Cadence

Advanced search

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2013, 07:20:03 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[M. Demetrius]

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewforum.php?f=17

A discussion of whether Romans used drums to keep time in a military column on the march led to a discussion of the word "cadence".  What's the view here, as that discussion continues on RAT?  Did the Romans really call cadence, or use some kind of sound cue to keep men in step if and when they wanted to march in step?  If so, what did they use (since there's no apparent evidence of the use of drums)?

What say you all?

[Red]

cadence may be "called" or "kept" by any means which establishes a rhythmic sound which is then matched to a "step" or "pace." A simple whistle, a song, clap of hands, even the sound of boots on ground by them selves (REALLY motivating!) can "establish" a cadence. We know that they used a myriad of instruments in Roman culture. Drums are not seen in the military record, however several horn types are. But think you about this....what would be the difficulty of a simple vitae against anything to maintain cadence? None. However, in this case, I side more with the opposition than with those who say "yep" as there is simply nothing to support it. Also, column marches for distance are usually at route step - hence, no requirement for a cadence at all.
Better to steer clear of that food fight says me.

[kchetwynd]

In the rev war period, cadence is everything, you wont find a unit without a drummer unless you look hard. The absence of drummers in the files on trajans column would seem to suggest that the Romans kept step with their actual steps.

The hobnailed boots on the roman roads probably generated a substantial noise that could be thought of as some form of cadence, you would just need one person at the front of the line to stay at a fixed pace, and the remainder of the column would likely be kept in check.

It might be slow, initialy, getting everyones step's synchronised, but your body will naturaly match your step to the people arround you over time anyway.

The romans quite obviously had an available method of controling marching steps, because engineers who study bridge harmonics often cite roman sources, relating to how the legions would be ordered to break their regular step to offset the effect on the bridge struts.

Yelling "left, left, left, right, left" seems to me one of the less likely ways of controlling the marching speed of a group of 6000 men.

[M. Demetrius]

It might be slow, initialy, getting everyones step's synchronised,

Vegetius says it took three months to teach recruits the "military step".  If it were just to keep the same length, that could be taught in a couple of afternoons, so some of us conclude it was to be able to walk all day wearing hobnailed shoes, in reasonably close order, which pretty much requires walking in step.  One time you slide your hobnails down the back of my foot might be forgivable, but the second time will be trouble.

We have used nothing more complex than the side of a gladius against a shield boss for training.  And you're quite right, when walking, even on a gravelly dirt road, the sound of feet in step is enough to stay in rhythm, at least is has been for us few at a time.  It should only be more pronounced in larger groups.

[Macedon]

I also tend to think that the "military step" of Vegetius was not something complicated. Unfortunately I do not know Latin, so I have only read Vegetius from a translation (John Clark, 1944) but where does Vegetius state that it took three months for a recruit to learn the "military step" specifically? I thought, and of course I may be mistaken, that drilling in evolutions was (and is) something quite different, even though it did involve military step for sure.

[M. Demetrius]

If I understand your question, drill for parade function, etc., was not in the Roman military mindset.  However, managing a half-mile wide array of soldiers standing in three main groups, each 10 men deep simply demands that soldiers in groups be taught to work and move as a group (not necessarily the entire army, but as units of cohort size and/or century)

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/ is an English translation in which IIRC the three month's time is mentioned.

[Macedon]

Of course it does. I just think that managing thousands of files of men to keep ranks, order and make evolutions (facing, turning, counter-marching etc) is not the "military step" spoken of by Vegetius (by the way, is it a good translation? What is the Roman term for that?), who if my memory serves me well connects it with marches (20 and 24 miles in 5 hours, then it is running and not marching). I will now look through his work again to find the part where he is saying that it took 3 months for the recruits to "learn" the military step. This I do not remember reading. I remember him mentioning the 3 month basic training period, I just do not remember him saying that it was the "military step" the recruits learned in it. Can you provide me the exact paragraph if it is no problem?

[Mark Graef]

Of course it does. I just think that managing thousands of files of men to keep ranks, order and make evolutions (facing, turning, counter-marching etc) is not the "military step" spoken of by Vegetius (by the way, is it a good translation? What is the Roman term for that?), who if my memory serves me well connects it with marches (20 and 24 miles in 5 hours, then it is running and not marching). I will now look through his work again to find the part where he is saying that it took 3 months for the recruits to "learn" the military step. This I do not remember reading. I remember him mentioning the 3 month basic training period, I just do not remember him saying that it was the "military step" the recruits learned in it. Can you provide me the exact paragraph if it is no problem?

Macedon, I will try to accurately answer your questions, and some of the other points made previously.

Vegetius uses the term "gradum militaris" (in the nominative case). "Military step" is a precise, literal translation. The difficulty lies in that modern readers have varying conceptions of what a military step is (or was).

Your recollection of the speed of marches, 20 or 24 miles in 5 hours, is correct. However, it is not running but a brisk marching pace. A Roman mile is a little shorter than an English/US mile, and a Roman summer hour is about 1 hour, 15 minutes by modern standards. The speed is very close to 19th cent. marching rates for "quick time" and "double quick time."

I don't think it specifically says that it takes 3 months to learn the military step in Vegetius. I looked through all my paper notes on Vegetius, the Latin text, and both the Clarke and Milner translations, just to make sure. I have a suspicion that this was a statement made in one of the early to mid-20th century books on the Roman army, which has been misquoted by just about everyone, without attribution, ever since.

