thoughts on Formations and such

[Tib. Gabinius]

In passage 59:
Ab iis centuriones, omnis lectos et evocatos, praeterea ex gregariis militibus optumum quemque armatum in primam aciem subducit.

Catilina himself fought also in the first line, which dont seems to fit to rotating first line:
Interea Catilina cum expeditis in prima acie vorsari,(...) exsequebatur.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Ok... Thank Gabinius. It is an important way to the understanding. when the latin term "Acia" is using, we talking about the first battle line like a lot of unity (ex: century, cohors, legion) The primary term (but not only...) to call the first line composed by infanytymen is "Ordo". So, the hypothetical rotatio theory or "turn over" work in this scale. The "turn over" work between both Ordo.

[Tib. Gabinius]

I understand what you mean, but you are a step ahead.

The first sentence tell us already: he, Catilina, placed veterans, mostly centuriones, and the best equiped men in the front line. That dosnt fit to the wish to change them out in one point, that more looks like he is willingly to fight als long and as good as he can with this men.

In the next chapter we read about "running into battle" and "dont used the pila", which also wouldnt fit to the mutatio theory of ars dimicandi, which tell us about "an important role of the pila" and the necessary to hold contact to the front man.

As well as in chapter Catilina do, also Caesar reports about leaders, who come to the "pressed" to aid. Not a word about changing the wounded.

And also there is the sentence show us the real "exchanging".

Petreius ubi videt Catilinam, contra ac ratus erat, magna vi tendere, cohortem praetoriam in medios hostis inducit eosque perturbatos atque alios alibi resistentis interficit.

Petreius, who was surprised by the well fighting catilinarians, lead his guard, the "cohortem praetoriam" into the enemy.

Whole troops, exhausted and / or with looses were exchanged and fresh troops were send in.
That isnt a thing of minuts or seconds, and so there isnt a need for.


But still, this is one source. What "other" sources do we have for "mutatio"?

To the definition:
The latin word "ordo" is very well described in the oxford latin dictionnary, so the interpretation of the absent word wouldnt be a prove for a rotating anyway and also dont for an exchange through the acies. But in context with the hole sentence it fit, that the groups, the hole formations, were exchanged by the reserves in battle.
But how exactly that was done, we cant say.

[Tarbicus]

Here's an interesting reference from Machiavelli, On the Art of War:

The greatest mistake that those men make who arrange an army for an engagement, is to give it only one front, and commit it to only one onrush and one attempt (fortune). This results from having lost the method the ancients employed of receiving one rank into the other; for without this method, one cannot help the rank in front, or defend them, or change them by rotation in battle, which was practiced best by the Romans. In explaining this method, therefore, I want to tell how the Romans divided each Legion into three parts, namely, the Astati, the Princeps, and the Triari; of whom the Astati were placed in the first line of the army in solid and deep ranks, (and) behind them were the Princeps, but placed with their ranks more open: and behind these they placed the Triari, and with ranks so sparse, as to be able, if necessary, to receive the Princeps and the Astati between them. In addition to these, they had slingers, bow-men (archers), and other lightly armed, who were not in these ranks, but were situated at the head of the army between the cavalry and the infantry. These light armed men, therefore, enkindled the battle, and if they won ((which rarely happened)), they pursued the victory: if they were repulsed, they retired by way of the flanks of the army, or into the intervals (gaps) provided for such a result, and were led back among those who were not armed: after this proceeding, the Astati came hand to hand with the enemy, and who, if they saw themselves being overcome, retired little by little through the open spaces in the ranks of the Princeps, and, together with them, renewed the fight. If these also were forced back, they all retired into the thin lines of the Triari, and all together, en masse, recommenced the battle; and if these were defeated, there was no other remedy, as there was no way left to reform themselves. The cavalry were on the flanks of the army, placed like two wings on a body, and they some times fought on horseback, and sometimes helped the infantry, according as the need required. This method of reforming themselves three times is almost impossible to surpass, as it is necessary that fortune abandon you three times, and that the enemy has so much virtu that he overcomes you three times. The Greeks, with their Phalanxes, did not have this method of reforming themselves, and although these had many ranks and Leaders within them, none the less, they constituted one body, or rather, one front....

