Battle-line rotation during the combat

[Wander]

All very true, UNLESS the unit had been trained to expect the rotation as a routine thing. If that's the case, the second point is minimized, though your first would still be something to watch carefully. (That's when you have the guy in the third row toss his second pilum for cover!)

[Sardaukar]

All very true, UNLESS the unit had been trained to expect the rotation as a routine thing. If that's the case, the second point is minimized, though your first would still be something to watch carefully. (That's when you have the guy in the third row toss his second pilum for cover!)

I doubt that second point could be eliminated by training, since it's doubtful if majority of legionaries in unit could actually distinguish the movement in ranks between retreat and rotation. Both would start with similar "ripple" effect.

Training and discipline would of course minimize the chance of rout, but not eliminate it. In melee, I'd say even individual rotation if not absolute necessity was risky.

Thus, I'd say that even individual rotations was not used outside lulls in battle unless absolutely necessary.

Since Roman army in it's usual triplex acies formation, especially from Marian reforms, had very close co-operation between first and second line, might actually go for full unit rotation in lull of combat instead of rank or individual rotation.

[Magnus]

Sardaukar said:

"1. It exposes retreating soldier to danger, no matter how well-executed the manouver is..and in melee combat, it'll never be perfect. That'd lead to possible vulnerability of enemy advancing into ranks, the big source of rout."

I disagree. I think we're all fixated on the front rank moving back, instead of of it staying firm, and having the 2nd rank charge forward past the first rank. So now your attacker has not one Legionary, but two to handle. If only for a brief instant. Now you have the shock value of a small charge and you've gained a few feet of ground.

Having the 2nd rank move forward eliminates all chances of the enemy pushing forward into your ranks.

"2. Possible movement from front rank to rear might easily be misinterpreted as retreat or enemy breaking the ranks by majority of troops in unit who do not have clear view of situation. That might rout the unit. "

This is eliminated with the 2nd rank moving forward.

"For example, Appian says that movement and disorder in ranks of Greek phalanx was said to be sign of immediate collapse. "

Well yes, but the phalanx was a different formation alltogether.

"My opinion is, that combat morale was THE deciding factor in many ancient battles and very few scholars have actually tried to assess it. Romans seemed to understand it and I doubt they'd want to "unsettle" their legionaries by rotation manouvers while unit was engaged with enemy."

Agreed, BUT nothing saps your morale like not being able to breathe from exhaustion, or lift your weapons to fight. Battles, even ones historically noted to have "lulls" for sure lasted longer than 10 minutes. Even well conditioned atheletes carrying 30-60 lbs of gear are going to need a good rest beyond this. To not rotate the troops, either individually or as an entire file/rank would invite disaster...if not the wholesale loss of every Legionary in the first rank.

You simply would not have the option of waiting for a "lull"...your troops would be too exhausted to fight by then, and your lines would be experiencing breaches all over the place.

"Training and discipline would of course minimize the chance of rout, but not eliminate it. In melee, I'd say even individual rotation if not absolute necessity was risky. "

Well that's just it isn't it? I would invite anyone here, to done ALL of their gear, and do some physical activity that puts their heart rate up to it's maximum, and see how long they last. Now, the risk starts when you have exhausted soldiers and you don't rotate them.

We've already established that UFC fighters can go 25 minutes with small rests in between rounds. That's unarmored. Let's drop that down then to about 10-15 minutes of fairly hard fighting with gear on. After that, guess what? Unless you move those troops they are DEAD. They will be without a doubt 100% combat ineffective due to fatigue. If you don't pull them out of there, they'll be cut down. It's simple human physiology.

Also, this rotation system, could easily have been done as an entire rank. Look at hockey for a example...most "lines" operate in 1 minute or less shifts. Keeps the guys fresh for at least an hour of play, with your 20 minute "lulls" in between periods. Not quite combat, but the physicality and demands of the human body of Hockey is pretty close to that experienced in combat.

So, it's more than feasible for the ranking officer to give the order, after a given amount of time (and let's face it, pulling the front ranks back while they still have energy will minimize losses big time!) the ranks rotate as one group. 2nd rank charges forward past the first rank and takes over. The original first rank can then move back to the rear of the century and recover. Get some water, new weapons (can't replace a sword while you're in the thick of things), bandage some wounds and get ready to go back in.

