RomanArmyTalk

Ha, faulty tactics and limited manpower. The only thing that holds me back is that conquest and garrisoning your homeland may not be economically viable in the short or long term.

Anyway, at this rate you'll be underwater soon.....

John

Quote: Ha, faulty tactics and limited manpower.

Limited manpower -agreed.
What faulty tactics are you referring to?

Quote:The only thing that holds me back is that conquest and garrisoning your homeland may not be economically viable in the short or long term.

Ah, you underestimate our militia who, disappearing inside the civil population or the endless marshes, will pop up from time to time to push all occupying forces into the nearest river or canal.

Quote:Anyway, at this rate you'll be underwater soon.....

If I interpreted the news of the last week correctly, it's not the rivers in MY country that are bursting their banks... You were talking about buying a wetsuit for the next event?:wink:

I'm off in a couple of hours for another wet weekend. This "summer" is providing a stern test for equipment, tents etc. Our gear holds up well, as it does on the walks, but some sunshine would lift the spirits. As it is this weekend will be spent on the north Yorkshire Moors, already subject to flash flooding and with a severe weather warning posted for the weekend.

Without wishing to be pointed, my reference to faulty tactics was aimed at your belief that against infantry the rear four ranks open up and throw, while the front four ranks close up and push/fight. I fear I still believe the 8 ranks would be closed up, braced, and pushing as one on command.

Against horses the rear ranks could open up, since you can get away with a great deal against horse.

But against infantry it's a pushing match, with a bit of steel when the opportunity arises.

Just my view, you don't have to agree me.

Although we could discuss this separately, in a thread about Late Roman infantry deployment, it’s also dealing with plumbatae, so I’ll continue here (we can always split it off):

Quote:Without wishing to be pointed, my reference to faulty tactics was aimed at your belief that against infantry the rear four ranks open up and throw, while the front four ranks close up and push/fight. I fear I still believe the 8 ranks would be closed up, braced, and pushing as one on command.
Against horses the rear ranks could open up, since you can get away with a great deal against horse.
But against infantry it's a pushing match, with a bit of steel when the opportunity arises.
Just my view, you don't have to agree me.

Well, don't mind if I do, but with both Vegetius as well as Maurice in hand, I have to.

Technically, I object to ‘pushing matches’, because I doubt that the Romans had enemies that used such tactics. Sassanid Persian armies never had any massed infantry that allowed such pushing matches anyway. And when you look at the enormous spikes on Germanic shield bosses, it’s clear that these are not suited for massed infantry pushing matches. Therefore, I doubt that Roman armies developed such tactics. Maybe they used it against other Roman armies?

Returning to plumbatae throwing, I hope I did not imply that the rear ranks opened up to throw them. I think they either remained open during the throwing of any missiles (see Vegetius below), or they closed up from a more open formation directly after deploying from the marching column. But I think that once closed (Vegetius’ 3 ft. for each man, not between each man), they remained closed. Which is why I think that plumbatae are hard to throw by the front line (maybe only by the front rank), but were mainly thrown by the rear ranks.

Here’s where I get it from:

VEGETIUS

Vegetius, although difficult to read with his 'Legio Antiqua' that nevertheless carrying 'modern weapons like veruta, spicula and plumbatae, form his army in three lines.

VEG.II.15:
Front line, cohorts 1-5, have the officers, NCO's and standard-bearers at the very front (Vegetius calls them principes, Ammianus mentions antesignani, but Vegetius most likely refers to the whole line), and reports they have the heaviest armour (yet another argument against troops rotation). These men have semispathae as well as plumbatae.

Second line, also similarly armed (but no officers, standards, etc.) are called hastati, cohorts 6-10.

Third line, light troops, 'now' called exculcatores, but also scutati with swords, javelins and plumbatae, "just as almost all soldiers seem to be armed today", he adds. Also in the third rank are archers, fustibali and balistarii.

This seemingly clear description, whatever we can make of it, seems like a clear description of a triplex acies, 2 heavy and one light infantry line. Only, he spoils that in the next chapter (16) where he falls back on a very archaic description of the ancient hastati, who come to the aid of the troops in front, when these get tired. This is totally different from the hastati described in ch. 15, so I am inclined to disregard it.

VEG.III.14:
This is supposedly a description of a deployment of his own day.

