re: Back in Roman times, how did they decide who was on the front lines?

quote:

---

This is a question no one really knows

---

I'm sure there is plenty of war/battle strategy documented from Roman times.

quote:

---

No simple answer because you are covering 6 centuries of warfare. Depending on era they used 3 formations, phalanx, maniple and then the cohort.

---

This.

quote:

---

Looking back at my 20 year old self and trying to connect with the Roman idea of war I see me on the front line shitting in my pants and just barely not running away screaming like a 3 year old girl.

---

The Romans were big on collective punishment. If you exhibited cowardice, not only would you lose your head, but 10% of your comrades, chosen by lot. Hence the term, decimation.

quote:

---

The Romans were big on collective punishment. If you exhibited cowardice, not only would you lose your head, but 10% of your comrades, chosen by lot. Hence the term, decimation.

---

If what you are saying is accurate, that is my all-time favorite origin of a word. Wow

quote:

---

Whoever had the hottest wives

---

Too Jewish

Being a part of a Forlorn Hope is actually something units bid to win in the 1700s and 1800s, because while they knew most of them would probably die, they knew that if they were successful, they had a pretty good chance of getting glory and wealth

quote:

---

Roman times

---

quote:

---

“Troy”

---

"Forget it, he's rolling."

quote:

---

They put slaves and other conquered people on the front lines

---

Meh. Not so much.

quote:

---

They did not put Roman citizens on the front.

---

For all of the Republic and well into the early Imperial era, citizens were absolutely the front line - citizenship was required for a long time to serve in the legions, particularly in the infantry. They used auxiliaries (typically mercenaries) as cavalry, missile troops/skirmishers, but the rough and tussle combat with shield and sword in the legions maniples was done by citizens for most of what we consider the "Roman" era.

quote:

---

Basically, it depended on wealth as to where your military path, equipment quality, and battle positions were.

---

Yes and no. Before Marius, most citizens had to provide their own equipment. The truly wealthy were generally in the cavalry (Equites), as they could afford horses and the maintenance on those. They formed a social class, essentially just below that of the Senate.

Again, during the pre-Marian times, the army of the Republic was largely age stratified. The youngest, strongest fastest - 20 to 30 year olds - were the guys in front - the Hastati. Sword and shield, they had generally inferior armor to the Principes who were older - generally guys in their 30s to early 40s. The final group, the Triarii were the wealthiest because they were the oldest, longest serving. They had the best armor, usually, and were armed with spears. These guys were throwbacks to the Phalanx era and would form a solid spear/shield wall behind which the army could retire in good order should things go badly.

Conversely, the Triarii were the legion's reserve, so committing them was the last option available to the commander. There was a Roman expression "going to the Triarii" which meant you were at your final option.

So, it was class based, driven primarily by age. The only real class they "bought" into was the Equites, from the Republic era.

Now, mid to late Empire, Rome increasingly expanded citizenship and essentially had German "mercenaries" in Roman uniforms fighting German barbarians, particularly by the 4th, 5th Century A.D.