Even if this rotation was restricted to 2 minutes...8-10 ranks would put a typical battle length (first round) of about 15 - 20 minutes. Sound familiar? Throw in your "lull", and your century is back to the original first rank, ready to fight and do it all over again. Except now they all have a couple more pila ready to throw. 8)

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

[It's also interesting, that conspicuous but apparently pointless bold acts were not only permitted but actually encouraged and rewarded.These displays of valour helped to give Romans confidence in their ability to beat the enemy. But, according to Goldsworthy (and I agree), there was even more important reason:
.

I disagree only with this point.
I think that this ''heroism' is only typical of an army who doesn't have discipline (like the army from beginnings of Rome) and without order.

I think that with presence of the general everybody wanted to emphasize and it would be a disaster.

[madoc]

Warriors require all their concentration to deal with what is front of them.
In re-enactment battles, once you start wondering (and looking) about the situaton to your flanks or rear, then you stand a good risk of taking a hit. Often as not, it's hard to get the attention of someone fighting in the front rank by shouting at him. Let alone upsetting his attention by tapping him on the shoulder. Maybe it's a bloke thing; being unable to do two things at once ....

The other factor is once a group starts to get disorganised or loses a few men (and is trying to fill the spaces from the rear ranks) then the opposition "takes heart" and makes an increased effort to push through. Seen this many, many times in competitive re-enactment battles. If you start messing about by pulling men out of the front line _while_ they are fighting then that is a prime opportunity for the opposition to press in and take advantage.

If you are going to rotate your troops, then you do it quickly while they are not actually engaged. Even in re-enactment combat, there are plenty of lulls in the fighting and an organised, practised rotation can occur before the enemy realises what you are doing. Nothing too ambitious though.

Even for individuals to move back and get replaced, would require a lull in the fighting. I think.

.and, I would point out that ancient battles were fought over hours and some troops would have been in the front rank all day (think about the english huscarls at hastings for example). They would not be fighting all the time. Nobody can do that.


I have yet to see any convincing representation of roman replacement that I feel does not expose the unit to catastrophic counter attack, while it is happening. In fact, I would challenge any group to try it in front of our Britons... (of course, the challenge is only good for the UK !)

[Sardaukar]

[It's also interesting, that conspicuous but apparently pointless bold acts were not only permitted but actually encouraged and rewarded.These displays of valour helped to give Romans confidence in their ability to beat the enemy. But, according to Goldsworthy (and I agree), there was even more important reason:
.

I disagree only with this point.
I think that this ''heroism' is only typical of an army who doesn't have discipline (like the army from beginnings of Rome) and without order.

I think that with presence of the general everybody wanted to emphasize and it would be a disaster.

It is however, quite well-documented and often mentioned "feature" of Roman legions.

[Sardaukar]

Sardaukar said:

"1. It exposes retreating soldier to danger, no matter how well-executed the manouver is..and in melee combat, it'll never be perfect. That'd lead to possible vulnerability of enemy advancing into ranks, the big source of rout."

I disagree. I think we're all fixated on the front rank moving back, instead of of it staying firm, and having the 2nd rank charge forward past the first rank. So now your attacker has not one Legionary, but two to handle. If only for a brief instant. Now you have the shock value of a small charge and you've gained a few feet of ground.

Having the 2nd rank move forward eliminates all chances of the enemy pushing forward into your ranks.

"2. Possible movement from front rank to rear might easily be misinterpreted as retreat or enemy breaking the ranks by majority of troops in unit who do not have clear view of situation. That might rout the unit. "

This is eliminated with the 2nd rank moving forward.

"For example, Appian says that movement and disorder in ranks of Greek phalanx was said to be sign of immediate collapse. "

Well yes, but the phalanx was a different formation alltogether.

"My opinion is, that combat morale was THE deciding factor in many ancient battles and very few scholars have actually tried to assess it. Romans seemed to understand it and I doubt they'd want to "unsettle" their legionaries by rotation manouvers while unit was engaged with enemy."

Agreed, BUT nothing saps your morale like not being able to breathe from exhaustion, or lift your weapons to fight. Battles, even ones historically noted to have "lulls" for sure lasted longer than 10 minutes. Even well conditioned atheletes carrying 30-60 lbs of gear are going to need a good rest beyond this. To not rotate the troops, either individually or as an entire file/rank would invite disaster...if not the wholesale loss of every Legionary in the first rank.

