Infantry Relief System

[Titus Manlius Verus]

I have heard of some ancient sources attesting to a method whereby a wounded or terminally exhausted legionary could switch places with the man behind him and could get relief. Is this true, and does anyone know the exact methodology behind this system? I found a video that I believe represents this system -relatively- well. ;-)

Regards,
Tyler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxLqx8xF9Pw

Only the first 1:05 is particularly relevant. The rest of it's just Caesar conquering Gaul. Not a big deal in Roman history. :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Well, some would say that Caesar conquering Gaul was at least a pretty big deal, but point taken....

That whistle has caused enormous controversy. There's a thread on RAT from way back at the release of the series. The conclusion is that we don't have any whistles in existance, and that we don't have any idea how the rotation went. The best sounding speculation is that the troops would shift back a couple of rows when the battle lines separated for a moment, which they certainly must have: people can't keep up that maximum exertion for very long. And when the lines separated, the troops that were organized made the switch. As for the pushing forward and all, well, it looks cool on TV, but we don't really know. That's what comes to mind, anyway.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...tml#297450

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...=45#297429

The fight over the whistle command was almost as bloody as the conquest of Gaul. :o :x

[Macedon]

In the sources there is no system ever mentioned by which any soldier of the line, let alone a rank of soldiers, was en mass relieved in any way. The wounded would indeed fall back or would be dragged back if unable to walk and this is often attested but that is as far as the sources go -at least as far as I know-. What the sources mention, unfortunately too vaguely for us to draw any conclusion, is that there was a way to relieve a whole unit - a line or part thereof-, which is a very different issue. What you see in this vid from the series "Rome", an often discussed video from a very well directed series, is just an educated guess that rests on the assumption that such an alternation of ranks would have happened on the field. However, there is absolutely no evidence that something like that was systematically done, while on the contrary, all the evidence points to the ranks being rigidly formed with all soldiers in their appointed positions throughout the battle, unless the soldier was unable to go on, in which case the man behind him would take his place. I know that it is a very appealing thought, especially for an army as well-disciplined as this of Julius Caesar, and many would insist that "logically" some kind of organized relief has to have been employed in long spells of action, but, the literary evidence thereto is still to be found and for many reasons, I personally think it just was not done.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

I'm acutely aware of what I call the "whistle war" debate. I do find it rather interesting that and army that thought of (basically) everything would not have a system for getting fresh bodies to the front. After all, some battles could last for a better part of a day. I believe it a "slight" understatement to call Roman history vexing. :errr:
I was reading in the whistle thread and somebody noted that a no relief system could work. You put your best fighters in the front two rows, your new soldiers in the middle, and your old (possibly those who signed on for a second contract) in the rear rank, and the optio in the back. I believe, should the centurion get killed, the signifer or the cornicurn could signal the optio (who was second in command and usually a centurion in waiting) who would muscle and shove his way up to the centurion's spot and take command.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, I agree with M. Demetrius that they probably rotated during a break in battle because an enterprising enemy leader would notice the regular rotations & probably would devise tactics to take advantage of this rotation & in my limited knowledge of Roman tactics that the idea was economy of movement, letting the enemy tire himself out with wild swings while the Romans used their shields & stabbing motions with gladius rather than swinging his weapon, the enemy would tire quicker & eventually have to regroup. Just a thought anyway. But I wonder how the rotations went in civil war situations as legionaries would be fighting enemies trained similar to themselves although I am sure the quality of training & actual battlefield experience varied from legion to legion.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Macedon]

Actually, a system that alternates ranks is not as effective as you think because of the different needs that would arise along the line. If a first ranker was not able to stand in his position because of any reason, be it a wound, exhaustion, panic etc, he would simply leave his position and move to the rear, certain that he would be judged for what he was doing -punished, ridiculed if the reason "equaled" cowardice, accepted and helped if his reason for leaving his position was valid-. There was no reason to do it for the whole rank at the same time, when every first ranker could decide for himself when it was time to abandon his position in the line. Yet, as I also wrote, there are many who agree that ranks "logically" were alternated/relieved but some documentation or parallel is for me necessary to go against what we know from the sources. In my opinion, if there was a well-established such system, we would find it (or hints of its existence) in the sources, especially in the manuals. What we find, however, is the continuous stressing of the importance of the placement of the right guy in the right spot in the file -that is who should be first-ranker, who second ranker, who file closer etc, which would be of no consequence if everyone, or some of the men, in the file would anyways be expected to regularly fight as first rankers. In your first post, you wrote that you think/know that there are sources that may attest to such a system, so maybe I have missed some text that could support it. Can you point me to one?

