Infantry Relief System

[Mark Hygate]

Dear Bryan (et al),

I almost feel there’s a contention for contention’s sake, but at least it means I must marshal my thoughts. I do, however, feel confident that I can defend my views, my only criticism being that there are still too many statements of ‘if it’s not written, it didn’t happen; or if it’s written then that’s all there is’ – when I am ever more convinced that we could usefully spend more time discussing what’s missing. The OPs question is such...

A few overall notes:

- It’s a common mis-conception is that a baton/riot-stick/night-stick is a “bludgeoning weapon”. It is like any club (think ‘2001’ and the jaw-bone in the hands of a primate!) and, as the Romans accused the sword-wielding barbarians. You thrust with a baton just like with a gladius. I’ll also point out that it’s much easier to kill with a thrust baton than it is wielding it as a club. You only hit with a baton to smash fingers holding your shield; but thrust with one because it’s more efficient, more surprising and much quicker and less effort. Yes, you see a lot of ‘riot police’ hacking away sometimes – undisciplined amateurs getting out of control. Certainly not as I think we all see the Roman soldier

- By all means disparage riot-control footage; however I do not believe you will find any better visual examples of the sort of things we are discussing when considering formed ‘troops’ facing undisciplined barbarians. They are useful vehicles for discussion; far more than any stylised re-enactments, nor Hollywood epics

- Lastly land warfare has always been a situation of long periods of doing not very much, punctuated by short periods of rising intensity and then moments of adrenaline-fuelled manic activity/fighting. All the books/sources and all the films (let alone the rise of the video-game and lack of patience in the young) only concentrate on the latter elements – not the 90+% waiting time. There’s often plenty of time, let alone ‘lulls’

Century (indeed any fighting group) ‘management’.....

‘Management’ is not a word comfortably used in military circles, but that’s what it is. In our terms, however, we can split it into ‘Command’ and ‘Leadership’ and when it comes to the Roman Century it is important to understand the differences.

‘Can you see what’s going on from the rear of a century?’ – yes, of course you can. Deployed 10x6 (Polybian century of 60 supported by its 20 Velites – all the way to Vegetius still 6 ranks deep – with plenty of evidence to suggest that a quarter of the century of 80 were always available for other things sometimes, but part of a separate discussion) you are talking of a frontage of 25-30ft and a depth of possibly only 12ft when they are supporting each other. With the soldiers braced (and no, they didn’t wear crests in combat) the Centurion can certainly see what’s going on when every man is within about 15ft of him.

The Hellenic equivalent (Syntagma) had its commander/leader at the front-right. Once deployed his position is now fixed and, as we’ve discussed, the formation is now fixed and inflexible, and the only way is forward. For the Romans we now have....

A tactically flexible Century as the Centurions’ ‘weapon’...

Manipular tactics? You must have a commander to manoeuvre his Century in concert with his pairing; with the possibility of being detached; replacing units in ‘front’; with wielding his sub-unit like a soldier wields his sword. For that to be possible you must exercise ‘command’. You cannot command whilst leading. To be accessible to orders you can’t be in the front rank in combat. I do not believe there is any evidence that Tribunes (at any period) actually exercised ‘command’, but are more seen as staff officers and message carriers. However, even if they did then they commanded ‘cohorts’ within a hierarchy. Only a Centurion can command his century.

‘Sources attest Centurions leading and suffering disproportionate casualties’.....

And yes, of course, this is true too – for the most serious test of command is when to stop commanding and lead. It is not a step to be taken lightly, for you cannot do both at the same time. When going up front and leading by example you are now fighting yourself and command is not possible. This step is taken when it is vitally necessary (‘the battle comes to the Triarii’ – not a common occurrence – things are bad). When the century is in position, tactical movement is over, the battle is intense, the ‘opening’ is there or the soldiers are hard-pressed – then the Centurion pushes to the front shouting and screaming ‘follow me’! That’s what gets written about, that’s what gets medals, that’s what gets them killed – I assure you that not much has changed in 3,000 years! No one writes about the periods of ‘command/management’......

I therefore simply argue that to understand the tactical uses of the Roman century (and one of the major reasons the Romans dominated) then you must appreciate the differences of commanding one and leading one. That the two roles are different, but necessarily so. I think it’s also necessary to appreciate that in order to use the Century as the Centurions ‘weapon’ – then it must be wielded as one; and you cannot do that whilst fighting yourself.

‘Rank rotation’...

So, to concentrate on the OPs question – I think we’re all happy that it could be possible. I will also argue that if you are to train for such, even if only individuals are replaced, then you would train to do it en masse by rank-rotation to make sure it happened correctly.

However, when it comes to “individual replacement is simpler and more efficient,” I will positively, categorically and with absolute conviction state that at no period in history, not then, not now and not ever (and particularly when we are thinking of the supposedly harsh discipline of the Roman legions and the need to maximise their individual effort to kill and win at all costs versus their foe(s)) would a soldier be allowed to decide himself when it’s time to take a break and get the man behind him to take over. Not a chance in hell – this would be a command decision only.

