Blog

Writer, and retired U.S. Marine Corps Major, Craig Martelle www.craigmartelle.com used an expression, “Amateurs talk tactics, while professionals talk logistics.”

Is this true? Is the phrase simply a prod to make people think in terms of details? Or can historical events prove the validity of the statement?

It was these questions I wanted answered.

Here are my results.

****

Let’s start with the definitions of Strategy, Tactics, and Logistics.

Strategy is the goal or intended outcome of a campaign.

Tactics are the movements in the theater of operation with the express purpose of reaching the goal. In short, the maneuvering of the fighting forces and the tools of war to win battles.

Logistics consist of moving the fighters to the battlefield, making sure they have the right equipment and supplies before and during the battle, and finally, bringing the troops out after the operation ends. 

With these descriptions as a guide, let look at how they fit together. 

****

Strategist, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is a person skilled in planning action or policy, especially in war or politics.

In today’s Hellenic Army, Strategos is the highest-ranking officer. Going back in antiquity, Strategos meant General or leader of an army to the ancient Greeks. Latin for Strategist is Strategus. Obviously, the need for goal setting was clear throughout history.

One leader stood out as an example of a strategist, Napoleon Bonaparte. Historians say Napoleon was a great Stratège. Proving his proficiency repeatedly, the French Emperor defeated larger armies through his shrewd planning.

**** 

For Tactics, in history, we find names like Alexander the Great of Macedon, Hannibal Barca of Carthage, the Mongolian Ghengis Khan, and France’s Napoleon Bonaparte as four of the very best.

Although in different eras, some with levied troops and mercenaries standing in the battlelines, and others against organized armies, the tacticians drilled their soldiers to keep them sharp. And they moved them rapidly around the battlefield to great advantage. Combing their infantry, cavalry, and ranged weapons in unique ways, they took advantage of the weaknesses of their enemies to win. 

Once the shields clashed, arrows flew, or the cannons fired, superior leaders used tactics to win.

Amateurs talk Tactics, while professionals talk Logistics. We’ve read about strategy, and tactics from great Generals. Now, let’s test the last part of the statement.

****

In 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte planned an invasion of Russia. Before stepping off, the General built bakeries to cook field rations, stocked supply depots with medical supplies, gun power and shot, flour, dried meats, and other items an army would need. 

To assure the steady delivery of the essentials, he enlisted a quartermaster corps. His logistics centered around wagon trains of large transport wagons, pulled by thousands of draft animals, and guided by enough teamsters to maintain the steady flow of goods to the fighting forces. 

In June 1812, with everything in place, Napoleon Bonaparte marched a 615,000-man army into Russia. In the first month, his battle-hardened troops pushed the Russian army back. In battle after battle, Napoleon’s tactics won the day.

Realizing their inadequacies, the Russian army began a scorched earth policy as they retreated. But the burning of crops and the slaughter of animals, leaving nothing for the French army to forage, didn’t bother Napoleon. His wagon trains would feed and clothe his army as they progressed to an eventual victory.

Then, at the end of June 1812, the skies opened, and heavy rains fell. In France and Germany, sites of Napoleon’s greatest successes, the main roads were paved. Not so in Russia where the dirt roads became impassable, muddy treks. 

As a result of the deep mud, the heavy transports got bogged down and couldn’t deliver the provisions. In an attempt to keep goods flowing to the advancing army, the quartermaster corps constructed or conscripted small carts. But, the smaller payloads of goods reduced the flow of supplies to the front. Due to the shortages, the French army stalled deep in Russia.

Yet, the great tactician continued to press forward slowly. Slowly enough that the French troops were there when the Russian winter gripped the starving army. When losses from starvation and exposure exceeded those killed by the Russian army, Napoleon ordered a retreat.

Of the 615,000-men who marched into Russia, only 110,000 staggered out. And so, the great strategist Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated by a breakdown of his logistics, and not by an army with better tactics.

****

In conclusion, it appears the statement “Amateurs talk Tactics, while professionals talk Logistics” has historical substance. And the quote does relay more than the mere difference between a layperson’s and an expert’s perspective. It’s proven to be the difference between victory and defeat – between life and death.

****

Until my next blog, I wish you faith, courage, and enthusiasm.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

You might not see a connection between Sparta and Crete, I didn’t. For me, they appeared to be opposites as one was an in-land nation and the other an island nation. Yet, there were similarities as one produced the most feared infantrymen in antiquity and the other the deadliest bowmen in ancient times. It was these results that interested me.

****

Classical Greece had four major ethnic groups: The Dorians, Aeolians, Achaeans, and Ionians. Settlements linked to the Dorian group include Sparta and Crete. Due to this heritage, the two shared some culture traits. Among them, both were committed to shaping their soldiers from a very young age. And while the Spartans were famous for their agoge, they weren’t alone in the tradition. 

