(Late) (Roman) Formations

[sonic]

Hi John,

To summarise so far:

Close order combat - agreed, absolutely.
Locked shields - agreed, absolutely.
Battles - I agree that they were rare, late Roman armies did probably not seek a big confrontation, and if they did the enemy (apart from the Sassanids) was even more battle-shy.
Cavalry attacking infantry directly - agreed. The trained cavalry, like you say, will indeed do that. I've read how Marcus Junkelmann gradually trained his horses to attack an enemy formation.

My main problem is with the 'battle as a pushing match' affair, but I see what you are pointing out. My main problem is, as Paul has worded too, that the other force can also lock shields in close order, and then the pushing is useless.
I agree that against troops in loose formation, a concerted push will most probably be succesful.

Paul, indeed I see no evidence for troop rotation - to the contrary, I see evidence why no troop rotation would have taken place, such as close order fighting, formation commands and especially ranks and armour in the for line.

My first point is that I would treat Junkelmann with a great deal of care: I have been led to believe that he may over-emphasise those aspects of his research that support his own views. It may be possible to train horses to attack an enemy formation from the front, however if the infantry formation stands firm, such a charge exposes the horses to missiles and other weapons at very close quarters. Given the cost, time and effort needed to train these horses, almost certainly the question should be whether the Romans actually did charge into the front of formed infantry, not whether the horses would or not.

If they did charge, then surely it would be up to the skill of the Roman commander to judge the moment when the infantry were likely to break when charged, rather than stand and kill many of the expensive horses milling about and vulnerable just in front of them?

As to whether the infantry fought in close formation, locked shields formation, or whatever, wouldn't this depend mainly upon circumstances? Having read van Wees and Goldsworthy, I am now little inclined to believe that two infantry forces would close up and then begin an epic 'pushing match' in order to decide the battle. From what the above historians have said, it is likely that individuals or small groups would take the initiative and try to force back those troops opposite them. When both sides resisted, then the reinforcements sent in would possibly close up and push. However, this would not be very long lasting as such pressure is physically draining. After a short period, either one side lost and suffered heay casualties, or the press loosened and the troops retired to their own 'lines' to catch their breath before a second attempt.

This would explain the high reputation of Roman centurions. These men were willing to take the risk and attempt to force the issue with the enemy battleline. This would also help to explain the large proportion of Roman victories: the centurions led the way and the rest followed, causing the enemy morale to drop and routs to set in. On a further note, it would also help to explain the large proportion of casualties suffered in battles by Roman centurions as they attempted to break the enemy.

Maybe it could further hint at why the Late Roman Army were no longer prepared to fight so many open battles: the increased political and military importance of the 'centurions' resulted in their being less willing to risk life and limb in order to break the enemy, and their being more likely to take a position to the rear, leaving the common soldiers to take the initiative?

Just a thought.....


___________________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes