Project- Influences of Roman military on modern day riot control

[Bryan]

Big enough differences between riots and ancient, medieval, early modern battles as to make them apples and oranges:

- The intent of all participants in a battle is to kill the enemy. Its a key part, everyone goes in knowing that if they or their unit screws up they die. Even if they fight well they have a good chance of death or serious bodily harm. In riots, the opposite is true. Neither side is trying to kill their opponents, because if they do it stops being a riot and starts being a firefight. Both sides have access to deadlier weapons than solid missile weapons, bludgeoning weapons, fire hoses, etc., if they really wanted to kill one another firearms and fragmentation high explosives would be used. And if the riot control forces actually believe there is a realistic threat from high explosives they sure as hell WOULD NOT FORM IN TIGHT FORMATIONS.

- Riots aren't bloody because the whole event is dictated by the wills of public pressure, lawyers, and journalists. The normal reaction to drive off a group of violent rioters is to kill the ring leaders and kill enough of the rest to rout them. This is why totalitarian govts regularly do this, their leaders don't need to worry about public pressure, lawyers, or journalists. Rioters can't risk breaking out the guns unless they are trying to purposely trigger a mass slaughter for purposes of propaganda (like the use of explosives during the 2005 Loyalty riots in N. Ireland). Riots are nothing like battles, mindset is completely different, and tactics are driven by politically driven mission to contain, not disperse through violence. Riots mean use of kid glove rules of engagement, mostly defensive tactics used against non-effective rioters who lack effective weapons and their own mindset to kill. The whole point of a riot is neither side wants to escalate it to a battle. Ergo, its not a battle, and can't be compared to one another.

- Let's talk about weapons. When are riot control bludgeoning weapons tipped with bits of sharpened iron? Never. Why not take a night stick and add studs to it like a WWI trench weapon? Because it is too dangerous and thus wouldn't be authorized. Because if the riot control forces were actually looking to hurt or kill the rioters they wouldn't be using close combat weapons, they'd be using machine guns, assault rifles, shotguns with buckshot and slugs, and pistols loaded with hollow points. Riots typically bring wood or metal bludgeoning weapons. Or they throw bricks, rocks, bottles, molotov cocktails. Why aren't they throwing pipe bombs? Because that would get them killed. Why are they bringing guns and shooting the riot control forces? Because that would get them all killed. Neither side is using weapons that are truly dangerous. Sure they can kill in the worst case scenario but they rarely do. Whereas all weapons used in a true battle are easily capable of killing someone, even when used by untrained children (a five year old has the strength to easily run someone through with a sword).

- Tactics are driven by the realities of the fight. For thousands of years in battles infantry clustered in close groups because it offered the best protection in battle against the enemy they faced. That changed when weapons became more effective, clustering risked excessive casualties, resulting in infantry fighting as skirmishers had in the past, not as line infantry anymore. Riot police revert back to close order because they don't face real threats. Period, end of story. If the threat of death or serious bodily harm was real, they'd be showing up in armored vehicles or shooting rioters from the safety of roofs or windows of stout buildings. Not standing shoulder to shoulder 

This is why all combat arms soldiers and Marines don't take riot training seriously. Because they know they wont get called to do it in real life because 350 days of the year they have a "Shoot them in the torso twice and then once in the face as you pass their bodies" mindset, because that's what infantry combat is. So taking these guys, who are straight up trained killers, and telling them not to lead from the front, and not to kill protesters throwing rocks at them is ludicrous. They know it. The politicians who refuse time and again to include actual military forces in riot control (too high of a risk of one of them doing what they believe to be the right thing and simply shooting down the rioters like bowling pins).  

- An infantry combat leader goes into battle knowing the odds don't favor them, historically and in training they repeatedly demonstrate a high risk of death or serious bodily harm, being in battle means a near guaranteed chance of becoming a casualty, especially for hard fought battles. Life expectancy for front line leaders has always been excessive, but for thousands of years every military organization that knew what they were doing, who regularly won battles they fought, they all placed leaders of some sort in the front ranks to supervise the leading fighting men, to lead actually lead them (Follow Me), and to provide reassurance and an example of steadfast bravery to men who are often pissing down their legs scared and need to be encouraged to do what they are supposed to do (advance into what can appear sometimes as certain death). 

Some forces, police, paramilitary, actual military, might be trained in riot control or mock melee battles to not put leaders in the front ranks, but in actual battle NCOs and officers still typically lead (depending on the militaristic culture of said nations). What this means is that if someone is doing combat role playing skirmishes or they are training or actually participating in riots and manage to move and operate "effectively" without leaders leading from the front it doesn't prove it works in actual battle. All the people actually fighting have leaders leading. 

