Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:09:34.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Face of Roman Battle*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Philip Sabin
Philip Sabin
Affiliation:
King's College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our perspectives on ancient history can sometimes be significantly affected by contributions from scholars of other disciplines. An obvious example from the military field is Edward Luttwak's 1976 book on The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Luttwak is a respected and insightful commentator on modern strategic issues, and his distinctive contribution was to analyse Roman military affairs in terms of modern concepts such as ‘armed suasion’ and the distinction between ‘power’ and ‘force’. His book has prompted considerable debate among specialist ancient historians, and although much of this has been critical of his ideas (largely due to the alleged anachronism of applying them in the Roman context), there is no doubt that the injection of this new dimension has helped to influence subsequent thinking on Roman imperial defence.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 90 , November 2000 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Philip Sabin 2000. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For examples of Luttwak's more modern writings, see his Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (1987), and ‘Toward post-heroic warfare’, Foreign Affairs 74/ 3 (1995), 109–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The debate is well summarized in Wheeler, E. L., ‘Methodological limits and the mirage of Roman strategy’, Journal of Military History 57 (1993), 7–41, 215–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See Hanson, V. D., The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (1989), ix–xiii, xxGoogle Scholar; Hanson, V. D. (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (1991), xviCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lloyd, A. B. (ed.), Battle in Antiquity (1996), vii–viiiGoogle Scholar.

4 See Anderson, J. K., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (1970)Google Scholar; Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, 5 vols (1971–1991)Google Scholar; Hanson, op. cit. (n. 3); Lazenby, J. F., The Spartan Army (1985)Google Scholar.

5 For excellent summaries of the contending arguments, see Luginbill, R. D., ‘Othismos: the importance of the mass-shove in hoplite warfare’, Phoenix 48/1 (1994), 51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldsworthy, A. K., ‘The othismos, myths and heresies: the nature of hoplite battle’, War in History 4/1 (1997), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Delbruck, H., History of the Art of War, 1, Warfare in Antiquity (trans. 1975)Google Scholar; Kromayer, J. and Veith, G., Heerwesen und Kriegfuhrung der Griechen und Romer (1928)Google Scholar.

7 See, for example, Peddie, J., The Roman War Machine (1994)Google Scholar; Gilliver, C. M., The Roman Army at War (1999).Google Scholar

8 See, in particular, A. K. Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, 100 BC–AD 200 (1996), chs 4–6; Sabin, P. A. G., ‘The mechanics of battle in the Second Punic War’, in Cornell, T. J., Rankov, N. B. and Sabin, P. A. G. (eds), The Second Punic War: A Reappraisal, BICS Supplement 67 (1996), 59–79Google Scholar; A. D. Lee, ‘Morale and the Roman experience of battle’, in Lloyd, op. cit. (n. 3), 199–217; Zhmodikov, A., ‘Roman Republican heavy infantrymen in battle (IV–II centuries BC)’, Historia 49/1 (2000), 67–78Google Scholar.

9 See Samuels, M., ‘The reality of Cannae’, Militargeschichtliche Mitteilungen 47 (1990), 7–29Google Scholar; Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The campaign and battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC)’, JHS 108 (1988), 60–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See Dixon, K. R. and Southern, P., The Roman Cavalry (1992)Google Scholar; Hyland, A., Equus: The Horse in the Roman World (1990)Google Scholar; eadem, Training the Roman Cavalry: from Arrian's Ars Tactica (1993); Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 228–44.

11 See H. van Wees, ‘Heroes, knights and nutters: warrior mentality in Homer’, in Lloyd, op. cit. (n. 3), 1–86; Sabin, P. A. G., ‘Maldon AD 991’, Slingshot 181 (1995), 26–31Google Scholar.

12 See Walsh, P. G., Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (1961)Google Scholar; Cornell, T. J., The Beginnings of Rome (1995), 1–30Google Scholar.

13 For an excellent survey of the impact of different styles of analysis among ancient writers, see Lendon, J. E., ‘The rhetoric of combat: Greek military theory and Roman culture in Julius Caesar's battle descriptions’, Classical Antiquity 18/1 (1999), 273–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Wheeler, E. L., ‘The legion as phalanx’, Chiron 9 (1979), 303–18Google Scholar.

15 A useful discussion of the treatises as a genre is Campbell, B., ‘Teach yourself how to be a general’, JRS 77 (1987), 13–29Google Scholar. See also Gilliver, op. cit. (n. 7).

16 See Bishop, M. C. and Coulston, J. C. N., Roman Military Equipment (1993).Google Scholar

17 See J. K. Anderson, ‘Hoplite weapons and offensive arms’; V. D. Hanson, ‘Hoplite technology in hoplite battle’, in Hanson, op. cit. (n. 3, 1991), 15–37, 63–84.

18 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 217–19; Connolly, P., ‘The Roman fighting technique deduced from armour and weaponry’, in Maxfield, V. A. and Dobson, M. J. (eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1989 (1991), 358–63.Google Scholar

19 See, in particular, the various essays in Lloyd, op. cit. (n. 3).

20 See Keegan, J., The Face of Battle (1976), 171–4.Google Scholar

21 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 201–6; idem, ‘Legionaries and warbands: an historical overview’, Slingshot 199 (1998), 9–14Google Scholar.

