06-23-2014, 08:14 PM
Quote:I didn't say it was easy, but it is perfectly possible. We face all those same problems and we manage.
Judging by the videos you've linked in previous topics about riot police and from the below, the shields used by riot police are clear plexiglass, while scuta were not. The plexiglass shields allows for a much higher level of visibility not just from behind individual shields but from behind multiple ranks as well. Its not a coincidence that modern shields are see through. Even the metal ones used by Ukraine riot police had holes in them to see through. Modern construction methods have made more effective shields. Tactics change when technology changes.
With well trained professionals they don't actually need someone doing that. You most definitely need to be in the fight with them and not trying to command from inside an armoured vehicle somewhere but you don't need to be standing shoulder to shoulder in the front rank with them.
No offense attended, but to compare modern crowd controls methods and tactics with an ancient battlefield and the leadership and mission requirements of them is kind of pointless. As mentioned in several other previous threads about riot forces/crowd control, several similarities exist between them but overall the two are by nature completely different beasts. Any unit that expects to be in actual real combat (as in the mission is to attack and kill people) for hours (most ancient battles weren't short) would require leadership from the front. It doesn't matter how well trained a unit is, this goes from ancient warfare to modern, where even special operation units, which have a training routine and budget that dwarfed anything in any time period in history, are still led by example by team leaders (literally, team leader job in infantry is to lead by example in the front).
In a "riot," especially like those you showed in the videos you've linked, it might entail small amounts of violence, maybe even some lethal force, the whole point is not death and killing, like in an ancient battle is. Its about crowd control on one side, with violent, chaotic and and herd behavior on the other. The rioters are rarely even armed, when they are, they are rarely organized, well led, or using any tactics in comparison of the riot police. Because if they did, the riot police would be forced to escalate to more lethal weaponry and tactics and it stops being a riot and starts being a gunfight.
Is there any evidence from other cultures in that period of the commanders literally standing in the front rank during infantry close combat?
Yes. Most evidence suggests that leading from the immediate front, by example, was used by the Greeks, Macedonians, Gauls, Iberians, and nearly all the other cultures in the ancient European world. All had small unit leaders, not to mention overall army commanders, who led from the immediate front ranks of either the infantry or cavalry. King Leonidas fought in the front ranks. Alexander fought in the front ranks. Macedonian phalanxes were commanded by officers that fought in the front ranks. Gauls fought in tribal/family bands led by leaders fighting in the front rank. Leadership by example was a key tenet of ancient, medieval and even modern battle. Even during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment it was customary for officers to command from the front. I think the confusion that some people are experiencing is that in modern day, the equivalent commander of the same number of people a centurion commanded, 60-100 soldiers (often called company strength), does not customarily lead from the front. However, the modern pyramidal organization structure contains many smaller echelon commands and units under the company level, with the lowest level, the team, always responsible for leading from the front. Rome didn't have that. The century was it. A large gathering of troops, the most possible to be led by one person.
Maybe not as different as you think. Coming from the US you are used to seeing a very 'weapons orientated' solution to public disorder. In the UK, especially in Northern Ireland we are a lot more nose to nose and hand to hand and we see a significantly higher level of violence. I can think of multiple times where I have literally felt I was fighting for my life.
Apples and Oranges. Unless I missed some pretty major historical incidents in North Ireland in the last century, there haven't been too many street riots were hundreds of rioters and riot police were outright killed by melee weapons in hardened combat, especially in the last few decades. If the point of riot control was lethal force, batons and plexiglass shields would not be issued out, rifles and machine guns would be. Some riot forces might go "nose to nose" with rioters, but the rioters aren't on the same level of organization and weaponry as the riot control forces. This leaves the riot control forces with choices about how it can deploy and act.
That isn't a particularly violent incident by the standards of our sad little island but it will give you and idea of what I am talking about. I will try and find better examples online that I can post up. The supervisors are the guys with the round shields, those are a mix of team and unit commanders.
Romans didn't have team and unit commanders disseminated throughout their centuries. They had centurions. In the video, lots of the small unit leaders with the round shields are in the front ranks, leading and fighting in the front ranks. Also, no actual real fighting is occurring, its just a bit of a shoving match against unarmored opponents. Additionally, the riot control forces are only formed in two ranks, which would allow more control of the forces from rear, should a leader decide to lead from the rear. This video is a good example of how different a riot is from an ancient battle.