Fighting, as I believe normally happened, within their contubernia/sections, then yes, you can hope that when you get injured your mate behind will step over/on/around you to take over whilst those further back can try and pull you out of the way until your Optio pulls you back from the action. But an individual deciding he’s tired and get the man behind to take over – forget it. Not happening. Never. It would be considered cowardice and punished accordingly. Only when commanded and a good commander knows when is best - and only him - and he would have to do it from 'behind' where he can see his whole unit.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Mark,

How will an "armed opponent which will use every weakness and opportunity to breach your lines"? Who's doing the co-ordinating? Who's spotting and immediately taking advantage of this trained, practised and hopefully slick rotation that we're/I'm perhaps suggesting?

Are you suggesting that the enemies of Rome were untrained mobs, just like the crowds in the videos? Of course they had experience, and if this so-called 'relief system' (which, i repeat, still lacks any sort of evidence) was common to the Roman army, any enemy with experience fighting the Romans would be on the lookout for it, striking in reaction. Veterans would spot it and the rest would follow. I mean, even moder protestors study their opponents, some even know exactly how to deragulate police actions. I once spoke to a Dutch guy who copied such 'disruptors' from the UK, he had about 4 meters of literature on that topic. I expect that ancient warfare was taken as seriously on the side of the barbarians.

Indeed, when we are considering the classic and supposedly undisciplined charges of the average barbarian type, is that not actually fairly analogous to 'crowd control'?

You really think that? Enemies of Rome also had formations, officers, dressed lines. Of course the Romans had a standing army which for centuries was better trained, but to describe the barbarians as undisciplined mobs would be doing them great injustce. Their charges were feared. Unruly perhaps, to the death for sure, but surely coordinated, not undisciplined.

As part of this discussion we do seem to accept that individually replacing a man lost or injured (and indeed suggesting that the latter can even be extracted from the melée for treatment) is indeed possible, but that the idea of a whole rank being replaced (as I suggest is what might well be trained and quite sensibly considered when suitable) is somehow not possible.

For me that's surely true. Dragging wounded back is a necessity, and it's no predictable action that potentially disrupts/weakens the formation. If done while disengaged from the enemy, that a different matter. To which I add that by Late Roman times it would be counterproductive due to the front and rear ranks being (better) armoured.

[Mark Hygate]

Hi Robert,

Did I suggest that the enemies of Rome were “untrained” – no, I didn’t. As your second quote shows I said “undisciplined”, which, I am pretty sure is exactly the type of description we do see from the Romans themselves in the sources when describing the Celtic and similar barbarian types (which is where I have also limited the discussion up to now). Yes, their charge was extremely fearsome and they were also known for being individually fearsome warriors with an effect on the Roman psyche from the early sack of Rome itself.

What became true, however, was that the Romans knew that if they could hold, even defeat, that charge, then the individual (and hence undisciplined and rather ‘mobbish’) fighting style of the Celtic/Barbarian warrior with large sweeping strokes of a long sword, could then be comprehensively countered and the enemy subsequently slaughtered with the disciplined fighting style of the legions.

[For purposes of discussion I should note that I am certainly thinking of the word ‘undisciplined’ in the context of a non-cohesive drilled unit where each soldier fights as a system and not an individual – that’s, after all, what the essence of drill and formations are for.]

Other enemies of Rome, and I’ll happily compare the classically assumed ‘warband mob’ of the above to them, we could perhaps split into two types. Firstly, those that are spear/pike-armed in formed lines/phalanx and secondly, those who fight like the Romans do (so all the Civil Wars are in the latter too).

The first type is really not an issue. The lines would clash and we know those lines (the enemy lines in most cases) are pretty fixed – until the Romans break them up. There’s a lot of pushing and shoving – but the troops don’t get anywhere near each other for some time (6-10ft apart at least) – no getting tired out (individually in the front rank), no need to replace. Let’s not forget that most Greek Hoplite battles are like this – lots of time pushing and shoving and maintaining lines until something changes.

The second, however, is by far the most dangerous – and why indeed we see the ‘Pyrrhic victory’ become attested and the larger casualty figures for Civil War style battles – for they are trained and fight similarly.

All that said – if you are going to rotate ranks, in whatever situation, then yes it would occur in a relative lull – I have never claimed otherwise. What I don’t think is appreciated is that this would happen rather a lot and a Centurion could take advantage of it. It doesn’t have to be predictable and that’s why it must remain under the Centurion’s control. Most importantly, I think it could be done much quicker than would allow anyone to ‘take advantage of it’.
Considering that eventuality, the first type of enemies are at a disadvantage (the spear/pike-armed particularly) for they too are busy retaining their formations. The rotation would be trained to be slick and well practised and results in pretty fresh soldiers now in the front line, much more able to resist than any tired ones.

