Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Friendly Fire, Blue-on-Blue in ancient battles?
#1
Hello,

I recently read “Backfire: A History of Friendly Fire from Ancient Warfare to the Present Day” by Geoffrey Regan and learnt very much. Content: In Backfire, military historian Geoffrey Regan asks: how can this happen? How widespread is it? To what extent is it covered up? In this startling and revelatory study covering an impressive sweep of history from the days of Alexander the Great up to the 21st century (including Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands, the Gulf War and Afghanistan), Geoffrey Regan describes the incidents in detail and examines the causes behind them. This harrowing and engrossing study examines the truth behind the most tragic examples of military incompetence and sheds explosive new light on a sadly ancient problem.

So far, I assumed the Ancients solved the natural problems of fighting, e.g. in phalanx, but the author tells that blue-on-blue was so widespread that it was generally accepted as inevitable and thus hardly mentioned in any battle description of the ancient historians.

Questions I’d like to discuss:


1. Greek hoplite battles were often decided by the depth of ranks because of the pushing power provided. At least I thought so. The author states that being pushed from behind deprives from the opportunity to dodge and strike out thus leading to quick death.
2. While the front ranks were fighting the soldiers behind surely threw every kind of missile they could grab. The author claims that this behaviour cost a significant amount of own fighters their lives. Usual and generally accepted.
3. The Macedonian phalanx is described almost as a slaughterhouse of its own. The soldiers wielding their pikes in five ranks easily could kill comrades in the rear with their bronze spikes especially when in desperate fighting.
4. In general, it is claimed that the greatest enemy of an army in a fight was being packed to close together to wield the weapons.
5. Another aspect: uniforms. Simply incredible. There must have been badges, what do you think? In the book the author talks about two famous examples where identification failed. In the Athenian night battle at Syracuse and a battle between Athenians and Thebans where the former surrounded the enemy on both flanks only to start fighting each other when the two wings met in the back of the enemy. This fact would have deprived the generals from many tactical options and could be resolved with common sense, so what’s about any kind of uniform?
Reply
#2
I wonder if this went into Alexander's thinking when he eschewed Parmenio's advice at Gaugamela to attack at night. I'm sure it was confusing enough fighting during midday with all the dust kicking up into the air.

Quote:3. The Macedonian phalanx is described almost as a slaughterhouse of its own. The soldiers wielding their pikes in five ranks easily could kill comrades in the rear with their bronze spikes especially when in desperate fighting.

This is something I always thought about looking at the xyston used by the Macedonian cavalry. They have sharpened spear tips on both ends. I know it would be useful to have an extra tip in case one broke off during the fighting, but it seems to me like this could be a safety issue when riding and fighting alongside friendly cavalrymen.
Seems like a blunt tip would be safer, but then again I'm not the one who conquered Persia.
Reply
#3
This is an excellent reason for having a deep neckguard on your helmet and a backplate on your cuirass - all those pesky short rounds the archers and slingers keep dropping into the formation. After all, how often is a man in front of you going to have a good shot at the back of your neck compared to a man behind you? And sooner or later some klutz in the rear is sure to trip and poke his spear into your kidney.
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#4
Quote:This is an excellent reason for having a deep neckguard on your helmet and a backplate on your cuirass - all those pesky short rounds the archers and slingers keep dropping into the formation. After all, how often is a man in front of you going to have a good shot at the back of your neck compared to a man behind you? And sooner or later some klutz in the rear is sure to trip and poke his spear into your kidney.

Oh, I like it! Nice catch, John. I recall a small demo we did years ago, a simple line of a half-dozen legionaries going to throw our pila. Turns out one of them had never thrown before--I simply forgot to check beforehand! He reared back and his pilum turned sideways, parallel to the line of troops. When he tried to throw, it clanged across the backs of our helmets and fell to the ground behind us. Whoops. We like neckguards, yes we do.

This gets even more likely when you realize that the *best* troops were usually up front. Meaning the klutzes were behind you...

There's an interesting little scrap in the Voyage of Argo, in which the Argonauts arrive somewhere and hop out on the beach, only to be charged by the locals. Naturally they fight back, and naturally they pretty much chop their attackers to bits, only to find out that they're all supposed to have been friends. Whoops. I think Jason still gets a few Hero Points out of it--no one chops folks up like that guy! Isn't he dreamy?