Per Greek historian Strabo concerning Crete:

…and in order that courage, and not cowardice, might prevail, he commanded that from boyhood they should grow up accustomed to arms and toils, so as to scorn heat, cold, marches over rugged and steep roads, and blows received in gymnasiums or regular battles; and that they should practice, not only archery, but also the war‑dance…so that not even their sports were without a share in activities that were useful for warfare…and that they should use military dress and shoes; and that arms should be to them the most valuable of gifts…

Both cultures had their male children sent to a school to become warriors. But, in Sparta, elders examined all male babies for their fitness to attend the academy. On Crete, only children capable of completing the rigors of the training were sent by their families to the agoge.\

This parallel, yet dissimilar, approach went beyond the selection process.

****

The boys ate together.

In Sparta, the instructors cluttered the boys into Herds. Instructors in Crete called their charges Troops. Both the Herds and the Troops ate together. However, in Crete, the Troops participated in the Andreia (Prowess). Along with others who were fed at public expense, the Cretan boys ate on the ground with the poor and downtrodden. It was a way to teach them humility and connect them to the lesser members of the society.

In Sparta, the elite Herds dined separately from the population.

**** 

Their landscapes and lifestyles designated the weapons and the use of the warriors.

Ancient Sparta had wide valleys to accommodate the Phalanx formation and allowed for infantry tactics. Therefore, the Spartans trained for the landscape with spears and shields. Built and maintained for internal defense to control their slave population and to defend their lands, it took a lot of convincing to get a Spartan army to operate beyond their borders. 

Ancient Crete boasted rough terrain, mountains, and shorelines. To take advantage of the landscape, bows and arrows, light battledress, and foot speed were required.

Without bordering countries to defend against, archers from the Island of Crete were hired out as mercenaries. From the Peloponnesian Wars, through the campaigns of Alexander the Great, to the Roman Legions of the 2^nd Punic War, and into the middle ages, Cretan archers were a desirable addition to any army.

****

One aspect that demonstrated the difference between the cultures concerned money.

To a Spartan, money was useful to maintain the state and to support the army. No one would get rich fighting for Sparta. It was every male citizen’s duty.

Quite the opposite, the expectation for Cretans was to make a profit in every venture. Which helps explain why they would train light infantry archers, then send them around the world as a commodity on lease.

****

Training for both was hard, and it produced surprisingly similar but different results.

Spartan infantry displayed tenacity, brutality, and discipline in holding their formation against overwhelming odds.

Cretan archers showed ferocity as skirmishers, speed as couriers, and deadly accuracy with arrows from their formations.

This begs the question of how could bowmen use a formation? Most archers of antiquity fired in mass.

Dienekes, a Spartan at the Battle of Thermopylae, was warned that Persian archers would discharge their arrows and, by their multitude, would obscure the light of the sun. Dienekes replied it was good news because they would battle in the shade.

This demonstrated the norm of shooting arrows in mass. But for archers from Crete, history gave us a hint of archers in a tight formation.

William Louis described countermarches for Phalanx formations as configurations for musketeers in the 16^th Century. In his letters, Louis mentioned countermarches, one being the Cretan Maneuver. 

This made it clear that Sparta and Crete used formations in battle. For Spartans, it was throwing a lance, then rotating to the back of the file to rearm. While for Cretan archers, it meant shooting tight groups of arrows at an enemy in proximity before rotating to the rear of a file to rearm. In both cases, the formations allowed for a steady stream of missiles heading toward an approaching enemy.

Orchestrating formation maneuvers could only be accomplished by soldiers with a shared philosophy of warfare. Soldiers such as the Spartan infantrymen and the Cretan bowmen who graduated from separate but very much alike agoges.

****

I became aware of the connection between Sparta and the Island of Crete while researching Journey from Exile. Journey from Exile is book #1 in A Legion Archer series. Set during the 2^nd Punic War, the books follow the adventures of a Latin boy trained in the ways of the Cretan archers as he struggles to find his place in the world and uncover his true identity.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

I was honored to be a guest on a show featuring conversations with Las Vegas authors. Hosted by Sarah “S.G.” Tasz, the Neon Salon covers local writers in long form interviews.

During our talk, Sarah and I touched on writing influences, the inspirations for my various series, how I became a novelist, why new author need to consider, plus many other topics.

Hopefully, you’ll enjoy listening to the interview. Email me Let me know what you think, GalacticCouncilRealm@gmail.com

For more information about Sarah Tasz check out The Uglycat Press on Facebook ‘@uglycat24 · Author’ or her web site www.uglycatpress.com

I am J. Clifton Slater and I write military adventure both future and ancient. 

