Battle-line rotation during the combat

[Mitra]

Over and over again we read words from that time that strike us as common sense and good wisdom

Obviously, no man want real blood for simulate real battle, but this is why the sources interpretation it is a necessary starting.

that in itself suggests that they thought pretty much like we do.

You are free to think like you prefer, but exist studies about warfare, economy, sociology, etc which don't agreed with this affirmation. Roman world it is a pre-modern world with pre-modern scale of values.

[Mitra]

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

Joseph don't expose nothing of different respect Vegetius
, the phrase want explain to Jewish, who not made regular military training in peace time, the motives of military defeat; Joseph expose like Vegetius phisical and technical trainings, stress inoculation is a different typology of process. We can see him more easily in spartan training process.

Just in Joseph we can see the legionary lines perfored by fanatical but bad armed jewish soldiers.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Naturally not all the authors have the same opinion in the the classical period

yeah, it would be a strange coincidence, when all of them had been exactly of the same mind.

can you tell me what is the passage reference?

I've been desperately trying to find these references for long, but never found the actual place. I suppose its mentioned in works of others (likely
Aristoteles) and attributed to Euripides. The Thucydides quote is to my knowlegde in "The History of the Peloponnesean War". More I don't know.

In Aristoteles' Politeia I found further these ones:

"There are four things which it is usual to teach children--reading, gymnastic exercises, and music, to which (in the fourth place) some add painting. Reading and painting are both of them of singular use in life, and gymnastic exercises, as productive of courage." Aristoteles, Politeia, Bk. 8, Ch. III http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle )/Book_8

"[...] Lacedaemonians did not fall into, for they made their children fierce by painful labour, as chiefly useful to inspire them with courage:[...]" Aristoteles, Politeia, Bk. 8, Ch. IV http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle )/Book_8

The Thucydides passage not tell nothing about the courage as moral quality or teached.

Well, not direct. But I don't understand self-control here not just as the ability to restrain oneself, but more as the ability to work routinized because of training. But well, that's subjective interpretation.

All this assumptions about roman work team squad, roman morale, etc are largely based over modern views of army cohesion model (of western armies); but the cohesion typology it is the product of socializing modality of society, and the roman world it is not our also in the military values scale importance.

I wouldn't go as far to rebuke the concept of "modern view", but I think it's sometimes over-rated. While I certainly agree that the view of Roman history is mainly a product of western research, we're nonetheless all influenced by other cultures as well, now and through very history, too. In cultural anthropology for example we differentiate even today between dozens and dozens of more or less developed cultures currently existing, that vary considerably in many aspects (so there isn't one modern view). Though these differences exist, at least some patterns of behavior and psycological predispositions could be shown to be culturally invariable (i.e. are psychological/sociological constants). Therefore it's safe to assume, that Roman people had basically lots of characteristics we have.

: "[...] that in itself suggests that they thought pretty much like we do."

"[...] exist studies about warfare, economy, sociology, etc which don't agreed with this affirmation. Roman world it is a pre-modern world with pre-modern scale of values."

As sociology is concerned the difference is usually made not according to time, but to the way people live together. Basically its the differentiation
between rural and city-societies (Durkheim for example differentiates here between organic and mechanic solidarity, Simmel notes the "rule of ratio" in cities and others, like Toennies, have similiar concepts). But these concepts are not bound to time and there always exist(ed), today and then, mixed types. Ancient societies are of course more likely to be rural, but that's not necessarily so. Especially with Rome. I think Tacitus (?) refers somewhere to one of the main causes of mutiny in 14 CE, as the massive enrollment of city-bred soldiers. These were different to the formerly predominately recruited peasants. Ancient societies were in that respect modern and pre-modern.* But so are ours, too. Many people live still rural and overall its not impossible to us to understand a great deal of Roman's thinking.

:? Hm, I just realize we strayed a bit off of the rotation thing.

*The term pre-modern here just to be understood as the older form of development. Not to bash countryside-folks.