In fact, the most dangerous (and what happened sometimes) opponent is the big Celtic warrior type who does get in via charging or killing someone – followed by more widening the gap; or a big Germanic axe-man doing the same. However, this is where the discipline and training comes to the fore, for that’s when the soldiers must reform and regain the shielded line, pressing in on those types so they cannot swing their weapons. The threat of the individual fearsome warrior is negated by the discipline and training.

Two final points – the dragging back of a casualty is in fact much more predictable when you think about it, than a rank-change under external-control – it’s much more a case of causing the casualty in the first place and then exploiting the gap; which is, after all, the entire thrust of the Roman tactics, or indeed anyone wanting to break up a formation and then run down the routers (and all of Alexander’s successes). For the Romans (indeed anyone using a formation where a casualty occurs) it’s all about maintaining the formation – dead go out the front, wounded get dragged out of the way (better for footing and morale).

As for ‘Late Roman’ – if you are thinking mixed formations with ranks fully armed and armoured and then Bowman/LI-types in the middle – then yes, different thing. Let alone that we are also thinking, I assume, spatha’s and not gladii. Different times, different enemies, different tactics.

Back to the OP – yes, entirely possible if not likely completely accurate in the Rome video. Would make perfect sense in a formation where men are similarly armed and fresh troops to the front are beneficial. Great for morale and soldier management if he doesn’t think he’s there until he gets killed, but will be rewarded for fighting well and surviving – and thus a very sensible thing to train for. Training would be comprehensive and well practised (including knowing that if wounded you’ll be got way and treated/triaged).

On the side – if you’re going to do such things it must be under command and that there is a great difference between being in command and leading from the front.

To be quite honest, and perhaps fairly obvious from the tone of my replies, I do wonder at some of the odd queries/arguments for some things that should/could be a bit obvious – to me at least. I’m sorry if that’s the case. For my part I have been trained as a soldier and commanded and lead in peace and war – albeit I had a technical speciality and could then observe often from a point of relative calm, which does make a difference. To me, however, there are quite a few similarities between Roman Century and Platoon command/leadership/management these days – and that’s what Sandhurst trains people to do.

Lastly, do riot-police videos have any place? Perhaps, whilst the ‘mob’s are normally untrained, the riot police are also not Roman Legionaries and they’re not trying to kill them. As a visual aid for formed Roman lines (shield & baton) vs Barbarian mob – I don’t think we have anything better to use.

MH2CW

[Densus]

While I certainly don’t have the background knowledge of Roman tactics that most of those posting here do (most of what I know about the Roman Army comes from this site!), Public Order/Crowd Management/Riot Control* is what I have been doing and teaching for over twenty years so hopefully my perspective on some of the issues being discussed here will help.

We do try and keep tactics and formations as simple as possible, because the ‘pretty’ stuff that people sometimes do in demonstrations like the first Korean video often do not work in contact with a real crowd. We don’t use a drill to relieve people in the front rank as we tend to do it as complete units but I am very confident that a drill like the one in the Rome video could work as long as it was done when the enemy were back slightly from the line and not actively engaged. We can put a unit from a formation where they are standing shield to shield to one where the front rank are about six feet apart in less than three seconds. A change of the second rank to the first rank could be achieved at least as quickly and certainly quicker than the enemy could react effectively to it.

Changing as individuals to replace casualties does happen and doesn’t cause any major problems but allowing people to decide to change over as an individual because they were tired would be very open to abuse, or allegations of abuse, and would certainly cause bad feeling. Someone else making the decision, such as the Centurion if changing on a complete century basis or the commander of that file if changing over file by file, is much less likely to cause ill feeling or allegations of cowardice.

I have always been interested in the concept of the Centurion being in the centre of the front rank or on the front right of the century. Although I know there are definitely other examples of this from other places and periods it is not an effective place to command from.

The first issue is that when someone in front of you is trying to kill or seriously injure you, dealing with that commands your full attention. I can think of numerous incidents where people in the front of a baseline that is engaged with a crowd have been completely unaware of things occurring just a few feet from them further down the line. If the Centurion is fighting in the front rank he will have no idea of what is happening anywhere in the rest of his unit except maybe to the men either side of him. People three or four files down could be running away and he would be completely unaware.

The second issue is that voice commands are very difficult in the loud environment of people screaming, things hitting shields, things hitting your helmet etc. From the front rank any command the Centurion gives will be shouted directly towards the enemy and away from his own men. I know from experience that it is hard enough to get messages to the front rank when you are standing shouting directly behind them and we normally need team commanders (who are also behind their team) to repeat them.

So I would agree with Mark’s earlier statement that the Centurion could lead from the front rank but he cannot command from there which means he either commands from the rear of the century until a personal example is needed or possibly that the century was a ‘fire and forget’ weapon which once launched into combat just fought until either the enemy broke or they broke with no changes in tactics, formation or anything else.

Apologies for the very lengthy first post but this a really interesting thread with a lot of interesting ideas, one of many on this site.

Adam

*Other terms are available.

[Bryan]

Adam,

Great first post. You bring some wisdom to this topic about the riot control aspect that is welcomed. Keep the comments coming.