You simply would not have the option of waiting for a "lull"...your troops would be too exhausted to fight by then, and your lines would be experiencing breaches all over the place.

"Training and discipline would of course minimize the chance of rout, but not eliminate it. In melee, I'd say even individual rotation if not absolute necessity was risky. "

Well that's just it isn't it? I would invite anyone here, to done ALL of their gear, and do some physical activity that puts their heart rate up to it's maximum, and see how long they last. Now, the risk starts when you have exhausted soldiers and you don't rotate them.

We've already established that UFC fighters can go 25 minutes with small rests in between rounds. That's unarmored. Let's drop that down then to about 10-15 minutes of fairly hard fighting with gear on. After that, guess what? Unless you move those troops they are DEAD. They will be without a doubt 100% combat ineffective due to fatigue. If you don't pull them out of there, they'll be cut down. It's simple human physiology.

Also, this rotation system, could easily have been done as an entire rank. Look at hockey for a example...most "lines" operate in 1 minute or less shifts. Keeps the guys fresh for at least an hour of play, with your 20 minute "lulls" in between periods. Not quite combat, but the physicality and demands of the human body of Hockey is pretty close to that experienced in combat.

So, it's more than feasible for the ranking officer to give the order, after a given amount of time (and let's face it, pulling the front ranks back while they still have energy will minimize losses big time!) the ranks rotate as one group. 2nd rank charges forward past the first rank and takes over. The original first rank can then move back to the rear of the century and recover. Get some water, new weapons (can't replace a sword while you're in the thick of things), bandage some wounds and get ready to go back in.

Even if this rotation was restricted to 2 minutes...8-10 ranks would put a typical battle length (first round) of about 15 - 20 minutes. Sound familiar? Throw in your "lull", and your century is back to the original first rank, ready to fight and do it all over again. Except now they all have a couple more pila ready to throw. 8)

Unfortunately your argument falls into logical trap for example here:

We've already established that UFC fighters can go 25 minutes with small rests in between rounds. That's unarmored. Let's drop that down then to about 10-15 minutes of fairly hard fighting with gear on. After that, guess what? Unless you move those troops they are DEAD. They will be without a doubt 100% combat ineffective due to fatigue. If you don't pull them out of there, they'll be cut down. It's simple human physiology.

Exactly who would be killing them ? That would indicate that enemy would have either way higher endurance or better organization (since they too, would have been fighting and exposed to similar exhaustion), which is doubtful. Only time when that would happen is if they'd be attacked by fresh enemy reserves, in which case they would be in severe disadvantage anyway, rotated or not. Remeber the battle between Legio XXI Rapax and I Adiutrix, where latter broke the first line of enemy, but was thrown back by second line of XXI Rapax.

Remember that lulls in combat happened only when BOTH SIDES were unwilling to engage due to exhaustion etc. We have to always remember that same factors are also in effect witth enemy, legionaries did not fight in theoretical vacuum. Thus, if front line troops are so exhausted they cannot fight, it is most likely that enemy is similarly exhausted. This would leead into one of those well-presented lulls in combat, when replenishment and replacement would be possible.

When engaged in melee, however well rotation manouvers would work in theory, they do not take account the chaos of battle. That theory does also assume some sort of uniform quality within unit, which is definitely wrong assumption. You should also consider that very possibility that Romans would not want to expose their less-eager rear rankers to melee unless absolutely necessary. Even Roman legionary organization shows clearly that they did not consider all troops equal within legion..and unit WITHOUT substandard troops would be the requirement/precondition for rank-rotation to really work.

It'd be inherently very dangerous for unit to willingly place troops with less moral steadfastness and combat prowess to melee by rotation. it could very easily lead to rout when one or several of them breaks.

[Tarbicus]

I'm convinced there were lulls (more of a stepping away but not in flight) in the fighting for both sides to replace with fresh troops, except against some enemies who fought in what I've seen in a primary source referred to as making battle in an "uncivilised manner" (but can't remember which actual source). It was specifically referred to in the text as a means to bring in fresh troops. Sparring boxers back off and gather their strength, and I think the analogy holds true for massed battle even though others disagree.