Modern US Army, Team Leaders are typically sergeants, they lead from the from, walk point, they lead stacks, they do everything first, the US Army Infantry's actual motto is "Follow Me." Typically the same mindset with the US Marine Corps in actual practice (though not in some doctrine), Corporals lead from the front, by example. WWI, WWII, those wars were characterized by whatever side of infantry led by pistol or SMG waving officers and NCOs screaming "Follow me" from the front, leading men into grazing fire and artillery and mortar impacts. The American Civil War, leaders led. During the Napoleonic Wars, all nations participating had officers that led from the front in most formations and conditions. Where as Gustavus Adolphus when his cavalry was performing an attack? In the battle of Agincourt, where was Henry V and why was he standing where he did? Where would a Scandinavian Thegn or chieftain/warlord position themselves in a shield wall, back or front? Where would a Gallic chieftain position himself in battle? Where was the commander of a Macedonian file placed in the formation? Where did Alexander ride in the wedge formation of a Royal Agema troop? Where did Greek kings or Strategos place themselves in a hoplite phalanx?  

Were the Romans simply the only ones in history who placed no leaders in the front ranks? And yet still managed to take 3-4 times the casualty ratios of leaders to the milites gregarii, despite wearing better body armor? 

I dare someone to name a single culture, peoples, state, kingdom, or nation in history of the world that possessed a capable military force who didn't place at least some unit leaders in the front ranks or on point. 




- A famous firearm trick shooter can shoot a 2.5 inch barreled revolver upside down, one handed, and hit torso sized steel targets out to 200 yards.



This is just an example that just because someone finds a way to do something in an unconventional manner, that doesn't mean its a good idea to use it in high stress life and death situations. And it doesn't mean that's how people shot pistols way back in the day.

[Densus]

For someone who thinks riot control is not relevant you sure do like to write a lot about it.  Unfortunately most of it is plain wrong and badly researched.

You mention the incident I referenced earlier as if it was a one off, it was only significant in its scale and the speed it spread across the entire city and into the surrounding towns.  Firearms and pipe bombs are not unusual in riots in Northern Ireland and have been for the last 40 years.

Off the top of my head I can think of firearms being used during riots in the last few years in; London, Manchester, Ukraine, Kosovo and at least 3 incidents in your own country.  None of them resulted in the kind of massacre you keep insisting would happen.

This comment;

"This is why all combat arms soldiers and Marines don't take riot training seriously. Because they know they wont get called to do it in real life because 350 days of the year they have a "Shoot them in the torso twice and then once in the face as you pass their bodies" mindset, because that's what infantry combat is. So taking these guys, who are straight up trained killers, and telling them not to lead from the front, and not to kill protesters throwing rocks at them is ludicrous. They know it. The politicians who refuse time and again to include actual military forces in riot control (too high of a risk of one of them doing what they believe to be the right thing and simply shooting down the rioters like bowling pins)."

Is particularly far off the mark.  In none of the incidents where the USMC were confronted by rioters in Afghanistan did they open fire into the crowd, even in incidents such as Darvishan where in addition to the rioting they were being shot at by the Taliban.  Similarly UK Infantry did not open fire on rioting crowds in any of the riots they were involved in while in Southern Iraq, despite the fact that they too were being shot at by the Mahdi Army during the riots.  The German Army did not open fire on rioters in Kosovo when they were shot at during the riots there a couple of years ago.  Media reports and videos exist of so many instances where this happened you will easily find them if you choose to look.

As for the use of historical sources I would suggest that you stick to Roman ones, because you are flat out wrong if you think Norse commanders stood in the front rank through out the battle.  Norse commanders and their bodyguard usually came forward when the battle was at a critical stage, either when victory was close or when the shield wall was starting to break.  That is confirmed by multiple sources.  One of the easiest ones to check for yourself is Stamford Bridge, the last large battle involving a Viking invasion in England.  Although the King died (hit by an arrow, just like the Anglo-Saxon King who faced him would a few weeks later) the vast majority of the other senior leaders survived and were able to negotiate with King Harald after the battle.  Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away.

[MonsGraupius]

As for the use of historical sources ...

I like your thinking. Given your experience in the police, I'd be interested to know what you think the typical depth of the line is - or more realistically because it probably varied, what the minimum depth of line the Romans would use.

[Bryan]

For someone who thinks riot control is not relevant you sure do like to write a lot about it.  Unfortunately most of it is plain wrong and badly researched.

You mention the incident I referenced earlier as if it was a one off, it was only significant in its scale and the speed it spread across the entire city and into the surrounding towns.  Firearms and pipe bombs are not unusual in riots in Northern Ireland and have been for the last 40 years.

Off the top of my head I can think of firearms being used during riots in the last few years in; London, Manchester, Ukraine, Kosovo and at least 3 incidents in your own country.  None of them resulted in the kind of massacre you keep insisting would happen.