[Mitra]

"There are four things which it is usual to teach children--reading, gymnastic exercises, and music, to which (in the fourth place) some add painting. Reading and painting are both of them of singular use in life, and gymnastic exercises, as productive of courage." Aristoteles, Politeia, Bk. 8, Ch. III http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle )/Book_8

"[...] Lacedaemonians did not fall into, for they made their children fierce by painful labour, as chiefly useful to inspire them with courage:[...]" Aristoteles, Politeia, Bk. 8, Ch. IV http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle )/Book_8

Also these passage for me appears to be more realted to the feeding value what with teaching value. Would be necessary to see the exact greek term used into the original text.

Well, not direct. But I don't understand self-control here not just as the ability to restrain oneself, but more as the ability to work routinized because of training. But well, that's subjective interpretation.

I think probably, he thought more to the emotional control, but would be necessary to have context of phrase. Anyway, like Peter Brown report, the emotional control of sentiments like Ira, it is a value still in late antiquity for the high classes.

All this assumptions about roman work team squad, roman morale, etc are largely based over modern views of army cohesion model (of western armies); but the cohesion typology it is the product of socializing modality of society, and the roman world it is not our also in the military values scale importance.

Sure, but you must think that in military history the tendency to apply modern model is very strong also today, forgetting that the modern military thougth, ethos and tradition is the product of the last 300 year of history. The best example of this contrast between modernist and primitiviste appears in grand strategy theme, in economy between substantivists and formalists. You will be in accord with me, that the analogy application of model of other time/culture has to be made with attention and with documentary/sources study.

Sure exist constants, but at example, the Rostovzeff view of campaign-vs-city contrast in roman empire I don't think it is more accepted with facility. As Finley show the rapport between campaign and city it is different in antiquity respect the late-medieval town.
My reference anyway (at least in miltiary and political context) it is to book like Lendon empire of honor (i must still read "Fire in the bones. Roman Honor", i have read this is strange book), Rome and the Enemy et similia.

But you have reason we go out of context.

[Wander]

It's certainly true that we've strayed from the question of troop rotation in battle, but I doubt we'll reach a consensus on that question. Nobody says it's impossible, but some of us say it seems likely (and quote references to support that) and others say we have no evidence (and quote references against). My suspicion is that battles may well have been conducted both ways; we may both be right in a way, because certainly the commanding officer would have the final say if or when the soldiers were to be rotated.

[Magnus]

Yep...no-one will argue the Romans were not versatile. I'm sure they'd have prepared for as much as they could, and used whatever strategy the commanders on the ground deemed most suitable.

[PMBardunias]

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.

Killing the enemy in battle is overrated :wink: Any melee of men in formed ranks is decided not by the flow of blood from front rankers, but by the flow of feet in rear rankers. Anything that causes the rear of the formation to give way is equally effective. Now don't get me wrong, rivers of their compatriots blood are an excellent way to accomplish this, but there are other ways. The Greeks, for example, perfected the physical disruption of enemy formations to bring this about for example. Another way, and this ties into men fighting defensively, is simply to out-last your opponents and let exhaustion play with is morale.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

I'm reading In the Name of Rome. The Men who Won the Roman Empire by Goldsworthy and he says that in a battle only was in first rank half of the army or 2/3, and that it was in the mind of the general to use the refresh units when he decided was appropiate.
He doesn't say neither 15 nor 20 minutes.

What do you think?



P.D.: he says also that in helenistic armies was strange use units of refresh.

[Sardaukar]

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.

Killing the enemy in battle is overrated :wink: Any melee of men in formed ranks is decided not by the flow of blood from front rankers, but by the flow of feet in rear rankers. Anything that causes the rear of the formation to give way is equally effective. Now don't get me wrong, rivers of their compatriots blood are an excellent way to accomplish this, but there are other ways. The Greeks, for example, perfected the physical disruption of enemy formations to bring this about for example. Another way, and this ties into men fighting defensively, is simply to out-last your opponents and let exhaustion play with is morale.

Defeat was often caused by breaking of the ranks and rout, often not even suffering any previous casualties.

Like SLA Marshall says in his book Men against Fire: "On the battlefield, real enemy is the fear, not the bullet or bayonet".