22 See Pritchett, op. cit. (n. 4, vol. 4, 1985), 47–51.

23 Krentz, P., ‘Casualties in hoplite battles’, GRBS 26/1 (1985), 13–20Google Scholar.

24 See Gabriel, R. A. and Metz, K. S., From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies (1991), 83–91Google Scholar.

25 The 5,700 dead which Hannibal suffered at Cannae represented 11 per cent of his force, but this is easily explicable in terms of the effort needed to annihilate a much larger Roman army.

26 See Lendon, op. cit. (n. 13).

27 As with other aspects of Roman battle, not much has been written on the topic recently. A good summary of the historical debate is in Holmes, T. Rice, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul (1911), 587-99Google Scholar, and more recently in Wheeler, op. cit. (n. 14). I hope to publish my own thoughts on the subject soon.

28 On the problems of Livy's account, see Rawson, E., ‘Literary sources for the pre-Marian army’, PBSR ns 26 (1971), 26–31Google Scholar.

29 For recent contributions on the subject, see Connolly, P., Greece and Rome at War (1981), 140–2Google Scholar, Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 138–40, and Gary Brueggeman's website on http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6622/.

30 See Hacket, J. (ed.), Warfare in the Ancient World (1989), 66–7.Google Scholar

31 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 206–12, 217–19.

32 On Greek references to such crowding, see Hanson, op. cit. (n. 3, 1989), 174–6.

33 See Bar-Kochva, B., The Seleucid Army (1976), 134–5, 167–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See , K. and Guest, D., British Battles (1996), 100–1.Google Scholar

35 See Peachey, S., The Mechanics of Infantry Combat in the First English Civil War (1992)Google Scholar; Reid, S., Gunpowder Triumphant (1987)Google Scholar.

36 See Head, D., Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, 359 BC to 146 BC (1982), 106, 111.Google Scholar

37 See Connolly, P., The Roman Army (1975), 8–9Google Scholar; idem, ‘Legion versus phalanx’, Military Illustrated 124 (1998), 36–41.Google Scholar

38 See Head, op. cit. (n. 36), 143–70.

39 The argument that hoplite battles took the form of such individual duels is advanced in Krentz, P., ‘The nature of hoplite battle’, Classical Antiquity 4/1 (1985), 50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Connolly, op. cit. (n. 29), 142.

41 This process is nicely illustrated in Warry, J., Warfare in the Classical World (1980), 126–7.Google Scholar

42 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 179–80.

43 See Fuller, J. F. C., Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier and Tyrant (1965), 90–1.Google Scholar

44 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 208, 257–8.

45 For example, even if we assume that just 5 percent of the troops were in the front rank, and that they struck their adversaries only every five seconds, and that less than 1 per cent of these attacks caused death or mortal injury, each army would suffer 5 per cent fatalities every ten minutes.

46 Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), ch. 5. Cf. Kromayer and Veith, op. cit. (n. 6), 361–2.

47 ibid., 219.

48 Marshall, S. L. A., Men against Fire (1947).Google Scholar

49 Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 222.

50 ibid., 224–7.

51 Zhmodikov, op. cit. (n. 8).

52 Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 199.

53 The Mainz relief is illustrated in Goldsworthy, A. J., Roman Warfare (2000), 76.Google Scholar

54 Sabin, op. cit. (n. 8).

55 See Griffith, P., Forward into Battle (2nd edn, 1990), ch. 2Google Scholar; idem, Rally Once Again: Battle Tactics in the American Civil War (1987) 140–5.Google Scholar

56 du Picq, A., Battle Studies, translated in Roots of Strategy, Book 2 (1987), 69Google Scholar.

57 ibid., 74.

58 See Hanson, op. cit. (n. 3, 1989), 160–1; Xenophon, An. 1.8, 1.10.

59 Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 21), 10–11.

60 Griffith, op. cit. (n. 55, 1990), ch. 2.

61 See van Wees, H., ‘Kings in combat: battles and heroes in the Iliad’, Classical Quarterly 38/1 (1988), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., The Biology of Peace and War (1979), 129–87.Google Scholar

62 See Sabin, op. cit. (n. 8), 73–7.

63 Penguin translation by A. de Selincourt.

64 Polybius (15.13) in this instance does not support the physical pressure interpretation, since he says that the key Roman advantages lay in the steadiness of their ranks and the superiority of their equipment, and that the principes gave support by cheering on, rather than shoving, their comrades.

65 The theoretical lethality of ancient missile weapons, and the importance of shields in reducing this, are discussed in Gabriel and Metz, op. cit. (n. 24), 70–5.

66 On the role of junior leaders such as centurions, see Isaac, B., ‘Hierarchy and command structure in the Roman army’, in le Bohec, Y. (ed.), La Hierarchie (Rangordnung) de l'armée romaine sous le haut-empire (1995), 23–31.Google Scholar

67 See Sabin, op. cit. (n. 8), 76–7.

68 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 219–27.

69 Du Picq, op. cit. (n. 56), 79.

70 Keegan, op. cit. (n. 20), 99.

71 ibid., 100–1.

72 See Goldsworthy, op. cit. (n. 8), 283–4.