Again, he describes the heaviest armoured and most experienced line (acies) to be in front (principes), whilst the second line ('formerly called hastati') is formed by archers, javelin- and light spear-armed troops (spiculae and lanceae).
Between both lines, Vegetius sees at least 6 ft. of space, whilst he advises for the light troops to have enough space to throw their missiles (which, oddly enough, no longer seem to include plumbatae).

A third line is now also consisting of light infantry ('formerly called ferentarii'), archers and javelin-men.

A fourth line, is also consisting of archers, javelin-men, but also scutarii, and here we meet the plumbatae again.

Vegetius sees aciem I and II as static, whilst III and IV challenge the enemy in the earlier stages of battle, whilst returning to a position behind I and II when the enemy advances and battle commences.

A fifth line is also there, the (carro)balistarii , funditores and fundibulatores with the heavier missiles.

There even was a sixth line, clearly a reserve, ('formerly the triarii'), consisting of reliable troops with the more common armament.

MAURIKIOS

Maurice echoes this, in a way.
MAU XII.8-9:
Maurice places the poorest infantry behind, but organises the rest into 16 files. The most reliable of these form lines 1-4 and 13-16. The weaker ones form lines 5-8 and 9-13.

Then. Maurice continues to say that all heavy- and light-armed troops should be divided and drawn in four equal contingents. This reflects Vegetius acies I and II (heavy) and III and IV (light), with the aciem V counting as artillery specialists, not regular infantry, whereas Vegetius’ acies VI is reflected in the 4 rear lines of Maurice. The difference in strength of these 4 rear lines is the difference in warfare – by the 6th c., there was much more cavalry, and the infantry clearly need to worry more about envelopment or attack from the rear. This is reflected in battle drill as well, where the front line should be able to switch from front to back in no time.

MAU XII.11-12:
Again, Maurice mentions that the light armed men form the rear. He even specifies that the men with the plumbatae should never be in the middle of the files, but to the rear or on the flanks.

_____________Here concludes the evidence___________

Sorry Robert I disagrre with you. I fear I'm packing for another wet weekend, my third in a row, so this will have to be quick.

I wouldn't let Vegetius lead me to the corner shop, let a lone conclusions on the nature of combat. I have more respect for Maurice, but he doesn't tackle the mechanics of infantry combat either. He is of course writing of a different army, 200 years after our period, using formations of illiterate peasants. But he still mentions forming a battle line, and doubling files which may have resulted in close order files.

Let's stick to Ammianus marcellinus, a contempory writer with real experiance of infantry combat. A real witness to stand in the dock.

In his decription of the Battle of Strasbourg (Book 16?) he gives a good sense of a pushing match. shield on shield. He even seems to suggest the Germans use an old trick of pushing with their knees. This is a great way of increasing pressure on your opponants sheild.

Maybe one day we can try our theories against each other. God will protect the right, which will be the formation in closest order!

Hi John, I felt this was going away from plumbatae, so I split the post.

Quote:Sorry Robert I disagree with you.

Nothing to be sorry about! In fact we are agreeing about a lot of things, if not most, but here we can agree to disagree like gentlemen.

Quote:I wouldn't let Vegetius lead me to the corner shop, let a lone conclusions on the nature of combat.

Well, are you entirely sure that you do not use his writings in some way? Anyhow, I'm not a great fighter for the authenticity of vegetius, but I would not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. :wink:

Quote:I have more respect for Maurice, but he doesn't tackle the mechanics of infantry combat either.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote:He is of course writing of a different army, 200 years after our period, using formations of illiterate peasants.

WHAT! hock: Illiterate peasants?? What on earth gave you that idea? Why would the Early Byzantine army differ that much from the late Roman army of our period? Peasants?

Quote:But he still mentions forming a battle line, and doubling files which may have resulted in close order files.

Oh, but I'm by no means against the notion of close order fighting - in fact that's what Vegetius is telling us, isn't he? A foot of space per soldier - synaspismos is the correct term, right?. Ask Damianus of the Herculiani, who are (probably rightly) of the opinion that spatha can't be used in such close order. But then I'm a hasta fan, and against troop rotation... :wink:

Quote: Let's stick to Ammianus marcellinus, a contempory writer with real experiance of infantry combat. A real witness to stand in the dock.
In his decription of the Battle of Strasbourg (Book 16?) he gives a good sense of a pushing match. shield on shield. He even seems to suggest the Germans use an old trick of pushing with their knees. This is a great way of increasing pressure on your opponants sheild.

Ammianus is surely a good witness! Having said that, he uses often archaizing words and never mentions plumbatae.... But for the 4th c. he's the best we've got!
But does he actually give a good description of a 'pushing match' at Strassbourg? Close order fighting, absolutely. Knee pushing, possibly, but even if correct no proof for a pushing match.

