Battle-line rotation during the combat

[Wander]

Mateo wrote:

double-weight wooden clava, not rudis (gladiatorial):

My mistake; thank you for that correction.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

And not forget years in service, that's the best training :wink:

[Sardaukar]

If we consider S.L.A Marshall's studies "Men against Fire", claimed that at best, only 25 % of unit's troops did actively participate in firefights. He found out that it was the same 25 % that it was the same 25 % who repeatedly led the assaults and cleared enemy positions.

Goldsworthy uses Marshall's studies to some extent and says in his Roman Army at War (one of the few that actually try to study the effect of morale etc. of Roman soldier), 75 % or more of troops did most likely fight with the oblect of staying alive than of actively aiming to kill the enemy.

It seems likely that it was the 25 % or less, who actively did seek to kill the enemy were those more likely to kill their opponent and step into his place in enemy ranks. If he survived entering the enemy ranks, it'd make enemies nearby him edge backwards and that could swiftly became a rout.

Of course, often encounters were not decisive, like in Forum Gallorum (Appian BC 3. 68) when 2 veteran legions faced each other, "when they grew weary they drew apart from each other for a brief space to get their breath back, just as in gymnastics contests and then rushed again at each other."

If we take the Marshall's studies as some sort of guideline (I think they are quite sensible figures, even when drawn from modern times), rotating rows within units a la Rome series might not be most beneficial. It might have been, that naturally, those 25 % more willing to seek to kill enemy naturally occupied majority of the front rows.

I think Romans might have replaced units instead of rotating rows when frequent lulls in combat happened and replaced front row legionaries from within unit only when they were unable to fight because of wounds or exhaustion.

It seems that Roman battle was rarely like battle between Greek phalanxes, just having single clash of entire infantry between opposing sides. Rarher, numerous cohorts comprising Roman army might have been in series of clashes with a section of enemy.

Replacing first rank troops in midst of combat might have been near impossible, since it might have exposed retreating trooper to enemy. Also, movement towards rear of formation might cause panic and rout.

If we consider Cremona 68 CE, Legio I Adiutrix broke the first line of Legio XXI Rapax in it's first charge and captured it's eagle. The supporting lines of the XXI Rapax, however, drove back the I Adiutrix, capturing many signa and killing it's legate. I doubt there was any rotation of ranks inside units in those conditions.

[Mitra]

I'm sure the training varied widely from legion to legion, if not even century to century, and the quality of the troops would be largely based on the quality of the training they got -- just as in modern military service.

Sure, so it is impossible evaluate the real effect of training. In the ancient writers, this is more linked to discipline and technical/phisical preparation concept, the battle bravery appears (at least in imperial time) more associated with cultural-geographical topos (illiryan better or syrian, campaign better that cities) or implicit moral quality. As Vegetius affirm the roman concept is that the virtus is personal quality like the man height and it is a lost of time train a ignavuus, the courage cannot be gain with the training.

back ranks, and much more to do with the fact that, if the enemy is attacking your rear, then you're surrounded. Bad situation.

It is the exact contrary, when surrounded we have two possibility: the unit is pressed (the men of extern lines try to take the security in the mass of fellow soldiers, but blocking the possibility of weapons use), like the case of Adrianople or Cannae, or the men in front line pressed phisically by rear by panicked men and taken from desperacion can perfore the enemy line (like at Trebbia). it is for this that the ancient authors tell to leave always a escape road and not fight desperated men. The men always flight in oppose direction to enemy, this is why Xenophon tell to use braver men also in the rear ranks, they are more reliable in difficult situations.

[Hibernicus]

A practiced rotation:
- 1st rank falling back through;
- 2nd rank stepping forward;
- 4th rank to the front;
- or individuals doing so as needs arise;
can all be done without panic or confusion if performed by practiced trained disciplined soldiers under command. ie: everyone knows its going to happen.

It doesn't take much space to be apart from an enemy's sword nor does it take much time to fall back through the 2nd rank or for the 2nd rank to step forward. "1-2-3" It's done.

I can also conceive of times where having your best men up front is the best choice. Or when it might be best to rotate them from eth rear or center to the front, pulling the rookies guys back through.