What's a uniform? In the city-state era, your allies from this month could be your enemies next month. And if you come up with a particularly spiffy way to dress for war, and are then successful, chances are a lot of other folks will just dress like you. Spartans, for example--everyone liked to look like them! More confusion.

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#5
By the 4th century BCE or so, hoplites from some rich poleis were all supposed to use shields with an emblem marking their city (eg. Lambda for Laconians, Alpha for Athenians). But before then, everyone bought his own equipment, and rich hoplites liked showing off. There is also some evidence that Roman shields had some kind of unit marking. But we also hear that Roman velites were supposed to each wear something distinctive so their leaders could see who was fighting bravely!

Ancient warfare wasn't like Napoleonic warfare where generals could give lots of orders after the fighting broke out and expect them to be carried out. So identifying units in a haze of dust and powder smoke wasn't a major concern. Ancient battles must have been a confusing place, but so are modern ones.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#6
Quote:3. The Macedonian phalanx is described almost as a slaughterhouse of its own. The soldiers wielding their pikes in five ranks easily could kill comrades in the rear with their bronze spikes especially when in desperate fighting.
Did the author actually try to reconstruct a fighting Macedonian phalanx formation with a sufficient amount of men? Unfortunately we don't have enough people ourselves, but from our experience we see that the butt spike of the Sarissa should always have been around the feet or knees of the soldiers in the rear. Wielding it like a Dori is virtually impossible anyways. So logically it could have led to minor leg injuries, which makes it reasonable to believe that greaves were an essential part of the equipment. But we gained no reason to believe that there was a significant chance for fatal injuries by "friendly fire" in the rear ranks.
Btw. based on the vergina findings, the butt spike of the Sarissa is made of iron and not sharpened at all. It doesn't even have a tip like the butt spike of a Dori. So if the author really writes of bronze butt spikes, which are suited to stab someone, it shows that he didn't put a lot of effort in his research.
Perdikkas a.k.a. Thorsten Schillo

http://hetairoi.de
Reply
#7
Agreed. And Connoly who reconstructed a phalanx with sufficient men and with accurate sarissae said that there was no problem with the butt spikes. He only stated that it was necessary that the phalangites always avoided their sarissa point touching the ground while marching because you could imagine how the butt spike would violently "move" backwards or better how one of the rear rankers could march right onto it.
Khairete
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#8
Quote:1. Greek hoplite battles were often decided by the depth of ranks because of the pushing power provided. At least I thought so. The author states that being pushed from behind deprives from the opportunity to dodge and strike out thus leading to quick death.

The author presupposes an absurd situation where the front ranker, or Promachos, is doing his best to spear fence while those behind shove him forward onto the enemy spears. When closing occurred it surely was with the Promachoi leading and dodging/blocking the probably 2 spears that extended from the enemy line. Not wanting to be caught flat-footed, the enemy would probably move forth to meet you across the 5'-6' of dead zone between spear-fencing phalanxes.

Quote:4. In general, it is claimed that the greatest enemy of an army in a fight was being packed to close together to wield the weapons.

This is why hoplites weilded their weapons overhand. No matter how packed you are you can still use it effectively. I have done so shield to shield and its a bit brutal, but you don't die quick, you tend to bind up you enemies weapon and then are mutually afraid to unbind due to that fact that a lethal piece of steel is so close to your face. Shield to shield, you foe is a great help because his head helps to shield yours from his friends.

This has been discussed at length on many threads: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=26044">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=26044<!-- l


Quote:5. Another aspect: uniforms. Simply incredible. There must have been badges, what do you think? In the book the author talks about two famous examples where identification failed. In the Athenian night battle at Syracuse and a battle between Athenians and Thebans where the former surrounded the enemy on both flanks only to start fighting each other when the two wings met in the back of the enemy.

Such double- envelopments were very rare in hoplite warfare. The linear formation of the phalanx did not provide much opportunity for your forces to encounter another part of your own line. Usually one flank would be victorious and anything coming your way was a foe. Perhaps this is why the Athenians did not expect their own troops to be before them at Delium.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Friendly fire (don\'t use your dory underhanded in a phalanx) PMBardunias 27 5,467 07-20-2010, 12:05 AM
Last Post: Giannis K. Hoplite
  Casualties in ancient battles. eugene 3 1,578 12-03-2009, 06:53 AM
Last Post: Paralus

Forum Jump: