Flintlocks and Roman legions?

[dgharis]

Can the Romans use some kind of Fireworks to communicate. Red Means barbarian invasion, Green means raiding party etc etc so that they can communicate faster.

They don't really need to. The Romans communicated by means of heliographs (essentially solar mirrors) and signal fires on towers spaced along the major roads of the empire, so communication could be rapid when needed. This was in addition to the normal means of horse riders and boats carrying messages, of course.

In battle they communicated by horns, drums and signal flags as well as riders carrying verbal messages.

 

[Monte-Cristo]

If following 0ccam's rule one favors the less drastic divergence, gunpowder would come from the East (the earliest Chinese references date from the early 9th C., but they were mixing saltpeter and sulfur since the 1st C. and had observed the powerful flame of burning saltpeter, so...) at a time when the Roman legionaries no longer used pilum and scutum.


As observed in another thread here and in Flint & Drake 'Belisarius' series gunpowder would in all likelihood be used at first in crude grenades thrown with staff-sling. The technological jump is minimal -the stuff can be very crude as in the Chinese 'shit bombs' ; no need of priming powder, lock &c. No cultural jump -staff-slings and thrown incendiaries are used for centuries. The rate of fire is good -far better than that of a musket- and the range excellent for the time.

Such staff-slings could be used by skirmishers, but also by the legionaries. At that time the legions (now some 800 -1000 strong) were turning to 'mixed' units, first ranks shield and pole weapon, rear ranks bow: the formation used by Ancient Assyrians and Persians -which Alexander tried to 'update' in his experimental phalanx- and OTL ultimately by the Burgundians of Charles the Bold (1st rank pavisa-bearer, 2nd rk pikeman, then several ranks of 'archers', actually a mlxture of longbowmen, crossbowmen and handgunners). Grenadier staff-slingers would perfectly fit in such formation, probably in the rearmost rank since the weapon requires some room.
As a refinement the staff of the staff-sling can double as kind of boarspear (in the same way a some musket rests doubled as short halberds).


The next step would be probably be rockets and /or (heavy) guns revolutionizing siege and naval warfare. I suspect individual firearms with a barrel would only come later.


Pistol-type handguns firing a single volley just before impact as in the 'Highland charge' do have an intellectual appeal, being used exactly in the same way as the pilum of old. And certainly the Romans could build barrels, but would 'pistols' 'catch' in the first time?
At that time Roman soldiers carried a handful of plumbatae / martiobarbuli leaden darts clipped inside their shield. Primitive 'pistols' don't seem to offer advantages (other than the noise, flame and smoke frightening men and horses, which would not last long) insuring they 'catch'. No better range (quite the opposite); penetrating power is not an issue before the introduction of full suits of plate armor -3 darts thrown in quick succession have good chance to hit a weak point in scale / mail armor. Besides to shoot a handgun requires far more attention than instinctively throwing a dart, distracting you at a very wrong time; primitive handguns require both hand to be shot, so you give up using your shield at a very critical moment.... Pistols would certainly appear eventually, but later, probably at first as cavalry weapons as OTL.


So, I'm afraid, no flintlocks in the Roman legions for more than a century.

 

[dgharis]

If following 0ccam's rule one favors the less drastic divergence, gunpowder would come from the East (the earliest Chinese references date from the early 9th C., but they were mixing saltpeter and sulfur since the 1st C. and had observed the powerful flame of burning saltpeter, so...) at a time when the Roman legionaries no longer used pilum and scutum.


As observed in another thread here and in Flint & Drake 'Belisarius' series gunpowder would in all likelihood be used at first in crude grenades thrown with staff-sling. The technological jump is minimal -the stuff can be very crude as in the Chinese 'shit bombs' ; no need of priming powder, lock &c. No cultural jump -staff-slings and thrown incendiaries are used for centuries. The rate of fire is good -far better than that of a musket- and the range excellent for the time.