Here's the description:

Quote:12.20: When our leading officers espied them, now near at hand, taking their places in close wedge-formation, they halted and stood fast, making a solid line, like an impregnable wall, of the vanguard, the standard bearers, and the staff-officers; and with like wariness the enemy held their ground in wedge-formation.

Well, close formation it is! Wedge formations would suggest pushing from behind, I give you that, but see below, I think these wedges were not continued?

Quote:12.37: And when in the very crisis of the battle the cavalry formed massed squadrons valiantly and the infantry stoutly protected their flanks by making a front of their bucklers joined fast together, clouds of thick dust arose. Then there were various manoeuvres, as our men now stood fast and now gave ground, and some of the most skilful warriors among the savages by the pressure of their knees tried to force their enemy back; but with extreme determination they came to hand-to‑hand fighting, shield-boss pushed against shield, and the sky re-echoed with the loud cries of the victors or of the falling. And although our left wing, marching in close formation had driven back by main force the onrushing hordes of Germans and was advancing with shouts into the midst of the savages, our cavalry, which held the right wing, unexpectedly broke ranks and fled

Is this really still a pushing match? I can interpret this as a testudo, a closed front, shield wall, close contact on the front lines, no problem. But I read this as a battle going to and fro, not necessarily as a pushing match where each formation pushes with their shields in the back of their comrades before them. Various manoeuvres, giving and gaining ground at any rate does not suggest that the wedge formations were continued after battle commenced. The left flank driving back the enemy also need not be a description of a pushing match instead of just hard fighting.

Quote:12.38: the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed close together and intertwined one with the other, held their ground without stirring.

Again, evidence of massed infantry in close order, but no evidence of a pushing contest.

Quote:12.42-43: Then the Alamanni, having beaten and scattered our cavalry, charged upon the front line of the infantry, supposing that their courage to resist was now lost and that they would therefore drive them back. 43 But as soon as they came to close quarters, the contest continued a long time on equal terms. For the Cornuti and the Bracchiati, toughened by long experience in fighting, at once intimidated them by their gestures, and raised their mighty battle-cry. This shout in the very heat of combat rises from a low murmur and gradually grows louder, like waves dashing against the cliffs. Then a cloud of hissing javelins flew hither and thither, the dust arose with steady motion on both sides and hid the view, so that weapon struck blindly on weapon and body against body.

Hard fighting, close order, but still I read nothing that says that two armies are literally pushing against each other.

Quote:12.44: But the savages, thrown into disorder by their violence and anger, flamed up like fire, and hacked with repeated strokes of their swords at the close-jointed array of shields, which protected our men like a tortoise-formation.

Absolutely no pushing contest – a disorganised enemy that attacks a shield wall with swords – no pushing here, at least.

Quote:12.45-46: On learning this, the Batavians, with the Regii (a formidable band) came at the double quick to aid their comrades and (if fate would assist) to rescue them, girt about as they were, from the instant of dire need; and as their trumpets pealed savagely, they fought with all their powers. But the Alamanni, who enter eagerly into wars, made all the greater effort, as if to destroy utterly everything in their way by a kind of fit of rage. Yet darts and javelins did not cease to fly, with showers of iron-tipped arrows, although at close quarters also blade clashed on blade and breastplates were cleft with the sword; the wounded too, before all their blood was shed, rose up to some more conspicuous deed of daring.

This is no pushing match. The reserves come to the aid of the main force and attack the enemy, instead of pushing from the back as they would if it were a pushing match. Also, the sword fight shows that there is at least room to wield swords. And if a the wounded can still fight that means they have room to do so.
Btw, I see here, too, that missiles continue to be loosed over the heads of the fighting ranks.

Quote:12.47-48: For in a way the combatants were evenly matched; the Alamanni were stronger and taller, our soldiers disciplined by long practice; they were savage and uncontrollable, our men quiet and wary, these relying on their courage, while the Germans presumed upon their huge size.
48 Yet frequently the Roman, driven from his post by the weight of armed men, rose up again; and the savage, with his legs giving way from fatigue, would drop on his bended left knee and even thus attack his foe, a proof of extreme resolution.

Now I can understand why this part would be interpreted as a pushing match. Indeed, if your read this by itself it really sounds like one. Yet, with the text before and after, my own interpretation is that this describes hard fighting, not a pushing match. See below.

