+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: thoughts on Formations and such (/showthread.php?tid=4076)
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Robert Vermaat - 11-24-2005
Quote: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?I'd say you'd create a hell of a confusion, since the ranks behind are also 3 feet apart. The enemy would be within the formation, causing it to loose cohesion at best and be broken up at worst.
I mean, if I were in the front ranks I would be getting very nervous if the enemy was fighting beside and behind me!
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Tarbicus - 11-24-2005
Quote: I mean, if I were in the front ranks I would be getting very nervous if the enemy was fighting beside and behind me!True enough
Daft thought Number 672.
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Crispvs - 11-24-2005
"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."
Madoc,
Our Roman unit, as you know, thinks that _is_ possible to exchange ranks and we have experimented once or twice with moving the men in the second rank in between the men in the front rank to form a solid line and then the original front rank stepping back. As long as the men at the front knew what was happening (which they would, thanks to constant drilling) and did not relax their concentration on the enemy, and men in the second rank moved forward with equal concentration, the effect would be to suddenly double the number of men in what would become a solid front line which was fully concentated on the matter at hand. As the former second rank took up the fight the former first rank could carefully (and watchfully) retire between them. The number of men along the enemy frontage would remain the same throughout so the chances of getting past double the number of men would not be particularly high. If you add a volley of javelins, sling stones and arrows into the picture in the few seconds prior to the exchange the enemy's concentration would be distracted as well.
As a former combat re-enactor I understand your point about a momentary lapse in concentration costing lives and experienced fighters therefore keeping their eyes on the opposition 100% of the time. However, I remember how unnerving it can be to unexpectedly have double the number of people to concentrate on and I would guess the knowledge that there were suddenly stones and javelins raining down on you and your shoulder-to-shoulder men might distract at least a percentage of that concentration for a moment or two. While you are staying alive under unexpected and undue pressure the Roman lines can execute their fast, practiced and proffessional movement.
Obviously I have never done a line exchange in a combat situation but I do remember distinctly the sudden unnerved looks on the faces of the Silures at Wroxeter a couple of years ago when we suddenly moved from two ranks to a single unbroken line in front of them. Even though the usual commands were used, the Silures had no idea what was happening as they were not familiar with the Latin. Obviously that is hardly difinitive proof of the move, but if you add intensive training and supporting missile fire into the picture I think it is a real possibility.
Crispvs
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - madoc - 11-29-2005
Well crispus me old mate
I have indeed seen your group perform a whole series of manoevers, that are designed to be used in front of an opposition and I dare you to try them in front of us at Chester this coming year.
We've got enough blunts to be be lent out so you'll not be unarmed.
I maintain that your method of rotation and that "charging forward through each other" are too risky for use in front of people that also know what they are about. (I do not consider the Silures to be such a group).
cheers
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - tlclark - 11-29-2005
Quote:I mean, if I were in the front ranks I would be getting very nervous if the enemy was fighting beside and behind me!
I bet you would. This links up to the whole "sword technique" discussion going on elsewhere.
This is where, I think, personal discipline would break down, and individual soldiers would become decidedly LESS risk averse, even desperate, enraged, what have you.
Honestly, if I wasn't 110% insanely aggressive, I bet I would wet myself.
More on this topic, I'll bet you anything that if your scenario happened, Tarbicus is right, the second rank would hold, and any commander worth his salt would let those outside the new reformed shield wall bite it, rather than risk his new wall.
Travis
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Crispvs - 11-30-2005
"I maintain that your method of rotation and that "charging forward through each other" are too risky for use in front of people that also know what they are about."
Madoc,
Actually I agree with you. The rolling charge we normally demonstrate to the public is not something I believe would actually have been effective. I do think that one rank of disciplined veterans charging through the front rank to break up loosely packed opponents is feasable, but I would contend that the manouvre would be just that: one rank charging through one time (and only very occasionally in any case), rather than two ranks taking turns to run through each other, which is fine when opposing thin air but I agree would stagger to a crumbling halt very quickly against any real opposition. I disagree too, with the idea that the shield would be used to 'punch' the enemy. I believe that a soldier would probably push forward with his shoulder to his shield, as seems to be shown on one of the Mainz column bases (I have yet to see anyone break open a door by punching it. Normally the shoulder is used, as more of the body's weight can be put behind it - I think the same applies to the offensive use of the scutum). I also take issue with the way we (and other groups) perform wedges. Anyone who has ever read my postings about wedges on RAT will already know this. I have made myself rather unpopular with some of my comilites on a number of occasions when I have tried to get people to do things a little more realistically (and may be doing so right now as some will undoubtedly be reading this). However, light may be visible on the horizen, as my good friend Genialis has undertaken to do the job of overhauling our drill manual and he has seemed happy to listen to my suggestions so far.
