Studying the Roman fighting style is no simple
thing. It spans over a thousand years, to say nothing
of the Byzantines, which is a different animal entirely. In the west, if you look at Rome's basic tactical
framework in a general way, it can be divided into three distinct systems. These systems have remarkably little to do
with each other, and were constructed to accomplish three very different goals. It's actually astounding that they all belong
to the same culture. Today I want to talk about all three of these
in turn. Let's get started. The Phalanx system was the first system Rome
adopted. It came directly from Greece, as a result
of early Greek influence on the Italian peninsula. A Phalanx was a unit of tightly grouped armoured
spear-men, who moved and fought as one. There's a reason that the Greek fighting style
was being appropriated by these foreigners. Phalanxes were tough. Damned near invincible, actually. They were slow, but once they came into contact
with the enemy the combined weight of the entire unit was too much for anybody to handle,
unless it was met with another phalanx. So the early Romans straight up stole this
fighting technique. They used it with a lot success against some
of their neighbours who fought in a much less organized way. The standard way to array phalanxes was in
one long straight line, as you can see here. Any enemy charging into this would have been
met with one giant wall of spears. The early battles would have been pretty lopsided,
as the Romans just plowed over these undisciplined guys in loose formations. The only bad things about phalanxes is that
they were very slow, and had a hard time turning. Also, because of the way that everybody had
to support the spear-men at the front, they couldn't fight in more than one direction
at once. The more traditional way to counteract this
was to put a lot of cavalry on the wings to protect from any flanking attacks. They could also chase down any faster enemies
that the phalanxes couldn't catch. For whatever reason the Romans never really
did much of this, but they were successful all the same. This worked for a long time, but it started
to get the Romans into trouble as they began to expand into central Italy. This area is mountainous, which is not ideal
for the slow moving straight lines of the phalanx. It's hard to keep a line like this perfectly
straight as you move up a hill, for example. If you have to move around some rocky, impassable
terrain, the entire line has to be broken up, which is the perfect time for the enemy
to attack. Moreover, the inhabitants of this region were
no slouches. They used hit and run tactics, and lots of
projectile weapons. Even when they closed in for hand to hand
fighting, these were tough mountain men, and they gave the Romans a run for their money. The Romans suffered a string of defeats, and
began to seriously reevaluate how they fought. Maniples were an ingenious solution to this
very specific problem with the phalanx: inflexibility. Maniples were extremely flexible. First of all, maniples were smaller, standalone
units. This meant that they were capable of fighting
in isolation, or even in several directions at once. A phalanx would usually crumble if it ever
got surrounded, whereas a maniple could shift, and adapt. Second, they could move much more fluidly. Instead of arraying themselves in big solid
lines like the phalanx did, maniples arrayed themselves like this, in a checkerboard pattern. This was a fundamental change. Now they don't have to step out of formation
if they wanted to or go over hilly terrain, or dodge trees and rocks, or cross a stream. The entire formation can kind of flex and
bend as necessary, while maintaining its readiness. It wasn't just the formations that changed. Their entire fighting ethos was now different. The solid walls of spear-men were now mostly
gone, replaced by men wielding swords and shields. Individual maniples now found themselves in
specialized roles. There were three major ones. First, the hastati. This is where the young and inexperienced
men served. The hastati were always placed at the front
of the line, and were the first to come into contact with the enemy. Hastati were outfitted with a sword and a
shield, but also with javelins that the entire unit could throw at a moment's notice. This was a big innovation. The phalanx system had no ranged units, which
meant that faster enemy units could easily stay at a safe distance if they wanted to. Now, not only were the maniples faster, but
almost every Roman unit was now a ranged unit. At a moment's notice they could hit an enemy
with a volley of javellins, which must have fundamentally changed the dynamics of the
battlefield. The hastati were always the first to close
in and make contact with the enemy. Then, after some time, an order would be given,
and the hastati would swap out with the second line, who were called the principes. These were older veterans, who were outfitted
similarly to the hastati, but with slightly better equipment. Under normal circumstances these two lines
would alternate for the duration of the battle, giving each other a break as needed. In a perfect world, the third line would never
be used. These were the triarii, and they were the
oldest veterans. We can think of them as the elite troops. Unlike the hastati and the principes, the
triarii retained some phalanx-like qualities. They were still spear-men, but were organized
more loosely, so that the entire unit wouldn't crumble if they ever broke formation. The triarii were so rarely used that the Romans
had a saying a for when something was going badly. They would say "it's come to the triarii." I've always liked this saying, because it
has a meaning that's unique to Roman culture. It means that "the enemy has broken through,
and this is the last thing that we can do to respond." But it also means "there's a major problem,
and it's time for the real adults to step in and fix it." It's weirdly pragmatic and optimistic. Sometimes an entire campaigning season would
go by and the triarii would only be used once or twice. This made them crazy. We're told that sometimes the triarii were
forced to sit on the ground during battle, like children, because they had this reputation
of charging in against orders. They sometimes resorted to begging to be allowed
to get into the fight. I looked and looked and can't remember where
I saw this, but years ago I read something that said that a Roman general put his triarii
up front during a battle because he was getting reports that there might be a mutiny if they