Quote:12.49-50: And so there suddenly leaped forth a fiery band of nobles, among whom even the kings fought, and with the common soldiers following they burst in upon our lines before the rest; and opening up a path for themselves they got as far as the legion of the Primani, which was stationed in the centre — a strong feature called praetorian camp; there our soldiers, closely packed and in fully-manned lines, stood their ground fast and firm, like towers, and renewed the battle with greater vigor; and being intent upon avoiding wounds, they protected themselves like murmillos, and with drawn swords pierced the enemy's sides, left bare by their frenzied rage.
50 But the enemy strove to lavish their lives for victory and kept trying to break the fabric of our line. But as they fell in uninterrupted succession, and the Romans now laid them low with greater confidence, fresh savages took the places of the slain; but when they heard the frequent groans of the dying, they were overcome with panic and lost their courage.

The Alamanni then almost break the Roman front line, but they do not push it back. The Romans then hold that break, and the subsequent heavy losses cause the Alamanni to falter, they then begin to waver. Nowhere do the Romans push the enemy back, it is the enemy that loses heart and literally begins to crumble. The battle is won, the rest is flight and carnage.

Summing up, although several elements in the text seem to suggest that both parties may be pushing shield on shield, when you see that there is room to use swords, that manoeuvres are carried out, that lines are broken into instead of pushed back by weight of numbers, my conclusion is that this battle is not a pushing match, but hard fighting in close order.

A formidable analysis of Ammianus' description, Robert! Well done, and most interesting.
For what it is worth, it is my opinion also that even though the infantry fought in close order they did not get into a shoving match(intentionally, at least - if we look at modern riots etc where police confront mobs, there are ebbs and surges where pushing and shoving cannot be avoided ) . In fact I believe that Roman infantry tactics, refined over centuries, stayed essentailly the same from Republican times onward ( allowing for tactical variations against different types of opponents). The infantry formed a battle line/lines, in open order and whether they charged or elected to receive a charge, they discharged missile weapons before 'closing up' and fighting from behind their scuta.
Two 'technical' factors also point away from 'shoving' confrontations.
Firstly the shield shape - particularly earlier, when the scutum was curved- would make 'synspsismos' tactics difficult, and secondly we know that earlier ( and probably still, in Ammianus' time ) the infantryman ( and gladiator too for that matter) was trained to use the sword and shield against the 'pallum'/post, learning to advance, strike, give ground (i.e. footwork) jab, feint and stab much as a modern boxer learns his trade against a large punchbag. A Sumo wrestler trains very differently for his 'shoving matches '! ( Ammianus' reference to Murmillos- heavy gladiators- is significant)
Then, History too is against John's confident assertion that the deeper formation would win. Consider Cannae, or Boudicca's final battle. or Caesar against Ariovistus ( a battle very like Strasbourg), or Pharsalus(Caesar against Pompey), or Idistaviso (Germanicus against Arminius the Cherusci)...... or any of a dozen other battles I could mention.
In each case, experienced infantry prevailed by retaining their discipline against a deeper formation, using tactical flexibility to advantage and drove their more deeply formed opponents into a compressed mass that could not use their weapons effectively. Thereafter, of course, a massacre usually occurred........
So, Robert, whilst we stand shoulder to shoulder and fidget nervously with our weapons at the sight of John's deep masses, we would also smile grimly to ourselves at this sign of foolish inexperience and look forward with confidence to the victory that is sure to come...... :evil: :twisted: :lol:

Legionaries from Holland and Australia together in brotherly love! Oh well, more loot for me. Antique sources are open to interpretation. But I will stick to my assertion that Ammianus does describe close order, and that on occasion the combat at Strasbourg against infantry does involving pushing. I think we can all agree to that. Against cavalry keeping close and making faces normally is enough.

I'm not too sure how I become accused of favoring deep formations. I'll settle for a file of 8. But an experienced formation 8 men deep can beat a deeper more numerous formation of inexperienced men. The experienced are less able to handle their weapons, or know how to co-ordinate the push. And along with Maurice, I'll sacrifice depth for length of line.

As for Maurice's men been illiterate, I was considering orders been given "to the shield", or "to the spear". I also liken his doubling of files to that of mass conscript armies. I believe that even in Yorkshire in 400AD our men would know their order of precedence within the formation, so we can double by half file leaders or by bringers up. Systems more akin to early 17th century Dutch formations.

I really wish we could try our systems out against each other. I'm hoping for at least 4 files of 6 on August BH at Bridlington. I'll be scanning the North Sea for you both.