My books are available on Amazon in paperback, Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited. Accessible through my website www.JCliftonSlater.com

Until my next blog, I wish you faith, courage, and enthusiasm.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

Two bronze rams, jutting from the bows of ancient warships, sped towards one another. Each quinquereme was powered by 300 rowers, stroking 180 oars. The warships adjusted their headings seeking the best angle of attack. As the rams came abreast, a boarding ramp dropped from one warship. Spanning the gap between vessels and pinning them together with an iron spike, the boarding ramp created a bridge allowing Roman Legionaries to race to the enemy’s deck. The movable ramp, known as the Corvus or the Raven, had been deployed.

It is this extraordinary device that interests me. 

First used in 260 B.C., the Roman Navy abandoned the Corvus just four years later. Yet, those four years left questions for scholars and writers who reverse-engineer ancient devices.

****

Greek historian Polybius described the Corvus as a bridge 36 feet long and 4 feet wide with a parapet on each end. He wrote about the Corvus 77 years after the battle of Mylae using third hand reports. Scholars have debated and drawn other versions of the boarding ramp, attempting to prove the feasibility of Polybius’ Raven. Due to the utilitarian nature of the Legion war machine, I believe the Corvus started out as a much simpler device.

We know the Legions continually improved every invention and made extensive use of specialists. Applying these lessons to the Corvus meant the initial boarding ramp would not have been the final one described by Polybius.

Polybius’ length of 36 feet was adequate. With a Corvus anchored mid-deck, the length allowed for spanning a gap of 12 to 19 feet over the water before pinning the other deck. But the short-range deployment tells us two things about the Corvus’ use. It was dropped when the warships were rowing hard and ram-to-ram distance apart. Thus, it fell fast requiring the Raven to be sturdy and maneuverable. 

Polybius’ 4-foot-wide ramp with parapets description seemed heavy and far from an agile device. An unwieldy parapet, balanced high over the deck, made swinging the Corvus difficult and timing the drop a problem. If you have ever held an extension ladder upright, you know the shape is unbalanced and uncontrollable. Imagine the tension and difficulty of handling a wide Corvus with a top structure over the deck of a moving warship. The Legion engineers were inventive so, the historian’s description probably looked nothing like the first design. 

****

Of the 103 warships in the first fleet, only 30 had Corvus ramps. If the Corvus later became a way to deliver large numbers of heavy infantrymen to enemy ships, a 29% start would not be overwhelming. Perhaps the boarding ramp was used for a different reason in the first fleet.

Suppose the Legion fleet used trained boarders. Legion specialists and a rough boarding ramp to test the theory would explain the low percentage of Corvus in the first fleet. Legionaries were trained to run a narrow ramp, reach, and protect grappling hook lines on the enemy’s deck. Once the ships were stopped by the spike of the Corvus, and pulled close together by ropes, the heavy infantrymen would cross over. So, my concept for the initial Corvus was a manageable beam that could be deployed rapidly and specialists to successfully use it.  

****

Eventually the Romans became better sailors and their ship handling improved. With those advancements, the boarding ramp became unnecessary. Or they grew cautious of the number of warships equipped with the ramps that sank in rough weather. No matter the reason, after four years of service, the Roman Navy retired the Corvus. They left no first-hand details of the Raven’s construction, and so we have only Polybius’ report.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

In the ‘Iliad and the Odyssey’, Jason and the Argonauts sailed on the ship ‘Argo’ on their search for the Golden Fleece. ‘Argo’ is a feminine name. After examining the surviving poems, plays, and documents, we discovered the ancient Greeks used female names as designations for their ships.

When the 1st Punic War began in 264 B.C., the Roman fleet consisted of just 20 older triremes. Everything else seagoing, they leased from the Greeks. In 261 B.C., the Roman Senate voted to expand the fleet to meet the threat of the Carthaginian ships-of-war. The funding provided for the construction of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes. Unlike the Greeks, Roman mariners did not grace their ships with just female monikers. They used male, female, the names of God & Goddesses, attributes, and adjectives. It was this naming of Roman warships that interested me.

****

One source suggested the Romans identified their new warships by numbers. The idea came from the numbering of Legions. However, during the mid-Republic period, the Legions weren’t numbered. They were named for the Consul who raised them. Numbering went into effect in 70 B.C. when Consul Pompey the Great named one of his Legions the 1^st and the other the 2^nd. Thus, in 261 B.C. the new Roman warships were not labeled by numbers.

It’s been proposed the Romans named warships after their Captains. Although the fleet would confront Carthage and eventually control the seas, the Navy never reached a high status within the Roman military. This lack of respect made it unlikely the ship’s senior officers, proud Legion Centurions, would attach their names to boats.

****

We have some data on the naming of warships, but it seems unsatisfying. Historians offered that the warships were named after Gods and Goddesses, mythological figures, or concepts. It was suggested the ships carried just the name such as Mars – the God of War, Jupiter – the God of Thunder, Minerva – the Goddess of Wisdom, War, & Justice, Isis – the Goddess of Death & Healing, Hercules – a Demigod Hero, and Oceanus – the God who regulated the heavenly  

bodies which rose from and set into his waters. Or maybe the ships carried a word expressing feelings such as Harmony, Peace, or Loyalty. Very poetic, but would Priests of deities have an issue with the names of their Gods and Goddesses being tossed about by drunken sailors or Marines? If you have ever experienced shore leave, you would appreciate the last sentence.

