YoungSeon.Ahn

I am an ordinary person.

13 minute read

Introduction

Drill, and especially the training in which soldiers march in step one stride at a time, has been a cornerstone of military training from antiquity to the modern era. “Marching in step” means that an entire unit performs a synchronized march in unison at the command of its commander, and its purpose has changed over time. In the early periods, the emphasis was on enabling large bodies of troops to move and fight as a single unit, while in the modern era it has become a training method for establishing discipline, fostering cohesion, and producing psychological effects. This report examines the historical development of marching-in-step training and examples of it across various regions—Europe, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere—from antiquity to the modern era, and analyzes the impact this training has had on combat effectiveness, the establishment of discipline, and psychological effects.

The Origins of Synchronized Marching in Antiquity

Early Armies and the Need for Order:
The first organized armies appeared in ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China, but the early large-scale conscript armies underwent almost no systematic drill. As warfare grew increasingly complex, commanders came to realize that having soldiers move as a single group was crucial to preventing units from scattering or fleeing. Moreover, by moving in unison, an army could make a more intimidating impression on outsiders. For example, the Sumerian Stele of the Vultures (c. 2400 BCE) depicts soldiers advancing shoulder to shoulder beneath the king’s standard, which suggests an early form of close-order formation.

China’s Warring States Period:
One of the first regions to systematize synchronized marching drill was ancient China. During the Warring States period (475–221 BCE), armies conducted systematic drill, teaching soldiers “how to march in formation and in ranks.” Training to march beneath symbolic standards played an important role in maintaining a unit’s alignment and cohesion, and this kind of training was carried on into later dynasties such as the Han and the Tang, becoming a fundamental tactic of the imperial armies.

Greco-Roman Drill and Formations:
In ancient Greece, the hoplite phalanx formation required soldiers to move as one body, fighting with their shields locked together. The early Greek hoplites placed their emphasis on maintaining the formation rather than matching the rhythm of a march, but this too played an important role in strengthening group cohesion and a sense of unity. By the classical age of the Mediterranean, the Romans had developed drill even further. The Roman legions were trained to march in a precise manner, maintaining close-order ranks not only in battle but also on the march. The Roman military writer Vegetius emphasized “the constant practice of marching quickly and in unison,” and wrote that on the battlefield it was of the utmost importance for a unit to keep its ranks without the slightest deviation. Roman legionaries could march 20 miles (about 32 km) in five hours while still maintaining their formation, which was a critical factor in tactical movement and combat maneuver. By late antiquity, a well-trained army could keep from falling into chaos on the battlefield and allow many soldiers to attack the enemy simultaneously; for example, the Spartan hoplite formation dealt the enemy devastating blows through its synchronized spear thrusts and shield arrangement. In North Africa, a representative case is Hannibal of Carthage, who at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BCE deliberately let his center fall back while soldiers on both flanks deployed simultaneously, thereby encircling the Roman army.

The Development of Drill from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period

The West After the Fall of Rome:
After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the armies of Western Europe transformed into small conscript forces drawn from feudal territories, and professional training declined accordingly, so drill greatly declined as well. The feudal soldiers of the Middle Ages were composed mainly of peasants and amounted to little more than collections of separately assembled groups rather than soldiers who underwent systematic marching drill; the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire), however, inherited the Roman tradition and maintained some drill for its provincial units. In the Islamic world too, the early Caliphates and the later Ottoman Empire placed great importance on military reform and training, and in particular the Ottomans’ Janissary corps emphasized firearms and battlefield-maneuver training, displaying a forerunner of early modern drill. In South Asia as well, ancient military theory (e.g., the Arthashastra) emphasized organized army management, and from the medieval period onward Indian kingdoms and the Mughal Empire maintained a certain level of drill for formation-based combat such as shield-wall tactics.

The Reintroduction of Drill in Europe:
Entering the 16th century, along with the introduction of firearms, European armies once again began to emphasize drill. As guns, and especially the musket, became widespread, commanders had to carry out volley fire and the redeployment of units more systematically, and as a result the era of “pike and shot” arrived. In this period, leaders such as the Netherlands’ Maurice of Nassau reinterpreted the tactics of ancient Rome to create systematic training manuals, which laid the foundation for operating units effectively. Maurice developed detailed musket-fire, advance, and flanking-deployment drills, and his methods spread widely to other European countries during the Eighty Years’ War and the Thirty Years’ War.