...the small and separate bodies that existed in a Roman Legion could be so placed together as to be able to receive one another among themselves, and help each other easily.

[url:2dtjakhb]http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar3.htm[/url]

[Hibernicus]

I had a unit of Romans that fought SCA. Unchoreographed, full force...

We managed to rotate troops with little difficulty...

... either one at a time as needs arose.

.. or having the entire front rank fall back through the second rank or visa versa

Using Latin commands the enemy facing us had no idea of what we were about to do. His hesitation at seeing everyone move in unison stunned him momentarily giving us the needed seconds to move and adjust.

Also, the commander has to seize opportunities.. if the enemy has hesitated, slowed his assault, pulled back a few feet to regroup.. then you can rotate fresh troops.

Also, the men were trained to ask for relief from the man behind.

If it worked for us amateurs...

[Tib. Gabinius]

..it has to work for the real romans.

But your experience has some problems.
Your men and the "enemies" cared for the health of the others, e.g.
A problem, that real historical enemies didnt knew.
And sometimes the enemy dosnt care for his own life also.

Also there is a doubt of the intelligence of ancient people in your words.
Perhaps it fit first time as a surprise. But already in the processing battle they will understand what happens irregular and will use these oppurtunity... and at least many of the enemies of rome did understood latin (e.g. the romans themselves).

I'm sure, that wounded or exhausted man will be exchanged singular, irregular and formless. But thats not the point we discussing.

[Poftim]

I was thinking that if when the order came, the frontline just moved backwards and through spaces between the second line troops and the second line just stood there, why wouldn't that work?

So what if the enemy moved forward, they were already tired and were facing fresh troops. And in a field, having the whole line move back a step or two wouldn't be the end of the world, especially because your fresh troops would be pushing back the enemy's tired troops eventually, anyways; so it owuld all kind of even out.

[Robert Vermaat]

@ Tarbicus:
The quote from Machiavelli is not about troop rotation. Machiavelli is very clear that the troops that 'pass through gaps in the lines behind them' are in fgact overcome by the enemy and are therefore re-forming in the ranks behind them, before they together engage the enemy again. the are not rotating, nor are they taking a breather, as the quote clearly says.
Machiavelli is also clear that this is very rare, as it is necessary to be overcome by the enemy to make it a necessity.

What has been proposed so far is troop rotation when the front rankers get tired.

@ Poftim:
The problem here is to get the space. Troop rotation is proposed when the opportunity arises. When the enemy is in full engagement with the front ranks, it seems hardly possible for these front rankers to disengage.
What if a man died or was wounded? I bet they stepped over his body to reform the line.

@Damianus:
I still have seen no evidence of the claim that a front ranker would be exhausted after as short a time as only 3 minutes!

[Tarbicus]

@ Tarbicus:
The quote from Machiavelli is not about troop rotation. Machiavelli is very clear that the troops that 'pass through gaps in the lines behind them' are in fgact overcome by the enemy and are therefore re-forming in the ranks behind them, before they together engage the enemy again. the are not rotating, nor are they taking a breather, as the quote clearly says.
Machiavelli is also clear that this is very rare, as it is necessary to be overcome by the enemy to make it a necessity.

What has been proposed so far is troop rotation when the front rankers get tired.

What it does show is that Machiavelli believed there was an easy way for large units to merge and fall back into and through each other, simply by changing spacing the further back in the legion you go (Hastati close ranks, Principes a wider space between them, Triarii even wider), which has not been mentioned at all here (or for that matter anywhere else on RAT afaik), so it's worth bringing up anyway.

Why is it not possible to do the same staggered spacing within a century itself? Front rank close together, the ranks behind double spaced. So, instead of entire ranks behind coming forward, every other man in the 1st rank drops back into the space behind in the 2nd rank, original 2nd rank charges in at an angle (shield first to the left) to fill the gaps in front, the original 3rd rank moves up to take their place, 4th rank takes theirs.... the original retired half of the 1st rank easily moves all the way back to the rear. There has been no change in troops en masse, but 50% of the front rank now has fresh troops. When the time is right the new 2nd rankers can replace the original 50% of the front rank in the same way.

