|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Introduction to Ancient Combat - Part I - Soldiers
| |
|
Posted by Paal_101 on May 7 2006, 11:42 PM
|
An Introduction to Ancient Combat
By
Paul Basar aka Paal_101
Ancient combat is a topic of many stereotypes and misconceptions while also being extremely complex and diverse. The differences between nations and even within a single army are many yet all reside on the basic principles of troop types, training, coordination, and equipment. This series aims to present some the basics on the subject for the casual reader and serious history buff just getting into the amazing study of ancient warfare. It gives insight into the varied and many ways that the civilizations presented in 0 AD prepared, waged, and adapted to warfare. Part I deals with the basic units of the armies of old, particulary the men in the army, their relationship to it, and the combat roles they performed.
Part I - Soldiers
“Only the dead have seen an end to war.” - Plato
The Men
As with any organization, ancient armies were composed of people from many backgrounds and occupations. All occupations, classes, and religions were drawn into the army when needed. Over all these men were quite young, often in their late teens and early twenties. In some cases there were older soldiers, such as Spartan veterans kept on semi-active service into their 60s or Roman legionnaires and auxiliaries buried at ages in the 40-year range due to wounds received in combat. Incidentally, contrary to Hollywood and modern entertainment they were universally men. Although there is significant evidence to suggest that ancient Scythian and Sarmatian women were trained in archery there is no evidence for Celtic amazons or Persian female assassins.
How these men came to be in the army varied wildly. Some were professionals, being either volunteer members of a standing army or mercenaries. The Roman legions were the prime example of the former, men swearing an oath of service for 20 years. Others included the elite Sacred Band of Carthage, a cavalry unit in which rich Punic citizens were trained as officers to possibly command that nation’s large armies of mercenaries. The Macedonian army established by Philip II in the 4th century BC can be considered the first army of this type and their massive string of victories is evidence to their professionalism. Soldiers of fortune in the ancient world fought for money, their wages often paid from the spoils of a successful campaign. In many cases mercenaries were unreliable and uncontrollable, disobeying orders or refusing to fight altogether. In some cases they provoked wars, such as the Mamertines did during the Pyrrhic War in the 3rd century BC. Greece produced a glut of mercenaries as war-hardened hoplites searched for employment abroad after the Peloponnesian War.
Others troops were conscripts, drafted into the army of a powerful overlord. In the case of the Spartans this was by the order of their culture, which resulted in a completely martial society in which every male was a warrior from his teens to his later years. Compared to the highly trained Spartans, Persian levies were in a far worse state. Often farmers and craftsmen from the far flung corners of the Achaemenid Empire they were called up to provide overwhelming numbers to the Shah-an-Shah’s army. Poorly equipped and badly trained these armies proved to be numerically impressive but amazingly fragile, a mixture of highly trained professional tribal warriors and unwilling call-ups.
A third category was the willing volunteers who fought when needed, including the fearsome Celtic warriors of Central and Western Europe. Living in a highly ordered society of lords and chieftains, the Celts were called up willingly to serve under their hero-like leaders. In this specific case the warriors came from the middle and upper class, the bare fact of being allowed to fight a signature of social standing. Celts fought partially out of necessity and a cultural fascination with war and honor while the Greeks fought out of duty. The middle class formed the corps of the Greek military system by serving as citizen hoplites, compelled by loyalty to their city and everything it stood for.
Soldiers came from every level of society, in some cases their wealth and social status determining their lot in the army. Rich soldiers were often the best-equipped and served in elite positions, such as consuls, legates, and tribunes in the Roman army or as the Companion Cavalry in the Macedonian military. Command positions were often secured through political or financial means. Persian commanders were often governors known as satraps with vast wealth and political clout. Poor soldiers made up the lesser ranks, often times being forced to supply their own equipment. As a result many Celtic warriors lacked expensive chain mail and metal helmets. Some armies promoted the recruitment of poorer classes, especially the Romans who made a point of hiring young farmers and tradesmen with an eye to a better future.
Others were meritocracies, such as the Roman military in which, early on, centurions and optios were chosen by the very men they would lead. Later meritorious service in the legions guaranteed promotion. The Lusitani Iberians raised a lowly shepherd to chief of their tribe for his bravery in helping his people escape a massacre. Viriato went on to lead seven successful campaigns against the Romans. A display of great skill, courage, intelligence, or tactics was a sure ticket to promotion in most armies although in many cases artificial barriers prevented adoption into the higher ranks. In all cases skills from civilian life were often used in the army; doctors, carpenters, engineers, and blacksmiths being highly prized. These men could find themselves carrying out specialized duties officially or unofficially to the benefit of a few men or the entire army.