Drill Reform in the Early Modern Period:
In the 17th and 18th centuries, most of the major European armies adopted drill as standard training. Soldiers were trained to march in step one stride at a time, to change direction, and to carry out commands immediately, and this became the basis of the military parade as we know it today. This training made possible the development of line infantry tactics—that is, the tactic of forming up in large formations to carry out musket volley fire effectively. A well-trained formation could perform firing, reloading, and advancing to a mechanical rhythm, and this was a crucial factor in enabling armies to be organized on a large scale and to wage war. In particular, in the 18th century, Prussia’s Frederick the Great demonstrated, through thorough drill, the ability to defeat much larger enemy forces even with a small army. Frederick the Great’s drill suppressed the individual impulses of soldiers and drew out perfectly disciplined action under command during battle, contributing greatly to securing a tactical advantage.

Developments in Asia and Africa:
In parallel with Europe’s military revolution, the great powers of Asia also began to recognize the need for drill from the early modern period. By the 18th century, the Ottoman Empire introduced European-style drill through Selim III’s Nizam-i Cedid reforms, seeking thereby to close the gap with European armies. In South Asia, leaders such as the Maratha Nana Phadnavis and Mysore’s Tipu Sultan brought in European advisers and trained their soldiers in line tactics, while in Japan, at the Battle of Nagashino in 1575, Oda Nobunaga introduced the rotating volley-fire tactic he had learned from Portugal, laying the groundwork for early drill. Spurred by the Meiji Restoration (the latter half of the 19th century), Japan actively adopted the Prussian model and established Western-style drill traditions, such as the goose-step, that continue to this day.

On the African continent, too, indigenous armies recognized the value of systematic marching and training. In the 19th century, some leaders in West and East Africa pursued European-style military reforms; Egypt’s Muhammad Ali created a standing army under the guidance of veteran French officers and introduced European-style drill, fighting successful campaigns in Arabia and Sudan. Furthermore, in southern Africa, the Zulu king Shaka carried out strict military reforms in the 1810s–1820s, training his soldiers collectively so that they could execute tactical formations (the famous “buffalo horns” tactic), which displays principles very similar to those of cohesive marching drill.

Drill Marching in Battle and Its Effects

Marching in step and drill carried meaning beyond mere parades, and they had a direct effect on the outcome of actual battles. This included the following key effects.

  • Formation Cohesion and Shock Effect:
    A close-order formation maintained without the slightest deviation provides a decisive advantage in battle. The hoplites of ancient Greece, the Testudo of the Roman legions, and the infantry formations of the Napoleonic era all effectively halted the enemy’s advance through systematic drill. For example, Alexander the Great’s Macedonian hoplites were able to overwhelm the Persian army effectively thanks to their thorough drill. After the medieval period, the Swiss pikemen won victories against knights through repeated pike charges, and in the 18th century well-trained musket-infantry formations neutralized the enemy through simultaneous fire.

  • Mobility and Seizing Tactical Opportunities:
    Drill enabled large bodies of troops to maneuver swiftly on the battlefield. By learning to march in step one stride at a time, soldiers allowed their commanders to deploy or redeploy units quickly, which played a decisive role in attacking the enemy’s weak points during battle. For example, at the Battle of Ramillies in 1706, the Duke of Marlborough swiftly shifted some units from the right flank to the left, collapsing the French formation.

  • The Efficiency and Continuity of Firepower:
    Drill did not stop at simply marching; after the introduction of firearms, it served to enable soldiers to fire simultaneously en masse. Repeated training allowed musketeers to reload and fire quickly and accurately even in critical situations, which produced an overwhelming concentration of firepower on the battlefield. For example, at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, well-trained British infantry formations effectively repelled the attacks of the French cavalry and Imperial troops with synchronized fire.

  • The Possibility of Operating Large-Scale Units:
    Thanks to drill, it became possible to efficiently organize large armies out of small numbers of trained soldiers. According to one historical analysis, it is assessed that “as long as soldiers had learned drill, even a large army could engage in battle in an orderly manner,” and it became possible, as with Napoleon’s Grande Armée, to assemble units of tens of thousands of men under a single command.

Meanwhile, from the late 19th century onward, advances in firearms (rifles, machine guns, rapid-firing artillery, and so on) caused close-order marching formations to begin acting as a fatal weakness on the battlefield instead. The harrowing lessons of the American Civil War and the First World War clearly demonstrated that the traditional advance in formation was unsuited to modern tactics. Nevertheless, the fundamental value of drill continues today in training and in ceremonial events.

