Ancient & Modern

I notice from time to time that people compare modern day army organisation with that of ancient Rome - thats understandable given the image of the legions as an organised miltary machine. The comparisons are most accurate when based on the post-Marian army, which established the professional status of roman soldiers. However, such comparisons are misleading - here's why.

Modern Day

Modern armies rely on a pyramid structure - orders are passed down the chain of command to whichever subdivision is capable or intended of handling the task.

In the modern army, a soldier is promoted within a pyramid structure to a certain rank. This automatically gives him a defined level of responsibility and authority. He is then assigned a task commensurate with his status, which can be reassigned on requirement.

Senior command officers are promoted into their roles within the normal army organisation.

Ancient Rome

Legions are autonomous fighting organisations which may be assigned to an overall commander. Orders are passed down to the centurions, commanders of the cohort (the basic fighting unit of post-marian armies). Junior ranks may assume command in the place of centurions according to circumstance.

In the Roman Legion, a soldier is promoted to a duty, a task, a responsibility already defined by legionary organisation. He is then given enough authority to complete his duties. Although his actual duties can change, they fall within a narrow band of possibilities allowed by his status.

Senior command officers are often political appointees and receive their assignments as a result of status in civilian life and the need for military credibility in their careers.

Notice however that Augustus makes a compromise between these two alternatives. He introduces the Tribunes Augusticlavii, five executive officers that can be assigned any role in the modern fashion within the legion, a move toward a more flexible command structure that was not carried any further, although it must also be pointed out that senior legionary posts were defined more rigidly in his reforms.

In the Roman Legion, a soldier is promoted to a duty, a task, a responsibility already defined by legionary organisation. He is then given enough authority to complete his duties. Although his actual duties can change, they fall within a narrow band of possibilities allowed by his status.

 

Senior command officers are often political appointees and receive their assignments as a result of status in civilian life and the need for military credibility in their careers.

This could be said for some modern armies as well, for example the German Army until the end of WWI had the most senior command positions reserved for the aristocrats while usually the plebs didn't manage to manage to rise above the lower officers ranks.

Actually, isn't the modern military career open to talent (rather than birth) a result of the French revolution ? Only in the later Roman Empire did common soldiers rise to be commanders of units, armies and even to the imperial throne. The next time this happened was in the 1790's wasn't it?

Actually, isn't the modern military career open to talent (rather than birth) a result of the French revolution ? Only in the later Roman Empire did common soldiers rise to be commanders of units, armies and even to the imperial throne. The next time this happened was in the 1790's wasn't it?

In the British Army, rank was bought in the form of a commission, though rankers could be given a field commission for valour, but this was rare.

Usually revolutionary change ended aristocratic officers. In WWII the Germans stopped having Junkers command, instead promoting officers for their talent. After the Russian Revolution the RKKA abolished ranks altogether, until later on when they were reintroduced. And, as you pointed out, Napoleon's officers were promoted entirely on the basis of merit.

Later, in the mid-Nineteenth Century, the British stopped selling commissions. I don't believe the U.S. ever sold commissions, though I could be wrong.

This could be said for some modern armies as well, for example the German Army until the end of WWI had the most senior command positions reserved for the aristocrats while usually the plebs didn't manage to manage to rise above the lower officers ranks.

Yes I thought someone would say that. But that was WWI - not the modern day. Nonetheless the point you raise reinforces the view that the romans weren't so unusual in their behaviour, and that the exploitation of status and wealth is purely a reflection of human social behaviour. We are discussing established and relatively stable nations too, not the mercurial third world for whom bribery is a way of life, and in any case, most of those have little if any connection with a roman past. Social status is a primary instinct in human beings - thats why we covet certain cars, larger homes, places in the country, certain hairstyles and fashions. In every human endeavour, your 'place' in society dictates your treatment and limits. In the modern west, these limits are now somewhat blurred and diluted. Still there, of course, but the old respect for status has gone. In roman times, its noticeable that more often than not these temporary officers failed to produce the required victory, and only then did the romans search for a potential officer who could avoid a disaster. Social status was more important than merit, and it must be remembered too that the romans may well assign someone to lead the entire army because of their status, something that does not occur in recent times.