It is my opinion that when it comes to riot control videos, like the ones shown in this topic already, it is a fallacy to use them as an example of Roman tactics. Same goes with the TV show Rome. Like I stated before, you simply cannot compare the two. Riot control forces can choose to use any type of formation, depth, tactic, weaponry that they want. They have modern technology, thousands of years of history to fall back on in terms of tactical knowledge, and most of all, rather strict rules of engagement regarding their use of deadly force. While a riot police/military officer might appear to resemble a Roman soldier in their equipment at a glance, we should remember that the equipment is actually highly different from what a Roman soldier would use. Additionally, police and military riot control forces are not task organized the same as Romans were, they have far more decentralized leaders in the form of team/squad/section/shift/precinct/etc, in a pyramidal organization force that is common these days but was not present in ancient times. And they are designed to kill people. From my riot training, it was about containment or driving the rioters off with as little violence as possible.

As far as the placement of the centurion goes, I have to lean on the words of Polybius, as well as the hints given by Caesar in his commentaries. Polybius says the senior centurion (prior) was posted on the right of the maniple (which is the side of honor), the junior (posterior) on the left. Should only one centurion be present, that centurion commands the whole of the maniple. I take this to mean that each centurion controls roughly a half of the maniple, in a sense dual commanders. Interesting enough, as far as I know, Polybius makes no reference to centuries as the fighting unit in the legions. From Polybius words, my guess is a centurion could have stood where ever he pleased. He could be at the corner, in the center, in the rear, etc. As long as he was capable of controlling his forces, he was good. Caesar mentions frequently in his commentaries of the centurions leading attacks and taking heavy casualties, at a much higher percentage than the common rankers. Could this have been from wearing gaudy uniforms, with large transverse crests, which drew missiles or challenges in hand to hand combat? Could it been from them leading from the front, charging headfirst at the enemy and expecting their men to follow them, ie. leading by example? Considering the role other leaders in other cultures played in the ancient period, where even kings and generals commanding armies fought in the very front ranks, I generally agree with the latter idea.

I think this I idea that a centurion had to "command" might be overstated. While the numbers of men in a maniple or century are large, the men are organized in a crowd, separated by each other by small distances in ranks and files. They weren't strung out over large areas. The men fought with the standards, they moved back with them, they moved forward with them. They did not however have the centuries broken apart into separate smaller commands (platoons, squads, teams), each operating independently but in concert with one another. Because there was no independent movement inside the maniple. Because of this, once joined in battle, what exactly did a centurion need to command? What commands would he need to give?

...possibly that the century was a ‘fire and forget’ weapon which once launched into combat just fought until either the enemy broke or they broke with no changes in tactics, formation or anything else.
^This

Standing in the back of a formation might seem like a grand idea, especially to a modern military officer, because in modern times a commander relies on his intelligence and abilities to make quick snap decisions in the deployment of different forces under his command. Was this the case of the Roman maniples? I think not. Behind the maniples are the true commanders: the tribunes, legates and the Imperator, riding laterally behind the front line, watching their men, watching the enemy, and gauging the situation. These men all hold imperium or direct appointments by either the Roman Senate or the army/legion's Imperator . It will be these men that will necessarily have to make decisions regarding the deployment of the maniples, in regards to advancing, retreating, counter marches, flanking marches, etc. Because they are on horseback, they can see over the heads of the men in the ranks, as requirement to be able to "command" from behind is the need to see what is happening. (Note: Commanding from the rear is more common in modern times because of the use of radios communicating with the men actively fighting, commanders using the height of helicopters over the battleground like Vietnam's "Battalion commander in the Sky", or watching live footage from unmanned aerial vehicle drones, etc.)

Mark wrote:
However, when it comes to “individual replacement is simpler and more efficient,” I will positively, categorically and with absolute conviction state that at no period in history, not then, not now and not ever (and particularly when we are thinking of the supposedly harsh discipline of the Roman legions and the need to maximise their individual effort to kill and win at all costs versus their foe(s)) would a soldier be allowed to decide himself when it’s time to take a break and get the man behind him to take over. Not a chance in hell – this would be a command decision only.

Spoken like a British officer,
I can only speak from experience as a former enlisted man and NCO that soldiers absolutely take unauthorized breaks all the time, its just officers aren't aware of it. Within the infantry of both the US Marine Corps and the US Army, junior Marines and Soldiers have created an art form of "Skating" or "Shamming" as it is called. For those that are officers, if you actually think all your men are always listening to your orders and are always active...well, let's just say there is a reason former enlisted men generally make better officers. Because they know all the tricks. If a man wants a break, regardless of his commander's wishes, that man will find a way to take a break.

Adam wrote:
Changing as individuals to replace casualties does happen and doesn’t cause any major problems but allowing people to decide to change over as an individual because they were tired would be very open to abuse, or allegations of abuse, and would certainly cause bad feeling. Someone else making the decision, such as the Centurion if changing on a complete century basis or the commander of that file if changing over file by file, is much less likely to cause ill feeling or allegations of cowardice.

Within any large organization, the cream will naturally rise to the top. Where I a centurion, I would be on the lookout for those men in my century/maniple who demonstrate bravery and show a keen fighting spirit. Men with scared knuckles, broken noses, califlower ears. Big men, tanned from hard outdoor work. With muscles covered in scars covered from old battles. Men who spent their hard earned money on good weapons and armor instead of the trash issued to them because they showed up to Dillectus with nothing. I would take these men and stick them in the front ranks of the formation, along with myself. We'd fight together and kick the crap out of everyone, whether it be Gaul, Iberian or Macedonian. And if one of these men decides ten minutes into a stand still fight, that during the next lull, he wants to step out of the formation to take a sip of water or wine or bind a wound or just take a piss, I don't need him to tell me because I trust him to get his butt back to the front as soon as possible. Its a matter of trust and pride. I will trust him to have the pride to not run off and cower in the back ranks. In return, I will reward him will awards (dona), responsibility, promotions, beautiful women captives, more food, better wine and less less fatigue details. Its one method and it sure beats whipping people. But that's just me and I am not a centurion.

[Calvo]

Hello,

Been following this forum for a few years now, but this is my first post.

As many people have pointed out, rank rotation would most likely have happened during lulls, as they were very often in ancient battles when physical exhaustion set in pretty quickly.
It wouldn't even be surprising that the time spent during lulls were far greater than the time spent in actual fighting.

Many scholars suggest that during a typical infantry melee battle, the 2 sides would approach, hurl missiles, engage in a short but aggressive hand-to-hand combat, and then fall apart.
The question I have is: if an entire maniple was engaged in fighting, how could it disengage all at once and "fall back"?
Would it happen when the tired soldiers in the front rank just stopped striking at the enemy and adopted a purely defensive position, and waited for the enemy before him to adopt the same behaviour? Would the "lull" begin when all the front-rank soldiers have tired out this way and then the entire unit would all take a step back?

As regarding to the role of centurions, many scholars suggest that although they held a social position as military officers, their roles were more similar to that of senior NCOs in modern armies, with their duties based more on training, discipline, and leading by example rather than on command, military tactics and strategy.

Even as late as the early 20th century, junior officers and NCOs usually led their units from the front in battle, which was why in both World Wars they suffered disproportionate casualties.

[Thomas Aagaard]

Just like Sempronius Densus Iam no expert on the sources..
But I do have experience with "(medieval) reenactment type fighting" and commanding units at that "sport".

Commanding / Leading:
Standing behind my 24man unit in 3-4 ranks, I still have a pretty good idea how things are on the frontline.
Standing a bit further back and commanding 3-4 units for about 70men and I still have a pretty good idea of how thing are going.
But If I need for a units to push the enemy hard, I still need to go in and lead from the front.
This can be very effective... but the moment you step up to the frontline your hole world is what is within about 2m to the left and right of you. You totally lose any idea about what goes on on the rest of the field.

So Iam pretty sure what Mark Hygate wrote about command / leadership is correct.
You command from the rear and lead from the front.

Exhaustion:
In my experience when two "units" engage the first minute or so of the fighting is at full speed.
If one side it not gaining the upper hand by then, the tempo slows and both sides stats to fight more defensively and the distance between the sides gets bigger, until the lines are actually out of reach... when that happens the stalemate is not broken until something happens elsewhere or somebody steps up and leads an attack.
Or a new "unit" gets involved.

Offcause this sort of "sport" is not real. we are not killing each other and we are only talking two "armies" of 200 men each...


But I think this is a very interesting topic.

[Macedon]

The thread is starting to digress severely but remains interesting. We have to remember gentlemen that the question is whether there was any relief system and if there was what was the most probable method followed. Regarding the command/lead issue, of course you are right, You can only "command" from the rear and "lead" from the front. The question now is what the job of a centurion was. A centurion was a low officer, his job was not to command in battle in the sense that he should take tactical initiatives and decisions of the sort that a position in the rear of the line would facilitate. It was to ensure that the commands of the higher officers would be followed, that there would be discipline in his unit and of course to command outside the frame of the battle itself. The Roman army did not have one general per 30, 40 or 50 soldiers (two centurions at the time discussed per century). Commands were issued by the higher officers and then a procedure started as to how they would be implemented. The main method was the trumpet or whatever instrument of choice and in obedience to it then the standards would be used. Should the commands entail some non-standard order, usually avoided during combat, then heralds would be sent by the senior commanders to the specific units -sometimes even the commanders themselves would in person appear and give instructions-. The question now comes to who would hear them if the centurions were fighting in front. The Greek armies had the ouragoi, second "in command" of the file to the lochagoi (the usual name of the file-leaders - also called promachoi, protostates etc). The Roman army had the optiones, men supposed to anyways be posted in the rear, at least according to Polybius, of an office above the common soldiery. If the non-standard command would have been given during the fray of battle, then it would obviously be the officers in the rear who would receive and implement it but there was no reason for them to be the centurion(s). Would both centurions be constantly in the first rank? No, it is certain that at times, at least during those highly discussed and debated lulls of battle, they would find themselves or even be called to the rear, but from the sources, they are mostly described "leading" and not "commanding", following the command of their superiors. A good parallel here would be the position of the signum, which by default was the center of command of any unit that was supposed to have at least a certain amount -however little- of freedom to act independently. The signum was posted in front of the unit as long as the enemy was at a safe distance. When the battle was upon the army, it would retreat into the line and would not remain in the front ranks.

