spear to pilum, Patrick?

[Mark G]

I am a bit dubious about the chronology which you present above Patrick.


the chronology I recognise is that it was not until the Samnite wars that the manipular legion was formed.

i.e. nearer to 300 b.c not 400 b.c.

while their may well be a linguistic history which includes 'triarii' before then, it was meaningless in the context upon which we understand Triarii now.

I also see little real evidence for pila-and-scutum operations forming 'most of if not all of the effective fighting force from 503 to 437 B.C.'
all the physical evidence and illustrations which we have seem to show something much closer to a long spear armed fighting man in that period as the main fighting man. 
I don't see any evidence at all of the Sabine war instituting the pila-sword combination into Rome as the main combination, nor of Lars Porsena ending the Hoplite class and only leaving Pila armed Romans left. 
Happy to see some real evidence of this, as it would make an early Roman army much more interesitng to prepare as a project, but I just don't see it for now other than passing references to individual pieces of equipment without any tactical or artistic context to put them into.

Additionally, I doubt the introduction of a third line of triarii as early as 400 b.c.  In fact I doubt a meaningful first and second line of fighting men in this period - and rather see a fighting line and a skirmish line.

So if you are defining Triarii in 400 b.c. as the camp guards, well, they had to hang around somewhere I suppose, but this period was still the early period where there was one fighting line, there were skirmishers in front of it, and there was a camp behind it, but the development of hastatii and principes is not related to this.

the chronology which I recognise is much closer to Polybius.

Taking the Samnite wars as an approximate date - and cause - this is when we get the introduction of a multiple line triplex system.

And with that chronology, we have a reasonable amount of evidence and understanding of the Triarii as evolving from the first class, the main fighting men, who fought with large shield and long spear.

The principes started out as essentially the same fighting men, but younger/less well armoured - equipped with armour, large shield and long spear - arguably from the second class (although I think that may stretch the accuracy of the 5 classes as modelled in Livy a bit too far) - and with a specific role to perform in front of the main fighting veterans.

Hastatii, with their lack of armour comparable to the T and P are thus a heavier layer of missile capability after the velites - not skirmishers per-se, since they are expected to fight, but equally, not expected to do the bulk of the fighting, rather they are given serious javelins to properly soften the enemy up before the P begin the battle proper.

Experience soon shows that pila and sword is more effective than spear alone (and hence also the change in relative numbers you reference, which is part of the refinement of the Polybian system in the mid republic, not part of the change from Camillan to Polybian in the early republic), but this, for me, meets the basic definition.

Even if you take on Livy's notions of the Camillan reforms, which I am less than convinced by as it seems like another stretch to make his notions of the servian classes seem consitent (the numbers are quite unbelievable), you still have hastatii with spears but no armour - and therefore fitting into the main line of battle, rather than forming a separate line of battle in front on their own.

And if you accept Livy's notions of cammillus, then you must also accept that his rorarii and accesnii are the camp guards - which takes us back to the definition of triarii as camp guards and therefore behind the main fighting line i.e. irrelevant for all but the biggest defeats.

the dating of ad triarios  is also probably relevant here - and I am pretty sure I remember it being well into the polybian period that this was first recorded - but if it was indeed very early, then it would be correct as an indicator that things were despirate, since it was down to the camp guards.  But equally, it would be an anachronism to apply ad triatios to the Triarii of the Plyian legion if that were the case, since the name may be the smae but everything else about them has changed.

Do we even have an example of a camillan arrayed battle which indicates a sucession of fighting lines?

At least we agree that defining 'really early' Romans as hoplites is problematic - but it doesnt follow that they therefore did not have large shields and long spears.  The basic fighting man for hundreds of years was one with a large shield and a long spear, only some of them were hoplites.

[Patrick Waterson]

Let us start with the original Roman army as per Livy I.43 and Dionysius IV.16-18.

The first class are unambiguously hoplite-equipped and have 80 'centuries', a politico-administrative unit rather than a military organisation.  The second and third classes are similarly equipped (and between themselves amount to 80 'centuries') but have a scutum rather than a clipeus and less armour.  The fourth class are either unarmoured third-class equivalents (Dionysius) or spear-and-javelin armed (Livy).  The fifth class have slings (Livy) or javelins and slings (Dionysius) and are clearly missile troops, almost certainly skirmishers.

This is to all intents and purposes the army which fights the Roman Republic's first battle in 509 BC (against Tarquin, who wants his throne back).  Tarquin fields what one presumes is a similar army.  Each side wins on the right, loses on the left.  Eventually the winner is decided by the fact that the Republicans lost one man less.  It is basically a hoplite battle fought by a hoplite army with many of the poorer troops fighting as rear-rankers rather than as skirmishers.

The Lars Porsena turns up, chases the Romans back into their city (and according to Tacitus actually occupies it) but declines to reinstate Tarquin.  Inference: the Republic lost a battle.  They may also have had a rethink about their army.  Lars P then goes off and gets himself killed, leaving the Republic free by default.  Next comes the war with the Sabines (505-503 BC).