[Sardaukar]

I'm convinced there were lulls (more of a stepping away but not in flight) in the fighting for both sides to replace with fresh troops, except against some enemies who fought in what I've seen in a primary source referred to as making battle in an "uncivilised manner" (but can't remember which actual source). It was specifically referred to in the text as a means to bring in fresh troops. Sparring boxers back off and gather their strength, and I think the analogy holds true for massed battle even though others disagree.

I am convinced about that too..and surviving ancient sources seem to support that.

I doubt that even Greek phalanxes, where reserves were nonexistent usually, were engaged all the time, that being physically impossible...unless engagement was decided very swiftly.

It's quite interesting that quite a few ancient battles were indeed decided very quickly when one side routed almost immediately.

[Magnus]

Unfortunately your argument falls into logical trap for example here:

We've already established that UFC fighters can go 25 minutes with small rests in between rounds. That's unarmored. Let's drop that down then to about 10-15 minutes of fairly hard fighting with gear on. After that, guess what? Unless you move those troops they are DEAD. They will be without a doubt 100% combat ineffective due to fatigue. If you don't pull them out of there, they'll be cut down. It's simple human physiology.

Exactly who would be killing them ? That would indicate that enemy would have either way higher endurance or better organization (since they too, would have been fighting and exposed to similar exhaustion), which is doubtful. Only time when that would happen is if they'd be attacked by fresh enemy reserves, in which case they would be in severe disadvantage anyway, rotated or not. Remeber the battle between Legio XXI Rapax and I Adiutrix, where latter broke the first line of enemy, but was thrown back by second line of XXI Rapax.

Ummmm...how about the enemy's next ranks? Even if a Legionary manages to kill the first 5 guys in front of him, once he starts to get winded, there's consecutive enemies for him to continue fighting. If he gets tired while fighting fresh troops, what do you think is going to happen?

You are also assuming that the "lulls" happen for both sides at the same time. If they don't, guess who is in trouble? All of your front ranks.

Are you assuming that even an unorganized army somewhow fights at the exact same time along an extended front? This is impossible...there are going to be soldiers behind the guys immediately doing the fighting, waiting for their turn. Especially if the romans hold formation. Otherwise there is no place for them to go, so they are forced to wait.

Remember that lulls in combat happened only when BOTH SIDES were unwilling to engage due to exhaustion etc. We have to always remember that same factors are also in effect witth enemy, legionaries did not fight in theoretical vacuum. Thus, if front line troops are so exhausted they cannot fight, it is most likely that enemy is similarly exhausted. This would leead into one of those well-presented lulls in combat, when replenishment and replacement would be possible.

You just proved my point. When one side is exhausted more so than the other, there is no opportunity for a lull. What do you do then? Keep pushing those exhausted troops into combat without changing them for a fresh ranker and they're finished. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Second, you can't simply say that because one side is tired, then the enemy must be as well. If that was the case, ALL recorded battles would include this lull. But, they don't.

When engaged in melee, however well rotation manouvers would work in theory, they do not take account the chaos of battle.

Hold on a second...do you have any prior military experience? How about training in a martial art? Maybe some kind of Driver training? The romans DRILLED. So when the proverbial chaos of battle is forced upon them, their brain and muscle memory will react accordingly. Once soldiers became experienced the shock of combat had less of an effect on them psychologically. This is a mout point.

That theory does also assume some sort of uniform quality within unit, which is definitely wrong assumption.

How do you figure? Your statement makes the exact opposite assumption that all roman units had no base level of ability to it. Each soldier is going to have his own strengths and weaknesses. If they were all equally strong, the Roman army would never have been beaten. Some form of logic must be used here...in that not all men are created equal. However, that's where training comes in.

You should also consider that very possibility that Romans would not want to expose their less-eager rear rankers to melee unless absolutely necessary. Even Roman legionary organization shows clearly that they did not consider all troops equal within legion..and unit WITHOUT substandard troops would be the requirement/precondition for rank-rotation to really work.

If you're talking early imperial or late republic, the farther back in the ranks you go, the MORE experienced the soldier you get. Early to middle imperial...I've never heard of front rankers being the best. Do you have a source for that?

It'd be inherently very dangerous for unit to willingly place troops with less moral steadfastness and combat prowess to melee by rotation. it could very easily lead to rout when one or several of them breaks.

