07-21-2007, 01:23 PM
Forgive me coming into this discussion quite late, forgive me also if I have miassed anything that has been said (I probably have).
It occurs to me that Late Imperial warfare has much in common with classical Greek warfare, large round shields, long thrusting spears - what is missing, certainly is a much heavier emphasis on javelins thrown from the body of the infantry en masse. But we can certainly discuss Late Empire battle tactics in comparison to Greek if we move beyond those first javelin barrages to that moment when the lines meet.
If I remember correctly, Maurice certainly advocates a 16 man-deep formation which is identical to the Spartan. Indeed, John believes that the Late Roman drill is derived from surviving Spartan drill manuals. Certainly Greek drill was just as sophisticated as Roman and did not involve a Viking mob pushing a shield wall in the face of their enemies! Yet pushing was the essence of Greek spear and shield war.
To quoteVictor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War, "The ancients took it for granted that the deeper the column the greater its thrusting power and momentum". Sixteen men deep is useless in battle if those rear troops are supporting the front line, they cannot use their spears, javelins are as likely to kill their own front-rankers and archers are too close. They can, however provide momemtum to the formation.
There are many, many, many references to pushing in Greek warfare, and I can supply a dozen if requested...!
Some are enlightening, Diodorus and Thucydides both record the trampling of bodies both in the advance and retreat. The Persians at Thermopylaa (according to Herodotus) trampled their own men to death from the pressure from the rear.
Rome? Lucan could envision a battle where the pressure was so great that "every corpse remained standing" (Lucan 4.787), and of course Ammianus was himself packed into a unit of soldiers so tightly packed that he stood next to a corpse, upright like a tree stump, carried along by his fellows.
Is not this indicitative of a tightly packed force using moment to achieve its aims. Ask anyone whp participates in shield-wall training, get two or three men out of the shield wall, and you can push through, force the gap and start killing from inside the unit, causing a rout. You can get these two or three men out of the fight with spear-point or sword with cutting and fencing; but those three men are much more easily dispatched by pushing them over, trampling them and exploiting the gap. Spears prevent the front line from giving their 'all' in the push by forcing the opposing side to keep under cover behind their shields.
Without pushing, why have 16 ranks of infantry? Why have 8? Do you have to fight and fence and whittle down the enemy rank, by rank?
Hanson also gives us an idea of the point at which units break and run. Men in the rear and in the middle of a unit are confident when the unit is advancing, they are uncertain once the unit stops and fighting and pushing begins, and become demoralised when the unit gives ground. The demoralised troops are likely to flee if the ground given is too great.
It occurs to me that Late Imperial warfare has much in common with classical Greek warfare, large round shields, long thrusting spears - what is missing, certainly is a much heavier emphasis on javelins thrown from the body of the infantry en masse. But we can certainly discuss Late Empire battle tactics in comparison to Greek if we move beyond those first javelin barrages to that moment when the lines meet.
If I remember correctly, Maurice certainly advocates a 16 man-deep formation which is identical to the Spartan. Indeed, John believes that the Late Roman drill is derived from surviving Spartan drill manuals. Certainly Greek drill was just as sophisticated as Roman and did not involve a Viking mob pushing a shield wall in the face of their enemies! Yet pushing was the essence of Greek spear and shield war.
To quoteVictor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War, "The ancients took it for granted that the deeper the column the greater its thrusting power and momentum". Sixteen men deep is useless in battle if those rear troops are supporting the front line, they cannot use their spears, javelins are as likely to kill their own front-rankers and archers are too close. They can, however provide momemtum to the formation.
There are many, many, many references to pushing in Greek warfare, and I can supply a dozen if requested...!
Some are enlightening, Diodorus and Thucydides both record the trampling of bodies both in the advance and retreat. The Persians at Thermopylaa (according to Herodotus) trampled their own men to death from the pressure from the rear.
Rome? Lucan could envision a battle where the pressure was so great that "every corpse remained standing" (Lucan 4.787), and of course Ammianus was himself packed into a unit of soldiers so tightly packed that he stood next to a corpse, upright like a tree stump, carried along by his fellows.
Is not this indicitative of a tightly packed force using moment to achieve its aims. Ask anyone whp participates in shield-wall training, get two or three men out of the shield wall, and you can push through, force the gap and start killing from inside the unit, causing a rout. You can get these two or three men out of the fight with spear-point or sword with cutting and fencing; but those three men are much more easily dispatched by pushing them over, trampling them and exploiting the gap. Spears prevent the front line from giving their 'all' in the push by forcing the opposing side to keep under cover behind their shields.
Without pushing, why have 16 ranks of infantry? Why have 8? Do you have to fight and fence and whittle down the enemy rank, by rank?
Hanson also gives us an idea of the point at which units break and run. Men in the rear and in the middle of a unit are confident when the unit is advancing, they are uncertain once the unit stops and fighting and pushing begins, and become demoralised when the unit gives ground. The demoralised troops are likely to flee if the ground given is too great.
~ Paul Elliott
The Last Legionary
This book details the lives of Late Roman legionaries garrisoned in Britain in 400AD. It covers everything from battle to rations, camp duties to clothing.
The Last Legionary
This book details the lives of Late Roman legionaries garrisoned in Britain in 400AD. It covers everything from battle to rations, camp duties to clothing.