Another issue here would be the era in question. It is certain that the army of Scipio at Zama was not operating, commanded or led in the same manner as that of Julius Caesar's or Pompeius Magnus and these in turn would have observable differences to those of the Tetrarchy or of even later times. Of course, the Roman tradition would also be observable and we may make (usually impossible to verify) hypotheses on former periods by the more abundant data we have about the later periods.

Because Mark (if I am not wrong) is more interested in the Polybian Romans, I would also add one of my own theories -which I have mentioned before but I think it would be useful to repeat it here-. There is a huge debate on what the "Roman system" of this era was. It was well advertised as something advanced, something that had to entail elements that were different to the common understanding of pitched battle. The debates are long, theories of relief systems have been proposed -which is what triggered this discussion too-, others suggest that they fought with large gaps as small squares, others still that the system relied on producing multiple battles and so on. Nevertheless, what is again and again repeated by the sources as far as the Roman battle-line engaged with the enemy is concerned, is that it was able to retreat, not without sustaining many casualties -every instance of the Roman battle-line in retreat before an enemy was paid in blood- but without losing cohesion and break as was the usual result on a forced back non-Roman line. All armies had orders that effected fighting retreat but all were based on higher orders, that is, produced by the high command and relayed by trumpet or/and signum. With the Polybian Romans, it seems to have been a standard tactic to retreat before a forceful enemy without losing the battle. For this special trait, in my opinion, the centurion(s) played a very important role. It was them who would ordain the rate of the retreat, who would make sure that it was not done in an unseemly, inorderly manner. It was them who would advance and retreat, as circumstances demanded in front of the enemy. And for this to be able to happen, the best position would be in front, as seems to be what the sources also suggest.

Returning, though, to the original issue at hand, I still have seen no evidence that any method of RANK relief system existed or was regularly implemented. I am personally convinced, that SHOULD such a system have existed, we would have found its traces in the later manuals. HAD they become a "tradition", a system efficiently used for a long time, it would have been used by the later Roman armies too. IF it existed, it would have been commented on by any of the many authors who have given us many detailed descriptions and tactical information we would at least have a hint to theorize on. I do not see ranks exchanging so that all men would have their share of battle. I see the protostatae bearing the brunt of battle, and should they be wounded or exhausted, I see them retreat through the ranks, drink some water, take a breath and return to the first rank. Whatever relief there was I see it between the protostatae and the deuterostate (first and second rank). Should something go wrong, then it would be the task of ranks further back to take action. So, I do not see the second rankers really complain why they had to be first rankers for 10 or 15 minutes when the man in front of them would have fought and was expected to fight again for a comparable timespan. I am certain that a "coward", one who would often show a tendency to avoid danger would anyways not be placed in the front ranks and would have been punished and ridiculed in his contubernion first and among the rest of the army later. Men in the same contubernion have a different dynamic and respect to each other than men who do not really know and trust each other. In the second case, of course, issues crop up, complaints of injustice even where there is no reason to. This is amply evident in the Greek hoplite-citizen armies, but the Roman (and of course the Spartan and the "special" Greek contingents like the Theban Sacred Band) contubernia did not allow an individual to escape his clear-cut responsibilities. This "small group" dynamic is evident even in modern armies, when such "contubernium" relationships are encouraged and promoted. This would not mean that the men in the same contubernion would be the same, that the same job was expected from all. No, everyone would have his own responsibilities, again like in modern armies. The well-respected, looked upon first-ranker, his trusted companion the second-ranker, a less able but maybe well intended and talented third-ranker, the experienced, gray-bearded file-closer/ouragos, the new guy from Spain in the fifth rank etc. And it is also well-documented that the Romans did think it advantageous to have a mixture of experienced men along with those less experienced. These would not form their own centuries but would be mixed in the contubernia WHEN the unit was formed or reformed. This is all to support that it was (and still is) not easy for a member of a small unit that has fostered the contubernium psychology to pursue his own safety over that of his comrades, to refuse to do his appointed job, and expect to get away with it. Most possibly, such a person would soon suffer some fatal accident...

The worst thing about the videos, which are very useful in general and many of us have "studied" them years now, of course some were even parts of such training or events, is that they normally depict what can only be described as a light, non-lethal skirmish. Skirmishes are and were countered with tactics very similar to these in the videos (like the synaspismos, the small groups of ekdromoi -men who exit the line-, the counter skirmishing with missiles, the covering of the heads with shields etc) but they are of much less value regarding the mechanics of hand to hand combat, of two lines actually fighting each other at weapon length.