Or like Tacitus says (Germania 43): Defeat always starts with the eyes.

Roman legionary infantry was excellent in intimidating enemy, often routing it before contact. Slow, silent and disciplined approach towards enemy, followed by 2 shocks: pila volley and charge.

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

Most men on battlefield coped with with fear and kept their formation, but they did not lead the attack while their comrades were hesitating or fight they way into enemy ranks and help to precipitate enemy's collapse. There was need for men with the boldness to do those things and set an example for others in unit to follow. If these men did not set an example by moving forward, then other less eager men might set the opposite example by running away..to be followed by the bulk of the unit. Role of individually aggressive and bold soldier needed to be encouraged.

Recognition of fighting prowess of bold soldiers, which gave them rewards of promotion and decorations (and plunder)..and as important as others, high status in their unit, encouraged their behaviour. Rewarding acts of individual aggression, with or without serving wider purpose, encouraged a spirit of boldness in army as whole. It helped to provide men willing to act aggressively in combat on their own, when situation made it vital for the army's success.

That does not mean lack of discipline. Rather, discipline and the bold action of individuals were complementary factors. Discipline, fear of punishment and comradeship, kept men in ranks and stopped them from running away. It allowed to manouver units better than opponents of Romans could. When actual combat started, it probably kept unit in contact of enemy longer.

But, discipline itself does not bring victory, although it can delay defeat. Boldness and aggression, often displayed by few individuals, was vital actually beating the enemy and causing them to run away. The rewards and approval given to acts of individual boldness reflect the need to encourage aggression and offensive spirit. The Romans seem to have definitely been thinking that way.

Thus, while I am not counting out rotating ranks in combat within unit, it'd be against what is said above. Romans also repeatedly pointed out to their soldiers that there would be superior officers noting the acts of individual valour or lack of it. That was apparent in command style of Roman higher officers, often riding just behind first line.

Keeping that in mind, I would think it unlikely that any legionary who had won his place in front rank of his unit (kind of smaller scale antesigniferi) with his prowess and courage, would voluntarily give his place unless unable to fight. I think that best men of unit were always placed in front ranks, not much else makes much sense. Roman army was not machinelike, midless automaton many scholars try to make it look like. Surviving historical accounts give enough evidence of personal bold actions from individuals to almost surely prove that view wrong.

[Sardaukar]

I'm reading In the Name of Rome. The Men who Won the Roman Empire by Goldsworthy and he says that in a battle only was in first rank half of the army or 2/3, and that it was in the mind of the general to use the refresh units when he decided was appropiate.
He doesn't say neither 15 nor 20 minutes.

What do you think?



P.D.: he says also that in helenistic armies was strange use units of refresh.

Clausewitz believed that ih his day, troops were exhausted after 20 minutes of close fighting. Major General Fuller suggested 15 minutes was maximum time that a man could have fought in ancient battle before becoming exhausted. Goldsworthy thinks continuous melee time for same person/unit was probably even less than that.

If neither side gained an advantage, then lulls on fighting when both sides drawing breath, separated only by short distance, must have been common.

When broken line turned and fled, it throughout history almost always suffered heavy casualties. Probably even those who did not actively seek to kill their opponents (75 % or more according to SLA Marshall) in normal combat would in that situation try to kill the enemies in their reach. That would make it very beneficial to have best troops situated in first line, to prevent breaking and causing maximum chance to break enemy's ranks.

Also, presence of unit signum etc. seems to have played big part how viciously men fought. The eagle of Legio VII was only saved by bitter struggle in second battle of Cremona. At Jerusalem 70 CE, 3 signa were captured by Jewish fighters only after all the legionaries surrounding them were killed.

Like I quoted in one of my previous posts, undecisive engagements were probably very common between subunits in opposing armies, especially if both were veteran:

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."

I think we can draw some conclusions and similarities from that to modern boxing, for example.

[Sardaukar]

To add one sidenote, where I also agree with Goldsworthy, Germanic attack formation cuneus (wedge..if it was actually wedge) could have formed naturally during advance, more eager fighters outpacing less eager ones who'd naturally lag behind, thus forming wedge.

