Roman military tactics had they had access to gun powder

[Agricola]

Describing Late Roman tactics as a shield wall is a bit simplistic.

Of course it is.

And I was not talking about the late roman army exclusively. My point was, that the centre of a roman army was a close formation of heavy infantry well armed and hiding behind their large shields. Of course not always with overlapping shields, if not using the scutum anyways. The formation was flexible, even if using the scutum the distance between 2 men was very close, but could vary according to the situation. But already Julius Caesar usually used no gaps in the line against barbarians hordes, who could easily exploit them. And afaik also not against romans. At least there is no evidence that these gaps were not closed, before melee attack. They could also be reopened again, e.g. for an attack of light infantry against careless heavy cavalry (e.g. palaestinian clubmen against parthian cataphracts)

So the romans used a (multiple) line formation in open field, if not fighting against a greek phalanx (chessboard formation) or if the terrain dictates otherwise.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Romans historically were quite flexible. When their phalanges weren't up to Macedonian standards, they introduced short sword and scutum Legions. When cavalry became effective, they moved to a mostly cavalry force.

I think they'd figure out what works for gunpowder weapons, and not be tied to any pre-existing method, or worry about our preconceptions of what 'Roman' armies looked like.

 

[darthfanta]

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.

I'd assume the only ones who could do this would be the Persians.The barbarians would have trouble making or buying enough guns.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I'd assume the only ones who could do this would be the Persians.The barbarians would have trouble making or buying enough guns.

The Romans had a habit of employing "barbarians" during war. Especially during the later period. Arminius got his military education in Rome. Although I doubt they'd be able to create their own in large numbers, they could steal them.

 

[Agricola]

The Romans had a habit of employing "barbarians" during war. Especially during the later period. Arminius got his military education in Rome. Although I doubt they'd be able to create their own in large numbers, they could steal them.

It is correct, that the romans always integrated barbarian units into their armies. Although I am convinced, that so called barbarization happened very late; not before the late 4th century and more in the West than in the East.

Nevertheless the germans never learned, how to build siege weapons or how to siege a city effectively, until the Huns came along and obviously showed them the details. So the roman secrecy about military technology was not that bad. On the other hand, the knowledge of the Franks and Alemans about military technology and tactics seems more advanced compared to their ancestors, who fought against Augustus. So there was a kind of technology transfer from the roman empire to the german tribes.

So I guess, the romans could protect their new secret (gunpowder, cannon smithing, gun technology, ...) for a while. But not forever. And afterwards the roman tactic on the battlefield has to react again. Perhaps they go for no armor at all, like it happened IRL finally. Or they invent something different. In both cases, it would be interesting to speculate about the possible reasons for such a developement.

But I would not overestimate the military advantage during such a more or less short period of technological superiority. If we look to the rise of firearms in the 14th century their superiority on the battlefield was not that impressing. The downfall (or change) of the heavy cavalry in these times was rather caused by the rise of archery and the rennaissance of the heavy infantry on the battlefield. So I do not expect a very great advantage of a roman army with such early firearms in the first hundred years after invention. Yes, early cannons helped in siege warfare. But at least in Germania there was not that much worth to siege at all during the late roman empire.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Yes, early cannons helped in siege warfare. But at least in Germania there was not that much worth to siege at all during the late roman empire.

It'll be against the Persians that this technology will be best placed. Romans with muskets that can pierce the armor of Persian heavy infantry and heavy cavalry? Yes please.

Cannons that can tear down walls?

THIS is where the application of gunpowder will be best used. Sure, some grenades against the Barbarians, but Cannons, and maybe even Line Infantry could be used against the Persians.

EDIT: I am almost certainly getting ahead of myself with Line Infantry, but shush, I got excited at the image of Persian Cataphracts being shredded by musket balls.

 

[darthfanta]

It is correct, that the romans always integrated barbarian units into their armies. Although I am convinced, that so called barbarization happened very late; not before the late 4th century and more in the West than in the East.

Nevertheless the germans never learned, how to build siege weapons or how to siege a city effectively, until the Huns came along and obviously showed them the details. So the roman secrecy about military technology was not that bad. On the other hand, the knowledge of the Franks and Alemans about military technology and tactics seems more advanced compared to their ancestors, who fought against Augustus. So there was a kind of technology transfer from the roman empire to the german tribes.

So I guess, the romans could protect their new secret (gunpowder, cannon smithing, gun technology, ...) for a while. But not forever. And afterwards the roman tactic on the battlefield has to react again. Perhaps they go for no armor at all, like it happened IRL finally. Or they invent something different. In both cases, it would be interesting to speculate about the possible reasons for such a developement.

But I would not overestimate the military advantage during such a more or less short period of technological superiority. If we look to the rise of firearms in the 14th century their superiority on the battlefield was not that impressing. The downfall (or change) of the heavy cavalry in these times was rather caused by the rise of archery and the rennaissance of the heavy infantry on the battlefield. So I do not expect a very great advantage of a roman army with such early firearms in the first hundred years after invention. Yes, early cannons helped in siege warfare. But at least in Germania there was not that much worth to siege at all during the late roman empire.

Creating guns,artillery and gunpowder is different to creating classic siege weapons like ballistas though.It takes a lot more skill and manpower to make and build them,not to mention a lot more organization.You will have to build a whole foundry to do that.As for getting gunpowder,I highly doubt barbarians on the move will be able to get their hands on much of the ingredients to make them without stable trade contacts or the actual territories that produces them--assuming them were able to get the recipe.They will most likely have to rely on stealing,looting or buying them from the black-market to gain such material.The only tribal groups I can come up with my memory that actually got to building gunpowder weapons and making gunpowder are the Jurchen/Manchus,which by the time they did that were semi-settled,lived in cities and have constructed foundries to do that.