The entire concept of the roman army is different from ours. Today we have a highly strutured military hierarchy that can pass an order down from the highest rank to the lowest. A squad of infantry has more firepower than entire battalions of of men in the flintlock musket era. In fact, the concetration of men on the ground is nothing like what is was - to have too many men on the ground in one place is Not A Good Thing.

The romans fought en masse. They gathered together in cohorts on the field to take on their adversaries. It was not necessary to organise thier squads (conterbernium for the purposes of combat, although these groups of 'close companions' had certain administrative and morale bonuses. The cohort would not ordinarily subdivide to fight.

In charge of this cohort is a centurion. Its easy to see him as simply a man with a certain level of authority, but thats a modern perspective. The centurion was expected to lead, inspire, and discipline his men. He was the head of the cohort, the motivation and punisher of it. His second in command was the Optio, the 'Chosen Man'. With these points in mind, it can be said that the cohort is the formalised evolution of the roman warband of its earliest days. The centurion is therefore evolved from the role of a tribal chief, the bold warrior leading his tribe to war. After all, the centurion was expected to lead from the front, to engage in melee with his men, to provide an example of courage and skill in battle beside wielding the vine staff. And wield them they did. Centurions were notorious as hard taskmasters. The cohort was His.

But what about the lesser ranks? In most cases, these were specific roles within legionary organisation and not simply levels of authority as we see today. However, these junior ranks also performed a useful service. They might for instance resolve many of the minor issues arising from eighty men living in close and claustrophobic campsites and forts. The centurion wouldn't want to deal with every petty issue, and in any case, from the mens perspective it was better that the centurion didn't hear about it until after it was solved - Once the centurion got involved, it was official, and action to resolve the issue would take place, often painfully.

The centurionate is unusual in that it had specified ranks within its order. This reflects the professional status of career officers. It was important to give these men an avenue of advancement. Centurions did not retire as other legionaries did, they could carry on serving as long as they were capable. This was to preserve their command and battle experience, to maintain the standards of discipline within the legion.

The legion is therefore a union of stylised warbands under the command of their social superiors.

Ancients had no formal training for the officer corps, they were either handed a rank for political reasons or were gradually promoted. After 1700 officer training became spread across european armies even those that bought their commisions had to go this schools.

The lack of formal training is one reason why many romans of good background were given placements as junior officers. They learned on the job so to speak. It was a roman tradition that a sentor should have military experience, and there are stories of them opening their togas in the senate to show their wounds, to demonstrate that they have fought for Rome. Since the early days of Rome were something of a fight for survival, this defensive mindset emerged later as respect for courage and combat experience - without it, you were a lesser man.

Its become apparent that many people are struggling to understand the roman system of command and control. Of course you do, so does everyone else, we have only a few scant sources to go by and no-one of the lower ranks has left any record of their experience.

The modern military is easy to understand. We have grown up and been educated in an era where the modern system exists, some of us have experience of it in real life, and for us its almost second nature.

The romans thought of their own system as second nature too, and although their methodolgies sometimes paralleled our own, it belonged to a different culture and mindset. Sure, we can compare various subdivisions and attempt to equate those with forces we undertstand, but isn't that like trying to understand real life by studying soap operas?

The modern regimental system has its origins in the 1600's, and only really developed in sophistication over the last 100 or 200 years to cope with the need to occupy huge swathes of territory and cope with mechanised warfare with heavy weapon and air support beyond visual range. Modern armies are widely dispersed, way beyond the ability of a general to see for himself whats going on, and he relies absolutely on communication from lower strata to know whats going on at all.

For the roman general, everything is close at hand. Even if he commands huge numbers of men, its likely he can view directly much of what goes on. Also, the need for soldiers of ancient times to communicate up and down a chain isn't necessary. Such means are not available in most cases, so they act on their own cognisance, based on what they observe and the need to support each other. Units are not dispersed - they are massed together. They cannot radio for artillery or air support - the technology doesn't exist. All their battlefield assets are already in place (although there are cases of allies approaching from another place - such things have always happened in warfare).

Comparing a roman legion to a similar size unit in the US Marines is ridiculous. The two are composed of men with different fighting methods and mindset.