Such staff-slings could be used by skirmishers, but also by the legionaries. At that time the legions (now some 800 -1000 strong) were turning to 'mixed' units, first ranks shield and pole weapon, rear ranks bow: the formation used by Ancient Assyrians and Persians -which Alexander tried to 'update' in his experimental phalanx- and OTL ultimately by the Burgundians of Charles the Bold (1st rank pavisa-bearer, 2nd rk pikeman, then several ranks of 'archers', actually a mlxture of longbowmen, crossbowmen and handgunners). Grenadier staff-slingers would perfectly fit in such formation, probably in the rearmost rank since the weapon requires some room.
As a refinement the staff of the staff-sling can double as kind of boarspear (in the same way a some musket rests doubled as short halberds).


The next step would be probably be rockets and /or (heavy) guns revolutionizing siege and naval warfare. I suspect individual firearms with a barrel would only come later.


Pistol-type handguns firing a single volley just before impact as in the 'Highland charge' do have an intellectual appeal, being used exactly in the same way as the pilum of old. And certainly the Romans could build barrels, but would 'pistols' 'catch' in the first time?
At that time Roman soldiers carried a handful of plumbatae / martiobarbuli leaden darts clipped inside their shield. Primitive 'pistols' don't seem to offer advantages (other than the noise, flame and smoke frightening men and horses, which would not last long) insuring they 'catch'. No better range (quite the opposite); penetrating power is not an issue before the introduction of full suits of plate armor -3 darts thrown in quick succession have good chance to hit a weak point in scale / mail armor. Besides to shoot a handgun requires far more attention than instinctively throwing a dart, distracting you at a very wrong time; primitive handguns require both hand to be shot, so you give up using your shield at a very critical moment.... Pistols would certainly appear eventually, but later, probably at first as cavalry weapons as OTL.


So, I'm afraid, no flintlocks in the Roman legions for more than a century.

Certainly grenade type weapons would precede firearms since they are simpler to make and use. And they would remain in use; they're ideal for sieges, naval warfare, and combat involving massed formations of troops. But once firearms do appear they will supersede grenades for most purposes.

For legionary use a pistol makes more sense than a musket, since it can be fired with one hand. Unlike the plumbatae / martiobarbuli it can penetrate a shield, and is easier to aim as well. Reloading requires two hands, of course, but the legionary will not bother doing that; he will fire, drop the pistol, draw his gladius, and go to work. (The pistol would be attached to a lanyard around the legionary's neck or attached to his armor, so it doesn't get lost when he releases it.)

 

[dgharis]

So a Roman army against an actual Napoleonic army gets its butt handed to it.

Not necessarily, but the Napoleonic army does have the advantage. Their weapons have greater effective ranges and they don't have to close with the enemy to inflict large numbers of casualties as the Romans do.

 

[Monte-Cristo]

For legionary use a pistol makes more sense than a musket, since it can be fired with one hand

The problem for the pistol is to 'catch' in the first time, and early handguns require two hands, one to hold the weapon, the other for the fuse. Its use is far less 'instinctive' than to throw a javelin, and for a moment you have your shield strapped to the arm which you can't use actively. And according to the time-honored tactic you are trying to emulate you are suppose to do this while charging the enemy.
Of course the matchlock does not requires much innovation, but is there the incentive, specially to pass directly to the pistol type of weapon?

In their early forms gunpowder weapons had very different capacities than their modern descendants, and thus not exactly the same use. Pistols really became common only with the firelock, as a cavalry weapon allowing to keep controlling the horse with one hand.

