Roman military tactics had they had access to gun powder

Mitchell Hundred · Jun 30, 2015

Assuming the Ancient Romans were able to develop gun powder how do you think militarily they would have adopted its use?

Would there have been a scenario with Roman lines armed with musket equivalents and such? Perhaps akin to the Highland charge.

Marc · Jul 1, 2015

The very short answer would that the Roman legion would likely evolve into the Spanish tercio:

It was the Spanish who pioneered the new methods of infantry fighting. The Spanish tercios became the military elite of Renaissance Europe. Numbering 3,000 men – the equivalent of a modern brigade – the tercio was formed of 12 companies of about 250 men each, with the companies divided roughly evenly between arquebusiers and pikemen. Generally, the pikes formed a central block, perhaps ten or more ranks deep, while the arquebusiers operated on the flanks, also in great depth. The pikemen required depth to ensure a solid enough formation to resist opposing phalanxes when it came to ‘push of pike’. The arquebusiers, on the other hand, were deployed in depth to maximize fire.

This gunpowder and pike military system fits Rome very well, organizationally, tactically, strategically - which it should, many of the military leaders that designed it knew De Re Militari by heart.

The larger question is whether the Romans acquiring early gunpowder technology would have made any difference in the overall scheme of things. I rather doubt it would.

Avrorrange · Jul 1, 2015

Marc said:
The larger question is whether the Romans acquiring early gunpowder technology would have made any difference in the overall scheme of things. I rather doubt it would.

I think it would work quite well initially,but once the initial shock is over,the barbarians can adapt to it pretty quickly.Although,I highly doubt they can manufacture significant quantity of gunpowder weapons of their own since that would require significant organization and money that the barbarians lacked.

The Sassanids on the other hand will adopt the gunpowder weapons quite quickly.

Namayan · Jul 1, 2015

darthfanta said:
I think it would work quite well initially,but once the initial shock is over,the barbarians can adapt to it pretty quickly.Although,I highly doubt they can manufacture significant quantity of gunpowder weapons of their own since that would require significant organization and money that the barbarians lacked.

The Sassanids on the other hand will adopt the gunpowder weapons quite quickly.

This probably depends if the roman would be very secretive of gunpowder or not much like how they reacted to the Greek Fire which was even lost to them.

Alto · Jul 1, 2015

Marc said:
The very short answer would that the Roman legion would likely evolve into the Spanish tercio:

It was the Spanish who pioneered the new methods of infantry fighting. The Spanish tercios became the military elite of Renaissance Europe. Numbering 3,000 men – the equivalent of a modern brigade – the tercio was formed of 12 companies of about 250 men each, with the companies divided roughly evenly between arquebusiers and pikemen. Generally, the pikes formed a central block, perhaps ten or more ranks deep, while the arquebusiers operated on the flanks, also in great depth. The pikemen required depth to ensure a solid enough formation to resist opposing phalanxes when it came to ‘push of pike’. The arquebusiers, on the other hand, were deployed in depth to maximize fire.

This gunpowder and pike military system fits Rome very well, organizationally, tactically, strategically - which it should, many of the military leaders that designed it knew De Re Militari by heart.

The larger question is whether the Romans acquiring early gunpowder technology would have made any difference in the overall scheme of things. I rather doubt it would.

Very good and yes the military revolution of late was largely based on Roman organization

Maybe it would have been less a field battle thing since the tercios used systems the Romans didn't have like new phalanxes.

The romans specialized in siege weapons. Their new victories would have been similar to maurice of nassau's. Their war industry was good and they would mass produce cannons to deploy 3 per 1000 or 10 per 1000, like Gustavus Adolphus, creating massive field superiority.

Rome conquers Persia.

MrGreyOwl · Jul 1, 2015

I also think the Romans would use gunpowder mainly for siege warfare: blowing up walls and defenses. They were also fond of "shock and awe" tactics: I think they would use fireworks to frighten enemy horses, and some sort of primitive rockets, like the Chineses did.

