Roman legionary infantry from Lemens, Chris on 1997-03-13 (Glorantha Digest Vol 04)

From: Lemens, Chris <CNU!AUSTIN3!lemens_at_cnucorp.attmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:35:00 +0000

Jose Ramos (Jose.Ramos_at_univ-angers.fr) says that Roman legionary infantry ran from cavalry. I'd agree with him as to late imperial legionaries (who ran from just about anything) because cavalry then was essentially tank regiments, as Jose correctly describes them. Legionary infantry from late republican (say after the Sullan (?) reforms) to middle imperial times could and did eat cavalry for lunch (especially if, as Jose notes obliquely, the Romans got to pick the battle ground). Most cavalry was essentially mounted infantry or skirmishers.

Martin Laurie <102541.3423_at_compuserve.com> says lots of true stuff about phalanxes & legionary infantry. I still disagree with him, but it is a matter of emphasis more than anything else. I think the fact that legions did not mind travelling with unreliable allies who had both cavalry and pike phalanxes means that they were pretty confident that they could prevail in any conflict. That's not to say that beating a phalanx is easy.

Nor do I disagree with him that the best effect of a pilum is to throw it through someone. But the main reason it was made as it was (from the pointy end: barbed head, collapsing metal shaft, heavy weight, wooden haft) was to make shield use difficult for people who had thick enough shield that they didn't get stuck. A two and a half foot piece of wood sticking out of the shield of a guy a foot away from you is really awkward when you are trying to stay in formation, which (as Martin notes) is the crucial element to the success of a phalanx. It is even more inconvenient when there is a foot of pointy metal sticking out the inside of your shield, even if it missed you in the first place.

Nor do I disagree that pre-stirrup lancer cavalry was effective in the roles it played. As Martin notes, this did not include the medieval tactic of charging undisrupted infantry, which usually _did_ succeed in medieval times when the charge was not met with pikes, long bows, or both. Pre-stirrup cavalry simply did not have that option. They were used for skirmishing, routing disrupted units, and flank attacks. The standard cavalry tactic for republican Rome was to attempt to drive the enemy cavalry from the field before the infantry battle was decided so that the cavalry could flank the infantry. In medieval times (assuming you were not facing pikes and longbows), you just would have put your knights in the middle of your field (where they doubtlessly would meet opposing knights). As Martin notes, the uncouched lance is like a hoplite's spear; indeed, I'd say that Roman cavalry was more like fast, tall infantry than like a medieval knight. But opinions can reasonably differ.

Chris Lemens