[JeffF]

What about Adrian Goldsworthy's theory that battle or contact between two sides was not continuous rather occurring in pulses in a sort of ebb and flow of fighting and that relief could occur when enemy fell back gathering their strength and morale for another surge forward?

[M. Demetrius]

My thoughts exactly, expressed below. (or above,depending on how you've set your display--)

[M. Demetrius]

My thoughts exactly, expressed below. (or above,depending on how you've set your display--)

[Macedon]

Again the question would be what type of relief you are referring to. If you are talking about relief within the same unit, of individuals from one rank to another, then a lull for whatever reasons is not necessary. A wounded man would be extracted whether there was a lull or not, so an exhausted man would also be relieved in the same manner, whatever that may have been. If you mean relief by rank, which I do not think existed, then it would be possible to have been done, but I do not see it as a really difficult maneuver to be effected during combat too. If you mean relief by unit, that is to replace one unit with another, then it would have been an option, but let us not forget that many accounts have to do with the relief of units in distress. A unit hard-pressed (unless of course they are so in a skirmish) is by default engaged, so whatever relief / assistance came to them has to have been able to do the task in some way while the first one was fighting.

[Mark Hygate]

Bryan,

Do not worry, I am quite happily aware of the gentle contempt and contention between the US & British forces and particularly the 200+ years of feeling the average US soldier/marine has on the 'British Officer' - but I know how it really works as well having been deployed with the Marines during the latter part of 1990 and being at VII Corps HQ at the start of a very busy 100hrs some months later, let alone the peacetime stuff. The US take on 'mavericks' is also very different to the British tradition.

Because the 'general behaviour' of soldiers is well known - and indeed exactly why I made the point I did. Soldiers would not decide such things. In particularly the British tradition (a la Sharpe, although he's a fictional exception) has been to commission warrant officers to become Quartermasters and the like just because they are supposed to know 'all the tricks'. The US tradition, I believe, is different. I know, however, that in general such men can indeed make great 'leaders' (particularly in the soldiers' eyes), but often not very good 'commanders' because they are often thought to be too close to the men - I know that from personal experience.

I make and belabour the point because Centurions were indeed both at need. It's the centurions who attended the 'military meeting'; Tribunes seem to be there to help co-ordinate and pass on orders, but it's the centurions who have to fight the battle to the 'Generals' design - both by commanding and leading. It is dangerous to draw structural parallels, but I do not think it a wrong assertion to make that, in rough equivalents:

- Milite = Private
- Immunue = Private First Class/Chosen Man (possibly Lance Corporal)
- Sesquiparlius (One-and-a-half pay)/Contunbernium/File leader = Corporal (8 man section as in many armies today)
- Signifer (Sesquiparlius ) = Colour-Sergeant/Corporal (junior)
- Optio/Duplicarius (Double pay) = Sergeant (Company-Sergeant)

But Centurion = Captain. An Officer - with life or death powers over the solders and a whole different class.

Macedon,

Actually it's the Century throughout the period that I am interested in - for I have come to the belief that, whilst it is only properly described by Polybius in the Early Republic period (and it's one centurion per century and not two - Polybius has 2 per maniple), it remains essentially the same for at least the next 600 years, and possibly longer.

More importantly, and whilst I applaud the necessary reigning-in of some conjecture and interpolation when it comes to the perceived fact of the sources we do have, I would point out that nowhere do we have anything resembling a drill manual (drill in its widest sense) at the century/sub-cohort level. What we have are often fragments and some comments. We have to try and connect dots and suggest what might well be missing.

I again wish to point out that none of the sources, unlike papers we have from the second millennium as literacy became more widely spread, are from people/observers at the front line - no memoirs of serving soldiers or even centurions. All are written from the 'General's perspective' or the scholarly armchair.

Whilst I commented in the latest thread on actual drill and changing formations, which we don't have for the Romans and, unless I've missed it, I know we having nothing at all for the drill on throwing pila - even though this happened for at least 500 years!

We are missing so much - the sources do not contain everything. We might be wrong in our guesses, but unless we are stupid, then if it makes rational military sense to us, then it probably did to the Romans. Exchanging ranks - certainly, likely, probable and practicable - and under drilled, practised command to boot.

[Bryan]

Mark,

Please don't take the British officer joke seriously, I have no contempt but only love and respect for our British cousins.

But you are right, the US military and the British military are quite different in terms of the role of officers, soldiers and how they are perceived by each other. Might that also be the case with the Romans? That, being an institution formed 2,000 years ago, the Roman army might have operated in a manner that cannot truly be compared to another from this modern day?
Maybe they weren't like the British? (contrary to nearly every movie, tv show and book about ancient Rome :evil:, though Channing Tatem as a centurion wasn't very believable either )

It is dangerous to draw structural parallels, but I do not think it a wrong assertion to make that, in rough equivalents:

- Milite = Private
- Immunue = Private First Class/Chosen Man (possibly Lance Corporal)
- Sesquiparlius (One-and-a-half pay)/Contunbernium/File leader = Corporal (8 man section as in many armies today)
- Signifer (Sesquiparlius ) = Colour-Sergeant/Corporal (junior)
- Optio/Duplicarius (Double pay) = Sergeant (Company-Sergeant)
But Centurion = Captain. An Officer - with life or death powers over the solders and a whole different class.

