Infantry Relief System

[Luca]

As a "very old" reenactor, I know a bit more of history behind that HBO scene (http://www.romanhideout.com/images/roman...photo7.asp) that I would like to share for the "youngers".
That manoevre was proposed at the public for the first time at Pont-Du-Gard in France by Dario Battaglia founder and President of Ars Dimicandi on may 31st, 2003. On August 31st, in Villadose (Italy), 2003 a detail was added on that tactic: the "balteum's hold" with the meaning to "control" the first line. Basically the guy on the second rank holds the companion in front of him in order to disallow him to be "attracted" to go ahead breaking the line. At the whistle sound the second rank "pulls" the balteus forcing the first line to go back.
I did many many times these manoevers with Ars Dimicandi (I subscribed the Ars Dimicandi Legio Foederalis) and IMO is unuseful and dangerous. I got many more hits, wounds and damages to the equipment (overall to my segmentata) by changing the line than while fighting and Dario said that this demonstrates that the segmentata was not used by the infantry in battle.
In Italy this invention caused a war between reenacting associations, and detractors started to refer to this manoevre as "trenino" (little train), as it is still currently referred.
After this experiment I thought that nothing in this experiment worked in the proper way and that nothing of what I knew about roman tactics was justifying that "invention". Dario opinion was the opposite: it worked perfectly. For this reason I decided to quit with Ars Dimicandi even if Dario is still a very good friend: our way to approach things is too different.
Dario was hired by HBO as Military Advisor as you can check from the ending titles of the first episode of "Rome".

[Nathan Ross]

That manoevre was proposed at the public for the first time at Pont-Du-Gard in France by Dario Battaglia founder and President of Ars Dimicandi on may 31st, 2003.

Fascinating. Thanks for passing that on - now we know!

Dario said that this demonstrates that the segmentata was not used by the infantry in battle

That's, erm, certainly a... revolutionary... idea! :unsure:

[Bryan]

Luca,

Judging by your experience and inside knowledge, are there any more stories you could share that could shed some light on the topic at hand?

[M. Demetrius]

Dario said that this demonstrates that the segmentata was not used by the infantry in battle

Well, that's a new view. Whatever did they go to all the trouble to make them for, if not for battle?

[Mark Hygate]

Luca,

Thank you indeed for that fascinating insight - that one 'side' (that then influenced the Rome series) of the argument is then so opposed by the other (your good self).

I for one was more than happy to think of it as a possibility and a potential good idea - the Rome video showing a possible and potentially believable interpretation. However, your experience is, however, that it is not practicable.

In trying to understand, however, can I confirm that your view is from live re-enactment experience and whilst in actual contact? For whilst I might accept the possibility of this drill movement, it would only be likely during the 'ebb' moment in the 'ebb & flow' of contact. There would have to be a natural pause.

This is the one thing that re-enacted combat can possibly not represent accurately - that the protagonists are not actually trying to kill each other and dying and thus the combat is not entirely accurate.

The additional query over the segmentata statement would also be most interesting - please do say more.....

[Timianus]

Let me get this straight: They come up with a tactical movement that is not described in any of the primary sources. Then, based on the fact that the invented maneuver does not work with equipment we know the Romans used, the conclusion is that they must not have used the equipment?

The logic there is mind-blowing.

[Mark Hygate]

Let me get this straight: They come up with a tactical movement that is not described in any of the primary sources..............

On the first element - I'm not 100% convinced.....

From the sources we do know:

- That individual men, when struck down, could be replaced by the man behind - this is something that was practiced from the earlier Greek phalanx period and, one presumes, as a part of any regular formed and disciplined unit of troops

- In the Romans case, we also know that they could replace entire centuries and maniples (let alone having allowed velites to pass through) with ones behind, the movement happening one way or another (either advancing or withdrawing), either between files or by whole sub-units - the detail is not in fact described anywhere as far as I know

What this thread refers to and I for one do not consider unreasonable to have considered is 'something in the middle' - a replacement of 'tired' troops in the front line of combat (by century in this case) in such a rank-rotation method. As a drill movement it's perfectly doable. As a not unreasonable troop management issue it could be eminently sensible and only possible to sword & shield troops like the Romans and not to spear/sarissa-armed.