Firearms weren't used in Ukraine riots? Surely you jest. There is video of govt snipers lighting up civilians left and right, and there are pictures of rioters shooting to, trying to bait them into shooting into the crowd in order to make a political statement. This is the same reason in Northern Ireland every once in a while someone throws a bomb or shoots. If that was a real threat you and your bros wouldn't have been standing in the middle of the streets, formed up in close formations, with plexiglass shields. They did it simply in hoping the riot police and military would do the natural thing and shoot back, escalating the riot while videos showcase how "evil" the govt forces are. Don't act as if commander's were expecting sniping and pipe bombs, because if they formed up their men in close ranks in the wide open knowing there was a substantial threat from snipers and IEDs then they should have been relieved for incompetence. 
Why wasn't martial law declared and military troops sent in as part of riot forces in the 2015 Black Lives Matter riots in America? One city called the National Guard and then stuck them in small teams, armed with their service rifles, a few magazines, and full canteens. Because that's what they were trained for, not doing any of the complicated and unrealistic stuff your company gets paid to teach. Soldiers and Marines make crappy riot control because they are focused too much of their training and mindset on aggressiveness and killing. Police don't, heck, in the UK most copper aren't even armed with firearms. So its natural to put them into situations where nobody expects a battle, they want to contain protests and riots. 

Is particularly far off the mark.  In none of the incidents where the USMC were confronted by rioters in Afghanistan did they open fire into the crowd, even in incidents such as Darvishan where in addition to the rioting they were being shot at by the Taliban.  Similarly UK Infantry did not open fire on rioting crowds in any of the riots they were involved in while in Southern Iraq, despite the fact that they too were being shot at by the Mahdi Army during the riots.  The German Army did not open fire on rioters in Kosovo when they were shot at during the riots there a couple of years ago.  Media reports and videos exist of so many instances where this happened you will easily find them if you choose to look.

As I've said, public outcry, lawyers and journalist are the reason why they didn't shoot back, despite being shot at, not because their tactics work better. In all those riots you mentioned, all of them were not quelled by riot control, most blew up into full blown uprisings that turned into shooting conflicts. Riot control FAILED in their mission. 
As to why they choose methods that repeatedly lead to failure, its not surprising considering that how politically correct most westernized nations act. Like the Germans in A-Stan, its not surprising at all they choose not to shoot back in Afghanistan (where its no secret that regular Bundswehr units cant even be trusted with conducting actual combat missions because of ROE concerns). The same goes for the Brits in Basra and Helmand, it wasn't even the fault of the soldiers, they did a great job despite being handed a hot mess caused by fraidy-cat, risk adverse civilian and military leaders back home pressuring the commanders to minimize rioting casualties, to not create an international incident (too late), forcing them to adopt ineffective riot control tactics of the sort you recommend because they were all afraid of getting hit with war crime charges if they shot the people shooting at them or lighting them on fire. It was a sick joke they kept that charade going as long as they did, the worst part of the Brits in Basra and Helmand was that the regions they occupied got substantially worse before they pulled out even. Why? Because they brought a baton to a gun fight and by not shooting back at people shooting at them they demonstrated weakness and an ability to be led by the nose. 

US Army and Marines get stuck doing crap jobs like riot control for the same reason they have to walk through IED invested areas and risk ambush because their 23 year old lieutenant wants to have a chai tea sit down meeting with the local tribal elders about building a well, all of the elders being the leaders of the local insurgency, and everyone knows it, but we're not allowed to do anything because of idiots watching television back home and commenting on politics they don't understand "You can't just shoot people, even in war!" Yes you can, its quite easy actually. And it works better than kid glove tactics. 

Ask the Romans how they dealt with major riots. Offensive shield walls battering at the crowds while advancing, with cudgels and sometimes even cold steel, they'd push them out and leave streets covered in bodies and then that would be the end of it, nice, quick, efficient. 

[quote pid='342362' dateline='1480289606']
As for the use of historical sources I would suggest that you stick to Roman ones, because you are flat out wrong if you think Norse commanders stood in the front rank through out the battle.  Norse commanders and their bodyguard usually came forward when the battle was at a critical stage, either when victory was close or when the shield wall was starting to break.  That is confirmed by multiple sources.  One of the easiest ones to check for yourself is Stamford Bridge, the last large battle involving a Viking invasion in England.  Although the King died (hit by an arrow, just like the Anglo-Saxon King who faced him would a few weeks later) the vast majority of the other senior leaders survived and were able to negotiate with King Harald after the battle.  Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away.
[/quote]

No, King Harold didn't negotiate with Harald after the battle, because Harald was dead long before it ended. How can you lecture people on Viking warfare if you didn't realize Harald didn't survive Stamford Bridge? 

Furthermore, what was Harald wearing when he was killed? No armor at all (he'd left it on the ship, as had most of the Norwegians). What weapon was he armed with? A single sword, no shield (also left on his ships). Was he acting in the role of berserker when he died? Yes. 

"Norway's King had nothing
To shield his breast in battle;
And yet his war-seasoned
Heart never wavered. 
Norway's Warriors were watching
The blood-dripping sword 
Of their Courageous leader
Cutting down his enemies." 
- Arnorr the Poet (from The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066, K. DeVries) 

Does this sound like Harald was commanding from the rear, coordinating forces? No, it sounds like he was leading from the front. 