V. says in Book I-9 that the first thing recruits should be taught is the military step, because nothing is more important on the march or in battle that all soldiers keep ordinem servent (serried ranks, or in modern military terms, a formation with dress, cover and proper interval) and this could only be learned through constant training. At I-19 he notes that "Recruits should be very frequently be made to carry a burden of up to 60 lb. and route march at the military step" with weapons and armor; at I-27 he states that according to the constitutions of Augustus and Hadrian the infantry should be led out on marches thrice every month with arms at the military step to a distance of 10 miles from the camp over hilly and difficult terrain, and then marched back to camp, with some part of the return at the brisker pace; and at II-5 (II-4 in Clarke) V. states that recruits were sworn in after four or more months of daily training.

Given the above can readily see that it might take a recruit the greater portion of a 4-month training period to build up enough strength, stamina, and discipline to be able to routinely march at a fast pace in ordered ranks and files, in armor with weapons and 60 lbs of gear, for 20 miles over hilly and rough terrain. It would be not so much a matter of learning the military step, as much as mastering it, i.e. reaching a high level conditioning.

I can confidently say that the Roman military step did not include marching in lockstep to a cadence or music, although Roman troops sometimes naturally fell into step. I have found passages from 2 prominent Roman authors who state that Romans did not rhythmically march to a cadence or music, unlike other Mediterranean armies that did; as well as a recorded instance where Roman troops fell into a marching rhythm almost as if there were a marching tune being played. I will supply these in a later post.

The intervals within Roman infantry formations, as documented in Polybius, Asclepiodotus, Aelian, and Vegetius, indicate that marching in step  is not necessary to prevent stepping on each other's heels. Roman formations route marched in open order (with intervals of 6 Roman feet, about 70 modern inches); obviously at that distance stepping on each other's heels is impossible. Even in close order (which was mainly used for short advances in combat, or for pivoting), where the intervals are halved — hence 3 Rft or 35" — stepping on each other's heels is not going to happen with the proper step of 29 inches, as long as the correct interval is maintained.

Mark Graef

[Macedon]

Thanks for the answer Mark, I agree. As for that part about running, I think it was Vegetius' own words, not my personal comment.
After reading your answer another question came to me : Do you consider Aelian and Asclepiodotus sources about contemporary Roman tactical details? I think they are both clearly presenting Greek tactics (even though from a past time) and although certain things we could consider as generic truth, like intervals and at least some evolutions, I am not really confident that they can easily be used to determine Roman preferences or possible peculiarities of their or any previous era. I would love to see any texts you have about the way Romans marched into battle and certainly any Latin text about tactics and specifics. I am kind of obsessed with primary sources but unfortunately I know no Latin... (at least yet).

Hygiaine

George

[Mark Graef]

George, I mis-read your original comment on the rate of march in Vegetius. You are correct, he does say that anything beyond 24 miles in 5 hours is running, I thought you were saying that 24 miles in 5 hours was running.

I recently posted a detailed comment on RAT on using the Greek language tactica as a source for imperial Roman drill; you probably have seen it by now. This partly explains my view, but your question deserves a more detailed response. I will start a new thread entitled "Using the Greek language tactica from the Roman era" to and discuss this further in the Drill and Formations sub-forum of Ludus Militis.

The best sources we have for Roman tactics come from authors who wrote in Greek; some of them were Roman citizens of high rank, some were in a position to observe the Roman army first hand.  Arrianus has to be at the top of the list, as he not only wrote his own version of the tactica derived from Aelian or Poseidoius, but he wrote an account of deploying an army under his command using the tactica, The Order of Battle Against the Alans. The Strategikon of Maurice explained in plain language how Romans drilled using the tactica. Onasander recommended to the general Quintus Veranius in AD 56 that he should know tactics before he takes command of the army in Britain, and even lists the evolutions — all of which are in the Greek tactica.

The histories of Polybius and Josephus have the best first-hand accounts of the Roman army known, and contain many tactical details. Some details can be gleaned from the histories of Appian and Cassius Dio, and even a linguistic work, the Onamasticon of Julius Pollux.

In comparison the quality and quantity of descriptions of Roman tactics in Latin sources is pretty paltry. A few examples are found in Frontinus' Stratagemata. Maneuvers and terminology that parallels that in the Greek tactica may be found in Caesar, Livy, and Tacitus, but they are scattered, and one has to know what to look for, because many of the passages have been mistranslated. Vegetius acknowledges the tactica but chooses not to discuss them. Nonetheless, the details of Roman tactics he does supply are identical to those found in Greek-language works.

The source list in the Ludus Militis Tactica has the full titles etc. of most the texts above. The footnotes explain where each maneuver is mentioned in the Latin and Greek sources, and the commentaries tie everything together.

Vale

Mark

• Recently found this inter... by JKALER48 [August 09, 2012, 06:07:36 PM]
• Sheltering attached troop... by M. Demetrius [September 28, 2011, 07:28:55 AM]
• Employment of Individual ... by JKALER48 [September 03, 2011, 10:19:05 AM]
• Legion Medical Officers a... by JKALER48 [July 21, 2011, 12:19:42 PM]
• typical depth of four? by M. Demetrius [June 10, 2011, 03:50:17 PM]
• Sacramentum or Ius Iurand... by Macedon [June 07, 2011, 09:25:58 PM]
• Cadence by Mark Graef [May 23, 2011, 06:29:01 PM]
• Ancient Sources Quotes on... by M. Demetrius [May 20, 2011, 02:56:45 PM]
• Ancient Sources on the Ma... by JKALER48 [April 20, 2011, 10:41:08 AM]
• Breadmaking from Scratch by M. Demetrius [April 05, 2011, 08:15:37 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 82
• Latest: Bronco_6

Stats

• Total Posts: 582
• Total Topics: 135
• Online Today: 4
• Online Ever: 34
• (April 07, 2011, 01:35:12 PM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 5
Total: 5