RomanArmyTalk

Yes, Hohenfriedberg is a good example, I can think of others in which even cavalry alone routed both enemy cavalry and infantry, like St Quentin, Gembloux, Tournhout...
Cavalry remained the arm of decision in most battles from XVI to XIX century

Well put John Conyard !
I agree with your view entirely - re-enactment and 'experimental archaeology' are valuable tools for both amateur and professional alike - but as a couple of anecdotes in this thread demonstrate, we must be aware of limitations too.
Having said that, we must also be conscious of weakness in the written records too - bias, downright lies and propaganda, simple errors....not to mention errors in translation, and the reader interpreting what was written in terms of his own assumptions/perceptions, rather than the writer's - which may be very different ! :?
As to 'pushing', don't forget Robert and I are not saying that it did not occur, in small groups, just the way your re-enactment group have experienced; but rather'pushing' en masse, in a co-ordinated fashion, by a line many hundreds of yards/metres long in order to physically push back an opposing line was simply not the way Late Roman Infantry could have, or did fight( or any other infantry, in my view! ).
As to cavalry- v- cavalry, or cavalry-v-infantry, I look forward to seeing those threads appear.
Given the absolute paucity of information available in the ancient sources, and lack of re-enactment experience, or experience of horsemanship, there should be room for all sorts of opinions !!! :lol: :lol: :wink:

for Tarbicus and Aryaman :
....perhaps I should add ".... by a frontal charge" for that is what I had in mind. I hope that clarifies my thinking. :oops:

Of course, throughout history, cavalry have inflicted defeats and massive casualties on infantry in all sorts of circumstances ( often without coming hand-to-hand with them - Carrhae springs to mind), but bear in mind we were looking at what happens when one line closes with another, and both have the will to fight, and it was in that context that I ventured the rather bold generalisation!! :wink:

Does anyone want to kick off another thread ???

Quote:Yes, Hohenfriedberg is a good example, I can think of others in which even cavalry alone routed both enemy cavalry and infantry, like St Quentin, Gembloux, Tournhout...
Cavalry remained the arm of decision in most battles from XVI to XIX century

For every example there are examples which tell us the contrary. Think f.e. of the unsuccessful attacks of Blüchers cavalry at Auerstedt. The French infantry was in line and repelled three charges of the Prussian cavalry (which was yet also under fire from some cannons). In my opinion all branches of the arms needed to play together.

The cavalry reglements of the time after 1815 at least normally did not recommend attacks against solid infantry formations which were not moving or shattered by artillery or infantry before.

In the ancient times the cavalry had not to face gun fire. A worthful advantage. On the other hand they faced frequently long staff weapons and great shields, not so nice too. Ok, I will stop this ot theme now. :wink:

Quote:In the ancient times the cavalry had not to face gun fire. A worthful advantage. On the other hand they faced frequently long staff weapons and great shields, not so nice too. Ok, I will stop this ot theme now. :wink:

Horses can't see flying bullets, but they can see a solid row of long, sharp pointy things pointed at them, and a shield wall.

Some points.
It is believed that Ancient Greeks made the solid spear/pike block an offensive weapon.
It is argued if the Roman auxilia used the same tactic and it is debated if the late Romans used it too.
Things go more complicated for Byzantines where some Generals or Emperors had reliable infantry spearmen and other did not.
The practice for attacking as a block was known.
The question is was it practiced? Did they bother to train the troops in this tactic. Was it up to individual commander?

Kind regards

Quote:Very interesting thread. I did not read it before because I don't like the late Romans so much :oops: , but perhaps it could be also split to the Greek section?

Well, you're right, it's not about Late Roman formations anymore, so I edited the title of the thread a bit. Carry on!

This is for Vortigern Studies:
On 21 July 2007 you posted where you referred to two articles by Everett Wheeler- 'The legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire' (I) and (II). I would very much have a look at these, but my library needs more info in order to try to dig them up for me through the inter-library loan system. Would it be possible for you to help me out here? They need either the ISBN's (preferably) of the parent publications, or the publication dates, volume numbers if applicable and anything else you can think of in order to get a not-particularly-swift reference librarian off the mark. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks- Ed Valerio

Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (I), in: L'Armée romaine de Dioclétian à Valentinian Ier, Actes de IIIe congrès de Lyon sur l'armée romaine, ed. Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff (Paris), pp. 309-58.

Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (II), in: Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes 1, pp. 147-75.

Vortigern Studies,
Thanks for the reply to my query re: the Wheeler articles. Unfortunately, this is exactly your original post, and so if of no help to me. My librarian is requiring the sort of thing that I asked for in my post.
As ever- Ed Valerio

Try Google.

http://www.antiqbook.fr/boox/pic/168690.shtml

Quote:"double distance", 12 feet each
"open order", 6 feet each
"order", 3 feet each & the standard line
"close order", 18" each

(these distances can be applied to the files as well, but are not always equal in any formation, like the Korean lines are much further apart (front to back) than the officers in each rank (side to side).

I thought we had a period source for the standard 3':

Vegetius, Book 3:

"One thousand paces contain a single rank of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man being allowed three feet...We have before observed the distance between each rank should be six feet, one foot of which is taken up by the men. Thus if you form a body of ten thousand men into six ranks they will occupy thirty-six feet in depth and a thousand paces in front."

This is for Tarbicus:

Thanks much for the reference to part II of the Wheeler articles on 'The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire'. You wouldn't also have one for part I of his article(s), would you? I've tried everything I know, but still can't find anything on the parent publication. Any help would be most appreciated.

Ed valerio

Quote:You wouldn't also have one for part I of his article(s), would you? I've tried everything I know, but still can't find anything on the parent publication. Any help would be most appreciated.

Wheeler's publications in my posession, as a copy or PDF:

Wheeler, Everett L. (1978): The Occasion of Arrian's Tactica, in: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19:4, pp. 351–65. (PDF)
Wheeler, Everett L. (1979): The Legion as Phalanx, in: Chiron 9, pp. 303–318.
Wheeler, Everett L. (1993): Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy: Part I, in: The Journal of Military History 57 part 1 (Jan. 1993), pp. 7-41. (PDF)
Wheeler, Everett L. (1993): Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy: Part II, in: The Journal of Military History 57 part 2 (Apr. 1993), pp. 215-40. (PDF)
Wheeler, Everett L. (1997): Why the Romans can´t defeat the Parthians: Julius Africanus and the Strategy of Magic, in: Roman Frontier Studies 1997, pp. 575-9.
Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (I), in: L'Armée romaine de Dioclétian à Valentinian Ier, Actes de IIIe congrès de Lyon sur l'armée romaine, ed. Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff (Paris), pp. 309-58.
Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (II), in: Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes 1, pp. 147-75.

Quote:You wouldn't also have one for part I of his article(s), would you?

I PM'd you about a month ago, Ed. Don't you check your mail?!