Consider this... Your unit, a small infantry squad, is ordered to advance along a road to secure a small village. You come under heavy fire. Pinned down, you call your HQ for support. They tell you to hold tight, and within fifteen minutes shells start whistling overhead. Unfortunately this has attracted attention to yourselves, and your squad leader observes enemy AFV's approaching along the road nearby. Your situation is getting out of hand. HQ informs you they have no more support (presumably the enemy is reacting across a broad front elsewhere too) and a fall back is required. However, the general will soon learn via his intelligence officers that an enemy counterattack is in progress. He assigns reserves some miles back, and by tomorrow your brigade will focus its attention on your original target....

You see? its all communication back and forth. The easiest way to beat an enemy is to wreck his command and control. Once you take out the ability of the pyramid to pass mesaages up down and along, the whole organisation crashes into chaos.

The romans never really had that problem. Marc Antony was able to control an army of thirty legions, some 150,000 men, plus naval assets anchored along the coast. He had no radio. He had no pyramid structure to pass messages to and fro. What he did was organise the legionary commanders and make them aware of exactly what was required for the next day. Now thats easy to interpret in terms of a pyramid - whats the difference you ask? - but that army of thirty legions was simply a gathering of thirty legions. There was no corps, division, or brigading of those men to enable local command. Antony wanted as much direct control over his legions as he could.

Your cohort is ordered to advance - you heard the trumpet call. The centurion calls the order but its expected anyway. The order came from the generals position up there on the hill, and the entire legion - all of its cohorts - advance as one. The village nearby is ignored - it has no military value. A man does not skulk in the shadows, he stands shoulder to shoulder with his friends and fights with courage. The enemy have seen your advance. How could they not see it? Arrows swoop down in great clusters. You use your shield for protection - waht fool wouldn't? - but the advance continues as you step over a handful of dead or wounded legionaries. Does the general observe the enemy archery? Probably, but risk is everything in warfare, and as you approach, the trumpet call for "Charge!" is heard. The centurion raises his sword, calls the order, and you begin to rush forward as the barbarians ready themselves for mortal combat. The next line behind waits ready to rush to support you, but for now, you must fight....

Later, in the mid-Nineteenth Century, the British stopped selling commissions. I don't believe the U.S. ever sold commissions, though I could be wrong.

In the Civil War, we did. Some even formed up their own units. Some could buy their way out of the draft for $300.00

There were other commands beetwen legion commander and C-in-C. In many descriptions of battles we hear that the left wing was lead by Cassius, center by Ocatavian and right by Caesar (that had probaly little control on what was going on the other side) also Agrippa was with the fleet, M. Antonius was leading the cavalry while Cato defended the luggage.

This commands were temporary and for a given task, but they existed. I also believe that any leader had some form of staff that helped with signaling and transmission of orders.

Agreed, but they aren't ranks are they? They are responsiibilities allocated temporarily. These men were not given control of formations designed to co-ordinate units beneath them, they simply had the authority to control them. Thats the difference.

The name Legio is coeval with the foundation of Rome, and always denoted a body of troops, which, although subdivided into several smaller bodies, was regarded as forming an organised whole. It cannot be held to have been equivalent to what we call a regiment, inasmuch as it contained troops of all arms, infantry, cavalry, and, when military engines were extensively employed, artillery also; it might thus, so far, be regarded as a complete army, but on the other hand the number of soldiers in a legion was fixed within certain limits, never much exceeding 6000, and hence when war was carried on upon a large scale, a single army, under the command of one general, frequently contained two, three, or more legions, besides a large number of auxiliaries of various denominations. In like manner the legion being complete within itself, and not directly or necessarily connected with any other corps, cannot be translated by battalion, division, detachment, nor any other term in ordinary use among modern tacticians.

 

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, D.C.L., L.L.D

That pretty much says the same as me.

The name Legio is coeval with the foundation of Rome, and always denoted a body of troops, which, although subdivided into several smaller bodies, was regarded as forming an organised whole. It cannot be held to have been equivalent to what we call a regiment, inasmuch as it contained troops of all arms, infantry, cavalry, and, when military engines were extensively employed, artillery also; it might thus, so far, be regarded as a complete army, but on the other hand the number of soldiers in a legion was fixed within certain limits, never much exceeding 6000, and hence when war was carried on upon a large scale, a single army, under the command of one general, frequently contained two, three, or more legions, besides a large number of auxiliaries of various denominations. In like manner the legion being complete within itself, and not directly or necessarily connected with any other corps, cannot be translated by battalion, division, detachment, nor any other term in ordinary use among modern tacticians.