Anyway the pilum then gladius tactic corresponds to the Roman Republic and early Empire. By the 4th C., mainly because of the Parthians and then Sassanids, Roman legions were evolving to distant fighting -more quickly so in the East. The spiculum, which had replaced the pilum but was still a heavy javelin / short spear thrown just before impact to 'soften' the enemy, had come out of use, most legionaries were now armed with a javelin and darts, the balance being archers. Of course the Roman knew their Polybius and Caesar, but unless you suppose they somehow receive a well-designed, relatively advanced pistol there would be no incentive to return immediately to the pilum / gladius tactics; does not work well against the horse archers / superheavy cataphracts combination, anyway.
A resurgence later, like in the Highlands? The 'Highlander charge', just like the ghazis rush following a single volley shot from ambush, were used by irregular warriors facing an enemy superior in discipline and technology: not very 'Roman'.

 

[dgharis]

The problem for the pistol is to 'catch' in the first time, and early handguns require two hands, one to hold the weapon, the other for the fuse. Its use is far less 'instinctive' than to throw a javelin, and for a moment you have your shield strapped to the arm which you can't use actively. And according to the time-honored tactic you are trying to emulate you are suppose to do this while charging the enemy.
Of course the matchlock does not requires much innovation, but is there the incentive, specially to pass directly to the pistol type of weapon?

In their early forms gunpowder weapons had very different capacities than their modern descendants, and thus not exactly the same use. Pistols really became common only with the firelock, as a cavalry weapon allowing to keep controlling the horse with one hand.

Anyway the pilum then gladius tactic corresponds to the Roman Republic and early Empire. By the 4th C., mainly because of the Parthians and then Sassanids, Roman legions were evolving to distant fighting -more quickly so in the East. The spiculum, which had replaced the pilum but was still a heavy javelin / short spear thrown just before impact to 'soften' the enemy, had come out of use, most legionaries were now armed with a javelin and darts, the balance being archers. Of course the Roman knew their Polybius and Caesar, but unless you suppose they somehow receive a well-designed, relatively advanced pistol there would be no incentive to return immediately to the pilum / gladius tactics; does not work well against the horse archers / superheavy cataphracts combination, anyway.
A resurgence later, like in the Highlands? The 'Highlander charge', just like the ghazis rush following a single volley shot from ambush, were used by irregular warriors facing an enemy superior in discipline and technology: not very 'Roman'.

The pistol-plus-gladius was posited for early Empire (@100 AD) if you'll review my earlier posts, so would fit the tactics of the time. And I was presupposing a flintlock pistol; matchlocks require two hands and wheel locks are too complex and expensive for issue to the common soldiers. Anything more primitive would not be suitable for use in the field and would probably not be adopted.

When I say a Highland style of firearm use I do not mean the Romans would fight exactly as Highlanders did; I mean they would use their pistols exactly as Highlanders did: fire once and then engage with the sword. The Romans would of course maintain their discipline; the pistols would be fired together in a single volley, then the Romans close in with their gladii.

If firearms are adopted for use by the early Empire then by late Empire weapons and tactics will have changed dramatically; heavy armor will largely be abandoned, since it no longer offers sufficient protection, firearms will have supplanted other missile weapons almost entirely, and shields will be smaller and lighter if not abandoned entirely. Whether they will go through a musket-and-pike stage or directly to musket-and-bayonet is open to speculation, but by 400 AD I would expect to see a very Napoleonic style of army.

BTW that applies to the Empire's neighbors as well; they're going to do as the Romans do just as they did IOTL.

 

[trajen777]

Actually the Roman mindset was very addable from a military standpoint if you look at their history :
· Initial copied the Phalanx of the Greeks
· Modified after defeat in the Legion of heavy infantry
· Modified in the Marius Legion
· When fighting in Gaul needed Calvary – so adapted Germany Cal units
· When in fighting vs the Huns then the Avars – adapted into a higher percentage of armored horse archers
· When fighting the Persians adapted the Cataphracts, which evolved from the Clibanarii
· They has troops of camels – light cav of the Moorish type etc
· IN the Navy you had the Hinged bridge vs Carthage whch won the naval war
Anyway I think you would see
· A combination of the Pike and Musket of the 16th century – Romans already had pike troops in the legion and this would be a reversal to pre Marius legion of pike first line troops –
· Romans also used first line till tired then the next line stepping through to the first to take up action – so in this scenario :
· First rank and 2nd rank fires – as enemy troops approach the pike line steps forward to defend – then the muskets fire from the sides or through gaps in the line
·

 

[Monte-Cristo]

And I was presupposing a flintlock pistol; matchlocks require two hands and wheel locks are too complex and expensive for issue to the common soldiers. Anything more primitive would not be suitable for use in the field and would probably not be adopted.