Drill, the Establishment of Discipline, and Cohesion

Drill carried meaning beyond merely a skill for tactical movement, and it served as an important means of binding individual soldiers together into a single group. Repeated training suppressed individual autonomy and cultivated the habit of responding immediately to commands from their commander. From the 18th century onward, European commanders judged that drill brought about “the most noticeable improvement in discipline” among soldiers, and this became the basis for being able to move in perfect order even amid the chaos of battle.

Frederick the Great used drill to make soldiers respond reflexively to the sound of the drum or to commands, thereby suppressing fear or arbitrary action and maintaining thorough order even during battle. The 19th-century U.S. Army’s “Blue Book” (1779, written by Baron von Steuben) and others likewise state that drill “helps to establish military discipline by cultivating precision and the habit of responding quickly to commands from above.”

In addition, drill also played the role of cultivating collective pride and cohesion. Synchronized marching and elaborate parades made soldiers feel that they were a single capable group, and this became an important factor in raising loyalty to one’s comrades and morale during battle. Just as Napoleon’s old soldiers judged that “the fact that they could march without the slightest deviation showed how united they were,” drill contributed greatly to forming a culture of trust and cooperation within an army.

The Psychological Effects of Marching in Step

Modern psychological research has confirmed the positive effects that synchronized marching has on the psychology of the individual and the group. When marching together to the same rhythm, soldiers come to feel confidence and a sense of group belonging, which helps reduce fear and adopt an aggressive posture even in crisis situations. Experimental results have shown that men who had finished a synchronized march were less intimidated by potential threats and displayed stronger confidence, which suggests that it may contribute to reducing fear in combat situations.

However, these effects are like a double-edged sword. While synchronized marching strengthens internal cohesion, it also carries the potential to incite aggression toward outside groups. According to research, a group that has marched together may display a more aggressive attitude toward an outside group, which can dehumanize the enemy and reinforce the perception that “we can easily overpower them.” In fact, Nazi Germany used flashy drill parades such as the goose-step to maximize these psychological effects, instilling in its soldiers a sense of superiority and a collective identity.

On the other hand, synchronized marching also acts as a positive psychological factor that raises the sense of cooperation and trust among soldiers, making them devote themselves to their comrades during battle.

The Continuation and Transformation of Modern Drill

Today, marching-in-step training is used mainly in basic training and ceremonial events rather than for tactical application on the battlefield. Most modern armies teach the establishment of discipline and conformity through drill during the recruit training process, and beyond combat skills this plays an important role in strengthening the cohesion and organizational capacity of a unit.

  • Drill in Basic Training:
    In modern recruit training, drill is used as an important tool for laying the foundations of immediate response to commands and of collective action. Through drill, recruits learn to move precisely according to commands, and this later has a positive effect on small-unit tactics as well.

  • A Symbol of Ceremony and Pride:
    Across the 20th and 21st centuries, drill marching has become an important event representing the tradition and pride of an army in parades, salute ceremonies, and the like. Commonwealth nations maintain the traditional British style of marching, while Soviet-style or Prussian-style drill is still used in the military ceremonies of some countries, such as China, North Korea, and Russia.

  • Changes in Safety and Practicality:
    Unlike in the past, modern drill is not for actual combat but takes on the character of training and ceremonial events. In actual combat, tactics that use dispersed deployment and cover are employed, but drill still plays an important role in maintaining the discipline of an army and forming cohesion.

  • Globalization and Influence:
    Through the influence of the age of imperialism and globalization, European-style drill spread throughout the world, and many countries have maintained this tradition even after independence. India, various African nations, and East Asian countries all carry on the European-style drill tradition in their own ways, and it remains today a symbol of the “professional army.”

Conclusion

From the hoplites of ancient Greece and the Roman legions, to the musket infantry of early modern Europe, and on to modern ceremonial events, marching-in-step training has established itself as a core element of military culture. Historically, synchronized marching and drill raised combat effectiveness by enabling units to maneuver swiftly and maintain cohesion even amid the chaos of battle, and they inspired collective morale and pride.

Although in modern tactics close-order marching is not used as a practical means of combat maneuver, drill remains today an important element of recruit training and ceremonial events, and a symbol of an army’s tradition and cohesion. From the units of Frederick the Great or Shaka in the past to today’s parades, drill symbolizes the military values that do not change even as the times change—discipline, order, and cohesion.

Note:
Historical accounts and treatises (Vegetius, etc.);

Each has contributed to understanding the practice and impact of marching in step from ancient times to today.

This article was written with the help of ChatGPT

If you are curious about the detailed sources, check the English post.

20250227

Leave a comment

You may also enjoy