Training
Training varied from culture to culture and between nations but was of vital importance. The Romans and Spartans trained continuously under the tutelage of experienced veterans. Being professional soldiers they had the time and resources to do so. On the flip side many conscripted Persian soldiers had little or no training and were often pitted against far more experienced armies. Celts and Iberians trained haphazardly, often from childhood, those who paid attention during boyhood fights survived battles as adults. Most Greeks trained during defined periods of deployment to active service, which could range from a couple of weeks to several months.
Mercenaries were often trained in their own homeland, either by locals or professionally. Thracians brought a unique system of ranged warfare to Greece, perfected in their forested and mountainous territory. The glut of already trained and battle seasoned hoplites in the late 5th and early 4th centuries BC made Greek mercenaries extremely formidable. Early Celtic and Germanic auxiliaries serving in the Roman army were allowed to fight with their national weapons and were obviously initially trained by their fathers or tribal leaders. In all cases training proved to be a necessity if any army, professional, volunteer, or conscript, expected to succeed in combat.
Troop Types
In modern times soldiers are categorized according to their roles, equipment, and tactics just as they were in the ancient world. The two main groups were obviously infantry, who fought on foot, and cavalry, who fought mounted. Throughout history infantry proved to be more numerous although in some cases, considered inferior to cavalry. Poorer men often made up the infantry, while rich members of society owned horses and filled the obvious gap in cavalry. In the late Bronze and early Iron Age, cavalry in the form of charioteers were the dominant force on the battlefield, but by the 6th century BC infantry had come back into vogue as the main combat type, remaining so until the 4th century AD.
Infantry
Infantry came in two types: light and heavy. Light infantry were fast moving troops that generally never came into close combat with opposing infantry, preferring to rely on ranged weapons but being able to fight hand-to-hand in a limited fashion. Perhaps the most famous and characteristic light infantry type was produced by the Thracians; javelin-throwers known as peltasts. Relying only on a small crescent or oval shield for protection, these men would run towards opposing forces while throwing light javelins. Before the enemy could come to grips with them peltasts would turn and run for safety. Against heavy Greek hoplites peltasts proved to be extremely effective, never closing for hand-to-hand combat where they were easy prey.
This style of fighting is characteristic of all light infantry, who would ideally stay at long range for most of the battle using javelins, bows, or slings as their main weapons. Only against opposing light infantry would they engage for close combat, and even then only if necessary. Generally light infantry wore little armor, if any, which put them at a distinct disadvantage against heavily armored opponents. For instance at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC Persian archers were charged by Spartan hoplites who cut them down with little resistance. But when light infantry were used as they were intended to be they proved to be extremely deadly. Other examples of light infantry were Roman velites, Balearic slingers, the Samnites of southern Italy, and Phyrgian javelin throwers. Perhaps the greatest users of light infantry were the Persians, whose massive armies relied on arming the infantry levies with cheap yet effective weaponry. In many cases these proved to be bows and javelins, weapons that, with a little practice, could provide devastating firepower when used en masse.
On the flip side there were the heavy infantry, soldiers who closed for close quarter combat, often times wearing heavy armor and engaging their opponents with weapons that ranged from spears to swords to axes to clubs. Generally they fought in a formation under the command of an officer, relying on communication via banners and horns to coordinate their attacks. They moved slowly and once they came to grips with the enemy the conflict would resemble a giant shoving match with each side trying to break through the opposing formation. Heavy infantry formed the bulwark for the entire army, a solid, unmoving, and powerful formation that the light infantry and cavalry supported and fought around.
Heavy infantry were used by all the major civilizations of the ancient world. The famous Greek hoplites were the first major type of heavy infantry to dominate the battlefield, fighting in a strong phalanx with spears as their primary weapon. It was such a successful troop type that the hoplite spread across the Mediterranean in all directions. The Macedonians evolved the hoplite into a pikeman with a 15-foot spear, while the Romans drastically warped theirs into the formidable legionnaire. Even the light infantry horde armies of the Persians fielded heavy infantry based on the hoplite known as kardakes in the 4th century BC. Carthaginians became followers of the Macedonian phalangite concept, while the Iberians developed the lightly armored scutarii to be at home in formation on the battlefield or as a fast moving guerilla fighter. Armed with their long swords the Celts proved to be among the most unconventional heavy infantry, often times fighting completely naked and winning against heavily armored opponents in dense formations, such as the Greeks in the Third Battle of Thermopylae in 279 BC.
The Romans produced the most successful heavy infantry in the ancient world with the legionnaire, trained to fight as a member of a team. With their ability to assume multiple formations at will while attacking and defending as one unit they proved to be extremely effective. In combat they would often times secure a semi-defensive position on the battlefield then hold their place or advance slowly towards the opposing line. Once the enemy was in range they would hurl two coordinated volleys of heavy javelins known as pila into the oncoming enemy to thin and disrupt their lines. Then they would close in rigid formation for close combat with swords. Under the command of officers their high level of training made them extremely formidable, especially as their equipment was constantly refined to keep them up-to-date with current enemies and technological trends.
