+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: (Late) (Roman) Formations (/showthread.php?tid=9775)
Re: Late Roman Formations - Salvianus - 07-25-2007
Quote:...just a note for the avoidance of confusion on formations. When we speak of '3 feet frontage' we should make it clear whether we mean;
1. Each man occupying a 3 foot interval (i.e no gaps and close order) or.....
2. Each man having a 3 foot interval to his neighbour ( i.e. occupying 3 ft, then a 3ft gap and open order ).......
Sorry for any confusion, I don't know of any appropriate terminology of the time. I tend to use terms I have gathered about C17th drill. I believe this is measured from the centre line of each soldier, but obviously this also represents the frontage of each soldier in a rank (so you can easily calculate the frontage of the whole unit) and not the gap between them, measured shoulder to shoulder.
"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).
In Regia, it goes by shield width rather than by measurement, with either shields touching "rim to rim" (2 1/2 - 3+ feet depending) - what we'd call an aciem or fighting line or overlapping "rim to boss" (just over half that) - more like what we'd call a foulkon. To me, "open order" implies room to swing a two handed axe & see daylight through the rank.
Late Roman formations - Paullus Scipio - 07-25-2007
Polybius XVIII, 30 explicitaly said it does
"From this we can easily conceive what is the nature and force of a charge by the whole phalanx when it is sixteen deep. 2 In this case those further back and the fifth rank cannot use their pikes so as to take any active part in the battle. 3 They therefore do not severally level their pikes, but hold them slanting up in the air over the shoulders of those in front of them, so as to protect the whole formation from above, keeping off by this serried mass of pikes all missiles which, passing over the heads of the first ranks, might fall on those immediately in front of and behind them. 4 But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force, and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about"
...........Explicitly ? There is no mention of 'pushing' here. We should instead give the words their natural meaning.We have seen already that men rquire a certain resolve to charge up to others intent on doing them harm. As has been pointed out, many Battles in History have been resolved without there being a physical clash. Polybius tells us explicitly the purpose of the rear ranks here - it is to prevent the front ranks from facing about. Many writers refer to the depth of a french Napoleonic column in the same way - the extra ranks, while not being able to actively fight, add 'weight' and'momentum' to the attack, and they prevent the front ranks from faltering. But no-one would suggest for a second that the rear ranks would lean on/push their fellows forward. So why assume that here?
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Aryaman2 - 07-26-2007
"But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force" I think it is clear that the rear ranks are pushing, how can they otherwise add pressure with the weight of their bodies?
Late Roman Formations - Paullus Scipio - 07-26-2007
...aren't you rather selectively quoting, by leaving out the rest ?
"...and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about" clarifies what is meant.
You also 'scramble' what is said - 'pressure' refers to the pressure on those hemmed in, in front, just like the french column and the word 'weight' does not mean 'push', and 'add to its force' does not mean pushing either.
As noted in the previous post, more or less these words - 'weight' 'pressure' 'momentum' etc are used of the French column formation (i.e. a similarly deeper one like the Macedonian phalanx), and no-one assumes physical 'pushing'.
Why do so here ??
wink:
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Tarbicus - 07-26-2007
What's the original text in latin? For instance, could "weight" also mean something like "momentum", "density" (that's an alternative in a thesaurus), or "determination". Most interesting is when you enter "weight" into a thesaurus the choice is huge, with one retaining the latin word "onus", and other synonyms being "charge" and "duty".
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/weight
That's English, but I don't see why a sophisticated writer in Rome wouldn't use such alternatives to convey an impression of the situation. If you go to the thesaurus link above, bear in mind there are 9 pages of alternatives for a number of definitions. When the main entry is 'charge':
Main Entry: charge
Part of Speech: noun 3
Definition: burden
Synonyms: care, commitment, committal, concern, custody, deadweight, duty, millstone, must, need, obligation, office, onus, ought, responsibility, right, safekeeping, task, tax, trust, ward, weight
If the original latin was "onus", then that might be no different today, and has nothing to do with physically pushing.
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - geala - 07-26-2007
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? So I will only make a few remarks:
1.