Yanez de Gomera · Jul 1, 2015

Honestly I don't think they would adopt something so pike heavy as the tercios, they would want to keep the well proven manipular tactics.
So probably cannons/bombards will supplant the various kinds of siege engines, and in battle they would play the role of ballistae etc.
Could the pilum be replaced by some sort of rocket like in mysorean armies? That should do a number on charging barbarians!
I am more skeptical about mass adoption of the arquebus, at least initially.

AlanJWhite · Jul 1, 2015

Not tercio but Dutch or Swedish tactics

The roman legion operated in smaller more flexible sub units well suited to gunpowder small arms

They also deployed mixed armament( Even the classic legion after the Marian reforms deployed auxiliaries and allied units)

Expect something like Gustavus Adolphus

Derek Pullem · Jul 1, 2015

Assuming it's a late Roman development, the Palatinate legionaries often carried a number of lead darts (plumbata) fixed behind the shield.

I can see this being adapted to several grenades and possibly a pistol. The spear / pilum (depending on timeframe) is likely to be kept to deter cavalry but they might try experimenting with sword, pistol and grenade only or a mixture of both type a la Tercio.

Don't really see the musket taking off - Romans experimented with crossbows and returned to the bow for its rate of fire advantages. Which would also be the case with muskets

The Romans would use ballistae bombs / mortars with great enthusiasm!

GdwnsnHo · Jul 1, 2015

I do have a fantastic image of Roman Legionairres with Musket-Rests built into the shield. That would be epic.

I reckon the most likely use of gunpowder for the Romans could include muskets (but more likely rifles once they figure that trick out), but the one that would have the most staying power? Grenades. Small ones that can be thrown ahead like the pilum, combined with smaller smoke grenades to shock/scare your enemies? They'd either tear apart closely packed enemies, or scare them enough to shake the shield wall/phalanx/spearwall. Which is great for swordsmen to smash their way in.

So I suggest large artillery batteries, and the introduction of Grenadiers. Gunpowder is much more practical for Grenadiers than Greek Fire ever was.

Alto · Jul 1, 2015

GdwnsnHo said:
I do have a fantastic image of Roman Legionairres with Musket-Rests built into the shield. That would be epic.

I reckon the most likely use of gunpowder for the Romans could include muskets (but more likely rifles once they figure that trick out), but the one that would have the most staying power? Grenades. Small ones that can be thrown ahead like the pilum, combined with smaller smoke grenades to shock/scare your enemies? They'd either tear apart closely packed enemies, or scare them enough to shake the shield wall/phalanx/spearwall. Which is great for swordsmen to smash their way in.

So I suggest large artillery batteries, and the introduction of Grenadiers. Gunpowder is much more practical for Grenadiers than Greek Fire ever was.

Just going off their tactics and industry especially in the later period i'd imagine a lot of small cannons with fast reloading would be amazing for effectiveness and fit their siege weapon specialty a lot more. Especially in the late period, Romans were growing very attached to their swords and shields, and muskets are expensive. Not to mention how by the 3rd century the concept of army had dwindled to "general - find men, money, and supplies and send them" - very disorganized.

RodentRevolution · Jul 1, 2015

Derek Pullem said:
Assuming it's a late Roman development, the Palatinate legionaries often carried a number of lead darts (plumbata) fixed behind the shield.

I can see this being adapted to several grenades and possibly a pistol. The spear / pilum (depending on timeframe) is likely to be kept to deter cavalry but they might try experimenting with sword, pistol and grenade only or a mixture of both type a la Tercio.

Don't really see the musket taking off - Romans experimented with crossbows and returned to the bow for its rate of fire advantages. Which would also be the case with muskets

The Romans would use ballistae bombs / mortars with great enthusiasm!

Well we are not entirely sure exactly how effective early muskets were compared to bows. There was a lot of debate, quite heated pamphleteering in fact which was the 16th and 17th century version of the internet, on the subject, we only know guns won, frustratingly we do not know exactly why.

Avrorrange · Jul 1, 2015

The advantage of musket over bows is that you don't need to train recruits how to use it as much.

A disaster like Adrianople and the Roman army would be without archers for at least the next few years.

Alcsentre Calanice · Jul 1, 2015

GdwnsnHo said:
I do have a fantastic image of Roman Legionairres with Musket-Rests built into the shield. That would be epic.