The concern that the extra spacings behind the front line leads to less strength is moot, as they're not engaged with the enemy.

I'm not proposing this as a theory that this is how they did it, but this is a discussion after all, and one thing that has never been proposed is that the spacing inside a maniple or century may have been irregular (just as Machiavelli believed was the case for the entire legion) allowing for better movement within that respective unit. What Machiavelli knew that we don't, I've no idea. But he has an interesting proposal from the grave, and does seem very cocksure of himself about it as if it were just something everbody knew. Assuming the regularity of spacing within the legion 's units may be too convenient and assumptions are always worth questioning.

Anyway, I'll start a new thread on Machiavelli's comments.

[Luca]

I arrive very in late on this topic.

About Josephus

The Jews were gradually being worn out by the nonstop fighting, while the Romans employed their time-honored tactic of constantly rotating in fresh troops, relieving the tired and wounded.

In this case I think that must be read that jews had not enough men to rotate, while romans had more or also that romans had gaps to move centuries and not single-men front lines and the jews were on the walls? Of course not to mention already supposed lulls.


OK, I see the discussion went ahead.
I just post am image from "Rome" that show the rotation: http://www.romanhideout.com/images/roma ... photo7.asp

I did it many times with AD in 2003, and the sequence created a lot of problems.
But I don't want to mention them, because AD is saying that basically they have fixed the problems, so it would be better to wait for them for their new explanation.
A question for AD: is this position still the starting position for the first and second line of men before to rotate?
http://www.romanhideout.com/images/Vari ... 1_1224.asp
If you have changed it how did you arranged the new position?

[Tib. Gabinius]

Tarbicus, before getting new theories in detail, we should get evidence for exchanging formations, files or rows.
We can theoretically do a discussion about weeks and wont get to a conclusion.
But first we have to get sources.

Luca, can you post an image of the "jumping celt" which landed in the formation out of the series rome to? I would really love to see what happens to your photo7 if this situations would be combined...

[Robert Vermaat]

What it does show is that Machiavelli believed there was an easy way for large units to merge and fall back into and through each other, simply by changing spacing the further back in the legion you go (Hastati close ranks, Principes a wider space between them, Triarii even wider), which has not been mentioned at all here (or for that matter anywhere else on RAT afaik), so it's worth bringing up anyway.

I agree it's worth bringing up, I merely pointed out that this was not a system for troop rotation, but a system for re-forming troops in the second and third ranks.
It must be said that a), this was hypothetical, so it can't be established if it would work.
Also b), it was a system for last resort, purely as a fall-back, not a system that would need to be repeated time and again.
And c), even though the numbers of the first rank to move back into the second would always have been less due to losses during the initial battle, the Machiavellian system would leave much larger spaces than troop rotation would need. That's why I'm not enthusiastic about it, although I agree the theoretical possibilities.

Why is it not possible to do the same staggered spacing within a century itself? Front rank close together, the ranks behind double spaced.

Well, it could be done, but with some adjestments.
You'd need a front rank with a double amount of numbers, for if the front rank would be the same number as the double-spaced second (etc.) rank, than it would only occupy half it's lenght. So maybe you'd need the first two ranks fighting in close space to begin with.

So, instead of entire ranks behind coming forward, every other man in the 1st rank drops back into the space behind in the 2nd rank, original 2nd rank charges in at an angle (shield first to the left) to fill the gaps in front, the original 3rd rank moves up to take their place, 4th rank takes theirs.... the original retired half of the 1st rank easily moves all the way back to the rear. There has been no change in troops en masse, but 50% of the front rank now has fresh troops. When the time is right the new 2nd rankers can replace the original 50% of the front rank in the same way.

Yes, that could be done, but the same principle applies: you'd need the opportunity. If the front is heavily engaged, the enemy could also charge after the front rankers who fall back, thereby dangerously charging into your ranks. It can only de done whent the front is disengaged during some lull in the fighting, or at a moment where the enemy is surprised (which only works if they have no clue about what's going to happen, not likely if this were a normal Roman tactic - they'd be waiting for it!).