However, not only do we now have from Luca the provenance of a practical test of this, but also the influence on the Rome TV series video linked! Then we have the lovely converse argument from Luca himself that he considers the idea impractical from actual testing. I remain most intrigued (as above).

As to how this references to segmentata, however, I am all agog.......

[Calvo]

I've come across this site by Gary Breuggman that is 10 years old. I don't know about how reliable it is, but it studies the possibly models of unit, line, and individual replacement, with rather comprehensive illustrations:

http://www.garyb.0catch.com/line1_replac...ement.html

There, he concludes that individual rank replacement during battle lulls was probably the most likely method of infantry relief, even in entire unit replacement.

[Bryan]

Mark wrote:
What this thread refers to and I for one do not consider unreasonable to have considered is 'something in the middle' - a replacement of 'tired' troops in the front line of combat (by century in this case) in such a rank-rotation method. As a drill movement it's perfectly doable. As a not unreasonable troop management issue it could be eminently sensible and only possible to sword & shield troops like the Romans and not to spear/sarissa-armed.

Since the ancient sources are indeed quite vague on the subject, its time for speculation. From the perspective of a centurion or tribune please describe to us why you, Mark Hygate, feel replacing an entire rank, whether during a lull or during active hand to hand combat, is "eminently sensible."

Stipulations:
You have a century of 80 men, made up of all types, some brave and some timid, some veteran, some tyro without battle experience. Per the abovementioned sources provided in Mark Graef's excellent post, you have the option of placing the best and most experienced soldiers in the front ranks. The enemy you face are members of the Helvetti tribe and are fighting with shield and spears in a phalanx like shield wall, many ranks deep. They too have installed their best units in the front ranks. Your orders from the Imperator are to break the enemy infantry formation and drive them from the field of battle. You must stay in line with the centuries to the right and left as best as you can. Retreating is discouraged, your reputation and future promotions are on the line.

Personally, I am looking for a reply that describes how you would form the century in terms of personnel, any standard signalling procedures you would include in pre-battle training/orders, as well as a relatively detailed description of any orders you would issue to subordinates before or during the fight. However, please write it any way you feel comfortable. Please be descriptive.

I look forward to reading your response, it might explain your theories better.

[Mark Hygate]

.............. you, Mark Hygate, .................. The enemy you face are members of the Helvetti tribe and are fighting with shield and spears in a phalanx like shield wall, many ranks deep......................I look forward to reading your response, it might explain your theories better.

Dear 'Bryan' - [and as per the Forum Rules I'd appreciate a proper name in your Sig as you almost seem to want to make it personal]

I may have time to do this one day - but it might not get what you want, so please feel free to re-set the scenario...

If they are fighting in phalanx, then I would happily speculate, but then it would be using anti-phalanx tactics (manipular/sawtooth tactics) and thus also wouldn't mean that the centuries have to stay in line.

If you want wild and woolly Celts with long swords and frightening charges, then that might get closer to what you want.

But none of that was/is to do with my organisational theory - it's simply been an interesting digression as various topics have come up around the century itself. That's not to say that I've not been diverted and am wondering if, when I have the time, that putting together a theoretical and speculative battle manual for the century/maniple and perhaps even cohort may be something to do later. However, I'm sure that more than one re-enactment group must already have one - that would be interesting to find out.

I have been taught and have taught drill myself - I have been trained and commanded and lead a platoon and company - so it might be interesting to try and write from a purely military and then historically-linked perspective and see if it can stand up to criticism.

Returning OT, however, I still have no concerns in considering rank-rotation as a potentially good idea (if you want to replace tired troops, however 'veteran' they might be) - if it's actually viable as stated. I'm now very interested in anything else Luca might be able to tell us first.

[Densus]

I know the ancient mind set was significantly different so this may not be relevant. I am looking at this from the perspective of a modern soldier and in particular of a modern commander trying to put the people he knows into battle using Roman tactics.