That's if you're correct...I've never heard of the imperial army placing all of it's best fighters in the front ranks, unless they are in the job of shock troops. By your implication then, roughly 9/10's of the rest of the army have little or no combat value.

Remember, the ancient sources are the beginning of logic, not the end. Basic human physiology has not changed in 2000 years. When people get tired, they make mistakes. In hand to hand combat those mistakes are going to lead to death. IF you have the opportunity to switch troops if there is a lull, then by all means. HOWEVER, if the situation does not permit and you must change out your men under the heat of battle otherwise you risk losing them, then that is what you must do.

As a commander, it's my job to win. I can't do that with dead people.

Let me put it to you this way:

If the conditions do not exist to create a lull for both sides, and your front ranks are exhausted to the point they can no longer fight, but are still engaged in combat...and there are no signs of it letting up, what do you do?

[Sardaukar]

Well, thanks for asking, I am actually ex-FDF Army officer. And incidentally, today is exactly 20 years since I started train martial arts. Also, I do have plenty of experience about personal close quarters battle with blunt and sharp instruments..and scars to prove it, from times when I earned extra money as bouncer during my studies and so. So, I do know what I am talking about. Man to man, 2-1, 3-1 etc...guess who usually was the 1.

I wonder how the second rank would actually push into *enemy ranks* ? If you actually did read my posts, you should note that SLA Marshall's studies about WWII and Korean War specifically indicate that it is 25 % of men who are usually able to advance like that and 75% fight more defensively. So, you'd basicly suggest that second rank would push into enemy rank during the melee ? What makes you think that even half of them would be successful in that ?

Other thing, where is the space for "enemy having two legionaries to deal with" ? More likely they'd get on each other's way. Ancient accounts do tell quite well what happens to troops that are hemmed in too tightly to be able to use their weapons...

We have 2 sources with different information how much space individual legionary takes. Vegetius who appears to use source from Republican time (mentioning hastati, principes, triarii), gives 90 cm (3 ft), the figure most scholars think is more plausible with 2 m (7 ft) as depth. Now, try to squeeze 2 legionaries in that width with their scutum et all during combat. Polybius gives very wide figure, 180 cm (6 ft) which of course would make rotation possible but it would be very loose formation.

You blatantly say that movement backwards is eliminated by just having 2nd rank move forward ? I cast my doubt if they atually COULD do that in melee. What if enemy opposite does not give way ? Unit would end up with hopelessly messed front row. Not to mention there will be personal reluctance to advance towards enemy wielding sharp instrument. I have done that several times in my life..and it differs quite bit from re-enactment (no offence to re-enactors).

Anyhow, it'd be entirely possible that some from the second rank would be unable and even unwilling to do the rotation, UNLESS you conceed to my point that units might have put their 25 % of best fighters in 2 front rows. In phalanx, advice was to put you best men in front and back rows..for obvious reasons.

As I said, your argument fall in logical trap in stating that enemy could take advantage of exhausted state of Roman front line. Exactly who could do that ? The enemy who had just fought them and would be in similar state ? Unless enemy was at least as well or better organized than Roman legion, I don't think so. Where did those fresh troops come from ?
I think Roman legionaries would start salivating, if enemy would put their meeker men who so far had avoided combat into front row (to exaggerate *a bit*). It'd indicate fresh enemy. Either they'd then facing totally new unit or you'd give the benefit of rotation and better quality troops to their opponent.

Usually, in melee, weaker side did usually fold quite quickly, no need to fight until exhaustion. Even those not too eager to face danger can slay fleeing men..and thus fleeing side usually suffered heavy losses.

And please, ice hockey has nothing in common with real combat. Even with those stupid wannabe boxing things with nothing to do with game...:twisted:

And it's not "my lull in combat", how about checking your sources..

In melee, weaker side gives up if it cannot resist. This is quite ofter seen why Roman second line was supporting first line quite closely. Sources seem to indicate that second line often became engaged (at least partially) quite quickly in battle.

My personal opinion is, that when Roman unit had a chance, century or cohort, it of course replaced those unable to continue fighting. I just disagree with the implication that Roman legion century would be uniformly mechanical instrument perfectly in control of the centurion. Never been such unit and never will be, as long as it consists of humans.