Would you like to share it with us? I'm quite curious

RodentRevolution · Jul 1, 2015

darthfanta said:
The advantage of musket over bows is that you don't need to train recruits how to train it as much.

A disaster like Adrianople and he Roman army would be without archers for at least the next few years.

If that is the only reason though why did the Janissary Corps (to use but one example) which recruited from boys at the time, switch over so whole heartedly to muskets and arquebuses? I think clearly there has to be more than training involved.

True it was at least one of the advantages but there seems to have been something more going on.

aegis03florin · Jul 1, 2015

The stopping power (faaaaar greater for the firearms) and the cost (good bows/crossbows are expensive in time and money to built).

Derek Pullem · Jul 1, 2015

aegis03florin said:
The stopping power (faaaaar greater for the firearms) and the cost (good bows/crossbows are expensive in time and money to built).

The stopping power was only significantly greater once heavily armoured troops became the norm. The example of the Janissaries is a little misleading as they tended to acquire multiple weapons as a demonstration of status plus they often were up against the elite of the European forces so needed the extra stopping power. As opposed to the bulk of the Ottoman forces who retained the bow until quite late.

Massed bows were adequate even against Sassanid cataphracts and were plenty good enough against steppes nomads and Germanic warbands.

Given the problem in maintaining a much more advanced and larger steel industry that firearms would require I doubt that the initial cost of early firearms will be cheaper than bows.

Training will also be an issue with early firearms.

AussieHawker · Jul 1, 2015

Derek Pullem said:
The stopping power was only significantly greater once heavily armoured troops became the norm. The example of the Janissaries is a little misleading as they tended to acquire multiple weapons as a demonstration of status plus they often were up against the elite of the European forces so needed the extra stopping power. As opposed to the bulk of the Ottoman forces who retained the bow until quite late.

Massed bows were adequate even against Sassanid cataphracts and were plenty good enough against steppes nomads and Germanic warbands.

Given the problem in maintaining a much more advanced and larger steel industry that firearms would require I doubt that the initial cost of early firearms will be cheaper than bows.

Training will also be an issue with early firearms.

Maybe it simply starts as a Shock tactic. So bowmen skirmish at longer range. Then the Infantry have grenades and the second ranks also have primitive muskets/ Hand cannons. So they throw their Grenades, fire their muskets and then charge through the smoke with swords. It could also be used to counter direct charges by Heavy Calvary in the East.

Then Muskets are improved on and different tactics mean more of the Army uses muskets until it replaces bowmen.

Agricola · Jul 1, 2015

The romans did not operate in small units. At least not after the greek wars against the greek phalanxes. And I assume, gunpowder is invented later? By very good reasons, the phalanx was a very usual formation during the principate and the prefered formation during late empire, even if consisting of small flexible sub-units (cohortes or vexillationes not manipuli), which could use other formations, if needed.

The romans would most probably start with cannons, as it happened IRL. Siege cannons and field artillery replacing carrobalistae.

Afterwards I can see, that the romans will keep their shieldwall and just empower it with additional units using firearms. One tactic might be similar to the old Velites. Opening fire in front of the cohorts, Then retreating thru the gaps between the cohorts. Afterwards the cohorts close the gaps as usual and go into melee. The question is, what these firarms should do later sitting in the back of the cohorts.

But as soon as the enemies of the romans shoot back with firearms, the military doctrine might change dramatically like it changed IRL.

Derek Pullem · Jul 1, 2015

Describing Late Roman tactics as a shield wall is a bit simplistic. Roman tactics always emphasised short range missile weapons to disrupt an enemy prior to a close to contact with sword, be these pila, javelins or plumbata / darts.

I can see gunpowder weapons (grenades, one shot pistols) being used to supplement this mode of attack. I doubt that the early firearms will be effective enough to displace the bow from the main fire support role but specialist units of handgunners (analogous to crossbowmen and staff slingers in Roman service) might appear in small numbers.

EDIT - saw your edit. A "caracole" on foot as you describe using pistols at relatively short range (40-60 paces) might work. But the primary weapon will still be the sword (the time at the back of the cohort is for reloading)