had to sit this one out. These were tough dudes, and when they were
finally unleashed they fought like hell. Let's go back for a moment to the Battle of
the Trebia River. If you recall, the first two Roman lines fully
committed, and some in the centre were in the process of cutting through the enemy and
marching right off the field. These were the hastati and the principes. The third line, the triarii, were held was
back, as usual. When Hannibal's epic surprise attack emerged
from the long grass, the triarii turned, fixed spears, and stopped the attack dead in its
tracks. They did their job perfectly, and didn't give
an inch. It was the younger men up front who panicked,
and started to give in to the Carthaginians on the wings. These same triarii were the ones who were
last seen getting surrounded, holding their ground, and making a heroic last stand as
the rest of the Romans were killed, captured, or driven off. I'll say it again: these were tough dudes. Rome used the maniple system for a long time,
and Rome eventually rose from a regional to a global power. But as this was happening, they started to
notice some structural issues. The maniple was designed to face off against
hill people of central Italy, and now Romans had men fighting from Spain to Asia. A lot of the time there were now in the position
of fighting huge, well organized armies, from rich and powerful kingdoms. Things had changed. Rome needed to reorganize. The solution that they came up with is called
the cohort system. Before any major changes were made, one thing
was abundantly clear. Rome needed bigger units. The maniples were just too damn small now. Against the hill people of central Italy,
one maniple here and one maniple there could make the difference in the battle. But now, armies were huge, and a single maniple
here or there was kind of irreverent. As the first thing, going into this reform,
the size of each unit was quadrupled. Armies went from having 40 maniples to having
10 cohorts. But cohorts weren't just giant maniples. They also fundamentally changed how they operated. The different experience levels and different
specializations were completely done away with, and each cohort became more or less
identical. The big strategic change that this facilitated
was that the army now emphasized mobility. Unlike the maniple system, these soldiers
carried their own gear, set up their own camps, and cooked their own meals. These guys could construct bridges, clear
forests, build roads, I mean, anything. These new units were designed to be entirely
self sufficient. They needed to be able to ditch their supplies
and march off at a moment's notice if they needed to. And they often did. You can see the appeal of this kind of army. When you have guys stationed thousands of
kilometers from the capital in sometimes hostile territory, you don't necessarily want a bunch
of specialists. In other words you don't want to risk having
the backbone of your army wiped out during a battle when reinforcements are months away. You want the entire army to be your backbone,
if that makes any sense. There were new tactical realities that emerged
naturally from this new organizational structure. With these larger cohorts, it was kind of
like each army was made up of 10 smaller armies. This meant that the Romans could now do things
differently on the battlefield. They could now delegate a lot of authority
to sub-commanders, who could use their own initiative. Under the old system you might have generals
saying "move this maniple up, move this maniple back, send these six maniples over here to
reinforce our line over there," and so on. Under this new system, a general could say
"take this cohort and hold the line over there, fall back if you need to, and reinforce this
other line if you can, but use your own judgement." It's important to emphasize that almost every
cohort was identical, which was a radical change. It meant that any individual unit could step
in for another one without any disruption. It also meant that if they wanted to supersize
an army, all they had to do was add a few extra cohorts. There was never a situation where they were
thinking "I have way too many triarii and not enough hastati" There was no such thing
as a lop-sided army. Every unit was the same, and self-contained. So what did it mean that they used all of
these different tactical structures? It's not like one was a natural consequence
of the previous one. These are three radically different systems. The Romans were successful with all of them,
but they each accomplish very different things. So what gives? Above all else, the Romans were pragmatic. When a thing stopped working, they ditched
it, unsentimentally. They adopted the phalanx fighting system to
solve a very specific problem, which was that they had some powerful neighbours that already
used the phalanx, and at the time it was considered unstoppable. They adopted the maniple system to solve another
very specific problem, which was that they needed to fight on uneven terrain, and to
respond to hit and run attacks from creative, less well organized enemies. The cohort system was adopted to solve yet
another very specific problem, which was that they were now fighting larger, more traditional
armies, in remote, far flung provinces. All of a sudden Rome needed a large scale,
professional, standardized army, so they just invented one. This constant tactical innovation allowed
Rome to flourish for over a thousand years in the west. That's no small thing. This constant change also meant that for them,
failure was an option. Each time they were defeated in a major battle,
they made significant changes in their military, and usually for the better. That's a cultural trait that's hard to teach,
but it was probably Rome's greatest strength.
this guy need more love. like a billion more subs worth of love.
im gonna go play rome total war now
I really enjoyed this video! Its very informational and I love history!
I enjoy his content too, but I think he should invest in a better mic at some point.
"It has come to the Triarii" - I like that a lot. Pretty cool term although I doubt enough people know it for anyone to get it if you said it out loud.
This video was full of optical illusions.
I loved this, a lot of this information came natural to me because I played too much total war, great stuff
One of my new favorite channels...his recent vids on the battles of the 2nd Punic Wars have been terrific.
and i... thought dogs... laid eggs! and i learned something today!