"It would be rather hard for me not only because roman period is not my area of expertise as historian but because most of my reading on the topic was in russian. As far as I can understand the problem most of modern research speaks about ranged combat as primary form of combat for legionaries.
Firstly I must note that I speak mostly about classical marian legions and their pre-marian predecessor. Late roman military is pretty different beast.
And it is very much logical - scutum as a shield is not very good optimised for a melee combat in close formation. It is too large and restrictive. In the same time it is perfect for a defense against projectiles in close formation. Gladius as a sword is also suboptimal choice for melee combat in close formation as the only target you can attack with it is one straight before you. You cannot really help a comrade next to you with gladius without breaking formation. And you can do this with a spear or even with a longer sword. The next point is that leg protection is very much rare for legionaries. And leg protection is really fucking important during melee combat in close formation (yes, even with a large shield at hand).
Therefore as far as I can tell romans perfected the traditional "barbarian" way of fighting - throwing stuff and obscenities at the enemy untill he was ready to break and charge to finish him afterwards. There is no melee combat at all if such tactic was performed pefectly. Also this solution is best for citizen militia types of armies becasue it is far less training intensive than greek or macedonian hoplite formations (and reason why pre-marian triaries were considered as elite reserve troops).
Sergarr said: ↑
You'd have to bring a lot of evidence, because the only time legionaries used pilas in melee (that was specifically noted as an unusual usage of the weapon) was in freaking Parthia against cavalry. The only time.
Of course pila weren't their weapons of choice for melee. It was a ranged weapon and throwing stuff at the enemy was a main form of combat for legionaries. Such manner of fighting was common for many contemporary societies and romans as I already said perfected it by creation of formation which was nigh invulnerable to enemy skirmish tactics. By this they practically forced the enemy to charge them or break away. Also this is a major reason why roman perfomance in direct combat against actual heavy infantry wasn't so stellar.
Sergarr said: ↑ Also for heavy skirmishers they've surely paid a lot of attention towards freaking TOWER SHIELDS and heavy armour. Doesn't seem like the stuff that synergies well with the "throw javelins" battle-strategy.
It synergies very good with such strategy. Tower shield is not good in melee. Too large and uwieldy. In the same time it is perfect for protection against projectiles. Heavy armor is very much capable to reduce casualties from enemy throwing weapons and therefore ensure the favorable casualty rates. In fact "heavy skirmisher" is a best answer to enemy skirmishers if you do not have enough of proper cavalry. Sounds familiar?
HolySeraph said: ↑ About the only units that could be considered have the sword as their primary weapon are the Rodeleros and maybe certain cavalry is all I can think of off hand. But then this is outside my 'expertise'.
Rodeleros weren't a "unit" per se. They were type of soldier inside a unit. And weren't succesful much on battlefields. They are mostly known because Macchiavelly and his roman/citizen militia fetish."
I'm a bit curious on this theory that the roman legionaries were actually heavy skirmishers rather than what movies usually depict them.
I found this comment in this website.
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/what-was-the-nature-of-roman-infantry.333407/
It’s not accurate at all.
Broadly speaking, Roman battle doctrine of the Principate emphasized the use of shock tactics to break enemy formations. While it must be remembered that the “average battle” is an artificial construct (in that the course of every battle is unique and dictated by context), it is worth using this idea as a thought exercise to elucidate the nature of Roman infantry combat during the Principate. Both for simplicity’s sake, and because you reference legionaries in your question, I am going to confine this answer to legionaries, though it is worth stating that most, if not all, of what I will say held true for auxiliary infantry.
Roman legionaries were heavily armored, especially when compared to their Germanic opponents. Segmented armor offered a superior level of protection, but never completely supplanted mail or scale, despite what Hollywood (and Roman iconography) would have you believe. The army was not a uniform institution, and while a relative uniformity in equipment could be expected within units, across units, armor would have varied. That said, all legionaries would have had a form of corselet (segmented, mail, or scale), as well as a squared shield (the scutum), and a helmet, whose construction varied over time. Such a panoply was necessary for close-order combat, and it’s weight, while not overly restrictive, was not conducive for skirmishing. It’s worth noting that during Late Antiquity, infantrymen who operated as skirmishers eschewed armor, even helmets.
In battle, legionaries arrayed by century, with formations organized by rank, rather than by file. Although formations of this period were “looser” than in Late Antiquity, they were not “loose”- ranks were clearly defined, with training emphasizing unit cohesion and the maintenance of formation when maneuvering. Legionaries would have occupied a frontage of roughly three to six feet, with spacing between centuries to facilitate movement, though the exact distance is unclear. Legionary arrays were thus fluid enough to facilitate individual maneuver (necessary for shock tactics) and the throwing of pila whilst remaining compact formations (critical for the repellence of cavalry).
Upon command, the battle line would advance, continuing to maintain formation. If advancing over rough terrain, pauses might have been taken to dress the ranks. When in range, the battle line would pause to throw their pila. Each legionary carried two. The intent of this volley was not to cause mass casualties per se, but rather to disrupt and weaken the enemy formation (through casualties), making it less able to resist the subsequent charge. That said, volleys of pila would have been especially deadly against relatively unarmored opponents, such as the Germanic peoples. This volley was immediately followed up by a charge. Drawing their gladii, the legionaries would rush the last remaining yards towards the enemy. This was not a wild frenzy- formations were strictly maintained, such that the entire battle line engaged simultaneously. Ideally, the enemy, weakened by the volley of pila and terrified of the armored, shouting body of men charging rigidly at them would break and run, where the Roman cavalry, waiting on the flanks, could swoop in and cut them the pieces. Such a battle would have been relatively swift, leaving few Roman casualties. These shock tactics are broadly characterized as “volley and charge” tactics.
Of course, an enemy did not always oblige by immediately routing, thus necessitating a longer engagement. Remember that at no point did a Hollywood-style swirling melee ensue- the Romans would have maintained formation, with only the men in the front rank or so actually engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Roman advantages in training, armor, and unit cohesion would have provided an advantage in a protracted engagement. The experience of Roman infantry combat in all periods is unclear. Doubtless there would have been pauses in the fighting, yet we know nothing about them. The Romans cycled reserve units into the main battle line (likely done during such pauses), yet we are equally ignorant of the process. The writers of our literary sources were unconcerned with such technical details, making reconstructing the “face” of Roman battle extremely problematic.
Roman infantry thus did not operate as “heavy skirmishers”, a term itself that is rather inaccurate. Roman battle doctrine emphasized the use of shock tactics to break the enemy line, with legionaries armored accordingly. Skirmishers, such as archers, javelin-throwers, and slingers were employed, but they were neither heavily armored nor fought in close formation.
The problem with the question is that heavy skirmisher is a battlefield role which can be filled by a variety of troop types. An armored cavalry man for instance could be used as a heavy skirmisher to support light infantry or cavalry; but most folks would classify such as a soldier as a knight or shock trooper rather than a heavy skirmisher.
The question should really be whether the Roman Legions used ranged weapons to a far greater degree than what is commonly depicted in popular history - their stereotype being the gladius-wielding heavy infantry. In which case the answer is "Yes but it depends on the period and the Legion."
Whether or not they fought as skirmishers primarily is also another "it depends" question. In the major named battles they certainly didn't fight as skirmishers - they closed in to battle in melee for the most part so they were definitely line or shock infantry! That said they did serve as skirmishers in the prelimenary phases (esp the Republic Era Velites) of a battle and we know less about how they solved day-to-day minor skirmishes in hostile territories populated by barbarians.