In the end, would the hard men who fought the Roman ships identify with a war vessel named for a touchy feelie emotion.

Plus, no matter the significance of the name, using a single honorific gave no personality to the individual warship. The crew of a fighting vessel needed to say the name of their ship with pride. Shouting, we’re the crew from ‘The Pietas’, the Roman Goddess of duty, didn’t have a heroic tone. Men going into combat required more than a word implying high status, politeness, or respect to improve their morale. They needed a descriptor that elicited self-esteem and allowed for boasting.

****

While the deity’s name, or a concept, might have been found cast or carved in a figurehead at the fore section of a warship, in my opinion, the crew would have called their ship something different.

Let me submit warship names that could have been used to motivate the crews and intimidate an enemy.

Neptune’s Fury – an angry Roman God of the sea

Epiales’ Veil – a stealthy Roman God of nightmares

Furor’s Face – the glare of the Roman God of mad rage

Minerva Clever – the acumen of the Roman Goddess of strategic warfare

These names suggest action because the sailors and Marines of the ancient Roman Republic were warriors, not poets or priests.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

A blade and an attitude, two things Republic statesmen brought into every negotiation. But why was ancient Rome so hostile? It’s this belligerent posturing and the ready promise of war that interested me. Let’s examine the challenges surrounding Rome in 264 B.C. at the start of the 1^st Punic War.

****

To the East of Rome:

On the far side of the Ionian Sea were Sparta, Athens, Thebes, and other Greek city-states. 63 years after Alexandria the Great’s death, the power of the Greeks was reduced by war and infighting. Yet, Greek colonies dotted the east coast of the Italian peninsula. Some had signed treaties with the Roman Republic while others resisted. Aided by the Greek city-states, those colonies were urged to spin-up unrest in the eastern region. Side by side, it seems with philosophy and art in ancient Greece, was aggression.

“Molon labe,” Spartan King Leonidas, 450 B.C. – 480 B.C., declared when Xerxes I of the Achaemenid Empire demanded that the Spartans surrender their weapons. “Come and take them.”

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.” – Athenian writer Plato 428 B.C. – 423 B.C.

“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion,” stated Macedonian King Alexander the Great 356 B.C. – 323 B.C.

In 284 B.C., the Romans extended the Appian Way from the mountains of central Italy to Brundisium on the east coast. War, just twenty years before, had brought most of the colonies to the treaty table. But rebellion stirred along the coast and in the mountains among violent factions of the Samnite Tribes.

Across the Adriatic Sea to the east crouched Illyria and its pirate fleet.

“According to the law of the Illyrians, piracy is a lawful trade,” Illyrian Queen

Teuta exclaimed when asked about stopping piracy. “My government has no right to interfere with it as a private enterprise.”

****

In 264 B.C., the Roman navy of just 20 warships was in no position to be proactive when faced with the antics of seagoing bandits. They contained where they could but, were unable to take the fight to the ports of Illyrian.

The fledgling Mediterranean power could only guard small numbers of merchant vessels. And while the Legions were formidable, at the time, Rome didn’t have a large enough navy to suppress the pirates.

****

To the South:

Fearing vengeance from Syracuse, the Mamertines on Sicily in the port city of Massina called on both the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire for help. The Empire responded first, the Republic sometime later. In their first attempt to cross the Messina strait, Legion Tribune Gaius Claudius and his advance units failed.

“Roman’s will never be permitted to even wash their hands in the sea,” Hanno, Carthaginian Admiral in 264 B.C. said upon returning Gaius Claudius’ wrecked transports.

But Tribune Claudius and his Centuries eventually reached and secured Messina. Two Legions followed, unfortunately, arriving in Sicily between an army from Syracuse and an army from Carthage. In two days of fighting, the Legions announced their prowess to the world by defeating both.

****

To the West:

160 miles across the Tyrrhenian Sea, rested the island of Sardinia. The self-governed portion offered no danger. But the southern part of the island housed Carthaginian bases. They were the threat. In response, the Republic remained ever vigilant, fearing the Empire would launch an invasion of Rome from Sardinia.

****

To the North:

In Tuscany, tensions between the Etruscans and Romans continued while the neighboring Umbria slowly began joining the Republic. Further north, the Gauls rampaged along the southern edge of the northern territory.

****

One could rightly describe Rome’s situation in 264 B.C. as being the center of 360 degrees of enemies. With threats all around, there was no debate as to why representatives from the Roman Republic carried attitude into every treaty tent. Or why the Legions hovered like sharp, steel blades over every trade negotiation. 

