Note: I'm posting this in favor of fellow Leg. III Cyr commilito Randi/P. Clodius Secudus, who apparently is having trouble logging in and posting.
-T.V.Dominicus
The Roman Army could have accomplished what is now considered a Forward Passage of Lines While in Contact in the following manner;
1. Sensing that the front rank of troops is tiring the Centurio gives a
signal (horn, whistle, whatever) to form and advance a second rank.
2. Upon nearing the first (engaged) rank, the second (relieving) rank draw their gladii raise their scutae overhead with the sword hand bracing the bottom center of the shield (think testudo) and the blade "flatted" against it.
3. The engaged rank crouches lower behind their shield wall still thrusting
with their gladii.
4. The relieving rank "uncovers" one half file to the left, or more
traditionally, as in the firing drill of ACW Infantry, the right. They then
pass between the front rankers and slam their shields down with their left
(shield) hands passing into the thrusting gaps between the front rank
shields (curved corners would really help here!)
5. The tired front rankers can then stay low and back off to their left and
retire leaving the the relieving rank free to engage.
Theoretically this accomplishes several things;
1. The relieving rank is protected from projectiles during their advance.
2. The tired troops only have to get-low -and-go while the fresh troops do
all the forming, maneuvering and lifting.
3. It holds the enemy in contact and one set of weapons (sword-shield
edge-sword) in his face at all times.
4. No one turns his back on the enemy or presents an open flank.
5. It allows the second rank to advance and the first to withdraw with
swords drawn and in safe positions Reducing fratricide in this type of
evolution is important, and I ain't just talkin' out my fourth point of
contact 'cause I saw it kill a friend of in Desert Storm. The weapons
evolve, but the basic concepts haven't changed much.
6. Even if the second rank can't get through all you're stuck with is a long
shallow testudo.
7. Most importantly it is an inherently offensive maneuver and by most
accounts the Romans shared the Soviet Army's Principle of "Attack, Attack,
Always Forward!".
The above theory is just that, and until we can get our Legion together with
some accomodating enemies it remains an untested one. I welcome your input
and imrovements.
Regards,
P. Clodius Secundus
"Tesserandius"
MY biggest problem with 'front rank relief' during full engagement is that you need gaps to let the relieving rank through. Either you move the complete rank off to one side (totally impractical!) or each man changes place with the man in front of him.
Of course, this is the moment of chaos, which a determined enemy can exploit by charging forward and catching the relieving Roman front off guard, or at least in the middle of a formation move. This might be deadly.
Therefore I agree with those who say that a) either the relieve system worked differently, or b) it worked like you say but during a lull in the fighting or c) it did not exist at all.
I wrote this before.
In primitive fighting lulls happened physiologically although locally; i.e. over limited portions of a battle line changes would occur when individuals tired or the enthusiasm of the driving few -the brave ones- simmered down. Not all fighters were raging bulls and even they tired.
These physiological changes were incoherent, if not chaotic, unless there was some degree of training. A trained army could hope to orchestrate the motions and involve larger portions of the battle line so that the motion was more coherent.
Coherence could be insured if the enemy did not have the intiative, as occurred when it was too busy trying to reorganize its lines and defend itself! The enemy was at its most passive when it had just been clobbered by a sequence of insults such as an initial missile barrage followed by a brief agressive sword exhange followed by a new barrage of missiles, etc.
The army that could orchestrate in time a series of these cycles over a relatively large portion of the fight was more likely to keep the initiative (positve feedback) while the army that was in trouble found it harder and harder to recover, less and less likely to get the initiative (negative feedback).
How did the romans do it? I think missiles (pila) played an important role is softening up the enemy lines before a sword fight and in keeping the enemy busy while the fresh frontliners were moved into position. The enemy took time to reorganize their lines and that precious interval of time was used by the romans to move the second-liners forward. Note that the double density line was a deterrent against individual attempting rashly to stop the romans. More in general the enemy was probably too busy reorganizing to do anything useful. If the enemy wasn't ready in time and was still off balance then the second cycle of the romans was harder to stop. If instead the initial attemp of the romans did not significantly weaken the enemy, the romans still had an advantage because their new frontliners were relatively fresh and the cycles could be repeated again. If the enemy did not have a reliable way of getting tired and wounded out of harms way then their staying power lessened.
I just followed a link from Newsfeeds to N S Gill's 'About' page saying Happy Birthday to Vespasian. I then a followed a link to a 'Military Illustrated' article entitled 'Forty Days at Jotapata' by Mark Wayne Biggs.
[url:1kvy2vns]http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/prm/bljotapataa.htm[/url]
Describing the assault by the Romans after the walls were (finally) breached, he says the following:
Quote:Joseph ..... also had his men plug their ears against the terrifying Roman battle cry.