We should not mix the body pressure used in classical othismos (which was real I believe) and that used for the forward pressure of compact tactical units in advance.
I don't think that a pike phalanx of the Macedonian kind could and would have used bodily pressure comparable to hoplite othismos. They lacked the substantial shields and also the necessity.
In defence with up to 5 rows able to use their stabbing weapons they could hold the enemy at bay. In the offence the attack is substituted by the body weight of the back rows to achieve a constant forward movement. They could break the enemy line with the pikes alone. Compare it with the Swiss Gewalthaufen of the 15th c. AD who definitely did not use real body pressure.
2.
As mentioned above I believe real body pressure was used in classical close phalanx combat. I could argue more but I think, late Roman combat (of which I don't know much) was different.
3.
To cavalry vs. infantry: there were not few incidents in the time of the 18th and 19th c. AD, when cavalry broke infantry formations, mostly in carree. For the most time the infantry was shattered before with infantry or artillery fire. Garcia Hernandez however was a clear and very debatable exception; not necessary to refer to it.
It is not true that infantry without carrees were regularly a helpless victim of cavalry charges. The Prussian infantry of the 18th c. AD normally repelled cavalry attacks in line, carrees were avoided.
4.
There is one argument I do not understand: why makes the overlapping of shields in both armies the pushing fight impossible? The shields are held by men and men can be moved. If a solid shield wall is victim to pushing, it is in a disadvantage because the rearward movement could result in a break. A break always happened from the rear and when the backward rows were pressed back, moral was in danger. So the only way to deal with the pressure was to press against.
If a Greek phalanx would not break before contact (which seems to have happened quite often) pushing back the enemy line was the only decisive way to gain success. Stabbing at each other from a distance like perhaps in the Homerian times would not explain the sudden breaks of the phalanges.
5.
The danger of being hit when trying to push the opposing line back should not be exaggerated. It depends of course on the shields and helmets/armour used. But when men are pushed back their ability to exercise precise stabs is greatly limited. This is also true for the second line who probably stabbed at the first enemy line. Again, I can only say something what I think about Greek hoplite warfare, not about the early or late Romans.
Late Roman formations - Paullus Scipio - 07-26-2007
Welcome to a very interesting debate Wolfgang !! Have you looked at the riot clips ?
I agree with you that a debate in the greek section on the same subject i.e. just what did happen when opposing lines closed would be a worthy one.
Perhaps you would care to kick it off?
Your points are incisive and interesting, although I don't entirely agree with them -though I agree with much of what you say !! ( no surprise there, though, given what I have said in this thread ! ) :wink:
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - geala - 07-26-2007
Thank you Paul. Opening a similar thread in the Greek section would be a good idea. Especially because some posters have announced evidence for othismos in the sources I would be very curious of. I only fear that some of the brilliant posts here, stemming from reenacting experience, can not be reproduced there. The Greeks are so few. :roll:
I took only a short look to one clip. When I have access to a better pc I will study it more. Maybe my believes will become a bit shattered (like in the legionary feats thread at the end :lol: )
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - hoplite14gr - 07-26-2007
There are threads like "Othismos true nature" and "wheeling the phalanx".
Practical experience in our froup says that only 2 first rows can use spears effectively. The third is a hindrance except if they are pikemen and this is another story altogether.
It would be interesting though to see the argument carried out to the threads i mentioned.
Kind regards
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Aryaman2 - 07-26-2007
Quote:3.The Prussian infantry in the 18th century was the best, yet it sometimes was also broken, Kolin comes to my mind for instance. Other infantry nations was regularly beaten by cavalry while deployed in line, even at earlier periods with pikes and deeper formations, see Parrott, David A, ‘Strategy and Tactics in the Thirty Years’ War’ in Rogers, Clifford J (editor). The Military Revolution. Readings on the military transformation of Early Modern Europe (Oxford 1995)
To cavalry vs. infantry: there were not few incidents in the time of the 18th and 19th c. AD, when cavalry broke infantry formations, mostly in carree. For the most time the infantry was shattered before with infantry or artillery fire. Garcia Hernandez however was a clear and very debatable exception; not necessary to refer to it.