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

Rome’s naked blade, the Legion, was honed and sharpened during the years of the Roman Republic (509 B.C. – 27 B.C.). And during the Imperial era (27 B.C.– 476 A.D.), it was perfected and systemized. It is the Legions dominance of land warfare for a thousand years that interest me.

While Legions lost battles over the years, they learned, adapted, and adjusted. On the next engagement with the triumphant enemy, the improved Legion usually defeated the foe. They accomplished this by adapting technologies, revising tactics, and using a less visible advantage – one that went unchanged for over a thousand years.

****

An example of emerging technology was the arcuballista. This weapon resembled a large crossbow that, with improvements over the years, became the ballista. A later version developed into the portable and devastating Roman Scorpion.

All were torsion-powered field artillery pieces using horsehair and animal sinew. All launched stones or arrow-shaped missiles of various sizes. From a bulky rudimentary thrower to an elegantly engineered field piece that could be broken down and reassembled quickly, the Legion adapted the weapon.

Every generation of the Legion invented or assimilated equipment and improved it, giving them technical advantages over centuries of enemies.

****

Beyond the machines, the Legion evolved their tactical formations. Starting with the Republic’s shield wall, they implemented a radically new formation, the tightly packed phalanx used by the Greeks. As the fighting carried the Legions into the mountains and hill country of the Italian peninsula, they abandoned the tight configuration and interlocking shields of the phalanx. In its place, they incorporated the flexible maniple formation.

With the change to the maniple came an acknowledgment of the uneven experience of the Roman soldier. To strengthen the three lines of the maniple, they sorted the Legionaries: on the front line were the unbloodied recruits; the experienced fighters created the center line; and the rear rank of the maniple consisted of hardened veterans.

Greek historian Polybius (200 B.C. – 117 B.C.), “The order of battle used by the Roman army (Legion) is very difficult to break through – since it allows every man to fight both individually and collectively. The effect is to offer a formation that can present a front in any direction. The maniples that are nearest to the point where danger threatens can wheel (pivot) in order to meet the threat.”

In 107 B.C., General Gaius Marius reformed the Legion. One change replaced the three-line maniple formation with cohorts (large blocks of Legionaries). Cohort battle lines allowed tactical units to shift and counter larger enemy forces. Over the decades, the Legion successfully developed many other tactics to remain masters of land warfare.

****

The evolving equipment and unique distribution of the infantry gave the Legions technical and tactical superiority. But the constant was discipline, pride, and devotion to total victory. For a thousand years, these elements were combined to form the Way of the Legion. And ‘the way’ was accepted and taken to heart by eons of Centurions and their Legionaries. 

Greek historian Polybius (200 B.C. – 117 B.C.), “They wanted the Centurions (infantry officers) not so much to be venturesome and daredevils, but to be natural leaders of a steady and reliable spirit…At the same time, they did not want soldiers who initiated attacks and opened battles. They wanted men (Legionaries) who would hold their ground when beaten and hard-pressed. Warriors who were ready to die at their posts.”

For almost a thousand years, developing technologies and changing tactics supplied visible advantages. However, from the Republic’s inception to the fall of the Empire, from pacifying the Italian peninsula to conquering a million square miles, the secret to victory was the generations of men who embraced ‘The Way of the Legion’.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

One mantra of modern Special Forces states ‘Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast’. In essence, it dictates that thoughtful actions are more effective than rash decisions. Conversely, the refrain seems in opposition to ‘He Who Hesitates is Lost’ where swift and resolute action brings victory. The two ideals are the core of the debate about the strategy of ending each day constructing a marching camp. It’s this battlefield tactic of the Roman Legion that interests me.

Originally, a Legion in the field didn’t spend energy constructing a fixed position for only one night. During the conquest of the Italian peninsula, Rome’s military simply positioned themselves around campfires at the end of the day. Security came in the form of strategically posted sentries. Then, in 280 B.C., a harsh lesson changed the tactics of the Republic’s army.

King Pyrrhus of Epirus, his Macedonian phalanxes, 4,000 Greek cavalrymen, and 20 war elephants attacked the Republic. Defeated at the Battle of Heraclea, the Legions withdrew across the Siris River. As night fell, the memory of the quick and deadly mounted Greeks and the frightening and unfamiliar war elephants lingered. Realizing a sanctuary was advisable, they dug a trench and installed wooden stakes around their camp. It was the start of the temporary marching camps that marked the passage of Legions until the fall of the Roman Empire.

Over time, the marching camp developed into a carefully planned and constructed compound. A survey unit went ahead of the main body of the Legion to locate a suitable site. Minimum requirements were a source of fresh water and open ground, enabling them to see an approaching enemy. Once found, the surveyors marked the perimeter, indicated areas for tents, and laid out streets. Plus, they allowed space for civilians, craftsmen, and tradesmen who serviced the Legion.