"I dare you to try them in front of us at Chester this coming year"
Ah, Madoc, you know me well and you know that I would dearly love to take up this challenge. The problem is that depite being able to perform top notch drill, most of my group have never been combat re-enactors and consequently would not have the necessary weapons skills to make it a legitimate experiment.
Incidentally, the experimental methods of exchanging ranks in combat that we tried out a year or two ago, which to my mind might possibly work, have never been demonstrated to the public. It is possible therefore that you may not have seen the manouvre I was describing.
"(I do not consider the Silures to be such a group)"
As I am on friendly terms with a number of the Silures I feel I should be polite and say nothing. :twisted:
Crispvs
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Tarbicus - 11-30-2005
If the non-combat experienced rooky "rotators" were able to have 10% combat-experienced veterans with them, and the former were well drilled and obedient, all they need to do is have the vets keeping an eye out and barracking them, and the rookies steadfastly defending themselves until the opponents get tired and 'try' to swap places. That's what the rookie's vets should be looking for.
I'd put £20 on the rookies. So long as they had trained discipline and 10% veterans shouting at them. Sorry Madoc.
Wear them down, take it on the chin, and pounce when it's right.
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - ambrosius - 12-02-2005
Quote:Wear them down, take it on the chin, and pounce when it's right.
The old 'rope-a-dope'. :wink:
Ambrosius
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - tlclark - 12-04-2005
Quote:I'd put £20 on the rookies. So long as they had trained discipline and 10% veterans shouting at them. Sorry Madoc.
Dang! There is a quote about this somewhere in the primary literature I just know it!! But of course I can't remember it.
Someone is saying how important the higher officers to which someone replies that the average soldier has a better chance of seeing up some goddesses bloomers than seeing one of the higher officers.
The implication is that the lower officers, at least in the author's opinion, are far more critical Trained field commanders would make a big difference I think.
Someone help me out, does this sound at all familiar, is this for real or am I remembering something from "I Claudius"? It gets hard to tell sometimes.
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Robert Vermaat - 10-15-2006
Quote:For my part it is the inverse idea which shocks me. How can we imagine that the men cannot take turns in the fight inside the battle lines? While it is impossible to fight in first battle front line more than three minutes in complete armor?
Damien,
For me it is quite unnatural to look at such high speed rotations inside the ranks.
How do you establish that very short period of three minutes?
I mean, these were highly trained warriors. Is there any source that tells us this?
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Tib. Gabinius - 10-16-2006
To "reenact" this theme.
I would really like to know, what sources do this theory have?
I dont speak about the ppossibility to exchange formations, thats not new and knewn since the first passages of roman historians were reed.
I mean the theory in the way ars dimicandi show it often and present it as "fruits of years of work".
We have had Sallustius with the Catalinian war, which wasn't in a time, the soldiers used baltei, they had to cingula. A big fault in theory already.
But we cant translate it that way, that it sounds to "the second line exchange the first line".
Here was Flavius Iosephus discussed, and we get an idea of "exchange while battle in a siege / breach" which isn't also that celared looked like in first moment.
What sources, and please detailled, this is a public forum, so no one can steal your work and show it as his own, are there else?
Is there any source that just get the impression of a "pipping centurio" or "men, holding the balteus of their front man and exchange him while the battle"?
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs - 10-16-2006
Graham Webster in "Roman Armies of the 1st and 2nd Centuries" discusses just such a rotation. Don't have it available now but will pull it out when I get home.
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Tarbicus - 10-16-2006
I'm sure Plutarch, or someone, mentions the combatants pulling away from each other to allow for fresh troops to be put in the front line, and that was the civilised way of fighting a battle. No fancy AD manouevres though.
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Tib. Gabinius - 10-16-2006
Thank you tarbicus, that was what i ment while i wrote:
Quote:I dont speak about the ppossibility to exchange formations, thats not new and knewn since the first passages of roman historians were reed.To send fresh troups to frontline in battle pauses is a quite normal situation, described by nearly all historians.
But i would like to get sources for the ars dimicandi way, what are the sources, the "work" leaded them to that theory?
Re: thoughts on Formations and such - Paulus Claudius Damianus - 10-16-2006
In the sallustius quoting what is the latin terms using? Exmple: Acia? or Ordo?