It is not true that infantry without carrees were regularly a helpless victim of cavalry charges. The Prussian infantry of the 18th c. AD normally repelled cavalry attacks in line, carrees were avoided.
.
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Tarbicus - 07-26-2007
Quote:The Prussian infantry in the 18th century was the best, yet it sometimes was also broken, Kolin comes to my mind for instance. Other infantry nations was regularly beaten by cavalry while deployed in line, even at earlier periods with pikes and deeper formations,The Prussian infantry was a very large number of men and units, and because some were very good doesn't mean they were all very good and able to withstand horse. I think nobody objects to the idea that horse can sometimes break infantry, but the argument is that infantry with resolve, experience and don't give ground through fear will almost always be able to repel horse.
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Aryaman2 - 07-26-2007
What Paullus Scipio said in his post was "Throughout the history of warfare, no cavalry have broken close-order infantry with good morale"
so I guess he objects. As for myself, I would say that most of the times, no infantry, in the open and deprived of friendly cavalry support could stand a cavalrycharge, unless in square (and even then not always), that was what the experience of a good number of battles from XVI to XIX century shows.
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Tarbicus - 07-26-2007
Quote:What Paullus Scipio said in his post was "Throughout the history of warfare, no cavalry have broken close-order infantry with good morale" so I guess he objects.I'd forgotten about that.
Quote:As for myself, I would say that most of the times, no infantry, in the open and deprived of friendly cavalry support could stand a cavalrycharge, unless in square (and even then not always), that was what the experience of a good number of battles from XVI to XIX century shows.Orbis.
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - John Conyard - 07-26-2007
I think we will see a growth in literature considering the human experience of combat in the Roman period. Keegan started the whole approach many years ago, and Hanson applied the technique to the classical Greek period. Elton has considered battle in the age of Justinian, and the role of late Roman cavalry.
I think re-enactors do have something to bring to this debate. We re-construct artefacts and discover how the were used. For example plumbata are regularly reconstructed and demonstrated. Their use led us into this thread.
However while the size and weight of an artefact can allow a logical reconstruction, the perception of limited written evidence is less certain. I feel the case for "the push" in Greek hoplite warfare is well made and certain. It seems the case for late Roman infantry combat is less evolved. But my experiences of re-enactment combat has certainly re-inforced my perception of late-Roman infantry battles. I just can't convince the rest of you!
It could be side that the mechanics of infantry combat would be a relatively simple process, when set against the many variables of cavalry combat. But the latter seems relatively straight forward in terms of understanding.
Re: (Late) (Roman) Formations - Felix - 07-26-2007
Quote:geala:911wclrj Wrote:3.The Prussian infantry in the 18th century was the best, yet it sometimes was also broken, Kolin comes to my mind for instance. Other infantry nations was regularly beaten by cavalry while deployed in line, even at earlier periods with pikes and deeper formations, see Parrott, David A, ‘Strategy and Tactics in the Thirty Years’ War’ in Rogers, Clifford J (editor). The Military Revolution. Readings on the military transformation of Early Modern Europe (Oxford 1995)
To cavalry vs. infantry: there were not few incidents in the time of the 18th and 19th c. AD, when cavalry broke infantry formations, mostly in carree. For the most time the infantry was shattered before with infantry or artillery fire. Garcia Hernandez however was a clear and very debatable exception; not necessary to refer to it.
It is not true that infantry without carrees were regularly a helpless victim of cavalry charges. The Prussian infantry of the 18th c. AD normally repelled cavalry attacks in line, carrees were avoided.
.
The Bayreuth Dragoons achieved great fame by destroying the Austrian rearguard at Hohenfriedenberg:
"The ten squadrons of the regiment formed into two columns and charged into the Austrians. In the fighting that followed, the Bayreuth Dragoons destroyed 20 Austrian and Saxon battalions, took 2,500 prisoners, and captured 67 regimental standards, losing only 6 officers and 28 men killed. " Wikipedia
These were formed infantry battalions, holding off the Prussian infantry, when a gap in their battle line was spotted and exploited by the Dragoons.