When the infantry arrived, they excavated a defensive ditch, 5-feet-wide by 3-feet-deep. The dirt and rocks were thrown inward to form a mound. On the raised earthwork, they set palisades to build walls. Constructed in a square with rounded corners, the Legion marching camp became familiar to people throughout the ancient world.

But were the Legions’ fortified bivouacs a hindrance or helpful in subduing enemies of the Republic?

****

The camps certainly interrupted the daily progress of the Legions. Stopping their movement early to build temporary structures caused delays in the campaigns. It wasted the infantrymen’s energy when the fighting men needed rest after carrying their equipment all day. And operating from fixed bases prevented surprise attacks and unseen maneuvers. All of this supports the idea that marching camps were a hindrance to the armies of Rome.

On the other hand, displaying a large solid position to the enemy exhibited the might of the Republic. Marching camps were a physical representation of the discipline and conditioning of the Legionaries. Plus, the wilderness fortifications gave the army a protected place to rest for the night.

In the end, we’ve only to look at the success of the armies of Rome and their conquests to validate the assertion that marching camps were beneficial. For the Roman Legions then, Slow was Smooth and Smooth was Fast.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

We think of modern smart weapons as extraordinarily accurate, targetable, and specialized. Examples include bombs that follow laser beams to specific locations or missiles and rockets capable of changing track while locked onto a target. But what armament would be considered a smart weapon in ancient Rome? It’s this question of accuracy, doggedness, and usage that interests me.

Gladii and javelins, wielded by Legionaries, were accurate and capable of locating the enemy. When formed into Century units, they produced a weapon’s system that was both intelligent and targetable. However, rather than being specialized, light and heavy infantrymen were the core of the Roman army. While history showed the efficiency and deadliness of the Legions, they weren’t the smart weapon we are seeking.

Standoff artillery seemed a likely candidate. There were torsion and tension machines for launching rocks and bolts. Archers, as well, might be considered in this category. While accurate to a point, the destination of missiles shot from artillery was determined in part by the laws of physics and the weather. Ballistae, catapults, and bows had a specific use and, were capable of reaching out and touching an enemy. However, ancient projectiles lacked the ability to follow a target once launched.

What did follow a target was the cavalry. Mounted troops were accurate but, the multifunctional units could be messengers, an attacking force, used for containment, or any number of other duties. An excellent contender, however not an ancient smart weapon.

****

After eliminating land-based systems, let’s examine warships. At the start of the First Punic War, 264 B.C., the Roman Navy was small and lacked experienced seaman. Twenty-three years later at the end of the war, the Republic’s navy was equivalent to the Carthage Fleet.

In 261 B.C., the third year of the First Punic War, the Roman Senate realized it faced a formidable sea power in the Carthaginian fleet. Seeking naval parity, they funded the building of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes. The addition of these new warships would expand the Republic’s sea assets by a factor of six. Within this Senatorial decree lay clues to the ancient smart weapon.

The large quinqueremes harnessed the power of 300 oarsmen for speed and to manage the mass of the warships. With five banks of rowers, the ships were formidable battle platforms. Loaded with infantrymen for boarding enemy ships, some ‘fives’ were equipped with a movable ramp. Known as the corvus, or raven, the ramp dropped and created a bridge between fighting ships. Thusly, the quinqueremes delivered infantrymen to the enemy during sea battles. Plus, the quinqueremes carried archers and ballistae for raining down arrows and sweeping their adversary’s deck with iron bolts. Adding to the litany of offensive weapons was a hefty bronze ram jutting from the bow, just below the surface of the water. Looking at the qualifications, there was little wonder why the Senate agreed to construct 100 quinqueremes. Although amazing warships, the variety of weapons eliminated them from contention as our ancient smart weapon.

At first, the inclusion of 20 triremes by the Roman Senate appeared odd. Quinqueremes were superior for hauling Legionaries, deploying ancient artillery, and speeding over distances. Slower and a little unbalanced, the triremes, with three banks of oarsmen, seemed to be a waste of money. Compare the expense of building a trireme at 130 feet in length by 20 feet wide with the differential cost of constructing a quinquereme at 148 feet and 24 feet wide. The expense of building the additional length and width was negligible. Then why build triremes? Because they did one thing very well. In fact, one could argue the ‘threes’ were created for a specific use.

Success in ancient warfare at sea came from boarding and ramming. The nimble triremes didn’t carry enough Legionaries to be a boarding threat unless the Centurion/Captain freed up some of his rowers. However, the triremes were quick. While the quinqueremes had a higher sustainable speed, from dead in the water to a top speed of 7 knots, the triremes were the better sprinters. Fast and maneuverable, the trireme excelled at bringing its bronze ram to bear on enemy ships. As if a sea missile, the warship came in at the attack angle, gutted the enemy’s sideboards, then circled around seeking another target. With a tight turning radius and the ability to dodge and close with any size ship, triremes were ramming machines.

