Roman \'Wedge\' Formation

[Anonymous]

There are numerouos instances of individuals kleading charges, throwing standards into the enemy ranks and telling their troops to go get them back, etc.<br>
<br>
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss such a mechanism.<br>
<br>
"Follow the leader" formations always are "wedge" shapped - otherwise the people (or horses or bison or whatever) wouldn't be following!!<br>
<br>
However teh usefulness of such a formation is arguable.<br>
<br>
We do, positively, know that wedge and rhomboid formations were used by Greek cavalry - but we also know that that was primarily for command and control reasons - a simple turn towards one of the points always left an officer in front. Greek cavalry quickly reverted to more common rectangular formations with the increased contact with Persians and other "barbarians" after Alexanders time.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I don't doubt that such things occured. Caesar, Tacitus and Jospehus all relate such stories, I just think its a far cry to suggest that such actions were regularly relied on to break the enemy lines. To quote Josephus:<br>
<br>
"Suddenly a cavalryman, Longinus, leapt out of the Roman ranks and charged the very middle of the Jewish phalanx. Scattering them by his onslaught he killed two of the most stalwart, striking one in the face and transfixing the other through the side as he turned away...When he had given this demonstartionof his prowess, there were many who imitated his valour. The Jews on their side, heedless of the damage they had suffered, were concerned only with the damage they could inflict...But Titus was as anxious for the safety of his men as for victory itself. He declared that incautious enthusiasm was utter madness, and heroism was only heroic when it went with prudent regard for the hero's own safety."<br>
<br>
While Longinus's actions and those like him can no doubt have had a positive effect of morale and lead to victories(as occurs in several accounts given by Caesar), it seems clear that Titus viewed the actions of Longinus and his compatriots as reckless and altogether useless tactically. This would be an odd sentiment for a Roman General to possess, if as Goldsworthy proposes, that the Romans relied on breakthrough wedges to rout their enemies. Just as in the modern era we have many examples of soldiers who have heroically knocked out enemy bunkers/trenchlines/gun emplacements by foolishly charging headlong directly at the said position with minimal support fire, it does not mean any experienced soldier or officer would advocate taking such an action, nor is it something that would be taught in doctrine. As I said, I don't think there is much doubt such things did happen and such actions may have turned the tide of a particular battle, but it is doubtful that the Romans and their auxiliaries relied solely on such foolhardy heroism to win battles.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/2/04 5:37 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

I wil definitely have to pick myself up a copy of Goldsworthy's book.<br>
<br>
The initial contact of missle fire/melee/mutual withdrawl seems to make sense. As for a fight of attrition against an enemy line, then I could see how the echelon wedge that Rufus envisions could work. The tip century (or cohort in the case of a legion wedge) would throw pila and melee. Once the sides separated, then the century could withdraw into the center, and the safetly of, the wedge whilst one of the centuries behind the first moved obliquely to fill the gap. The tired century could then take it's place and the end of the echelon. This would also eliminate the need for units to go through each other, a troublesome manouver. All this is a just a guess, though.<br>
<br>
I don't see the leader and following soldiers as a wedge as far as formations go. I'm sure it happened, but it seems that the Romans tried to win with formations of men rather than charges of clumps.<br>
<br>
The wedge as a column, at least in some instances, is quite interesting. I have read in many places the deeper the formation is, then the great penetrating power it has against enemy formations. Assuming this, then the wedge-column would be a breakthrough formation, but it would be restricted as to firepower.<br>
<br>
<br>
Here's a really shaky thought that I'm going to throw out - The cohort echelon of five centuries in an arrow with one in reserve looks remarkably like Gustavus Adolphus' 'brigade' formation of the 30 Years' War. Swedish formations were influenced by Dutch formations, which were reformed by Maurice who tried to imitate Roman battle lines. I thought of this during Algebra class (when else does one have time to ponder the tactical formations of the ancient Romans?) so it's probably pretty far-fetched.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I remember reading in Saxe that it was a very common feature in XVIII century battles that soldiers advancing into the enemy tried to hide behind their comrades, shortening the battleline and shaping it into some sort of wedge-like shape. I think that could be the case also for Roman armies. So it will be rather than the audacious leaving the formation, the cowards lagging behind, an occurrence that could well be very common.<br>
A thing about breakthroughs, maybe we are here a bit mislead by modern tactics blitzkrieg style, because in earlier times battlelines usually started to crack from behind, when the last ranks started to panick and flee, as many XVI-XVIII century battle drawings show.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aryaman>Aryaman</A> at: 4/2/04 10:20 pm<br></i>