My martial arts experience (and my "relatively" real close quarters battle experience) has shown to me, that 90 % of fight is actually between the ears of combatants.

No matter how much you train or drill, first combat will be a shock. It freezes some people, making them totally useless. First time I was shot at, I did shit my pants, can you imagine ? After facing druggies with syringes trying to stab me or guys with knives. It amazed me, I did shoot back, since that time I had firearm too...but I was amazed how my body reacted to sudden different threat like that.

Thus, I have some inkling what Roman legionaries must have felt. Worst is the wait of the batlle you know is coming. Thus, the eagerness to get over with it.

Many scholars think Roman legion as machine-like, until lately.

Magnus, imagine you'd be in second rank of century and centurion blew his whistle (a la Rome-series :roll: ). Would you do it, since stepping forward to melee would give you high risk of getting mauled or killed ? If you do, think about how many in same rank would be able to do it too.

No disrespect, but if you quote UFC and ice hockey, those have nothing to do with real combat, not even UFC.

I think the rank rotation in MELEE is almost impossible. Not technically or theoretically, but from practical standpoint. During the lull of combat, sure they did rotate out those unable to fight. I am just quite sure centurion did not place Gaius the Weakling into second row and expect him to step into enemy ranks or expect him to step over his dead or wounded fellow legionary to fill in the first rank.

[Hibernicus]

From my simulated combat experience rotation during engagement is impossible. When one man steps back, or drops from injuries a gap is created and an enemy might exploit that if he can.

A line rotation forward or backward is quick! A lull does not have to last more than a few seconds. Nor do you need to replace your entire front line at the same time..

If contuberniums fight in blocks the Decanus can call for men to switch places as needed and when possible. Gaius you;r ecut prety good. I want you and Marcus to switch out asap. Wait fot it! ...Now!

The other lull that can occur is one in which neither side can advance due to the litter of bodies.

If your men in the 2nd, 3rd or other ranks are eager to get to an enemy you find or create a way to make that happen. .. especially if it means pressing your opponent... and compresing yoru opponent. Imagine the demoralizing effect if you can send fresh troops at him!

Hero. Sometimes no matter how loud the commander orders, or how hard he wraps them on the shoulder or helmet to get their attention they just won't move. There are times when one man can step forward, hold a spot and others will rally to him. Or sometimes I just shoved a guy forward and shout something like.. you don't want Gaius to get all the glory do you? And the rest would follow, would rally to him....

[b]Spacing.[/b] I do not think that you could take a "Roman 3' ruler*" and place it between the shoulders of two men in a rank. That gap is HUGE. I think the gap discussed by Vegitius , for example, is between the center point of soldiers.

If you have a shield with a chord of 29" (or so) and each man is about 34" apart on center, the gap between each soldier, shield edge to shield edge, is about 5". That is very doable.

Hibernicus


* a measuring device, not a tiny tribune!

[Magnus]

@ Sardaukar:

Ok, if your military and martial training is as extensive as you say, I fail to see why you're discounting the value of repetition training and how it affects the way you react to a situation. THAT was one of the points I was trying to drive home. Similarily, the Romans trained to accomplish the same thing.

I fail to see how your examples of the Korean war and WW II fit the bill for ranked hand to hand combat of antiquity.

Why do I think a 2nd rank charge forward would be enough to push back the enemy or at least enough to relieve the 1st rank? Easy...if you're personal backround has afforded you the opportunity to fight someone, then you know full well the effect a 2nd opponent has against you. Especially if they charge.

"Other thing, where is the space for "enemy having two legionaries to deal with" ? More likely they'd get on each other's way. Ancient accounts do tell quite well what happens to troops that are hemmed in too tightly to be able to use their weapons.."

And now you are simply mis-visualizing what I am saying. The time an enemy would have to deal with 2 legionarys would be extremely low...basically the amount of time it would take for one to move forward and take the place of the other. There would be little crowding since the original 1st ranker would be moving backwards. I am not sure why you bring up the "ancient accounts", it's another mout point. Being hemmed in implies a lack of mombility. This is not the case I am presenting. It's the mobility that would allow the legionarys to rotate ranks. Even given an average space of 5-6 feet between troops. This is enough to facilitate such a maneuver, if practised.

