[thaumasiotes]

> Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own. You act in formation and repeat what you've been drilled.

No, drilling was a response to the use of gunpowder weapons.

> Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own.

There's a passage from Julius Caesar where he describes how, set on from behind, the rear line of his army turned around so that they could fight in that direction instead of just getting slaughtered. It is noted mostly for the total lack of any suggestion that Caesar bears any responsibility for the brilliant maneuver.

But before you get to that point, you should observe that this was in fact a brilliant and spontaneous battlefield maneuver, not something that anyone had ever been trained to do.

[542354234235]

Roman armies trained and drilled extensively. And Roman armies had lower and mid level commanders, that could make decisions and direct troops within certain limitations. Everything wasn’t direct movement orders from Caesar to every individual soldier. A centurion could have made that call, not something spontaneous at the individual level. I'm not sure what battle you are talking about, although I would guess maybe the siege of Alesia, but without knowing, I can't comment on the specifics.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150901204127/http://www.roman-...

[quuxplusone]

https://acoup.blog/2022/06/03/collections-total-generalship-...

> To take another example, Caesar’s army at Bibracte (58BC) famously manages the feat of winning when attacked in both the front and the rear by about-facing its third line and attacking in both directions at once. Notably Caesar does not say that he did this, merely that the Romans did, which is a strong indication that turning the rear ranks of the army to face backwards was a decision made by more junior officers (probably centurions).

That said, of course I disagree with GP's claim that classical and medieval armies didn't drill. They certainly did drill. Bret has a whole blog post on the topic. [1] Quote from that post:

> Josephus [...] offers the most famous endorsement of Roman drills: “Nor would one be mistaken to say that their drills are bloodless battles, and their battles bloody drills” (BJ 3.5.1).

The quote from Josephus, extended:

> [The Romans] have never any truce from warlike exercises; nor do they stay till times of war admonish them to use them; for their military exercises differ not at all from the real use of their arms, but every soldier is every day exercised, and that with great diligence, as if it were in time of war, which is the reason why they bear the fatigue of battles so easily; for neither can any disorder remove them from their usual regularity, nor can fear affright them out of it, nor can labour tire them: which firmness of conduct makes them always to overcome those that have not the same firmness; nor would he be mistaken that should call those their exercises unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises.

That reminds me that Plutarch's Life of Eumenes §11 has a fun story about how Eumenes kept his men (and horses) in shape despite a close siege; it's hardly evidence for regular exercises but it's an amusing example of an irregular exercise! [3]

[1] https://acoup.blog/2022/06/17/collections-total-generalship-...

[2] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-3.html

[3] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/...

[quuxplusone]

Another ACOUP discussion of drill and discipline is here:

https://acoup.blog/2025/04/04/fireside-friday-april-4-2025/

Quote:

> But note how, while obedience to discipline and synchronized discipline are often conflated, they’re not the same: a lot of early modern pike-and-shot armies had tremendous synchronized discipline, but were mutiny-prone and it was often difficult to get them to do things like haul their own supplies or prepare their own food.