Also, its kind of disconcerting that you would try to play historian when it comes to the battle of stamford bridge and then copy paste info from Wikipedia. 
Wiki- "Norwegians had suffered were so severe that only 24 ships from the fleet of over 300 were needed to carry the survivors away." 
You- "Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away."

Everyone on this website should know at this point that giving sources for your claims is the standard and that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. 
So you still owe me an actual source from the Viking sagas that shows kings, chieftains, and nobles commanded from the rear. More so, since you tried to play it like leading from the front isn't something that actually happened much in history, you need to provide historical sources to counter all the other situations I mentioned previously:
"Modern US Army, Team Leaders are typically sergeants, they lead from the from, walk point, they lead stacks, they do everything first, the US Army Infantry's actual motto is "Follow Me." Typically the same mindset with the US Marine Corps in actual practice (though not in some doctrine), Corporals lead from the front, by example. WWI, WWII, those wars were characterized by whatever side of infantry led by pistol or SMG waving officers and NCOs screaming "Follow me" from the front, leading men into grazing fire and artillery and mortar impacts. The American Civil War, leaders led. During the Napoleonic Wars, all nations participating had officers that led from the front in most formations and conditions. Where as Gustavus Adolphus when his cavalry was performing an attack? In the battle of Agincourt, where was Henry V and why was he standing where he did? Where would a Scandinavian Thegn or chieftain/warlord position themselves in a shield wall, back or front? Where would a Gallic chieftain position himself in battle? Where was the commander of a Macedonian file placed in the formation? Where did Alexander ride in the wedge formation of a Royal Agema troop? Where did Greek kings or Strategos place themselves in a hoplite phalanx?"

---

As for the use of historical sources ...

I like your thinking. Given your experience in the police, I'd be interested to know what you think the typical depth of the line is - or more realistically because it probably varied, what the minimum depth of line the Romans would use.

Ancient historians actually wrote down the depth of Roman lines quite often, Michael J. Taylor, who commented in this thread (which you ignored) has written academic articles that specifically describe how deep they fought in numerous battle. So its not necessary to use modern riots to try to figure out how Romans fought.

[MonsGraupius]

Ancient historians actually wrote down the depth of Roman lines quite often, Michael J. Taylor, who commented in this thread (which you ignored) has written academic articles that specifically describe how deep they fought in numerous battle. So its not necessary to use modern riots to try to figure out how Romans fought.

Did I miss it? I've checked,on this thread and recent postings by "Michael J. Taylor" and he doesn't mention line depth at all in this thread and I can't see anything else obvious.

Did you intend to put a link to another thread and if so which?

I've also read extensively on the subject of line depth and it is not as clear cut as you suggest.

So the question still remains: what do those who have been part of riot control think is the appropriate depth of a Roman line.

[Bryan]

Ancient historians actually wrote down the depth of Roman lines quite often, Michael J. Taylor, who commented in this thread (which you ignored) has written academic articles that specifically describe how deep they fought in numerous battle. So its not necessary to use modern riots to try to figure out how Romans fought.

Did I miss it? I've checked, and "Michael J. Taylor" doesn't mention it at all in this thread. Did you intend to put a link to another thread and if so which?

I've also read extensively on the subject. But the question still remains: what do those who have been part of riot control think is the appropriate depth of a Roman line.

Why not ask a garbage man what he thinks is the appropriate depth of a Roman line? Or maybe a dentist?. Either one has as much credence discussing the subject of depth as someone whose experience is relegated to modern riot control operations. Further, ancient historians actually have discussed depth, in many battles the depth of a Roman line is either outright spelled out (like the 10 deep of Pompey's first line at Pharsalus), or calculated by total troops, specified line frontage, and analysis (for instance Caesar's lines at Pharsalus, never specified exactly, but considering the total number of cohorts he possessed, and that most were severely understrength, to match Pompey's frontage, which he did, it likely meant 3-4 ranks deep). A key part of this is that this information is available and discussed in a context that doesn't involve modern crowd control operations.  

Dr. Michael J. Taylor didn't specifically mention records of formation depth in this thread but he did tell you not to try to shoehorn Roman history into the context of modern crowd control control operations since the two are apples and oranges (the apple being 2,000 years older than the orange in this case).  And if you're well read on the subject I'm sure you've read through Taylor's journal articles in Academia, specifically "Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment", which you can find here.

[Densus]

Firearms weren't used in Ukraine riots? Surely you jest. 

I didn't say that.  In fact I clearly said the opposite in response to you saying firearms don't get used during riots.