So we agree -I was considering the earliest steps of the integration of gunpowder -a noisy incendiary mixture with explosive properties.
To put it in a pipe to propel a missile is not self-evident: the firelance as an intermediary step? Following the works of Hero of Alexandria some in the Mediterranean world were toying with the idea of a 'steam cannon', it could have helped.

Of course once the firelock step is reached the context is totally different, the centuriae -or whatever have replaced them at the time- may have each a pair of Puckle machine guns, in the same way as Maurice de Saxe in his Rêveries gave an amusette to the centuriae of his resurrected Roman-like legions (a great source of inspiration for combining firearms with Ancient Roman practices, btw; and the plates are fascinating).

I'm not sure armor would fall in decline that fast, for some time bullet-proof plate armor protecting the vitals parts may be fashionable, at least for shock troops (it was put back in use during WWI) and officers.

 

[Malone]

So we agree -I was considering the earliest steps of the integration of gunpowder -a noisy incendiary mixture with explosive properties.
To put it in a pipe to propel a missile is not self-evident: the firelance as an intermediary step? Following the works of Hero of Alexandria some in the Mediterranean world were toying with the idea of a 'steam cannon', it could have helped.

Of course once the firelock step is reached the context is totally different, the centuriae -or whatever have replaced them at the time- may have each a pair of Puckle machine guns, in the same way as Maurice de Saxe in his Rêveries gave an amusette to the centuriae of his resurrected Roman-like legions (a great source of inspiration for combining firearms with Ancient Roman practices, btw; and the plates are fascinating).

I'm not sure armor would fall in decline that fast, for some time bullet-proof plate armor protecting the vitals parts may be fashionable, at least for shock troops (it was put back in use during WWI) and officers.

The romans were stubborn to change.

 

[FleetMac]

Necro ahoy; if you wanted to discuss the subject, shouldn't you start a new one, since the last time anybody commented on this one was last spring?

 

[Agricola]

Necro ahoy; if you wanted to discuss the subject, shouldn't you start a new one, since the last time anybody commented on this one was last spring?

Actually, it is always better to use an existing thread instead of making a new one.

 

[wcv215]

Actually, it is always better to use an existing thread instead of making a new one.

No it isn't. Necros are frowned upon.

Anyhow, before it's locked here's some of my thoughts on the subject

I'm not sure how useful flintlocks would be for the Romans if the are developed. The Roman system could find uses for it yes, but would it change that much of their doctrine? Early guns were best used against massed blocks of forces, something most Roman armies didn't face often. Against a lighter style of warfare how effective would they have been, especially considering reload time. Cannon would be significantly more potent however and could likely lead to other advances in the Roman army, so they would be a better bet for them.

 

[dgharis]

Actually, it is always better to use an existing thread instead of making a new one.

Not on this site; if an existing thread is more than a couple of months old you are expected to create a new thread (with a link to the existing one, if desired) rather than adding to the old one.

Two reasons for that: 1) The original posters have moved on and probably don't remember the original discussion or view it as sufficiently covered. 2) In some cases newer information or analysis has rendered the original discussion irrelevant, and any further discussion on those lines would be meaningless. The second would not apply here, of course, but the first does.

@Malone: Incorrect. The Romans, while not prolific inventors, could and did adopt proven technologies and methods which were superior to the ones they currently used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqc1ph2yvrU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awb0dFJZFuc

 

[CalBear]

Die Zombie, DIE!

With Iron, Salt, and Blood i bind thee back into the Earth to rise no more!