****

Displaying extraordinary accuracy with an ability to follow its target and being created for a specific purpose, the hunter-killers of the ancient seas were the ‘threes’. I submit to you that the one system qualifying as an ancient smart weapon was the trireme warship.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

Q-Score is a modern scale, measuring familiarity by survey questions ranging from ‘Never-Heard-Of’ to ‘One-Of-My-Favorites’. It judges the appeal of brands, celebrities, and companies. Using logic and the opinions of several close friends, I theorized which ancient Roman god or goddess had the highest Q-Score.

As a pagan society, Rome readily adopted the gods of conquered people as the Empire grew. But my research centered on the mid-Republic period at the start of the First Punic War. As such, the Roman gods, and goddesses I looked at were from tribes on the Italian Peninsula.

***

Before battles, soldiers in the Legions made sacrifices. They acknowledged the gods of fighting men: Mars – the God of War, Victoria – the Goddess of Victory, and Jupiter – the Sky Father & His Thunderbolts.

On the other hand, Neptune – God of the Sea, would be the farthest thing from the minds of Legionaries in garrisons or farmers working their fields. Instead, soldiers and farmers were concerned about the gods that had powers over their weekly lives: Fortūna – the Goddess of Luck, and Bacchus – the God of Wine. Or, if they faced the possibility of death, Hades – the God of the Underworld. While powerful contenders, none carried the recognition required to win this survey.

***

At the height of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome had a population of around one million people and the Empire covered 2.2 million square miles. 220 years earlier, the city’s residents numbered around eighty thousand. The Legion wasn’t a full-time standing army, they barely controlled the peninsula up to Tuscany, and most of the citizens were engaged in agriculture.

Eliminated for their dependence on congested commercial centers were Athena – the Goddess of Wisdom, Craftsmen & Fortifications, Vulcan – the God of Metalworking & the Forge, Somnus – the God of Sleep, (insomnia in a city environment is not a modern invention), and Concordia – the Goddess of Agreement. While each would be called upon for specific circumstances, they would not hold high priorities. Thus, urban deities better suited to densely populated areas ranked low for their Q-Score.

We find that the well-known gods and goddesses from history and those taught by scholars also rated low in my scoring. While they may have had impressive temples, as witnessed by surviving ruins, they would not have been as important to citizens in rural areas.

***

Most of ancient Romans worked in agriculture. Tellus – the Goddess of the Earth was embraced daily by farmers. And while plowing the fields, farmworkers constructed walls along their borders with stones they unearthed. These structures made Terminus – the God of Boundary Markers important. However, the country god and goddess may not have been called upon by people in cities and towns. As such, they were not likely candidates for a high Q-Score.

Generally, gods and goddesses that dealt with the human condition seemed likelier choices for high Q-Scores: Orbona – Goddess of Children and Birth, Algea – the Goddess of Pain, Furor – the God of Insanity, and Coalemus – the God of Stupid were identifiable to residents in towns and in the country. But people would not have called on those deities every day.

***

What god of ancient Rome had followers from farm fields to city squares? From fishermen to lawyers, from craftsmen to laborers?

Let us consider a deity known to everyone from birth to death. One who was thought about daily in sickness and in health. A powerful deity all the citizens of the ancient Republic knew about, talked about, and acknowledged. Plus, the city of Rome was famous for the temple built to the god with the highest Q-Score.

It’s not a stretch to imagine a Legionary asking his NCO, “Where have you been, Optio?”

“At the latrines, leaving a sacrifice. And a grand one it was.”

Or consider the farmer spreading manure and thanking the God for the nutrients that made his crops grow. Knowing this, which ancient God had the highest Q-Score?

The Roman God of Poo tops them all. He was Sterculius – God of Feces. And his temple? The complex system of stone sewers under the streets of Rome. The sewer built to honor the god were easily the largest temple in the ancient world.  

Thank you for reading about my unscientific survey. May Voluptas – the Goddess of Enjoyment & Delight grant you a good day.

Ancient gods and goddesses are often mentioned during everyday conversations in my Roman adventure series, Clay Warrior Stories. Set in the framework of the First Punic War, the books go farther than historical fiction. They are adventure stories designed to make you want to strap on a shield, grab a gladius, and join a combat line.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

Once the Legions abandoned the phalanx, they spread heavy infantrymen along lines in maniples. If you’ve ever been in a firefight, you know hearing gets suppressed as you duck, cover, and return fire. While the Marine Corps provided radios, the Roman Legions did not have electronic equipment. Yet, they were famous for executing field maneuvers while in contact with an enemy. It is this battlefield communications that interests me.

****

Signal flags, trumpet calls, and mounted messengers were available to deliver instructions from the Legion’s command staff to the Centuries on the combat line. However, all three vehicles only carried the orders to the combat officers at the rear of the fighting formation.