There is video of govt snipers lighting up civilians left and right, and there are pictures of rioters shooting to, trying to bait them into shooting into the crowd in order to make a political statement. This is the same reason in Northern Ireland every once in a while someone throws a bomb or shoots. If that was a real threat you and your bros wouldn't have been standing in the middle of the streets, formed up in close formations, with plexiglass shields. They did it simply in hoping the riot police and military would do the natural thing and shoot back, escalating the riot while videos showcase how "evil" the govt forces are. Don't act as if commander's were expecting sniping and pipe bombs, because if they formed up their men in close ranks in the wide open knowing there was a substantial threat from snipers and IEDs then they should have been relieved for incompetence. 

There has been one incident of indiscriminate firing from soldiers during a riot in Northern Ireland and that happened 40 years ago.  Yet rioters continue to use firearms and pipe bombs during riots.  Yes we were expecting sniping and pipe bombs during riots, it happens often enough that we would have been mad not to.  We made changes to our posture and had immediate actions for dealing with those threats  What we didn't do was throw all the shields in the back of the vehicle and start shooting everyone, which was what you claimed would happen in your earlier post.   


Why wasn't martial law declared and military troops sent in as part of riot forces in the 2015 Black Lives Matter riots in America? One city called the National Guard and then stuck them in small teams, armed with their service rifles, a few magazines, and full canteens. Because that's what they were trained for, not doing any of the complicated and unrealistic stuff your company gets paid to teach. Soldiers and Marines make crappy riot control because they are focused too much of their training and mindset on aggressiveness and killing. Police don't, heck, in the UK most copper aren't even armed with firearms. So its natural to put them into situations where nobody expects a battle, they want to contain protests and riots.

Martial law was not declared because the police were perfectly capable of dealing with that, relatively low compared to other countries, level of violence on their own.

You mention the need to back up claims with sources later in your post, please provide something to back up this statement 'not doing any of the complicated and unrealistic stuff your company gets paid to teach.'  Feel free to use evidence from any of the countries where people we have trained have used what we taught them in real riots.  It shouldn't be hard to find because if it is truly 'complicated and unrealistic' then it won't have worked and there will have been plenty of media coverage of it.
 
As I've said, public outcry, lawyers and journalist are the reason why they didn't shoot back, despite being shot at, not because their tactics work better. 

So we are now in agreement that, in the real world, Infantry soldiers and Marines don't shoot everyone who throws rocks at them, even if some in the crowd are also shooting at them, and will in fact use other means.  Glad we have cleared that up.  Maybe an example will clear it up even more.  http://humanevents.com/2010/01/13/antiam...ghan-town/ 

In all those riots you mentioned, all of them were not quelled by riot control, most blew up into full blown uprisings that turned into shooting conflicts. Riot control FAILED in their mission. 

Completely untrue, Not true in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland.  In all those countries rioting dealt with by military units occurred either after or during an ongoing armed conflict.  You know what does make protests and riots turn into 'full blown uprisings'?  Indiscriminately shooting protesters and rioters, the current situations in Syria and Libya being excellent examples with Tunisia, Egypt, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan also having their governments overthrown in recent years after they started shooting rioters.     
  
As to why they choose methods that repeatedly lead to failure, its not surprising considering that how politically correct most westernized nations act. Like the Germans in A-Stan, its not surprising at all they choose not to shoot back in Afghanistan (where its no secret that regular Bundswehr units cant even be trusted with conducting actual combat missions because of ROE concerns). The same goes for the Brits in Basra and Helmand, it wasn't even the fault of the soldiers, they did a great job despite being handed a hot mess caused by fraidy-cat, risk adverse civilian and military leaders back home pressuring the commanders to minimize rioting casualties, to not create an international incident (too late), forcing them to adopt ineffective riot control tactics of the sort you recommend because they were all afraid of getting hit with war crime charges if they shot the people shooting at them or lighting them on fire. It was a sick joke they kept that charade going as long as they did, the worst part of the Brits in Basra and Helmand was that the regions they occupied got substantially worse before they pulled out even. Why? Because they brought a baton to a gun fight and by not shooting back at people shooting at them they demonstrated weakness and an ability to be led by the nose. 

As above, the rioting in Southern Iraq took place during the insurgency, not before it.  Tactics for each situation changed to suit the situation, public order tactics for riots, firearms, tanks, artillery, air strikes as required for insurgent attacks.   

US Army and Marines get stuck doing crap jobs like riot control for the same reason they have to walk through IED invested areas and risk ambush because their 23 year old lieutenant wants to have a chai tea sit down meeting with the local tribal elders about building a well, all of the elders being the leaders of the local insurgency, and everyone knows it, but we're not allowed to do anything because of idiots watching television back home and commenting on politics they don't understand "You can't just shoot people, even in war!" Yes you can, its quite easy actually. And it works better than kid glove tactics. 

Ask the Romans how they dealt with major riots. Offensive shield walls battering at the crowds while advancing, with cudgels and sometimes even cold steel, they'd push them out and leave streets covered in bodies and then that would be the end of it, nice, quick, efficient. 

