04-01-2004, 11:24 PM
As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, Goldsworthy's model shares much in common with Phillip Sabin's, though there are certain key differences between the two. The main difference lies in how enemy units were pushed back and broken. Goldsworthy, as Pericles points out, advanced the "breakthrough theory" in which a wedge was unintentionally formed by a small group of experienced or vainglorious soldiers who on their own initiative would lead a breakthrough into the enemy lines. While Goldsworthy admits this would probably not be a regular event, it seems to be an unlikely one in my view. Certainly a Roman battle line would not remain straight during battle but in most cases it would be suicidal for Roman troops to dive headlong into an enemy formation. In addition to being stupid for personal reasons, such a movement would endanger the rest of the soldier, or group of soldiers' unit.(Look at Sickles at Gettysburg) Roman troops were taught to fight as a unit. While such foolhardy heroics undoubtedly occurred, they cannot, in my view, be taken as a model of how the Roman won there battles.This is of course my opinion, and was the only real complaint I had with Goldsworthy's many theories. His work is the best modern work on the subject and will be rightly regarded as a classic for many years to come.<br>
Sabin's model shares Goldsworthy's reasonable belief in battle lulls in which the opposing armies would hurl missiles at one another, rest, speed wounded soldiers to the rear and change up tired units. Sabin, like Goldsworthy, believes that if the initial charge/pila volley did not break the enemy than lulls/rest breaks would occur after a short melee(15 20 minutes) in which most of the front line of the legion/auxiliaries would take part. As soon as the two forces became tired they would then standoff from each other, creating a lull in the fighting. These lulls would be interspersed by charges of particularly motivated or fresh units(not individuals, nor necessarily the Legion as a whole) and fairly regular pila, arrow and bolt volleys. These charges would ideally chip away(not breakthrough) at the enemy front lines relatively quickly and hopefully panic them into retreat or rout. In most cases, though, Sabin argues convincingly it took many charges and counter charges(made possible through the deployment of fresh reserve units) over a period of hours that would gradually push the increasingly tired enemy force(which normally would not have a reserve) back until they(the enemy) decided to retreat, were routed or were out flanked on the wings, or completely encircled(ala Cannae or Phalarsus). <p></p><i></i>
Sabin's model shares Goldsworthy's reasonable belief in battle lulls in which the opposing armies would hurl missiles at one another, rest, speed wounded soldiers to the rear and change up tired units. Sabin, like Goldsworthy, believes that if the initial charge/pila volley did not break the enemy than lulls/rest breaks would occur after a short melee(15 20 minutes) in which most of the front line of the legion/auxiliaries would take part. As soon as the two forces became tired they would then standoff from each other, creating a lull in the fighting. These lulls would be interspersed by charges of particularly motivated or fresh units(not individuals, nor necessarily the Legion as a whole) and fairly regular pila, arrow and bolt volleys. These charges would ideally chip away(not breakthrough) at the enemy front lines relatively quickly and hopefully panic them into retreat or rout. In most cases, though, Sabin argues convincingly it took many charges and counter charges(made possible through the deployment of fresh reserve units) over a period of hours that would gradually push the increasingly tired enemy force(which normally would not have a reserve) back until they(the enemy) decided to retreat, were routed or were out flanked on the wings, or completely encircled(ala Cannae or Phalarsus). <p></p><i></i>