Heavy infantry did not have to be armored or slow, such as the Romans and Greeks were, heavy only refers to the fact that the men fought hand-to-hand. Examples of this include the Iberian scutarii and Celtic tribesmen, both of whom often went into battle with little or no armor. Although the Iberians used a similar tactic to the Romans, in which they threw javelins at the opposing side then engaged with sword and spear in tight formation, they did not wear much armor. Traditionally they wore a light sinew cap or bronze helmet, some wearing small circular bronze plates known as pectorals over their sternums. Despite this their formations of determined spearmen were able to go toe-to-toe with heavy Carthaginian and Roman infantry. Celts preferred to use a more open style then the Greeks, Romans, or Carthaginians, charging in a close mass of warriors. Their speed was aided by the fact that most fought shirtless, relying on a large oval shield for protection. Most were armed with an 8-foot spear, but those who could afford them fought with long swords know as spatha, renowned for their destructive power and strength.
Cavalry
As with the infantry, cavalry is divided into light and heavy, but includes two other unique types: extra heavy and chariots. A common trait of all ancient cavalry was the lack of stirrups, which did not appear in Europe until the 6th century AD with the arrival from the east of the Avars. In the late Bronze Age the cavalryman, in the form of a chariot-mounted warrior, had been the dominant troop type in ancient armies. Thanks to the Assyrians the horse archer came into vogue, forming the basis for the light cavalryman.
Light cavalry, like their infantry counterparts, rarely came into contact with their opponents, using javelins and arrows as their weapons of choice. Mounted on horseback light cavalry would ride forward towards the enemy lines, loosing off missiles typically at ranges from 10 to 300 feet depending on the weapon. The steppe horse archers were prime examples of this style of combat. Charging forward they would shower the enemy with arrows then turn around and shoot backwards over the horses’ tails at the enemy in a technique known as the “Parthian shot”. Armed with an axe for hand-to-hand fighting they desperately avoided contact, preferring to use the speed of their horses to evade, feint, and maneuver out of harm’s way. While they sometimes wore armor it was only in case they came into close combat with opposing forces through error or ambush.
Previously mentioned, chief among the light cavalry were the steppe nomads, people such as the Scythians, Parthians, Huns, and to a lesser extent the Sarmatians. Using their lightning fast horses for quick strikes, these warrior peoples proved to be formidable opponents for the more traditional “civilized” infantry-based armies they faced. Thanks to their horses they were able to avoid conflicts in some cases, as shown by the Scythian’s cat and mouse game with the Persian invasion of their homeland in 513 BC, but were capable of inflicting crushing defeats, such as the Parthians achieved over the Romans at Carrhae in 53 BC. While the use of mobility, the lack of hand-to-hand combat, and ranged weapons were characteristic of most light cavalry, the most direct technical definition of light cavalry simply states that they did not physically crash into their opponents ala Medieval knights.
Light cavalry were used by all major civilizations in the ancient world. Besides the horse archers of the steppe peoples, the Persians fielded formidable javelin armed cavalry with a secondary sword or axe. They were also unique in that they wore considerable armor for light cavalry, most of whom were unarmored like early Greek horsemen. In addition the Macedonian’s use of prodromoi scout cavalry was unusual since they were armed with lances in combat yet wore little armor and stayed at a distance. But without doubt the greatest light cavalry of the ancient world were the famous Numidians of North Africa. Recruited first into the Carthaginian army and later the Roman auxiliary, these men rode bareback and without any reins, relying on a rope around their horses’ necks to stay mounted. Controlling the horse through the use of a riding stick and voice commands, the Numidians used large javelins and round hide shields in combat. They were most lethal when used to chase defeated opponents after their formation had been broken. They were perhaps the most skilled horsemen of all time and their defection to the Romans in the Second Punic War helped seal the fate of Carthage.
The heavy cavalry concept was first developed in the east but the concept was successful first put into use by the Macedonians. The term refers to the action of a formation of heavily armored men on horseback charging toward the enemy line where they close for hand-to-hand combat with the opposing force. Typically the main armament of heavy cavalry was the spear, which was used in the initial charge and as a stand off weapon. The sword was the secondary weapon, in the ancient world categorically a slashing weapon for cavalry. Close-combat weapons were the hallmark of heavy cavalry and differentiated them from light cavalry.
While the concept of heavy cavalry was originally developed on the steppe, the Persians combined the idea of extra heavy horsemen with their light cavalry. These bronze-armored, javelin armed horsemen were soon noticed by the Macedonians who developed the typical heavy cavalryman, soon copied by the Romans and Carthaginians. Indeed, the most famous heavy cavalry of the ancient world proved to be the Macedonian Companion Cavalry, noblemen armed with 9-foot spears and iron swords, wearing bronze or linen armor. In combat they would charge towards the enemy in formations of several hundred men, stabbing men with their spears before attacking with their swords at close range. The power of this tactic was demonstrated during the campaigns of Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BC, where the heavy Macedonian horsemen crushed massed formations of opposing infantry.