I can also conceive of a formation where a contubernium practices in some sort of block formation (2x4 or 3x2) within a centuria, as a team, a practiced and drilled team directed by a decanus so that, for example, 3 or 4 swords can be brought to bear on a single opponent... thurst or slashes in combination(s) at different target points on the opponent.

There are a myriad possibilities. In simulated combat we've done all of these.

We've even let entire other units march through our ranks. And when its practiced it works smoothly.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

I think the same that Sardaukar. Look at this quote from De Bello Gallico:

The army having been marshaled, rather as the nature of the ground and the declivity of the hill and the exigency of the time, than as the method and order of military matters required; while the legions in the different places were withstanding the enemy, some in one quarter, some in another, and the view was obstructed by the very thick hedges intervening, as we have before remarked, neither could proper reserves be posted, nor could the necessary measures be taken in each part, nor could all the commands be issued by one person. Therefore, in such an unfavorable state of affairs, various events of fortune followed.

(II.22)

Units replace, not ranks. (my opinion)

Sources of ranks replace are vague and there is no conclusive explication to how do it...

[Wander]

While I would agree with the idea of leaving an escape road for the enemy (to encourage retreat or flight), I simply can't agree (with Mitra) that being surrounded is a good thing. Sorry, that strains my credibility.

Similarly, I can't agree that "courage cannot be gained with training." Some people are naturally more fearless than others, sure. But in every case, training will increase an individual's confidence in his probable survival, which has a measurable effect on morale -- i.e., courage. A well-trained army will always feel better about taking the field than an army that knows it's facing better-trained enemies.

Sardaukar's comments were interesting, suggesting that probably about 25% of the Roman army -- or any army -- are eager to kill (the ones I mentioned earlier from my time in the Marines). These are probably the guys likely to be heroes, but I can also say -- if I were a centurion -- that I'd come down hard on any "hero" who stepped too far ahead of the line. Yes, I'd put them in the front line when the battle begins, because an eager, aggressive army is far more likely to demoralize the enemy and ultimately rout them.

Whether rotation is needed would, I still think, depend on the time. If the lulls came every 15-20 minute, then I'd use that time to replace the front line. If the enemy pressed hard, I still think that rotation under pressure -- if controlled and trained -- is better than letting your front line get exhausted.

It also occurs to me that the curvature of the scutum makes it far better suited for such maneuvers -- squeezing between lines of men -- than a flat shield would be. I know that's not proof, but it still looks feasible and desirable.

[Mitra]

While I would agree with the idea of leaving an escape road for the enemy (to encourage retreat or flight), I simply can't agree (with Mitra) that being surrounded is a good thing. Sorry, that strains my credibility.

I don't have affirmed this, i tell that the flight of rear lines not come from a menace from back, like a surrounding, but from a frontal perception of danger. IF the menace come from back the rear ranks will be pressed to a frontal direction, and like in Trebbia battle this can generate also a enemy line perforation in some points.

Similarly, I can't agree that "courage cannot be gained with training." Some people are naturally more fearless than others, sure. But in every case, training will increase an individual's confidence in his probable survival, which has a measurable effect on morale -- i.e., courage. A well-trained army will always feel better about taking the field than an army that knows it's facing better-trained enemies.

This is without doubt true, the modern training is studied with this finality, but the roman mentality is different and they don't think the same of me and you; a coward remain a coward, and must be sent to home at the enrolment visit (obviously the modality to judge if one it is a coward is far from our mentality). So the training it is not thought as battle stress preparatory (the courage cannot been learned) like the modern, but of techno-phisical preparation.

[Wander]

Mitra wrote:

...i tell that the flight of rear lines not come from a menace from back, like a surrounding, but from a frontal perception of danger.

If we're discussing keeping the back ranks from breaking and running due to the enemy's advance from the front, then the ranging of veterans in the last rank (as discussed earlier) makes good sense. If we assume rotation of troops during the battle (I know it's not a given, but it's what we're talking about), then after the first rotation they would be joined by the front rank of veterans, further helping to anchor the formation. Any soldiers rotated behind them after that would have already experienced combat, and -- I contend -- would be psychologically far less likely to run, having "done their part;" and they would be much more resentful of any soldiers who run without facing the enemy.