If you told Soldier A that because of his experience and skill he would fight in the front rank and would continue to fight in the front rank for the entire duration of every battle the unit fought until he was killed or seriously injured he would not be happy. Especially when he realised that three other men from his room/tent would be standing behind him in relative safety for the entire duration of every battle.

He would be even less happy when he realised that amongst his room mates Soldier B didn't have to go into the front rank (even if he had the same length of service) because he wasn't a very good swordsman, Soldier C didn't have to do it because he had only been in two years and Soldier D didn't have to go into the front rank (even though he might have served longer than Soldier A) because the Centurion thought he might be a coward.

Unless Soldier A gets some serious advantages at other times because he is a front ranker, he is not going to be pleased with Soldiers A, B and C and there are going to be some significant morale issues and discord within the unit. In fact I would expect Soldier C to probably get some regular beatings!

Soldiers do expect to have to do dangerous and unpleasant things but they do expect everything to be as fair as possible. There is nothing they hate more than being repeatedly asked to do things that others are not, especially if they think the person getting the 'easy ride' is getting it because they are incompetent.

[jkaler48]

Front rankers are not expecting to be killed and have expectation of excellent medical care if wounded. The casualty rates described
(at least for unit that don't break and run) are such the possibility of rewards of brave action by being at the forefront of the battle seem to outweigh the risk of getting seriously hurt or killed. Many accounts of individuals rushing forward into battle even AGAINST orders exist. These men seem as if many or even most were eager to be in the front rank and STAY there not be rotated out.

[Bryan]

Mark,

Please don't take my posts as personal attacks. You provided a theory on a forum dedicated to debate. Part of that is having to defend your theory when challenged.

For the sake of the situation, I picked an arbitrary enemy, the Helvetti, because they were the first that came to mind. It could just as easily substituted wild Gallic tribes fighting naked swinging long swords. The point I was trying to make was for you to describe how you would form a hypothetical century in battle and how you would control it, based off sources and your own personal "common sense." Additionally, I asked for detail, as "it makes eminently good sense" is not an explanation.

As a former military officer, please feel free to put your response in an operations order format, which I am sure you are familiar with. Whatever your methods, it doesn't matter. You can just use a narrative if you want. I am just looking for a more detailed description as to why you keep stating that it makes sense when referencing certain techniques that appear to be based off of guesswork and speculation, as the sources are not clear enough exactly as to how it was done.

Your response doesn't need to be 10 pages long. A simple paragraph or two would suffice. I included an example of this, per my own perspective:

"I had 80 men in my century but of them, only 22 were worth their salt as far as I was concerned. Based off their previous experiences and from what I have seen during the recent months of campaigning and training, I selected these men for their bravery, strength, height, aggressiveness and their ability to fight. Not to say that all 22 were perfect soldiers. To be perfectly blunt, of the 22, over half of them are a pain to lead, they are usually drunk or argumentative and frequently get into trouble. However, if I am to win a fight, I need fighters and these men will do. I could only wish that all 80 of my men were all aggressive killers but that is never the case. Most are only here because they were conscripted and care only about saving their own skin and any possible plunder they might find during this campaign. On top of that, I firmly believe about 15 of the men are outright cowards and will run at the first opportunity, my optio has his job cut out for him coming battle. It might help that I issued orders to him, in front of the entire century, that any man who falters or runs is to instantly be killed.

I plan on sticking the 10 best of my men in the front rank, with the others behind them. These men, the ones who love fighting and have demonstrated they are good at it, will fight beside me, with the standards, and will serve as the vanguard of the century. When we attack, we'll do so at the run. Toss pilum and hit the enemy, before they have a chance to recover. If our luck holds, the enemy's shields might be pierced, men may fall, which will make our jobs easier. If not, then we'll bash them with shields, stab them in the faces and groins. Kill as many as we can. At all costs, we must keep our formation. It helps that I also told everyone that if any man, it doesn't matter who, breaks from formation for any reason other than to retrieve a weapon or to save a mate, that man will be scourged and beheaded by nightfall.