The concern that the extra spacings behind the front line leads to less strength is moot, as they're not engaged with the enemy.

Is it? Then you're supposing that there is no pushing from an enemy formation. A cuneus develops that sort of pushing strength.
So it would be posssible, but only if fighting is without any pushing.

[Tarbicus]

Here we go, from Book Two of The Art of War.

'...For a courageous army is not so because the men in it are courageous, but because the ranks are well disciplined; for if I am of the first line fighters, and being overcome, I know where I have to retire, and who is to take my place, I will always fight with courage seeing my succor nearby: If I am of the second line fighters, I would not be dismayed at the first line being pushed back and repulsed, for I would have presupposed it could happen, and I would have desired it in order to be he who, as it was not them, would give the victory to my patron.'
[url:1o663793]http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar2.htm[/url]
[url:1o663793]http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar_.htm[/url]

The mechanics are not there, but Machiavelli obviously believed they did it.

The thing that excites me about Machiavelli's theories is that he comes from an age were gunpowder was only just being used, and he had plenty of experience of the scholarly study of how armies fought steel-on-steel, including a clear and great knowledge of the Classics. As war was, in his view, the most important aspect of statesmanship he took this study very seriously.

[Tarbicus]

I agree it's worth bringing up, I merely pointed out that this was not a system for troop rotation, but a system for re-forming troops in the second and third ranks.

Are we sure about that? It seems to me that M. is describing the makeup of a legion to educate the other he is speaking to, after he mentions that the Roman method for the rotation of ranks has been lost. The 'ranks' initially mentioned by him could mean 'maniples', or could mean exactly 'ranks'.

It must be said that a), this was hypothetical, so it can't be established if it would work.
Also b), it was a system for last resort, purely as a fall-back, not a system that would need to be repeated time and again.
And c), even though the numbers of the first rank to move back into the second would always have been less due to losses during the initial battle, the Machiavellian system would leave much larger spaces than troop rotation would need. That's why I'm not enthusiastic about it, although I agree the theoretical possibilities.

a) agreed
b) agreed
c) When a man falls the one behind takes his place anyway. The front rank will always be the same number.

You'd need a front rank with a double amount of numbers, for if the front rank would be the same number as the double-spaced second (etc.) rank, than it would only occupy half it's lenght. So maybe you'd need the first two ranks fighting in close space to begin with.

That's obvious, but yes. The front rank needs to be double strength, but that is not an alien concept to Roman military practice with the double strength right flank in the form of the First Cohort.

Yes, that could be done, but the same principle applies: you'd need the opportunity. If the front is heavily engaged, the enemy could also charge after the front rankers who fall back, thereby dangerously charging into your ranks.

This assumes that the Romans are being pushed back, and are not the ones pushing forwards. I doubt the enemy could charge anyway. It takes forward motion and impetus to charge into a body, with space needed to gain acceleration. But if the situation was of strike, parry, push and shove, then quickly stepping back could even overbalance your opponent temporarily. Even if the enemy got between every first rank Roman during the rotation, they would have no great advantage if any, as the shape of the front ranks on both sides would be the same. Sure, the remaining Romans would have enemy at front and both sides, but so would the enemy have Romans at front and both sides. There is no clear advantage to the enemy, but the Romans would have been expecting it to happen and prepared, with the replacements already slamming into position and possibly covered by the the standing 2nd ranker on the other side of the retiring front ranker, while he moves into position.

PAUSE - IMPORTANT: THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL

It can only de done whent the front is disengaged during some lull in the fighting, or at a moment where the enemy is surprised (which only works if they have no clue about what's going to happen, not likely if this were a normal Roman tactic - they'd be waiting for it!).

There had been plenty of conflict between the Jews and the Romans before Jotapata, yet the Jews still could not take advantage when a rotation (ranks or whole units) happened and Josephus, a military leader, was very impressed either way. Unlike the Romans, the enemy seem to be not particularly trained in these things, and I doubt they knew the commands coming from the cornicen or in many cases even the verbal latin commands of a centurio.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

I like to expose you all my reflexion and my theorical work but in english it is completly imposible for me, my vocabulary is not rich enough...