"You blatantly say that movement backwards is eliminated by just having 2nd rank move forward ? I cast my doubt if they atually COULD do that in melee. What if enemy opposite does not give way ? Unit would end up with hopelessly messed front row. "

Simple, then you don't gain ground. BUT the original front rank soldier still moves back! There would be NO mess since the departure of the original 1st ranker has now created the appropriate space to render this again...mout!

"Not to mention there will be personal reluctance to advance towards enemy wielding sharp instrument. I have done that several times in my life..and it differs quite bit from re-enactment"

Agreed and disagreed at the same time. I agree that from a modern perspective, yeah it exists. I'm a police officer, and my biggest fear is an opponent with an edged weapon, and I have a Glock! However, I disagree since the mindset when the playing field is even is entirely different. You as a Legionary have a job to do. Period. You're armoured and also have an edged weapon, and can inflict the same if not worse damage to your enemy. Different mind-set.

It's no different in my mind, of fire-fights in situations with similarily armed combatants. When troops are ordered to take that house, or advance to point A, they do it, even under fire! Why? Because they're trained to do so!!!!

I'm not sure what kind of army issues orders that are not followed...they usually don't meet with much success.

"Anyhow, it'd be entirely possible that some from the second rank would be unable and even unwilling to do the rotation, UNLESS you conceed to my point that units might have put their 25 % of best fighters in 2 front rows. In phalanx, advice was to put you best men in front and back rows..for obvious reasons. "

Yep, I will definately agree with your first point. I don't necessarily agree with the second for the simple reason that it's folly to put all of your best troops up in the front rank in a military unit that has the flexibility of the Roman Century. The Phalanx I can understand, but the the quincux formations are completely different on every level.

If your front rank fails then you have less effective troops to carry on a battle. I believe like anything else the "skilled and experienced warriors" were dispersed evenly among each contubernium. I don't believe the best were placed up front. If buddy beside you dies because he wasn't as skilled as you are, no worries. He just gets replaced by the guy behind him. Making the necessity to have your best up front null and void by virtue of the fact that there is someone behind you ready to replace you who has similar training and physical prowess. I will concede the point that not every soldier is equal, however.

"Exactly who could do that ? The enemy who had just fought them and would be in similar state ? Unless enemy was at least as well or better organized than Roman legion, I don't think so"

There is no logic trap to my way of thinking. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the ranks HAD to be replaced once they were already exhausted. This isn't necessarily the case...why wait that long? You are inviting the opportunity to lose your front ranks due to exhaustion. Why not pull them out after a few minutes of combat, or individually as needed. That way you avoid the risk of a line breech because your front rank is exhausted. Ever try to think clearly when all the blood is in your muscles and you are tired? That is when mistakes happen.

Not to mention if you've suffered a debillitating injury, or all of your weapons are broken! You're completely useless now...better get out of there!

The physical aspect is where my UFC and Hockey examples came into play. NOT to simulate ancient combat (if you read my post), but the physicality of pushing your body to it's limit and how long it can last. My examples also demonstrated ways to keep your body performing at a high level with short rests in between. Now do you see what I am talking about?

You ask where do the fresh troops come from...Again, you missed my example of this. Let's say a roman army is fighting a "disorganized" band of celts. The celtic front is going to be equal to that of the roman right? If that is the case, then every celtic nfantryman is not going to be engaged right away. They will be stacked back in ranks as well, though not with any apparent organization. As such, if your front rank of legionarys cuts through 6-7 enemy after a few minutes, then the corresponding soldiers behind those celts are going to be FRESH. Your legionary's are now going to be tired, or at least getting there. See?

I was also not refering to the lulls as "your" lulls. I was referring to them as the lulls you mentioned. Disregarding the "check your sources" statement.

"My martial arts experience (and my "relatively" real close quarters battle experience) has shown to me, that 90 % of fight is actually between the ears of combatants.

No matter how much you train or drill, first combat will be a shock. It freezes some people, making them totally useless. First time I was shot at, I did shit my pants, can you imagine ? After facing druggies with syringes trying to stab me or guys with knives. It amazed me, I did shoot back, since that time I had firearm too...but I was amazed how my body reacted to sudden different threat like that.

Thus, I have some inkling what Roman legionaries must have felt. Worst is the wait of the batlle you know is coming. Thus, the eagerness to get over with it."