He then goes on to say:
Quote: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.
This seems to be the corresponding passage from Josephus' "The Wars of the Jews" Book III, Ch. 7 (27)
Quote:But the Jews grew weary with defending themselves continually, and had not enough to come in their places, and succor them; while, on the side of the Romans, fresh men still succeeded those that were tired;
That translation was by William Whiston, and can be found at: [url:1kvy2vns]http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM[/url]
This is from the Penguin Classics edition translated by G A Williamson:
Quote:But While the Jews were being steadily worn out by the non-stop battle and were unable to replace their front-line officers, on the Roman side exhausted units were relieved by fresh troops, and as soon as one group was forced back another came forward...
I don't have the latin I'm afraid. But it does seem there was a tactic of rotating troops out of the front to be replaced by fresh troops in an orderly manner. Also, although the Jewish soldiers were tired they don't seem to have lost the initiative as such, and at times were pushing the Romans back when the troop rotation happened. Makes me think there was a means of doing this properly and not during a lull in the fighting.
Quote:I don't have the latin I'm afraid
That's cause you need the Greek. :wink: I'd say this is very good proof of some way of replacing troops during a battle. Josephus was there as a Jewish commander, was captured, got on a good foot with the Flavians and started writing about them. He was, of course, very impressed with the Roman army.
Quote:I don't have the latin I'm afraid. But it does seem there was a tactic of rotating troops out of the front to be replaced by fresh troops in an orderly manner. Also, although the Jewish soldiers were tired they don't seem to have lost the initiative as such, and at times were pushing the Romans back when the troop rotation happened. Makes me think there was a means of doing this properly and not during a lull in the fighting.
Hi Tarbicus,
Well, the text does not state that all the troop rotation was done during full contact, does it? Even if the rotation was done during a (artificial) lull in the fighting, that could have been the moment when the Jews attacked their (temporarily less organised) opponent and pushed them back.
I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, just that the text leaves room for other interpretations.
Quote:That's cause you need the Greek. Wink
Ah .... yes .... well .... it was late :oops: Hartelijk gefeliciteerd Birthday Boy!
Quote:Well, the text does not state that all the troop rotation was done during full contact, does it? Even if the rotation was done during a (artificial) lull in the fighting, that could have been the moment when the Jews attacked their (temporarily less organised) opponent and pushed them back.
Fair enough, but I'll point these words out:
Quote:But While the Jews were being steadily worn out by the non-stop battle
Quote:But the Jews grew weary with defending themselves continually
At this point the battle was pretty much all centred at the breach in the wall, and both translations seem to point out the battle was non-stop. One
could interpret that to mean there were no lulls, which would tally with the fact that this was a last stand by the Jews who thus far had fought incredibly well and incredibly courageously, frustrating and beating back the Romans time and time again by sortying out from the walls and sabotaging the siegeworks. I see your point, and you could well be right, but I feel there is also room to see this stage of the defence as full contact throughout if only through those particular words I highlighted. It was the fact that the Jews could not (or did not know how to) rotate troops during full contact that was their downfall maybe, and only maybe?
Of course, we're talking siege here, not battlefield.
I think that while defending a wall, not even each and every warrior in the frontline has to fight constantly, without letup. After all, he's standing on a wall, with the attack concentrated at the siege works and the breach. I think the words 'constantly' mean here that there was no break in the attack. Of course, troop rotation is much easier during a siege, the enmy can't just rush forward..
Quote:I think the words 'constantly' mean here that there was no break in the attack.
Again, I see your point, but there is something that is niggling at me. Josephus was very particular in his descriptions, and seems to have used his words well. I suspect (and only
suspect) that he would have mentioned lapses in the fighting in order for troop rotation to happen, whereas he doesn't here. He much admired the Roman army, and went to great lengths to describe its actions, makeup, formations, weapons, etc. I just feel he would have mentioned lulls, as it would have been part of the whole technique of the manouevre. I don't know, and I'm not saying that's how it is, but he had an eye for detail and that kind of detail seems odd in being left out, as it would also have been an important comparison between the opposing forces.
Quote:Of course, troop rotation is much easier during a siege, the enemy can't just rush forward..
It's debatable whether the Romans rushed forward anyway as common practice. Of course they did, but not always, thinking immediately of Ross Cowan's work. But in order for the Romans to get through the breach they would have had to continually gain ground and push their way through, even if only through sheer weight of numbers. They formed a testudo and pushed in.
Josephus also points out that every Jewish fighter would not stop fighting until either he or his enemy had fallen, spurred on by the certain fate awaiting himself and his loved ones.
Quote:... they should leap out on the sudden, and with their own instruments should meet the enemy, and that every one should strive to do his best, in order not to defend his own city, as if it were possible to be preserved, but in order to revenge it, when it was already destroyed; and that they should set before their eyes how their old men were to be slain, and their children and wives were to be killed immediately by the enemy; and that they would beforehand spend all their fury, on account of the calamities just coming upon them, and pour it out on the actors...