The greatest danger of panic and rout comes from those soldiers who have not met the enemy, not from those who have.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

This is without doubt true, the modern training is studied with this finality, but the roman mentality is different and they don't think the same of me and you; a coward remain a coward, and must be sent to home at the enrolment visit (obviously the modality to judge if one it is a coward is far from our mentality). So the training it is not thought as battle stress preparatory (the courage cannot been learned) like the modern, but of techno-phisical preparation.

I'm afraid I can't follow you here, either. Romans and Greeks believed - in that respect - the same as we today, which can be seen from following quotes. The latter no military, but I think its obvious that the underlying concept was well known in antiquity.

"The courage of the soldier is heightened by the knowledge of his profession." Vegetius

"Courage may be taught as a child is taught to speak." Euripides

"Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage." Thucydides

I also don't think that training was only directed at physical conduct. They may have had no special stress inducing training, but from my experience is even basic training stress enough. Oh, the memories ... :lol:

[Wander]

To respond to Mateo's quote from De Bello Gallico:

neither could proper reserves be posted, nor could the necessary measures be taken in each part

I want to point out that reserves are much more than just replacements for wounded, dead, or exhausted soldiers. Besides relief, reserves can be thrown in to stiffen a collapsing line, maneuvered to take advantage of a tactical opportunity, or deployed behind cover to give the enemy a nasty surprise. They can be held back in anticipation of the enemy's springing his own reserves on you. The statement quoted, "...neither could proper reserves be posted..." doesn't necessarily mean Caesar was arranging relief for his line soldiers -- though he might have been. The main thing it tells us is that Caesar had a keen appreciation of the proper use of reserves in a battle.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Thank's for your explanation Wander :wink:

[Mitra]

>"The courage of the soldier is heightened by the knowledge of his >profession." Vegetius

The more litteral translation of this passage tell "the knowledge of war science (with the training) feed the boldness in the fighting" in short terms
and trained soldier is more ready to the action because is made sure by the knowledge of war science.

Contra we have this passage from novice choice: "But what good can be expected from a coward, though trained or served for many campaigns? An army raised without proper regard to the choice of its recruits was never yet made good by length of time".

Naturally they think the trained soldier it is better that a raw soldier, this without doubt and that the training it is a techne important for war
preparation and has moral/political quality itself, but we not must mixed this with the conception of human nature. They can appreciate the work and competence of a craftsman, but they consider anyway the people which made a manual work a moral low level people.
Vegetius tell to not enrol men making women-like works because these works are connected with their nature (not much masculine and brave evidently).
Naturally not all the authors have the same opinion in the the classical period at example Hesiod express a different moral value about the manual works respect the successive greek authors (symptoms of a previous moral scale values in Greece).

The Eurypides passage it is interesting you can tell me the references of this passage?

The Thucydides passage not tell nothing about the courage as moral quality or teached. Anyway can you tell me what is the passage reference?

Naturally the training always prepare to battle, but i don't see in the roman training as described by Vegetius ancient forms of stress inoculation; naturally the stress level of a roman battle is far from be quantifiable;.

[Wander]

Mitra, I think you are going far too far in trying to keep this impossible for us to understand. I would contend that -- with a full acknowledgement of the differences of cultures and millennia -- we can, by reading and studying carefully, gain a working insight into the general mind of an average Roman soldier or citizen. After all, isn't that the purpose of all this?

You can assert all you want that we can never really duplicate the conditions of battle. I don't think any of us want to actually go into a battle and risk our lives while killing others with swords and spears -- but that doesn't mean we can't gain some degree of understanding. Over and over again we read words from that time that strike us as common sense and good wisdom -- that in itself suggests that they thought pretty much like we do.

[Velite]

Mitra wrote

Naturally the training always prepare to battle, but i don't see in the roman training as described by Vegetius ancient forms of stress inoculation; naturally the stress level of a roman battle is far from be quantifiable.

Vegetius even no, but Joseph Flavio explains very well thing it was training for the Romans
Joseph says that the trainings of the Romans resembled to battles without blood, while the battles of the Romans resembled to trainings with the blood

Wander wrote

You can assert all you want that we can never really duplicate the conditions of battle. I don't think any of us want to actually go into a battle and risk our lives while killing others with swords and spears -- but that doesn't mean we can't gain some degree of understanding. Over and over again we read words from that time that strike us as common sense and good wisdom -- that in itself suggests that they thought pretty much like we do.

I totally agree