07-06-2013, 09:12 AM
Hello,
Been following this forum for a few years now, but this is my first post.
As many people have pointed out, rank rotation would most likely have happened during lulls, as they were very often in ancient battles when physical exhaustion set in pretty quickly.
It wouldn't even be surprising that the time spent during lulls were far greater than the time spent in actual fighting.
Many scholars suggest that during a typical infantry melee battle, the 2 sides would approach, hurl missiles, engage in a short but aggressive hand-to-hand combat, and then fall apart.
The question I have is: if an entire maniple was engaged in fighting, how could it disengage all at once and "fall back"?
Would it happen when the tired soldiers in the front rank just stopped striking at the enemy and adopted a purely defensive position, and waited for the enemy before him to adopt the same behaviour? Would the "lull" begin when all the front-rank soldiers have tired out this way and then the entire unit would all take a step back?
As regarding to the role of centurions, many scholars suggest that although they held a social position as military officers, their roles were more similar to that of senior NCOs in modern armies, with their duties based more on training, discipline, and leading by example rather than on command, military tactics and strategy.
Even as late as the early 20th century, junior officers and NCOs usually led their units from the front in battle, which was why in both World Wars they suffered disproportionate casualties.
Been following this forum for a few years now, but this is my first post.
As many people have pointed out, rank rotation would most likely have happened during lulls, as they were very often in ancient battles when physical exhaustion set in pretty quickly.
It wouldn't even be surprising that the time spent during lulls were far greater than the time spent in actual fighting.
Many scholars suggest that during a typical infantry melee battle, the 2 sides would approach, hurl missiles, engage in a short but aggressive hand-to-hand combat, and then fall apart.
The question I have is: if an entire maniple was engaged in fighting, how could it disengage all at once and "fall back"?
Would it happen when the tired soldiers in the front rank just stopped striking at the enemy and adopted a purely defensive position, and waited for the enemy before him to adopt the same behaviour? Would the "lull" begin when all the front-rank soldiers have tired out this way and then the entire unit would all take a step back?
As regarding to the role of centurions, many scholars suggest that although they held a social position as military officers, their roles were more similar to that of senior NCOs in modern armies, with their duties based more on training, discipline, and leading by example rather than on command, military tactics and strategy.
Even as late as the early 20th century, junior officers and NCOs usually led their units from the front in battle, which was why in both World Wars they suffered disproportionate casualties.