As above.  Recent events in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan all tell a different story.  They all show that the use of unjustified lethal force normally makes the situation worse, not better,

No, King Harold didn't negotiate with Harald after the battle, because Harald was dead long before it ended. How can you lecture people on Viking warfare if you didn't realize Harald didn't survive Stamford Bridge? 

Try reading what I actually wrote.  I clearly said that Harald was killed (by an arrow) at Stamford Bridge and it was other senior commanders who negotiated.  Read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the period which clearly says that the negotiations were conducted by Harald's son, the Earl of Orkney and other nobles.  Who clearly didn't die fighting in the front rank.
  
Furthermore, what was Harald wearing when he was killed? No armor at all (he'd left it on the ship, as had most of the Norwegians). What weapon was he armed with? A single sword, no shield (also left on his ships). Was he acting in the role of berserker when he died? Yes. 

"Norway's King had nothing
To shield his breast in battle;
And yet his war-seasoned
Heart never wavered. 
Norway's Warriors were watching
The blood-dripping sword 
Of their Courageous leader
Cutting down his enemies." 
- Arnorr the Poet (from The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066, K. DeVries) 

Does this sound like Harald was commanding from the rear, coordinating forces? No, it sounds like he was leading from the front. 

Yes it does, exactly what you would expect from a monumental poem, designed to entertain and honour the memory of the subject written by an Icelandic poet who had never been to England or Norway and may not even have met anyone who was there.  Unfortunately stories of him 'cutting down his enemies' and his 'blood dripping sword' don't exist any where else, except this poem.  The contemporary account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle clearly says he was hit by an arrow.

Hardrada was a legendary warrior, possible the greatest warrior of the Viking 'Age' but I have never heard anyone claim he was a berserker, just you. 

Also, its kind of disconcerting that you would try to play historian when it comes to the battle of stamford bridge and then copy paste info from Wikipedia. 
Wiki- "Norwegians had suffered were so severe that only 24 ships from the fleet of over 300 were needed to carry the survivors away." 
You- "Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away."

I clearly explained in my post what the source for that statement was, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, our only real contemporary written source for much of what happened in England during that period.  It is hardly my fault that someone chose to use the same source when writing the Wikipedia page. 

Everyone on this website should know at this point that giving sources for your claims is the standard and that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. 
So you still owe me an actual source from the Viking sagas that shows kings, chieftains, and nobles commanded from the rear. More so, since you tried to play it like leading from the front isn't something that actually happened much in history, you need to provide historical sources to counter all the other situations I mentioned previously:
"Modern US Army, Team Leaders are typically sergeants, they lead from the from, walk point, they lead stacks, they do everything first, the US Army Infantry's actual motto is "Follow Me." Typically the same mindset with the US Marine Corps in actual practice (though not in some doctrine), Corporals lead from the front, by example. WWI, WWII, those wars were characterized by whatever side of infantry led by pistol or SMG waving officers and NCOs screaming "Follow me" from the front, leading men into grazing fire and artillery and mortar impacts. The American Civil War, leaders led. During the Napoleonic Wars, all nations participating had officers that led from the front in most formations and conditions. Where as Gustavus Adolphus when his cavalry was performing an attack? In the battle of Agincourt, where was Henry V and why was he standing where he did? Where would a Scandinavian Thegn or chieftain/warlord position themselves in a shield wall, back or front? Where would a Gallic chieftain position himself in battle? Where was the commander of a Macedonian file placed in the formation? Where did Alexander ride in the wedge formation of a Royal Agema troop? Where did Greek kings or Strategos place themselves in a hoplite phalanx?"

At no point have I said that 'leading from the front didn't happen much in history' or anything that could even be mistaken for that.  What I have said is that command and control is much easier from the back and argued against those who, like you, have said it can't be done.

As for examples of how I know that Norse leaders didn't always fight in the front rank I will give you this to start you off.  All from Olaf Tryggvason's Saga.  A man whose fighting ability was legendary.  But there are plenty more in other Saga's if you want them.  Worth noting before you read these that in a ship battle the 'place of honour' was in the bow and the 'prow man' was a coveted position for the best warriors.  The tiller on a Norse longship is at the back, obviously.  

‘If Ormrinn is to be brought forward as much further as it is longer than other ships, then it will be hard work around the bows.’ The king says: ‘I didn’t know I had a man at the prow who is both red and recreant. Úlfr says: ‘Don’t you turn your back in defending the raised deck in the stern any more than I do in defending the prow. The king was holding a bow and placed an arrow on the string and aimed at Úlfr. Úlfr answered: ‘Shoot the other way, king, to where there is greater need. It is for you that I do what I do.'