Hello John and Robert

Quote:If I interpreted the news of the last week correctly, it's not the rivers in MY country that are bursting their banks... You were talking about buying a wetsuit for the next event?

I went to see the ESG at Caerleon the weekend before last and got..... yes, you guessed it........sun-burnt!!! Who was it who criticised me for illustrating late Roman scenes at Carvoran with bad weather?

Any way John I will look forward to seeing your guys at Middlewich. Seeing that you now starve them, fire live ammunition over their heads and drill them to within an inch of their lives I expect to see the very best on the parade ground like, Harbutts field.

Sounds like you both wish Ross Cowan writes volume 2 of his Tactics book!!!!!

Graham.

Write it? I live it!

On the Caerleon weekend I was getting rained on at Ribchester. I had a very nice time riding with the II Augusta. Last weekend Comitatus nearly drowned at Shugborough. Now Comitatus legionaries are getting amphibious warfare training. I can't even dry my tents out because the garden is a pond. And now you tell me the sun shines in Wales? Please tell me Middlewich is a nice dry place to go.

John

Quote:Please tell me Middlewich is a nice dry place to go.

Well it was the days when the ESG went, although once it had rained heavily just before the event and as the site is basically a field it was getting churned up a bit but more a problem for the visitors rather than the participants. However with the weather being as it has been, you may wish you were in a WWI re-enactment group!

Graham.

Quote: I will stick to my assertion that Ammianus does describe close order,

I think no-one disputes that.

Quote:and that on occasion the combat at Strasbourg against infantry does involving pushing. I think we can all agree to that.

Sorry, if pushing was involved it was accidental, nothing designated.

Quote:But an experienced formation 8 men deep can beat a deeper more numerous formation of inexperienced men. The experienced are less able to handle their weapons, or know how to co-ordinate the push. And along with Maurice, I'll sacrifice depth for length of line.

Agreed.

Quote:As for Maurice's men been illiterate, I was considering orders been given "to the shield", or "to the spear". I also liken his doubling of files to that of mass conscript armies.

By that time they most probably only spoke Greek, and my guess is that the literal meaning did not matter anyway. However, I see the command itself as no reason for the soldiers being illiterate. The command, according to Philip rance, may already have been in use way back in the Roman period.

Quote:I really wish we could try our systems out against each other. I'm hoping for at least 4 files of 6 on August BH at Bridlington. I'll be scanning the North Sea for you both.

Me too.
Keep a good look-out, maybe we'll come. 8)

I have always had severe doubts as to the "rugby scrum with a bit of biting and gouging in the front row" school of thinking about ancient battles, even Hoplite warfare ( despite Epaminondas and his "one more step...." quote ).
Since you were advocating the "shoving match" approach, John, I assumed you would want deep formations ( otherwise, how could you have an advantage? ). My point in the last post was to show that if ancient battles were "shoving matches", particularly Roman ones, then you would have expected that the deeper formations would prevail, but in fact the opposite generally occurs.
To take our hypothetical confrontation further, you are going to form up in a linear formation, 8 ranks deep ( in close order, or open order,closing to 4 deep after throwing missiles ? ). Let us say both sides charge and battle/hand-to-hand combat is joined. You, as officer/file leader, are going to rely on the seven/three men behind you to shove you forward and thereby push back the opposing line, shield to shield ? What do you think the opposition will be doing while this occurs?
I can envisage you furiously back-pedalling screaming "No!,No!" as seven/three hefty'toms' shove you forward to be impaled on the opposition's freely wielded weapons, grinning as soldiers do when getting their own back on Officers !
And suppose your file succeds in forcing the enemy back a few paces, what of the files either side? If they do not also succed, your line breaks up, and you have found yourself propelled into a pocket, where you will doubtless be instantly cut down, probably from your shieldless side. In order for your shoving tactic to succeed, all must succeed simultaneously ! How is this to be achieved? Link arms like policemen? You and your fellows will be cut down in no time ! Can you imagine even a tightly bound rugby scrum with a front of tens/hundreds of metres? You can see what must happen - the front breaks up in seconds, with some wheeled, some shoved back, some sections collapsing etc. So how could this co-ordinated shove be achieved by large numbers of men not bound to one another? Clearly impossible !!!
So how did ancient lines maintain cohesion?
If they were well-trained, e.g. professional Roman infantry, they consciously fought their opponents individually, or as a team, and gradually moved forward or back as occasion demanded, and breaking contact after a relatively short time to draw breath before resuming - which allows well drilled troops to 'change over' ( any boxer/martial artist/combat re-enactor will tell you that combat is exhausting and can only last minutes at a time ). Immediately or eventually, one side has had enough and gives way ( incidently, the running must commence with the rear ranks).
Less well-trained troops might create a 'shield wall' as an artificial way to achieve the same line- cohesion, - german tribesmen, hoplites,saxons et al. and fight from behind this (i.e. using their weapons, not 'shoving')
One thing for sure, I don't believe a co-ordinated "shove" on a front of several hundred is at all possible, even before weapons are taken into account - and I speak here as someone who has played a lot of rugby, has been a keen martial artist and also combat re-enactor, and has watched many a demonstration/riot on T.V !! :lol:
So, over to you John! Can you put forward a convincing hypothetical way for this long linear shove to work ? Isn't the impossibility of such a thing the reason why in later times (e.g. Napoleonic) those looking to rely on 'weight' to break an enemy line formed in column? ( Even Epaminondas had to rely on a column ! )