This war was an affair of outposts and ambushes, not set-piece battles, until the final engagement (which the Romans won).  Dionysius includes this intriguing snippet about a portent on the night before the final battle:

"It was as follows: From the javelins [hussos] at were fixed in the ground beside their tents (these javelins [hussos] are Roman weapons which they hurl and having pointed iron heads, not less than three feet in length, projecting straight forward from one end, and with the iron they are as long as spears of moderate length) — from these javelins [hussos] flames issued forth round the tips of the heads and the glare extended through the whole camp like that of torches and lasted a great part of the night." - Dionysius V.46.2

'Hussos' is the customary Greek specialist word for the Roman pilum, as in Polybius VI.23.8.  The description given by Dionysius is unmistakably that of a pilum.

So what are the Romans doing with pila in 503 BC?  The obvious answer is: using them for battle.  Pila and hoplite formations do not mix.  Inference: the Romans had given up hoplite formations.

Now for triarii.  Back to the Republic's first battle in 509 BC.

" ... those of the Tyrrhenians who were posted on the enemy's right wing and commanded by Titus and Sextus, the sons of King Tarquinius, put the left wing of the Romans to flight, and advancing close to their camp, did not fail to attempt to take it by storm; but after receiving many wounds, since those inside stood their ground, they desisted. These guards were the triarii, as they are called; they are veteran troops, experienced in many wars, and are always the last employed in the most critical fighting, when every other hope is lost." - Dionysius V.15.4

Triarii are also camp guards in Dionysius VIII.86.

"But when, after attacking the hill and surrounding the camp, they [the Volsci] endeavoured to pull down the palisades, first the Roman horse, obliged, from the nature of the ground, to fight on foot, sallied out against them, and, behind the horse, those they call the triarii, with their ranks closed. These are the oldest soldiers, to whom they commit the guarding of the camp when they go out to give battle, and they fall back of necessity upon these as their last hope when there has been a general slaughter of the younger men and they lack other reinforcements."

They are still at it in 480 BC:

"apart from the triarii and a few younger troops, the rest of the crowd then in the camp consisted of merchants, servants and artificers" - Dionysius IX.12.1

"These met with but slight resistance, and whilst they were wasting time by thinking more about plundering than about fighting, the Roman triarii, who had been unable to withstand the first assault, despatched messengers to the consul to tell him the position of affairs, and then, retiring in close order to the head-quarters tent, renewed the fighting without waiting for orders." - Livy II.47.5

and in 437 BC:

"Fabius Vibulanus first manned the rampart with a cordon of defenders; and then, when the attention of the enemy was fixed on the wall, sallied out of the Porta Principalis, on the right, with his triarii, and fell suddenly upon them." - Livy IV.19.8

The first time we see triarii in the field is 394 BC:

"triarii Romani muniebant, alius exercitus proelio intentus stabat" (The Roman triarii dug defences, the rest of the army stood ready for battle.) - Livy V.26.6/7

They are doing the same in 350 BC:

"The Romans without a pause in their work, triarii erant qui muniebant (the triarii were digging defences), began the action with their troops of the first and second lines, who had been standing alert and armed in front of the working party." - Livy VII.23.7

The legion of 350 BC would be substantially the same legion as that of 340 BC, the latter being described in Livy VIII.8, with which we should all now be familiar.  The legion of 394 BC does what the legion of 350 BC does, but not the legion of 437 BC.

As to tactical procedures ...

The battle against the Hernici in 486 BC illustrates the system of piecemeal reinforcement that appears to have prevailed between the short-lived hoplite system (obit pre-503 BC) and the recognisable 'Livian' legion of Livy VIII.8 (394-314 BC).

"Then there was a glorious struggle as both armies fought stubbornly; and for a long time they stood firm, neither side yielding to the other the ground where they were posted. At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engage in war. 3 Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress." (Dionysius VIII.65.2-3)

Triarii are not involved.  As we have seen, they were guarding the camp as of 486 BC.  The two lines would appear to be the forerunners of what would later become the hastati and principes, and the apparent interchangeability of maniples of both lines suggests they were identically armed.

As can be seen, there is plenty in our sources to not just support but practically dictate a very early adoption of a pilum-and-scutum armed maniple-based early legion.  Thanks to Dionysius, we can put the likely beginning date as somewhere between 505 and 503 BC.  Thanks to Livy, we can put the date when this early legion (the 'proto-manipular legion', as we might call it) changed to the three-line formation with triarii on the field as between 437 and 394 BC.

Anyway, we can read all about it in Slingshot 287, and Rodger Williams can take a bow. 

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

So what are the Romans doing with pila in 503 BC?  The obvious answer is: using them for battle.  Pila and hoplite formations do not mix.  Inference: the Romans had given up hoplite formations.

Of course, if you follow Hans van Wees' view of hoplites, there is no reason why pila should be incompatible with 6th-century hoplite formations....

But overall, I despair of the early Romans. Every statement in one ancient source is contradicted in another. For example, Patrick shows Dionysios describing pila being used as early as the 6th century; yet the Ineditum Vaticanum specifically says that the pilum was adopted during the Samnite wars. It's hard to see how they can both be right. And similar contradictions are everywhere.

I increasingly find myself believing nothing about early Roman history at all.