'This battle was of the fiercest and there were very many casualties. Those stationed in the bows of Ormr inn langi and Ormr inn skammi and Traninn thrust anchors and grappling hooks into King Sveinn’s ships, and had to bring their weapons down on those beneath their feet. They cleared all the ships that they could hold on to, but the king, Sveinn, and the troops that could get away, fled onto other ships, and next they stood off out of range of missiles'

Einarr þambarskelfir was on Ormrinn aft in the krapparúm (‘narrow space’, the position aft of the fyrirrúm). He was shooting from a bow and he was the strongest shooter of all men. Einarr shot at Jarl Eiríkr and struck the neck of the tiller above the jarl’s head, and the arrow sank in right up to the arrow-head fastening. The jarl looked at it and asked if they knew who was shooting there, but immediately another arrow came, so close to the jarl that it flew between his side and his arm and then into the head-board behind so that the point went through a long way. Then the jarl spoke to the man that some call Finnr, though some say that he was Finnish (Lappish)—he was the finest bowman: ‘Shoot that big man in the krapparúm.’  Finnr shot, and the arrow struck the middle of Einarr’s bow at the moment that Einarr was drawing his bow for the third time. Then the bow broke in two pieces. Then said King Óláfr: ‘What was it snapped there so loud?’ Einarr replied: ‘Norway from your grasp, king.’ ‘It was not as big a snap as that,’ says the king; ‘take my bow and shoot with it.’ And he threw the bow to him. Einarr took the bow and immediately drew it past the point of the arrow and said: ‘Too weak, too weak the supreme ruler’s bow,’ and threw the bow back, then took his shield and sword and fought.

King Óláfr Tryggvason stood on the raised deck in the stern of Ormrinn and during the day mostly shot, sometimes bowshots, sometimes javelins and always two at a time. He looked to the forepart of the ship and saw his men swinging their swords and striking fast and saw that they were not cutting well, then spoke in a loud voice: ‘Are you swinging your swords so weakly, as I see that they do not cut for you?’ A man replied: ‘Our swords are blunt and very damaged.’ Then the king went down into the fyrirrúm (position in front of the lypting) and opened up the chest under the high-seat, took from it many sharp swords and handed them to the men. But when he stretched down his right arm then men saw that blood was running down from under the sleeve of his coat of mail. No one knows where he was wounded.

The defence was strongest on Ormrinn and most bloody among the men in the fyrirrúm and those at the prow. That was where the body of men was most select and the sides of the ship highest. But when the men first began to fall round the middle of the ship and when there were few of the men still standing around the mast area, then Eiríkr decided to try boarding and got up onto Ormrinn with fourteen other men. Then King Óláfr’s brother-in-law Hyrningr came against him with a party of men, and there was the hardest of battles there, and it ended with the jarl and the men who had boarded with him drawing back down onto Barðinn, some falling and some being wounded.

Then there was again the fiercest of fights, and then many men on Ormrinn fell. And as the crew for defence on Ormrinn thinned out, then Jarl Eiríkr decided to try boarding Ormrinn a second time. Then there was again tough resistance. And when the men in the bows on Ormrinn saw this, then they went aft on the ship and set about a defence against the jarl and present tough resistance. But because there had now fallen so many men on Ormrinn that in many places the gunwales were unoccupied, then the jarl’s men began to board in many places. And all the men who were still standing up in defence on Ormrinn made their way aft on the ship to where the king was. Halldórr ókristni says this, that Jarl Eiríkr then urged his men on: 

http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Heimskringla%20I.pdf

I will clarify again what I am saying about Norse leaders in war.  They didn't always fight in the front rank, they didn't always command from the rear.  They went to the place where their presence was do the most good at that time.

[MonsGraupius]

Why not ask a garbage man what he thinks is the appropriate depth of a Roman line?

Thanks for your help Bryan, but you aren't adding much if anything to what I already know. However it would add considerably to my knowledge to hear from someone who had had practical experience. So, I am very much looking forward to hearing from someone who has practical experience as this will help me understand the issues involved.

[Bryan]

Why not ask a garbage man what he thinks is the appropriate depth of a Roman line?

Thanks for your help Bryan, but you aren't adding much if anything to what I already know. However it would add considerably to my knowledge to hear from someone who had had practical experience. So, I am very much looking forward to hearing from someone who has practical experience as this will help me understand the issues involved.

So you already read Taylor's articles that discussed depth of Roman lines?

[MonsGraupius]

Thanks for your help Bryan, but you aren't adding much if anything to what I already know. However it would add considerably to my knowledge to hear from someone who had had practical experience. So, I am very much looking forward to hearing from someone who has practical experience as this will help me understand the issues involved.

So you already read Taylor's articles that discussed depth of Roman lines?

I've read all the same sources as he would use and more - and now I want to hear from someone with actual experience - because that will help me decide which sources are most credible.

And practical experience will help me understand the real issues facing a line of men in battle. Please understand, there is no right or wrong answer and whilst I appreciate your views, they are not taking me any further forward.

[Bryan]

Why not ask a garbage man what he thinks is the appropriate depth of a Roman line?

Thanks for your help Bryan, but you aren't adding much if anything to what I already know. However it would add considerably to my knowledge to hear from someone who had had practical experience. So, I am very much looking forward to hearing from someone who has practical experience as this will help me understand the issues involved.