[Wander]

If the chance to perform acts of valor (and thereby impress the officers) is so precious, doesn't it seem like the same men having the only opportunity to do so would be likely to cause grumbling in the back ranks? It seems to me that yes, you'd put your heros in the front row, but -- no matter how eager they are -- they'd still get tired, and most heroes aren't eager to die. (Note that I said "most.")

I see it as likely that the aggressive fighters in the front line get first shot at being heroes, but eventually they'll get fatigued -- and then we're back where we were talking about before. They can either rotate out or die from a fatigue-induced error -- either way, then the men in the next rank get their chance to be heroes.

Seriously, aggression and adrenaline can fight fatigue for a while, but they can't hold it off forever. As long as the battle lasts, sooner or later each man will have to give up his place in line, or die.

EDIT: And I agree completely on the formation of a wedge. I also think the way to deal with it would be to step aside, let it in, and let the back-rankers cut it to pieces from the sides. In my proposed formation, we'd still have a final line of veterans -- presumably the seasoned men who don't really feel the need to prove anything -- to prevent a breakthrough.

[Sardaukar]

If the chance to perform acts of valor (and thereby impress the officers) is so precious, doesn't it seem like the same men having the only opportunity to do so would be likely to cause grumbling in the back ranks? It seems to me that yes, you'd put your heros in the front row, but -- no matter how eager they are -- they'd still get tired, and most heroes aren't eager to die. (Note that I said "most.")

I see it as likely that the aggressive fighters in the front line get first shot at being heroes, but eventually they'll get fatigued -- and then we're back where we were talking about before. They can either rotate out or die from a fatigue-induced error -- either way, then the men in the next rank get their chance to be heroes.

Seriously, aggression and adrenaline can fight fatigue for a while, but they can't hold it off forever. As long as the battle lasts, sooner or later each man will have to give up his place in line, or die.

You have a good point there and I do think rank-rotation was possible. If it happened, I don't believe it'd be like "2nd rank, step forward", just replacing those in first rank unable to continue to fight because of exhaustion mostly or wounds, during lulls in battle.

But, if unit would have rank-rotation as standard procedure, it'd mean those frequent lulls in fight would not be that frequent. Ancient sources seem to indicate that those lulls were quite significant to merit a mention.

[Wander]

I see individual rotation -- as Sardaukar suggests -- as one very likely scenario. As he decides it's time for a breather, each soldier signals the man behind him, and they perform a practiced exchange, with the tired man then making his way between the files to the back.

The other possibility would be rotation of a whole rank at a time, as we discussed. This may be less likely, given that individual endurance will vary from soldier to soldier, and with how hard he's been fighting. In addition, a soldier with a lot "left in him" might not want to give up the front row, which would create a real test of discipline.

Taking all of these factors into account, I think I'd have my hypothetical unit rotate, but on an as-needed basis -- and preferably during lulls, when it would be safer. If pressed hard, though, they'd be trained to switch places under heavy pressure.

[Sardaukar]

I see individual rotation -- as Sardaukar suggests -- as one very likely scenario. As he decides it's time for a breather, each soldier signals the man behind him, and they perform a practiced exchange, with the tired man then making his way between the files to the back.

The other possibility would be rotation of a whole rank at a time, as we discussed. This may be less likely, given that individual endurance will vary from soldier to soldier, and with how hard he's been fighting. In addition, a soldier with a lot "left in him" might not want to give up the front row, which would create a real test of discipline.

Taking all of these factors into account, I think I'd have my hypothetical unit rotate, but on an as-needed basis -- and preferably during lulls, when it would be safer. If pressed hard, though, they'd be trained to switch places under heavy pressure.

I think individual rotation is the most likely thing. But I think it was definitely not done when engaged in melee combat if not absolutely necessary for two reasons:

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

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

For example, Appian says that movement and disorder in ranks of Greek phalanx was said to be sign of immediate collapse. (Appian, BC 2. 78 )

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