Imagine the 80 Legionaries of a Century placed in a two-row formation. On the front row are 5 contuberniums (squads), composed of 8 heavy infantrymen in each unit, including 5 tent commanders called Decani. That puts 40 shields (scutas) and short swords (gladii) on the shield wall, with 40 more Legionaries behind them. The second rank hold shields and uses spears to keep the enemy from coming over the tops of the Legion shields on the front row. We now have all 80 heavy infantrymen in brutal face to face contact with the enemy.

Directly behind the fighting lines, stands a busy Centurion. When the flags signaled, the trumpets rang out, or a mounted courier dashed up with orders, the Centurion received the instructions. But the order, once again, only reached the rear of the fighting formation.

While the combat officer clearly grasped the order, the reality for his infantrymen was completely different. The Legionaries were in a world of pain, disgust, and desperation. Death lurked a sword stroke or spear thrust away. Men on both sides of the shield wall were screaming war cries, urinating, and letting loose their bowels, while striking and blocking with all their strength. How then did an order filter forward from the Centurion to the distracted Legionaries doing the fighting?

****

In my opinion, the tent commanders’ voices were the key. Above the din of battle, the Centurion’s voice might penetrate the fighting formation. However, it wouldn’t necessarily reach every single Legionary. But, dispersed along the fighting lines were 10 Decani, the tent commanders, people that were intimately known to the infantrymen.

The Decanus from each contubernium would react to the distinctive voice of their officer and NCOs. Just as the voice of my Sergeant in the Marines cut through the noise of a firefight, the Legionaries would recognize the unique voices of their Decani. In a short span, every Legionary in the Century would hear the order from a trusted voice and execute the command. Thus, directives traveled quickly from the Legion command staff to the Centurion then forward, the final distance, to the men fighting on the battle line.

Combat communications in the Legions must have depended on identifiable and familiar voices. How else would you explain the Legion’s ability to outmaneuver an enemy in an age when the fight was often less than an arm’s length away?

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

Phillip of Macedonia maintained a professional army and the Spartans were famous for passing down the lessons learned on the battlefield to their young. Despite these examples, few ancient civilizations could afford a standing army. For thousands of years, military organizations drew on farmers and mercenaries to fill their ranks. Some of these armies reached levels of competence, won battles, and disbanded after the war. Then the battle knowledge was lost as the citizen/soldiers went home and the mercenaries returned to their homeland.

***

On the surface, early Rome was no different. Except starting in 509 B.C., the Roman Republic installed regional garrisons as the Republic expanded. Their job was to enforce the laws, keep the peace, and be the initial force to confront invaders.

Until 107 B.C., marching Legions were formed only to face threats. By law, each Co-Consul had the ability to raise two Legions and become a General for one year. After the year or the crisis ended, the Legions were disbanded. The Consuls returned to their magistrate duties, the Legionaries went home to work their farms, and allied forces returned to their tribes. It’s this inactive phase and the loss of organizational wisdom that interested me.

***

Legio in Latin means military levy or conscription. Traditionally, a levied army had few military memories as the collective battlefield experiences were forgotten when the citizen/soldiers left. Without ongoing analysis of combat experiences and strategies, the next levied army was usually limited in its ability to adopt new tactics, formations, and improve weapons.

Yet, the Legions learned from each campaign, battle, and skirmish. Legion tactics evolved over the years from tribal melee to embracing the phalanx to abandoning it for the battle lines of the maniple. From year to year, knowledge was handed over the gap to new Generals, new officers, and the new Legionaries of the next year’s Legions.

In 107 B.C., the Legion evolved again. The Marian reforms embraced the cohort formation, created fulltime Legions and an officer corps, plus they incorporated other changes to the military of Rome. However, before than the Legions were not static in adapting fresh ideas based on experience.

from 509 B.C. to 107 B.C., who passed on the valuable military knowledge and traditions from one levied Legion to another levied Legion?

***

The only possibility was the widely distributed regional garrisons. Rome’s heavy infantrymen, unlike most of history’s levy troops, underwent extensive training. They were taught to fight as a unit with a shield, pilum, and gladius. Plus, every one of the Legionaries could swim, ride a horse, shoot a bow, throw a javelin, run 20 Roman miles in five hours, and perform gymnastics for conditioning. Considering the extensive basic training, it is obvious the instructors, experienced Legion Centurions/officers, and Optios/NCOs, were the keepers of military lessons, wisdom, and traditions.

In my opinion, enough Optios, and Centurions did not go home to farms when a Legion disbanded. Rather, they were absorbed into the garrisons. There they waited with the stored wisdom. And in the spring, when an enemy threatened the Republic, they stepped forward to train the Legionaries and share their knowledge with the new Legions.

Clay Warrior Stories

Set in the backdrop of the 1st Punic War, the books tell the tales of a hot-headed young swordsman in the growing Republic.

The Clay Warrior Stories are Available at Amazon.com in paperback, on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.