 

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, D.C.L., L.L.D

 

That pretty much says the same as me.

un-informed

J Caesar commanded multiple legion. it is a fact, even Marc Anthony, how about Imperator Augustus?

Uninformed? RW, the quote above is from someone who knew a great deal more than you. Sneering will get you nowhere.

Yes, Caesar commanded a number of legions. Yes, so did Antony. Yes, so did Augustus. So whats your objection? Shall I tell you? You see the romans as a formal army in the modern fashion. You are unable to divorce yourself from what you know and understand, which is modern practice. The roman way of doing things was different. Caesar, Antony, and Augustus may have commanded large armies, but those armies were nothing more than a gathering of independent legions. There were absolutely no umbrella formations - no defined armies, no corps, divisions, or brigades, nothing of that sort in any way whatsoever.

The modern regimental system uses umbrella formations to control a number of regiments which are specialist, a factor more important in modern mechanised warfare than ever before. In Caesars time a legion was a one-size-fits-all military formation for the purpose of conducting a campaign. They were all pretty much identical, could operate independently, and the troops were loyal to their commander rather than the nation state.

Further, the quote refers largely to a period of history before the Caesars time, including the hoplite army which as you've so carefully detailed yourself, was composed of troops raised in the greek hoplite fashion. Those hoplites weren't professional soldiers at all. There was no formal training or requirement to serve in peacetime. They were simply ordinary citizens called up to fight when necessary, using arms and armour they could affford or obtain.

So why can't you provide references or documentary evidence for your assertions?

Uninformed? RW, the quote above is from someone who knew a great deal more than you. Sneering will get you nowhere.

 

Yes, Caesar commanded a number of legions. Yes, so did Antony. Yes, so did Augustus. So whats your objection? Shall I tell you? You see the romans as a formal army in the modern fashion. You are unable to divorce yourself from what you know and understand, which is modern practice. The roman way of doing things was different. Caesar, Antony, and Augustus may have commanded large armies, but those armies were nothing more than a gathering of independent legions. There were absolutely no umbrella formations - no defined armies, no corps, divisions, or brigades, nothing of that sort in any way whatsoever.

 

The modern regimental system uses umbrella formations to control a number of regiments which are specialist, a factor more important in modern mechanised warfare than ever before. In Caesars time a legion was a one-size-fits-all military formation for the purpose of conducting a campaign. They were all pretty much identical, could operate independently, and the troops were loyal to their commander rather than the nation state.

 

Further, the quote refers largely to a period of history before the Caesars time, including the hoplite army which as you've so carefully detailed yourself, was composed of troops raised in the greek hoplite fashion. Those hoplites weren't professional soldiers at all. There was no formal training or requirement to serve in peacetime. They were simply ordinary citizens called up to fight when necessary, using arms and armour they could affford or obtain.

 

So why can't you provide references or documentary evidence for your assertions?

The most influential military treatise in the western world from Roman times to the 19th Century was Vegetius' DE RE MILITARI. Its impressions on our own traditions of discipline and organization are everywhere evident.

The Austrian Field Marshal, Prince de Ligne, as late as 1770, called it a golden book and wrote: "A God, said Vegetius, inspired the legion, but for myself, I find that a God inspired Vegetius." Richard Coeur de Lion carried DE RE MILITARI everywhere with him in his campaigns, as did his father, Henry II of England. Around 1000 A. D. Vegetius was the favorite author of Foulques the Black, the able and ferocious Count of Anjou. Numerous manuscript copies of Vegetius circulated in the time of Charlemagne and one of them was considered a necessity of life by his commanders. A manuscript Vegetius was listed in the will of Count Everard de Frejus, about 837 A. D., in the time of Ludwig the Just.

In his Memoirs, Montecuculli, the conqueror of the Turks at St. Gotthard, wrote: "However, there are spirits bold enough to believe themselves great captains as soon as they know how to handle a horse, carry a lance at charge in a tournament, or as soon as they have read the precepts of Vegetius." Such was the reputation of Vegetius for a thousand years.