So you already read Taylor's articles that discussed depth of Roman lines?

I've read all the same sources as he would use and more - and now I want to hear from someone with actual experience - because that will help me decide which sources are most credible.

Switch out Roman warfare with another subject and it shows why this topic is historically unsound. Take ancient wine making, wool working, or medicine, ancient sources discuss how to do all these things in enough detail to understand it a bit. Meanwhile modern wine makers, fullers, or physicians use completely different methods than the Romans. Does that mean all the ancient sources were wrong in how the Romans did it? Or did it just mean that times changed greatly and that the Romans did it their way and modern people do it another way, for legitimate reasons? Same goes for ancient vs. modern warfare. More so with riots, as they aren't battles and not part of warfare. The only thing one can really compare modern riot techniques to effectively in the Roman period were Roman riots. 

Many RAT posters in the past have used footage of riots to gain insight into ancient warfare and done in the right context I think there are things to learn. I've done it too but its a fine line that must be maintained. 

For example, we've discussed Roman individual fighting techniques and how scuta could be used offensively, specifically a Bottom edge strikes, this video can be used to demonstrate how effective they could be in battle. 

Some might try to state that scuta would be rested on the ground in battle, even though many of the scuta in iconography are shoulder to mid thigh in height and only come up to the belly button when resting on the ground. And to assist with describing how dynamic an individual fighting with a scuta can be, I've shown modern gladiator reenactors using them, like this one. 

Many look at ancient battle and try to describe them without understanding the confusion that comes with the Fog of War, they envision nicely dressed and organized units conducting complicated drill commands, possible because their side was "disciplined and trained", but the realities of the chaos of a violent encounter means complexity cannot work. I've tried to demonstrate that in the past by comparing this highly choreographed riot control training video to this video of a Korean police unit getting its butt handed to them by highly aggressive rioters. 

We've gotten into heated debates about gaps between attacking units and how moving at the enemy with open flanks was suicide. I'd posted videos of Russian soccer hooligan brawls, like this one, this one, and this one that showed that it wasn't a major concern, that individuals in the rear of a formation could peel off and cover down if the flanks were in jeopardy. 

There are some topics that modern reenactments or demonstrations can definitely enlighten.  And then there are things that can't really be compared. Depth for instance. Depth of a line would be explained in military history by tradition, fighting strength, fighting tactics, adversaries, terrain, type of engagement (such as a pitched battle against infantry vs. a holding action against missile bearing cavalry and skirmishers). Modern riots dont come close to the same conditions, they were just different beasts that are only alike in the very vaguest of ways.

[MonsGraupius]

[quote pid='342405' dateline='1480365636']
I've read all the same sources as he would use and more - and now I want to hear from someone with actual experience - because that will help me decide which sources are most credible.

Depth for instance. Depth of a line would be explained in military history by tradition, fighting strength, fighting tactics, adversaries, terrain, type of engagement (such as a pitched battle against infantry vs. a holding action against missile bearing cavalry and skirmishers). Modern riots dont come close to the same conditions, they were just different beasts that are only alike in the very vaguest of ways.
[/quote]

Bryan, thanks for your views, but they are not helping me.
I just want to hear from those who have actual experience in police riots - because that will help me understand the issues involved.

I appreciate you'd rather close down the discussion, but it is an open forum and I'm allowed to ask for help from people other than yourself.

[ValentinianVictrix]

How many people on this site are going to admit to being rioters?

I have undertaken training in riot control when I was in the Armed Forces here in the UK and actually took part in a simulated civil uprising on an island. I cannot say if Roman tactical doctrine was used or not because it was not expressly stated at being used. Shield use by riot control personnel is a fairly modern thing, you certainly don't appear to see photographs of Pre-WW2 Police officers or military personnel using them.

[MonsGraupius]

I have undertaken training in riot control when I was in the Armed Forces here in the UK and actually took part in a simulated civil uprising on an island. I cannot say if Roman tactical doctrine was used or not because it was not expressly stated at being used. Shield use by riot control personnel is a fairly modern thing, you certainly don't appear to see photographs of Pre-WW2 Police officers or military personnel using them.

Can you tell us more about your experience in the simulated civil uprising. I'm particularly interested to know what it felt like being in a formation - even if you knew it was just simulated, it must have been quite life-like.

[ValentinianVictrix]

The formation was just a four deep line, which to be honest I was used to drilling in anyway. I know some formations had designated 'snatch squads', specially trained personnel whose job it was to break out of the formation, normally from the flanks and rear, and grab those who they felt were key agitators or ringleaders to be taken away for questioning.

The interesting bit about the exercise was we were told not to be lenient on the 'rioters' as this was going to be as near as a life-like simulation as possible, likewise the 'rioters' were told not to be lenient on us either. So apart from using blanks for ammo we could beat the hell out of them with our batons and viz-versa!