Below is another video of a more violent riot. In this case, the rioters also are organized and are equipped with weaponry equal in effectiveness, though different, to those used by the riot police. South Korean riot control forces are notoriously well trained, so the argument that a well trained professional force doesn't need to be led from the front can be challenged here. Notice how chaotic the front lines of the riot control forces are, how disordered the rank and files are (no gaps or channels to look down)? It doesn't appear that the riot police had leadership in the front ranks to control the advance and retreat of the men, as evidence by the disorderly retreat by the riot police against the concerted push by the rioters. If a leader were in the rear in this situation, on foot, not on horse, they clearly would not be able to see. So how would they have a clue what is happening to his men in the front ranks? At one point a riot police officer goes down, wounded, and is grabbed and almost taken by the rioters. How long would it take an officer in the rear ranks to figure out that happened? During the video, the riot police are driven back further and further. Do you think leaders in the rear ranks would have known why that was happening? The only thing a leader in the rear, on foot, would know in this situation is that for some reason, the men in the front ranks are falling back, but the circumstances wouldn't be known why. Would they be able to call out by name to the men in front to halt their retreat and counterattack? From my perspective, the rioters are winning that fight because their leadership is clearly in the front, leading by example, attacking. But even this video is not indicative of ancient warfare because at the end of the day, they were using batons, poles, sticks, tear gas. Not swords, spears, and javelins.
South Korean Labor Riot
Very simple. Having some kind of an idea of what was happening and some kind of control over what was going on. If you are standing in the front rank in a face to face fight you are just fighting and surviving. The guys in front have complete tunnel vision and are totally unaware of anything except the immediate threat to them. It is incredibly difficult to hear anything in that environment and if a leader is shouting instructions forward into the crowd/enemy and away from the rest of the unit you will be lucky if the people either side of him hear it.
Once committed to battle, fighting and surviving was the only mission of the century. Tunnel vision is normal for a unit committed to the fight, it was the reason reserves were created, like the Roman second and third lines, outside of the fight until they were also committed. Any further commands to a century in contact would come from the tribunes or other senior officers, relayed to all troops within hearing distance by musical instruments. Command and control of a century ended once the unit was committed into battle, at least for the role of the centurion.
Who was leading from the front?
No-one. Team commanders are behind their teams, and unit commanders are behind them. As I said above well trained units don't need it except in extreme situations. And I mean extreme, I can think of only two incidents where it was required in the last 20 years.
While having no one leading from the front might have been possible in the situations you are mentioning, I doubt those same tactics were used by the Romans. Mindset, tactics, and mindset are completely and utterly different.
Were you also using radio communication devices?
Yes and no. While everyone had a radio once it went hands on it was pointless trying to speak to the guys at the front on it because they just aren't listening, back to the tunnel vision thing again. Control of individuals is achieved by screaming in their ear and quite often by getting hands on them and steering them.
This is exactly what I am referring to. Its pointless to try to speak to the guys in front, they're too busy fighting, right? But someone has to lead that group of conscripted farmers into battle and that's the job of a centurion. The job of higher coordination fell to the people we know were situated to the immediate rear of the forward battleline, whose job we know was to observe the fighting line and react. The tribunes, legates, praefects, and imperators. Centurions had a completely different role.
On the file leader issue. I know there is no definite proof of it in battle but I do remember hearing of items of equipment being found that had 'Contubernium of X' marked on them. Which would indicate that a level of command below the century may have existed.
If there is no evidence of a file as a tactical unit, how can someone have a hypothesis that would involve battle tactics that would require file leaders? Especially when the evidence already suggests that centurions lead from the front.
Overall, I'm not arguing that it is impossible to attempt to control a fight from the rear. It would have no doubt been difficult in the setting of an ancient fight, with its loud noises, poor visibility (height of men in front, dust clouds, etc). More so, I'm stating that in an ancient Roman fight, it wasn't the job of a centurion to attempt it, based off the information available about their duties and responsibilities in battle, their selection, their casualty rates, their many decorations, and their careers. While a modern riot control force might attempt to command a unit from the rear of it, and it might make sense for them, those same riot control tactics are night and day different from the tactics used by ancient people. Mindset, tactics, techniques, procedures, weaponry, rules of engagement, legal liability, leadership techniques, etc. All are different. A riot control officer is usually not being promoted based off of past acts of bravery. Theyre duty isn't to just break the enemy in front of them and to collect heads. Historical and archaeological sources are full of accounts of individual centurions and their careers. Track the lives of centurions like L. Siccius Dentatus, Spurius Ligustinus, Gnaus Petraius Atinus, Caesar's own L. Vorenus, T. Pullo, P. Sextius Bacalus, Caesius Scaeva, and the legendary Gaius Crastinus, as well as Minucius Lorarius and others from funerary steles. It would appear that these type of men were indicative of the example of what a centurion was supposed to be, in terms of bravery and ability. These men clearly led from the front and I doubt the idea of managing a fight by commanding from the rear would have appealed to their sensibilities.
