(Late) (Roman) Formations

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,
You're forgiven. :wink:

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.

Paul, I should receive your book next week, so don't know if you read these articles:
Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (I), in: L'Armée romaine de Dioclétian à Valentinian Ier, Actes de IIIe congrès de Lyon sur l'armée romaine, ed. Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff (Paris), pp. 309-58.
Wheeler, Everett L. (2004): The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire (II), in: Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes 1, pp. 147-75.

Wheeler advocates that 'phalangial' (as in 'non-manipular, with a continuous front) warfare always remained part of the Roman tactical array. What you described above certainly looks like it.

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.

Hmm, not entirely I think. Maurice advocated an 8- 16- or 32-deep formation, with 32 as the ideal, but 16 if possible. the reason was mainly because he always took the precaution of doubling his front against an attack from the rear. Apparently, with the mainly cavalry armies of his day, this was a distinct possiblity. I doubt that this was anything the ancient Spartans worried abotut though.

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.

Which sort of period are we talking about here? Macedonian formations or Classical Spartan formations?

There are many, many, many references to pushing in Greek warfare, and I can supply a dozen if requested...!

Ah, but I think no-one denying that Greek formation used oushing, is there? However, so far I have noit seen proof for Roman formation using pushing.
What do Greek shield bosses look like? Late Roman ones are ofter sharp or pointed, which is not likely to support pushing your mates from behind. they are found in such numbers that I think the notin that only the front lines used them, unlikely.

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.

OK, no problem there, armies do move, and when they move, like any crowd shows, the ones who get underfoot are helpless victims. But that's no proof for pushing matches. Close order will do that for you too.

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.

No problem there either, we are not disputing close order. vegetius gives a foot for each man, that's synaspismos for me. But, again, no pushing match.

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.

Well, read my answer to JHohn, above. I agree with you here, but that's what I see as a concerted attack on a small front. A wedge will also do that for you (no matter how exposed the lead men), we did that at Archeon and it went well. But i don't say that pushing never happened - you're right, if you can bowl the men in front over that very good. I'm still seeing no evidence of whole formations poushing like a tug-of-war all across their front to achieve the victory. i DO see close order heavy fighting, but with pauses in which both sides get their breath, then satart again, sometimes using the push at a very small front in a concerted effort to break the enemy line.

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?

Maurice describes that. You have 16 to form a double front. You have 8 because that's a contuvbernium, the first 4 fight with spears, the second 4 provide covering fire and act as reserve. IF pushing ensues (and it surely will at times), they beef up the formation, as you see it. But still, no whole formations pushing here - does Maurice even describe it? Or Vegetius? Or Ammianus (and I've dealt with Strasbourg already)?