Interesting comparison. I noticed you chose Immunes as the "Chosen man." However, doesn't Optio literally mean in Latin "Chosen Man?"

My take on it the maniple's organization:
Milite - A simple ranker soldier who also serves as a laborer in noncombat duties
Immunes - An apprentice or master of a needed skill, such as smith, clerk, etc. Generally excused from manual labor details
Tesserarius - A milite given extra responsibility as a guard sergeant, with additional pay as an incentive.
Signifier - The bravest and best milite in the maniple. An example for the rest of the men to follow.
Optio - The Chosen man of the Centurion (literally). Maybe not even chosen by his ability but based solely on patronage and loyalty to the centurion.
Centurion - The "best" milite in the maniple and given command of the whole unit. Generally of the same social class as the milites, they are appointed either by the Tribunes or voted in by the milites themselves. Sometimes Imperators or even the Senate can get involved with their appointments (as did Caesar frequently and in the case of the story of Spurius Ligustinus). The most senior centurions are allowed to attend the military councils held by the army's Imperator.

Mark,
You mention frequently that the century is the prime fighting unit, vice maniple. Based on your research, what is the first reference during the mid to late republican time period that specifically mentions the century as the fighting unit? Was it Caesar's use of Ordo? Livy might, I'd have to check, but he often uses anachronistic terms. I think that topic alone might deserve another thread.

Also, while I disagree with your use of the example, I loved the Sharpes series. That man knows how to write a book.

[antiochus]

Bryan wrote:
Based on your research, what is the first reference during the mid to late republican time period that specifically mentions the century as the fighting unit?

Although the question is addressed to Mark, I have taken the liberty to step into the fray. The following reference is definitely not mid republican or late republican, but Dionysius (8 84) does state for the year (486 BC?) the Romans “attacked in close array both by cohorts and by centuries.” Polyaenus (Stratagems Excerpts 15 9) writes that “the number of infantry Caesar placed with his cavalry amounted to four centuries.” Caesar (BC 3 75) writes that he allocated 400 antesignani to his cavalry. Caesar (BC 3 91) gives the size of a century of ecomons at 120 men.

Bryan wrote:
Was it Caesar's use of Ordo? Livy might, I'd have to check, but he often uses anachronistic terms.

Hmmm, the old Livy uses anachronistic terms mantra surfaces again. If you believe Livy uses anachronistic terms....can you prove it?

Livy’s description of line replacement is not the only reference we have. There is also Dionysius (8 65):

“At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engaged in war. Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress.”

Here BOTH the Romans and the Hernicans are reinforcing their lines with fresh troops. And doesn’t Livy (8 9) mention there was some temporary confusion created by line replacement:

“After a time the Roman hastati on the left, unable to withstand the insistency of the Latins, retired behind the principes. During the temporary confusion created by this movement.”

Then we have references throughout the primary sources of the Romans replacing legions with legions. I think in one battle against Pompeius (Munda?), one legion is having difficulty replacing another legion due to the intensity of the fighting of the forward legions. My research, which includes a lot of detailed studies of battles, has come to the conclusion that line relief was not solely practiced by the Romans, but was a standard practice among all Italian peoples. The Carthaginian army also use such a system as the three line deployment of the Carthaginian army at Zama shows. However, the difference with Zama is Hannibal’s third line. In all my battle studies of the Punic Wars, it works out that the Carthaginian heavy infantry fought in two lines. Now this is where I believe the problem lies....it is the use of the word “line.” I have found a pattern that if the troops are of the same troop type but deployed in two lines or three lines, they are describes as a line. However, if the troops are of a different type, like the maniple legion, they are correctly described as being in three lines.

At Ilipa, the frontage of the Carthaginian infantry is equivalent to the frontage of two consular armies. This is shown by Scipio’s legions being deployment of the in the centre then changed to being deployed on each wing. Both armies have the same frontage, but the Carthaginians, because of their numbers, have a greater depth in each line of heavy infantry. Ancient warfare is about a balance between frontage and depth. The Carthaginian heavy infantry at the Trebia is also two lines deep, as is the Carthaginian heavy infantry line at Cannae. The difference is the first line forms the wedge, while the second line remained behind to try and hold the Romans while the Africans encircle the Romans.

One thing I have never seen in any discussion on line replacement, is the premise taken, the primary sources state it happened therefore it must be true. This is a much more healthy approach. Those who are sceptical or distrust the primary sources are just roadblocks whose only accomplishment past and present is to slow our understanding of the Roman military. Unfortunately, Roman military history seems to attract too many of these roadblocks. I recommend trying something new...work with the primary sources and not against them. By undertaking such an approach, the primary sources are innocent until proven guilty.

Steven