(Late) (Roman) Formations

[John Conyard]

I certainly appreciate that parallels found in other periods are useful, and Hanson's work is excellent. I have an interest in drill of all periods, and I believe drill does develop from the classical period.

But I'd like to re-focus the discussion of late 4th century infantry tactics.

For a moment I believed we had reached some sort of agreement. Robert's last email leads me into the fray once again. I'm glad we now seem to believe the ability to push is a necessary part of close order fighting. On the defensive or attacking in a wedge. As said earlier, Vegetius and Maurice have little to guide us in terms of the mechanics of warfare. Ammianus can be used as a guide and he does use language which not only is reminiscent of the push but even gives us the trick of pushing with the knees. So Robert, you have not "dealt" with Ammianus! He's my witness and he's still standing. In close order, shields overlapping.

Some of us seem to see Strasbourg as a "one off". I don't understand why. Romans fighting Germanic types. Surely a common occurrence, even on a smaller scale, in Yorkshire!

More than one of you have asked what happens if say 4 files of Dutch/Australians step backwards to induce us into your formation, perhaps falling over in the process. In the noise and confusion you would need to give a signal to the relevant files to disengage, in perfect unison, and at speed to create a gap for us to fall into. Even if you are 8 deep I don't see it happening. You may be able to withdraw, and in so doing weaken your formation. But remember your shields are interlocked. Whatever, we either get to widen the gap, breaking up your formation, or just simply follow you pushing you back and taking advantage of your mistake.

You suggest that your men on either side of our salient could kill us. They will have lost the support of their fellows as they withdrew, and would be coping with increased pressure on their front and flanks. I have broken through many formations, and the enemy on my left don't matter. I have my shielded side to their shielded side, it's not an issue. But on my right I am carrying my weapon to your unshielded side, and I'm going to have fun. They are concentrating on the enemy in front of them. It's as if I'm the responsibility of the friends in front of me. If they want to contend with me, they are still in a push. But I'm going forward, and I have space.

No, small numbers of files trying to withdraw will disrupt their formation more than mine. I suspect this tactic draws on Greek/Macedonian experience, where some allied contingents didn't always engage cohesively. Liner formations were often broken up, especially due to running into contact. This will not be occurring in my Roman formations.

Remember, try nothing complicated in the face of the enemy. Rather than worrying about tricky manouvers, I want my file leaders to be concentrating on ripping throats out with their teeth, not when to start an almost impossible manouver.

As described earlier I would like my line to try and defeat the enemy with missiles, then close up, and make only a very short advance. I firmly believe the ill discipline of the early army had turned into something more professional.

I appreciate that perhaps the majority of people see things the other way around. Disciplined armoured early legionaries developing into a part time ill-organised late 4th century army. But in the filed army our troops have developed not only the perfect Roman cavalryman, but are on the way to producing the perfect infantryman as well.

I hope your wedge at Archeon was closed up, shields overlapping to deflect missiles, and with the push being timed by the guys at the front. That attacking formation is hard to stop. The complete opposite is the open wedge used by some 1st century groups. That would have no effect on a well constructed line.