Yeah, for sure and I'm in 100% agreement with you! But like you overcame your fear and fought back, so would the Romans have done. Just like every "green" combatant has done since warfare began. If they didn't, they got killed, and were replaced by buddy behind them.

I also think that fighting in ranks, or with a squad of guys adds to your determination, adds to your psyche to kill. Especially ones you have formed bonds with. When it comes to kill or be killed, the mind-set has to be on victory for yourself and your buddies. That's what it comes down to in my mind.

"Magnus, imagine you'd be in second rank of century and centurion blew his whistle (a la Rome-series Rolling Eyes ). Would you do it, since stepping forward to melee would give you high risk of getting mauled or killed ? If you do, think about how many in same rank would be able to do it too. "

I'd probably s**t my tunic the first time, but then that pila would be out of my hands and before I knew it, my first battle would be over (if I wasn't dead), and though I'd be puking after, I'd be better for the experience. 8)

"No disrespect, but if you quote UFC and ice hockey, those have nothing to do with real combat, not even UFC. "

I know, but again I wasn't using them in a combat context, rather the changes to our bodies when undergoing physical excercise.

"I think the rank rotation in MELEE is almost impossible. Not technically or theoretically, but from practical standpoint. During the lull of combat, sure they did rotate out those unable to fight. I am just quite sure centurion did not place Gaius the Weakling into second row and expect him to step into enemy ranks or expect him to step over his dead or wounded fellow legionary to fill in the first rank."

I think we'll have to agree to disagree lol. But to say that the situation never happened is folly. Your implication is such that conditions always existed to rotate ranks under optimal conditions. Warfare of any era does not happen like that all the time. And we've all had to deal with Gaius the Weakling...whether he's in your platoon, your squad, or whatever. You just hope he gets through and doesn't lead to anyone's demise. I don't think that sentiment has changed or ever will change. But it doesn't chage the fact that you have a job to do.

I think my main point is that if a lull wasn't available, or a situation existed which required a legionary to be pulled back from combat (especially from a bad injury), then they would have practiced it. There are too many very important reasons not to believe so. To summarize:

1. broken weapons
2. exhaustion and therefore combat ineffectiveness
3. debilitating injury

Those three alone would result in the death of the legionary if he stayed in the front rank. How can you debate that? If he waited for a lull, he'll be dead, guaranteed.

[Magnus]

Sean, you raise a good point...perhaps then rank rotation could have been executed by the front rank person when he finds a second to accomplish it, for whatever reason.

If it's impossible to do it under arms then I would concede the possibility that a second or so would be all it took to switch ranks should a second present itself.

Having said that, it doesn't imply that all combat would have ceased. It could very well be that you need a "break" and your oppenent has also stepped back, while your two mates on either side are still enaged.

[Paullus Scipio]

One point that might be relevant is the closest thing nowadays to real hand-to-hand combat, and that is "serious" riots involving hundreds/thousands of participants!

In these, hand-to-hand combat between armoured and armed police (with the equipment advantage over rioters similar to that of legionaries over barbarians) takes place, sometimes over several hours, before one side - usually the less organised rioters - breaks.

And what do we see? I would refer those who have not seen real riots to have a look at the footage Tarbicus posted links to some time ago, of Korean riot police training, and of real riots.

There, we see ranks changing over in a trice ( as has been commented on above, by the rear ranks charging through the front line, albeit in training); we see the effects of massed volleys of missiles (more frightening than actually damaging); and we see the 'rippling' as lines and sections of 'line' surge into fighting for a few minutes before mutually separating as both sides tire ( no-one is foolish enough to fight to exhaustion), recuperate and then resume........

There is also seen the well observed (in modern combat) phenomenon that discipline breaks down to a degree under the stress of combat, but that training means that this doesn't lead to disintegration.

Of course, a significant difference is that the police aren't ( except in some countries!) armed with lethal weapons and looking to kill their opponents, but in some cases the sides are almost killing one another, and the adrenaline/fear factors will be similar to real ancient/mediaeval hand-to-hand combat.

Observation of this sort of thing will, I suggest, give better insight into how combat can last hours, and whether lines/ranks/reserves can be introduced, how panic spreads, etc than any amount of theorising.......