I do agree with you though that gunpowder weaponry didn't really become the game changer in field battles until much later after it's usage.The Ming Dynasty most prominently lost in the 17th century against foes that didn't use much gunpowder weaponry.

The problem I guess is would the Romans last long enough for gunpowder weapons to actually make a difference in terms of fighting a much larger enemy force.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

It is correct, that the romans always integrated barbarian units into their armies. Although I am convinced, that so called barbarization happened very late; not before the late 4th century and more in the West than in the East.

Caesar employed non-Italian auxilaries and I don't mean Greeks. He used Gallic and German tribesmen.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Caesar employed non-Italian auxilaries and I don't meen Greeks. He used Gallic and German tribesmen.

Yes but what I think Agricola means is that the Romans relied on these "barbarians" as their main fighting force at some point in the 4th or 5th Century CE. Not that they were using them as auxillaries to the Roman legionaries which they had done since 3rd Century BCE

 

[darthfanta]

Caesar employed non-Italian auxilaries and I don't meen Greeks. He used Gallic and German tribesmen.

The so-called 'Barbarization' theory doesn't imply the Romans didn't use any barbarian soldiers until late 4th century and beyond--it merely pointed out that the proportion of barbarians in the army was disproportional to the percentage of native Roman soldiers.By the fifth century,there was pretty much no 'Roman' army left in the west.The 'army' consists mostly of whatever a Roman general can salvage amongst the barbarians tribes and whatever militiamen/limitanei the Romans can muster,with the main force being the former.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes but what I think Agricola means is that the Romans relied on these "barbarians" as their main fighting force at some point in the 4th or 5th Century CE. Not that they were using them as auxillaries to the Roman legionaries which they had done since 3rd Century BCE

Got it. That's true. I was just saying they had been used for a while.

 

[Agricola]

Using barbarian units to enlarge and enable the roman army and Barbarization of the roman army are two fully different things. The first is as old as the punic wars or even older. The second did not happen in a real detrimental way before the Battle of Frigidus (395 AD). Unfortunatly some famous historians of the 19th century, which are still often read because downloadable for free from the internet, argued otherwise. For them as childs of the 19th centuries and its strange mindset a batavian soldier in Agricolas army in Caledonia (80 AD) is a clear sign of the increasing barbarization of the roman army. And they were fully wrong about this point.

My point was, that without real Barbarization up to the high command of the roman army, the romans should be able to keep their secrets. Numeri, recruited from barbarian tribes beyond the empires borders make no difference, because they should have no chance to get even close to these secrets.

Even after 395, the barbarization in the eastern army was much less of an issue and was reversed to some extent later. So the roman empire after 476 should have no issues to keep its secrets. So barbarization, with a risk of loosing secrets was just an issue in the West for a rather short time of about 80 years from 395-476.

 

[darthfanta]

A positive though is that the barbarians will most likely be hardpressed when they try to besiege Roman cities and forts equipped with firearms without having any of their own in significant quantity.Given that it's gunpowder weapons are relatively easy to use,I don't think it's implausible to see militiamen with firearms who are more capable of resisting the barbarians on their own without the support of the regular army.

Using barbarian units to enlarge and enable the roman army and Barbarization of the roman army are two fully different things. The first is as old as the punic wars or even older. The second did not happen in a real detrimental way before the Battle of Frigidus (395 AD). Unfortunatly some famous historians of the 19th century, which are still often read because downloadable for free from the internet, argued otherwise. For them as childs of the 19th centuries and its strange mindset a batavian soldier in Agricolas army in Caledonia (80 AD) is a clear sign of the increasing barbarization of the roman army. And they were fully wrong about this point.

My point was, that without real Barbarization up to the high command of the roman army, the romans should be able to keep their secrets. Numeri, recruited from barbarian tribes beyond the empires borders make no difference, because they should have no chance to get even close to these secrets.

Even after 395, the barbarization in the eastern army was much less of an issue and was reversed to some extent later. So the roman empire after 476 should have no issues to keep its secrets.

Perhaps production of gunpowder weapons and gunpowder can be centralized in Italy?Another thing is that like I've mentioned,you will need some manufacture capability and some trade network to create enough to be of military significance even if they managed to know how these weapons are created.The Persians,as I have mentioned,are probably the only ones sophisticated enough to development and create gunpowder weaponry of their own out of Rome's neighbours.

 

[Agricola]

A positive though is that the barbarians will most likely be hardpressed when they try to besiege Roman cities and forts equipped with firearms without having any of their own in significant quantity.Given that it's gunpowder weapons are relatively easy to use,I don't think it's implausible to see militiamen with firearms who are more capable of resisting the barbarians on their own without the support of the regular army.

This is true, guns should be easier to use than a bow, which needs a lot of training. If the romans would be able to produce guns in masses, the militia of the cities would surely use them (plus grenades and perhpas cannons). But the same is true for the easy to use crossbow, which has been more reliable than early guns. Unfortunately the romans obviously did not mass produce crossbows and the manuballista was perhaps not a mass product at all.

Perhaps production of gunpowder weapons and gunpowder can be centralized in Italy?Another thing is that like I've mentioned,you will need some manufacture capability and some trade network to create enough to be of military significance even if they managed to know how these weapons are created.

Very plausible. Already in the 3rd century the romans started to centralize the mass production of standardized military equipment in public factories. This is seen as one main reason, why the lorica segmentata was replaced by the more standardized lorica hamata and others again. So you bet, that a roman factory producing firearms is a centralized high security area in a very safe part of the empire.