The Romans modeled their early cavalrymen on the Macedonian pattern, which did not change much despite the introduction of the shield to the cavalry in the early 3rd century BC. While the spear became shorter the concept remained the same: the horsemen would come right into the face of their opponents, using their massed bulk to defeat enemy horsemen and height advantage to cut down opposing infantry. The Carthaginians did likewise, forming the prestigious Sacred Band of roughly 2500 men as heavy cavalry. In addition the Celts broke the mould, their heavy cavalry fighting with their fearsome long swords and large shields but with relatively little armor compared to their southern European counterparts. The Spaniards were similar, wearing little armor but producing a horsemen of such high caliber that they were able to charge head to head with more heavily armored cavalry and win in an all out battle, such as at Cannae in 216 BC.
While not the archetype heavy cavalry, the extra heavy horsemen of the ancient world were ironically the prototype for the more famous cavalry of the Romans and Macedonians. It was the Sarmatians from modern day Ukraine who first developed the extra heavy cavalryman who wore a heavy suit of head-to-toe armor while riding on an equally armored horse, armed with a 12-foot lance known as a kontos. Charging at a full gallop with his lance couched, the Sarmatian warrior would crash headlong into the enemy line, in some cases spitting two men on his spear in one pass. The object was to break through to the other side of the enemy formation then turn around and do it again. A formation of cataphracts, as these troops were to become known, charging en masse with hundreds if not thousands of horses was an awe inspiring sight and terrifying for inexperienced troops. Once they had lost or broken their lance cataphracts would draw a sword or axe for close combat or pull back and fight with the horse archers. This was similar to the standard heavy cavalry but was far more dependent on momentum for killing power and heavy armor for protection rather then speed. Coupled with the fact that extra heavy cavalry would physically slam into the enemy, these reasons are enough to classify the cataphract as a separate form of horseman.
The Massagetae copied this unique style of combat from the Sarmatians then passed it onto the Persians. The use of extra heavy cavalry fell out of favor in the 2nd century BC while its cousin the heavy cavalryman remained. But the Sarmatians remained on the steppes and eventually they came into contact with the mighty Roman Empire. After facing the power of the Sarmatian cataphract, the Romans incorporated the type into their army in the late 2nd century AD. Being the connoisseurs of military tactics and technology that they were, the Romans took the concept one step farther and created an even more heavily armored version known as the clibinarii. In the 4th and 5th centuries AD the Sarmatians had broken up and joined with other tribes that were on the move at that time, spreading the concept of the cataphract. In addition Germanic soldiers fighting with the Romans were exposed to their cataphracts and clibinarii. As a result the extra heavy cavalry concept was absorbed across Europe, particularly in the west. While they typically wore less armor at this time the extra heavy cavalryman slowly morphed into the knight of the Middle Ages, who fought in exactly the same manner.
Chariots are the stereotypical mode of ancient transportation and are often seen today as a premiere weapon of war. While this was true in the Bronze Age, by the 7th century AD chariots had been largely relegated to the sidelines as a vehicle of prestige rather then combat. Despite this the Persians still maintained large units of charioteers, often made up of prestigious nobles armed with bows and arrows. The main difference between these chariots and those of the late Bronze Age was the Persian’s use of scythes on the axles and underneath the car. While heavy, slow, and hard to maneuver when one of these machines managed to build up enough momentum nothing could stand in its way. Sadly this was extremely difficult to pull off since they required flat, smooth ground to operate and in many cases opposing infantry were able to completely sidestep the hurtling chariots. The horses pulling the chariot were easy targets and once a chariot had passed by, infantry would climb aboard to kill the crew.
Other users of the chariot included the small Black Sea nation of Pontus in northern Asia Minor, whose scythed chariots were woefully obsolete when their king, Mithridates, came into continued conflict with Rome during the 1st century BC. The Celts were famous for their use of light chariots that they used as mobile javelin platforms and as a quick strike weapon. Chieftains and rich warriors would be driven into battle, dismount and engage the enemy with their swords. If the soldier needed to leave the area or move to another part of the battlefield, he would signal his driver, who would then pick up the warrior and take him where needed. British Celts were the last known users of the chariot in ancient Europe. |
User Comments:
| FirePowa8
:: May 8 2006 |
| Nice work. :D May I also make this the opportunity to state that the articles written on this site have helped me a lot with my Classical and history studies, so I thank everyone involved very much. |
| |
| TheCobra1
:: May 26 2006 |
| Wow! I loved that. Thanks Paul. :) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
