Project- Influences of Roman military on modern day riot control

[MonsGraupius]

What I'm interested to know what factors affect the depth of a police line and the decisions to form up in loose and tight formations.

The name of the game is containment, so they will typically keep calling riot control until the riot is contained. 

Interesting word "contained" - not how we would describe a Roman line.

No one formula exists for numbers, NYPD operates differently than say Middle of Nowhere, Idaho. Shield walls are used because they create mobile walls to contain the rioters, they offer the best frontal protection from missiles, and they allow officers to gain the advantage of close order formations for the psychological effect of group protection.

The psychology would be very similar.

Their depth is usually limited out of necessity, the rioters rarely try to charge the riot control line and break through it, if they do there are better means of controlling the crowd then shield and batons, CS grenades, concussion grenades, rubber ball grenades, paintballs, rubber bullets, ultrasonic weapons, high pressure water hoses, actual firearms for lethal force (rarely used), which are stationed behind the front rank, so they can quickly be used by opening the ranks or used from the heights of a vehicle roof, or thrown over the top of the shield wall. 

I'm surprised you don't specify anything on depth. When you get somewhere above 10 rows, there's a serious danger of crush injuries or even death. But too few and the crowd could overwhelm the police rows - and literally trample over them.

I'd imagine the closest Roman tactics would be use cavalry or light infantry in a shock tactic. However, I suppose there could also have been archers or slingers who would come to the front to pick off individuals in the opposing line.

That's interesting as I was imagining a very static line with very much the same troops. It would need a lot of training to open up the ranks on command - without killing someone in the charge.

Shield walls aren't used because somebody read Polybius, Livy, Vegetius, or Adrian Goldsworthy books. They are used because the size of the shield (usually rectangular body shields) is most protective in a unified in a group by having everyone stand really close to one another, helped since they don't really need to move dynamically, and rarely use batons either (which by and large are not effective weapons in a fight). Cops don't show up to riots hoping to get hurt, departments cant risk cops getting hurt, which is why they give them so much padding and armor, and the big plexiglass (sometimes metal) shields. 

The Romans were pussies as well (Joke!!!) But seriously, no Roman goes to battle wanting to die either. The same/similar conditions often lead to very similar equipment and tactics. Romans also wanted effective shields for similar reasons. Big difference is that they were up against weapons intended to kill.

Loose formations are best for offensive crowd dispersal tactics, riot control personnel can rush the rioters and just go to town beating the crap out of the slow ones who don't run away fast enough. Its dangerous because the loss of cohesion and order can make a rioter counter attack dangerous, and command and control is basically impossible. But it rarely happens, because most agencies aren't willing to deal with the repercussions of dispersing rioters with violence in the age of 24 hours news and cell phone videos recording and uploading nasty incidents to social media. Same reason they don't just shoot them anymore like the old days or modern 3rd World countries.  

Thanks, yes, the police seem to have the two types of formations: loose and tight - as do the rioters. This just seems to be natural, but I couldn't understand why. So, good to get an insight into the rational.

I've never much seen the point of light infantry (loose): supposedly they were "skirmishers" who engaged the enemy first. That never made much sense to me, unless the other side were also light infantry, in which case the battle was like two women fighting whilst the men watched (and couldn't advance because the light infantry were in the way).

It makes more sense to use them as an offensive force once enemy heavy infantry are retreating and/or have lost formation. Then the faster speed of light infantry enables them to easily catch up and massacre the heavies without the risk of a counter attack from heavy (or at least they can run away quickly)

If you want to see fierce riots you have to look at Japan and Korea (they are mental!)

Normal chain of command exists for the forces. Sergeants are sometimes in the line but usually in the back of it, to better give command and control while monitoring radios and being given commands from the rear, they oversea riot control certified Patrolman. These will in turn be controlled by Lieutenants (who rarely will be included in the line, stationed behind for command and control), Captains, Chiefs, and any other senior officers in attendance (usually its a goat rope, with LOTS of brass, all giving conflicting commands, leading to more confusion and chaos).

I've never believed the idea that centurions were in the front line, let alone the corner of the checkerboard pattern which was almost suicidal as a position. It's pretty obvious that if the "brains" were in the most vulnerable position, then they'd be targetted right from the start leaving a broken chain of command and control.