07-02-2013, 05:33 PM
Mark wrote:
As part of this discussion we do seem to accept that individually replacing a man lost or injured (and indeed suggesting that the latter can even be extracted from the melée for treatment) is indeed possible, but that the idea of a whole rank being replaced (as I suggest is what might well be trained and quite sensibly considered when suitable) is somehow not possible.
We aren't arguing that a rank rotation wasn't possible, at least I don't see it that way. We are stating that it was unnecessary.
Please open the below illustration:
Diagram A. shows a 80 man century in fighting formation, 10 files by 8 ranks. They march ahead, throw their pila and engage in close combat with an enemy. Diagram B. takes place 1-2 minutes later when the centurion in the rear decides the men in the 1st rank have fought long enough. So he blows a whistle, yells, has the cornicen blown, waves the standards, etc., signalling that entire 1st rank to be replaced by the 2nd rank, ala Rome Tv show. Fresh fighters fed into the front.
Unfortunately, this method fails to take variables into consideration. Diagram C. shows the century drawn up in its initial order. Diagram D. shows what happens when the Fog of War shows up, casualties have occurred during the initial clash. We have a total of four men out of action from of the 1st rank, one from the 2nd rank. (the Roman's weren't the only ones throwing missiles before a charge and a scutum was not missile proof) So within the 2 minutes allotted before a rank rotation occurs (or 5 minutes or 10, doesn't matter), we have four soldiers who have already individually relieved the man in front of them, three of whom were on the 1st rank.
Now the centurion, in the back of the formation as Mark Hygate surmises, outside of visual distance to the fighting on the front line, signals a rank rotation. Diagram E. shows the aftermath of it. Eight of the original 1st rankers have been relieved, they are now in the back of the formation, whether they wanted to go or not. Some might still want to fight some more. But they are at the rear of the formation, doing nothing but waiting. Additionally, due to the casualties sustained in the first minutes of the initial clash, a number of men from the 2nd rank have gotten into the fight earlier than expected, before being signaled by the centurion, when they individually relieved wounded/dead soldiers in front of them. Now, under orders from the signal given by the centurion, these men too have now been relieved, even though they have NOT been fighting the whole time. Maybe one of the soldiers only just got to the front when the signal was given. Doesn't matter now, he goes to the rear and a less able soldier from the 3rd rank now takes his place. (under the hypothesis that the better soldiers were sent to the front ranks and not every Roman in the century was a uber brave killing machine) Add to this, we see more casualties from errant missiles occurring, disorganizing the cohesion of the ranks even more. More men are falling out of formation and gathering in the rear.
Do we need to add more variables into this? Sickness and desertions would have further depleted the numbers of the century. Romans don't show up to battle with 80 men. No unit goes to war at full strength. Heck, my first combat deployment to Iraq, we deployed at roughly 65% strength. And that was BEFORE we took casualties. Throw into the mix that maybe the Romans are fighting an enemy with twice their numbers in infantry and the Romans are forced to extend their own line to counter the enemy line, thinning the number of ranks (Pharsalus). Think of the poor centurion, instead of leading his century/maniple in battle, he is forced to micromanage/control each rank.
The rank rotation shown in the Rome TV show is unnecessary and overly complicated. Individual replacement is simpler and more efficient.
As part of this discussion we do seem to accept that individually replacing a man lost or injured (and indeed suggesting that the latter can even be extracted from the melée for treatment) is indeed possible, but that the idea of a whole rank being replaced (as I suggest is what might well be trained and quite sensibly considered when suitable) is somehow not possible.
We aren't arguing that a rank rotation wasn't possible, at least I don't see it that way. We are stating that it was unnecessary.
Please open the below illustration:
Diagram A. shows a 80 man century in fighting formation, 10 files by 8 ranks. They march ahead, throw their pila and engage in close combat with an enemy. Diagram B. takes place 1-2 minutes later when the centurion in the rear decides the men in the 1st rank have fought long enough. So he blows a whistle, yells, has the cornicen blown, waves the standards, etc., signalling that entire 1st rank to be replaced by the 2nd rank, ala Rome Tv show. Fresh fighters fed into the front.
Unfortunately, this method fails to take variables into consideration. Diagram C. shows the century drawn up in its initial order. Diagram D. shows what happens when the Fog of War shows up, casualties have occurred during the initial clash. We have a total of four men out of action from of the 1st rank, one from the 2nd rank. (the Roman's weren't the only ones throwing missiles before a charge and a scutum was not missile proof) So within the 2 minutes allotted before a rank rotation occurs (or 5 minutes or 10, doesn't matter), we have four soldiers who have already individually relieved the man in front of them, three of whom were on the 1st rank.
Now the centurion, in the back of the formation as Mark Hygate surmises, outside of visual distance to the fighting on the front line, signals a rank rotation. Diagram E. shows the aftermath of it. Eight of the original 1st rankers have been relieved, they are now in the back of the formation, whether they wanted to go or not. Some might still want to fight some more. But they are at the rear of the formation, doing nothing but waiting. Additionally, due to the casualties sustained in the first minutes of the initial clash, a number of men from the 2nd rank have gotten into the fight earlier than expected, before being signaled by the centurion, when they individually relieved wounded/dead soldiers in front of them. Now, under orders from the signal given by the centurion, these men too have now been relieved, even though they have NOT been fighting the whole time. Maybe one of the soldiers only just got to the front when the signal was given. Doesn't matter now, he goes to the rear and a less able soldier from the 3rd rank now takes his place. (under the hypothesis that the better soldiers were sent to the front ranks and not every Roman in the century was a uber brave killing machine) Add to this, we see more casualties from errant missiles occurring, disorganizing the cohesion of the ranks even more. More men are falling out of formation and gathering in the rear.
Do we need to add more variables into this? Sickness and desertions would have further depleted the numbers of the century. Romans don't show up to battle with 80 men. No unit goes to war at full strength. Heck, my first combat deployment to Iraq, we deployed at roughly 65% strength. And that was BEFORE we took casualties. Throw into the mix that maybe the Romans are fighting an enemy with twice their numbers in infantry and the Romans are forced to extend their own line to counter the enemy line, thinning the number of ranks (Pharsalus). Think of the poor centurion, instead of leading his century/maniple in battle, he is forced to micromanage/control each rank.
The rank rotation shown in the Rome TV show is unnecessary and overly complicated. Individual replacement is simpler and more efficient.