Come battle, should one of the men in the front rank grow tired, or become wounded, or simply stop wanting to fight, I told them that that man shall step back and signal the man behind him to be relieved. But they better have a damn good reason, as I will be leading from the front the entire time this century is in the fight. If I have to fight, they do too. But I warned the men to wait for a lull if they can, you don't want to catch an errant Gallic sword to the back of your neck when you turn around within spitting distance of the enemy.

Relying on these 22 men, especially the 10 in the front, is a challenge. No man asks for death, at least no sane man, but I think I can motivate them. And it won't just be them, every man in this century will be in danger, even those away from the front ranks. We will have to weather a storm of javelins, stones from slings and arrows before we even get close to the enemy and will probably be hit by missiles for the duration of the fight. But we can do it. I will award every man who fights hard with dona. Phalarae, torcs, armalae, even crowns. On top of that, I am offering a cash gift from my own substantial stipend for every enemy head my men bring back to me, as well as first dibs on any beautiful women we might find in the enemy's train. If pride and glory aren't enough, gold, silver and the touch of a woman's breast will suffice to harden their hearts.

In the long run, I believe my efforts will work. The fighting 22 are hard men and I think I picked them well. They know that pain heals, women love scars and glory lasts forever. If they perform well enough, who knows, a vine staff might be in their future. What brave ranker soldier doesn't desire some day to be a centurion? Besides, what choice do they have? In the Roman army its takes a brave man to be a coward, what with the tribunes and the Imperator himself riding directly behind our front line, alwasy watching us, on the lookout for bravery and cowardice alike. My father told me the tale of the carrot and the stick, I firmly believe its a sound method."

Mark,
Also, here is the forum rule in reference to names.
"We require every member to put their real (first) name in their signatures. Feel free to use a Roman username, but accompany it with your real first name. After all, isn't it nice to actually know who you're talking with, rather than some faceless moniker? If for some reason (job, privacy, security) you simply can't identify yourself, we do consider exceptions, just discuss your request with the mod/admin staff."
My name is Bryan.

Sempronius Densus,
See above for details of methods for motivating men to fight. All are based off of ancient or modern sources. Think about it, instead of waiting 6 months to over a year for an award for heroism, you are awarded that very night. Cash incentives given out on the spot, corporal punishment and summary judgment for infractions without the need of lawyers. In my opinion, Romans had a reward/punishment system that modern military commanders should be drooling over.

[Densus]

Sempronius Densus,
See above for details of methods for motivating men to fight.

Thanks for that Bryan, my comments above are based on my experience of motivating men on operations and before that of being the man other commanders were trying to motivate.

Front rankers are not expecting to be killed and have expectation of excellent medical care if wounded. The casualty rates described
(at least for unit that don't break and run) are such the possibility of rewards of brave action by being at the forefront of the battle seem to outweigh the risk of getting seriously hurt or killed. Many accounts of individuals rushing forward into battle even AGAINST orders exist. These men seem as if many or even most were eager to be in the front rank and STAY there not be rotated out.

Lets say for arguments sake that on average 2 front rankers per century die in each battle and we stick with the century being deployed with a 20 man frontage 4 deep.

That gives you a 1/10 chance of being killed. Those are pretty steep odds if you are involved in a long campaign with fairly frequent battles and skirmishes. I still believe those individuals, no matter how much they like/want to fight, will have an issue with the fact that other men will always have a much lower chance of being killed. My feeling is that they will see them as cowards or malingerers who rely on them to do all the hard work and take most of the risks. That is not good for unit cohesion.

Are you sure the numbers of men rewarded for bravery from the front rank outnumbered those killed? I find that quite surprising.

[Calvo]

I think that the situation isn't black and white: that the same men always fought in the front rank, or that each man took equal turns to fight in the front rank.

In reality I'd rather go with the situation that within a century of 80 soldiers, perhaps 30 of them were "available" as front-rankers and could be rotated there if necessary. The rest could be raw recruits who still needed to gather more experience and confidence, or older veterans (who had already fought in their younger days in the front rank) whose best job was to be file closers.

During battle, perhaps 3 ranks could be rotated to the front, but the rest could be kept back.