The Roman Military: Tactical Warfare

Any army relies on smart strategies and quick battlefield tactics to overcome their enemy. The Roman Army possessed incredibly skilled commanders, and their superior tactics won them countless battles.

Resource Tactics

"To distress the enemy more by famine that by the sword is the mark of consummate skill."
-Roman Military Maxim

The Romans realized that with the training a soldier requires, his food, his armour, his armaments, his salary, and his honorarium (paid to those who received honourable discharges), a soldier was a very expensive proposition, and was far too valuable a resource to waste. Therefore, the best tactic would be the one that had the most effect without exposing the troops to unnecessary risk. Their answer was to cut off their opponent from his resources. Armies run on their stomachs and equipment, and both require regular supplies. Without a steady supply of food and water, an army will starve or dehydrate, killing or demoralizing the troops. Eventually, the army would fall apart. There were three ways that the Romans could separate their enemies from their resources.

The first way was attacking the resources themselves. When they conquered territory, they took as much as they could. This not only gave them more food, it prevented it from falling into their opponent's hands. This strategy backfired in Gaul, where Vercingetorix employed a scorched earth tactic, whereby burning crops and taking livestock when he retreated, he left the Romans nothing to take. He was eventually foiled when Caesar ordered his troops to cross the Liore river. Vercingetorix had thought the river impassable, and had not bothered to destroy any of the crops on the other side, so the Romans were able to re-supply and continue their campaign.

The second part was intercepting the supplies en route. By cutting of the main arteries of transportation, the amount of supplies that could reach the enemy was drastically reduced.

The third, and most famous part of this strategy, was the siege. When the enemy holed up in a city or fort, the army would surround the city and begin constructing the various parts of their siege arsenal. Often, they would build another wall around the city, out of range of the archers, to keep the enemy from escaping. They built and used catapults, ballistas, onagers, and trebuchets to hurl rocks, spears, and other things at the enemy from safe distances. Spears were launched from the catapults to take out the defenders on the wall. The heavier pieces often shot boulders, damaging walls, destroying buildings, and causing chaos. Other projectiles included rotting carcasses, which could start plagues, especially if they hit the water supply, and skulls, to demoralize the enemy. After a while the city's (or fort's) food supply would run out, the defenders would die, and the Romans would have an easy victory.

However, this did not always work. Another army could move in and attack the besiegers. The fort or city might have an internal source of food and water, like at Masada. So, if the enemy could not be starved, or time was of the essence, a direct assault was required.

The main obstacle in such assaults was the wall that protected the enemy. The weakest link in the wall was usually the gate, so one tactic was to break through using a battering ram. Unfortunately, the gate was often heavily guarded, so an attack there could be suicidal. Another strategy was to build a wheeled tower higher than the walls, and use that to place the troops on top of the wall. While not attempting to mount the wall, archers could climb to the top of the tower to increase their range. Or, if one had enough time, you could attempt to dig under the wall. This could accomplish one of two purposes. The miners could either try to collapse the wall, or create a tunnel that would allow the troops to enter the city. Either option was risky, because the tunnel could collapse at any moment, killing the work crews.

To Corner or Not to Corner?

When the enemy was facing defeat, the Roman commander had several options. Did he press the attack, and try to cut them down, or did he allow them to retreat? While some might try and end it there, the more frequent approach was to allow them to run. When cornered, soldiers would often try to make a stand, and fight with the strength brought on by desperation, taking a heavy toll before they were overwhelmed. If they were given an avenue of escape, they would think only of running, dropping weapons and armour in an attempt to go faster. The Romans would then be dealing with a disarmed, panicked, and demoralized rabble, instead of a force determined to fight to the last man.

Dealing with Non-cavalry Mounted Opponents

Chariots

The Romans tended not to use chariots in combat, because they were only useful on completely flat ground. When the army faced opponents who used them, they simply set up obstacles that would severely damage or destroy any chariot foolish enough to try and cross them.

Elephants

The Roman army had several ways of dealing with mounted pachyderms. Elephants usually carried several riders, the idea being that the riders could finish off any attackers before they had enough time to kill the elephant. The first method was to pick off the riders with archers, which could be difficult if the riders themselves were archers, because they had a height advantage. The second was to have the cavalry ride in circles around it and throw javelins. Another tactic was to part ranks in front of the elephant, and then rush in and attack its flanks.