Even when the Romans made their way into the city and all was lost many of the Jewish men committed suicide rather than be killed by a Roman blade, which indicates how fiercely committed they were to fighting the Romans. The whole Jewish fighting mindset seems to have been one of not letting up on the Romans, even when the Romans were not directly attacking the walls, sortying out frequently to take the fight to the enemy, and not retreating until damage had been done to siegeworks and Romans, forcing Vespasian to even increase the defences (ironically as it should have been the other way around) about the city.
Who knows, but my jury's out on this one :wink:
What you need to do is to look at other re-enactment socieites with the numbers, who actually fight competitively, to see how they do it. (we fight like that but don't have the numbers).
The reason being that this is as close as you will get. You have similar equipment, hopefully some level of teamwork and training of fighting together and the imperiative that you don't actually want to get hit.
I have never seen any effective mass rotation scheme of troops in contact. I do not believe it can be done, as if you take your eye off the opposition for one moment then you are likely to be speared (or whatever). Also once folks are engaged then it's very hard to get them to break their concentration.
The only way you can do it is when a lull occurs and during a competitive fight there are plenty of those but not at any appreciable distance. Certainly, if I saw the opposition about to try and rotate troops then I'd close the gap as it's a moment of weakness.
Our roman unit thinks it _might_ be possible by having the guys in the front line turn sideways, shield side facing the opposition, thus creating enough of a gap for their buddy to slip in sideways with his shield facing. Once he's in then you can fall back the same way. The big curvy scutum lend themselves to this fairly well.
Usually when you are fighting then although you have your shield forward, your stance is still fairly square.
Try it.
Quote:Our roman unit thinks it _might_ be possible by having the guys in the front line turn sideways, shield side facing the opposition, thus creating enough of a gap for their buddy to slip in sideways with his shield facing. Once he's in then you can fall back the same way. The big curvy scutum lend themselves to this fairly well.
Usually when you are fighting then although you have your shield forward, your stance is still fairly square.
One group I know keeps a space of roughly 3 feet between each man and the next, to allow for rotation.
You think keeping this sort of spacing is effective in battle ?
I'll bet they are "drill" group as using shortswords then it means that two men cannot work together to kill an enemy as they are too far apart to reach. It means that you are on your own.
In addition, 3 feet is space enough for a couple of determined people to push through.
Hi guys
I think the amount of spacing was not some rigid value. All thru their history the romans faced many types of enemy. Three feet spacing might be good for some enemy and not for others. I believe the romans fought against a dense phalanx differently then when against open mob. Then there were different types of phalanxs: italic/hoplitic (see early roman history), celtic, germanic (yes celts and germans fought in phalanxs too!), macedonian pikemen,... The notion that some ancients fought in open order in some wild free-for-all is, in my opinion, false. In set battles everyone fought in closed order. How closed? Varying degrees of density according to various traditions and various situations.
In my mind I find it conceivable that a three foot gap might be fine against a rigid macedonian-like phalanx; i.e. one that cannot afford to break up at all! Instead against a more fluid phalanx, like a germanic one where individual enemy might surge forward, a more dense formation would be called for.
In general I find it very unlikely that single brave men would venture into a gap UNLESS the enemy formation was already disintegrating! I do believe it happened but only when the time was right, when the moment was mature, when the enemy was cooked and ready to break. Do it too soon and you risked getting killed easily. Do it when the moment was ripe and the enemy might break and you could become a hero. The difference between a rash brave warrior and a good brave warrior was that the latter could live to tell his deeds, the former simply got himself killed. If an inexperienced rash warrior was lucky and didn't get killed then he would certainly have learned a lesson, would maybe wisen up and become a good brave warrior.
Quote:You think keeping this sort of spacing is effective in battle ?
No, absolutely not. I think they can't make a good frontline with such big holes.
Quote:I'll bet they are "drill" group as using shortswords then it means that two men cannot work together to kill an enemy as they are too far apart to reach. It means that you are on your own.
In addition, 3 feet is space enough for a couple of determined people to push through.
Well, they're Late Roman and using spathae, so that would not be the problem.
But they use the gaps the let velites through, and then rotate each rank for throwing plumbatae, each man running back through the gap next to him.
Indeed, I agree with you, any determined push would break them apart, especially a cuneus.
Furthermore, Maurice in his Strategikon says that each shield should touch the umbo of the man next to him, whicgh would leave 1 ft (I've calculated it) between each man, not 3 ft.
So what if an enemy got through the first line - there were still ranks behind, without the pressure of the front ranks, who could deal with them? Maybe the teamwork went deeper rather than only sideways?