I will haul myself out of my flooded swamp to answer. I do not wish to be tarred with a "shoving brush", whatever that is!

I've been in large scale re-enactment battles since 1988, and basic principles hold good.

When your invasion force lands in Yorkshire, you will find I've deployed from column to an 8 deep line by halving my files. There will be no unnecessary manoeuvers in front of the enemy. I don't need extra depth, just a well trained line. The massed column looks scarey and wins due to psychological reasons, the enemy running before contact. Our legionaries will not run, they lack the imagination. However in our period I suspect the attacking column was more of a flying wedge. If it has weight and depth it is a problem. It is certainly an easy way of leading men into an attack without having to worry about keeping ranks and files.

I will discharge darts and arrows at 90m. The formation is relatively loose. Archers with 80/90lb bows will need to have a clear line of sight, since their trajectory is relatively flat. We may convince you to go home.

If not the archers withdraw, to shot over our ranks. Our ranks and files close up. The next killing zone is at 20m and under. Darts are thrown from the front of the file with a flat trajectory, different types of javelin join in, and throwing axes add to the chaos. Are you still there?

If so shields are locked in and braced against knees. You need to be in close order, shield overlapping and locked together. Before you hit us we will move forward in a battle line shields locked together and literally knock you off balance. Go for a quick kill, probably the enemy to the right of you. The file leaders will not be impaled on anything. They are wearing armour and are covered by shields. Besides, they are too daft to know when they are dead. If your formation is open we will just keep on going, pushing you over, pushing you backwards killing all the time. In most engagements that will be enough.

You may stand the initial impact and we finish up shield to shield. My file leaders should co-ordinate the push on a given signal, normally a battle cry or something similar. The push is co-ordinated and the front locked together. Interestingly some of us will try tricks like pulling opponents shields down with our own, or pushing with knees as described at Strasbourg. The push may not last long. Experienced troops always beat inexperienced ones. Just be more brutal than the other guy!

When you start getting pushed back your formation will start to open up. The psychological advantage will be with us. Your wounded will be finished off with the ferules on our spears. You can imagine the rest.

So basically it's throw everything, close up and lock in, forward into contact at the last moment to push opponents off balance, push, win and chase.

Don't try clever manoeuvers in front of the enemy, keep the line straight, cover your neighbour, go a bit further than your enemy are prepared to.

Now I feel I'm in danger of preaching, so I'm going to stop. Even if it means the last word flies in from Holland!

Hmm, we may actually nee those ballistas from the ships to open fire, or our onagers to knock your lines into the ground.
Or, but only if we're actually sweating, we'll send in the elephants that we hid in your rear a week ago. :twisted:

But seriously.

That sounds all very neat, and it sounds also like you would indeed win from inexperienced troops. However, if the other side is experienced as yours, they will probably do as much damage before your lines meet, and then have countermeasures to defeat your push. Such as, spears that kill the man in front when the pushing begins. Because if I'm correct, I fail to see how you can push and similtaniously fight with hasta or spatha. Would that not mean that before the lines are engaged and your push begins to count, your men are unprotected, save for the scutum? And a good opponent with a long hasta can do quite some damage if no one is aiming back at him.

Of course, that's not easily tested.

And I still see Paul's objection unanswered - if the opposite side uses a trick that lets part of your line in, but hold the rest, do they have the imagination to stand still and not push on? For if they do they're attacked from both sides and finished off.