On the other hand, assuming that such a system existed, I think that the alternation of ranks would certainly not be done at a rate as is suggested in this vid. Maybe once every 15 to 30 minutes of close combat but certainly not every 10 seconds or 1 minute...

[jkaler48]

I think it more likely that relief may have been done by Century or even by Legion. Order coming from the Legion Legate or Tribune in charge of a flank or cohort or General in case of relief by Legion.

[Robert Vermaat]

By the 6th c. a military manual (Strategikon) mentions that the more steady soldiers (and the better armoured) are to be positioned in the front and rear ranks. If there was a 'relief system' this tactical positioning would have been in vain.

Of course one can argue that this was very late compared to the 1st century, but it's been shown that the Roman army shows plenty of continuation where tactics are concerned, and this may very well have been a rule for the 6th c. AD as well as say the 1st c. BC.

[Dan Howard]

I became convinced that it was bollocks after watching HBO's attempt to replicate it onscreen. It just won't work in a battle.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

I became convinced that it was bollocks after watching HBO's attempt to replicate it onscreen. It just won't work in a battle.

I'm certain that you are right, but could you expound your point, please? I'm not arguing, but given my lack of physical experience with simulated combat, I would like to know specifically why.

Regards,
Tyler

[Sean Manning]

I have heard of some ancient sources attesting to a method whereby a wounded or terminally exhausted legionary could switch places with the man behind him and could get relief. Is this true, and does anyone know the exact methodology behind this system? I found a video that I believe represents this system -relatively- well. ;-)

I think that this is just something which many modern people think they would have done if they were training an ancient army. Changing which soldiers were in front would let the best men rest ... but also put soldiers less brave, less calm, or less well-armed in the path of the enemy. I am not sure that Romans would have believed that the advantages were better than the disadvantages. Writers in the Greek tradition tend to emphasize the importance of having the best men, with the best kit, in front to face the enemy and in the rear to keep the other soldiers in place. But I can't recall any explicit evidence that the Roman army had specially chosen soldiers for the front and rear ranks before Maurice, so this does not disprove the theory which you are asking about.

[Mark Hygate]

As Macedon well knows, I've argued somewhat in this theatre not so long ago and will therefore quite happily take up the gauntlet once again.

My view is simply this, in effect....

The Polybian (and we get more detail from that period than ~150 years later, but there is no reason to think there'd been changes) century is 60 men most probably deployed 10x6, with a Centurion at one side and his Optio at the other. Just like we see in the video, I do argue for the close-formation where each man occupies a 2.5ft pace (same width as the shield) and supports those to each side so it's only a 25ft foot frontage. You don't need a whistle (the ancient battlefield is a much quieter place without tanks and explosions!) - you can shout.

What we do know from the sources (and the sources see things from a 'General's perspective and are not be able to give the soldiers') is that the manipular system is used at the macro/legion level (then deployed as 10 centuries x 6 until line is formed as my pictures in that previous thread suggested - so the system is the same).

My 'logic' :wink: and a reasonable amount of 'common sense suggests that if the manipular rotation of centuries is true (and it was written about enough that we have no reason to doubt it), then there is actually no reason that at the century/contubernium level it isn't viable in a similar manner to that the video shows. I would train them a little differently (and the centurion wouldn't be at the front for starters) and it has to work in a full line (phalanx) situation.

But yes, I will disagree - I think it's perfectly viable. My only personal experience is (as previously noted) in military (not police) riot training with broadly similar equipment, but that's as close as we can likely get I suspect. More importantly, if you can safely rotate/withdraw whole centuries, I see no reason that individuals couldn't do it. The big advantage the Romans had is a much higher and enforced discipline than now, and that can only help.

Don't need a whistle though - shouting at soldiers is enough and cornicen-trumpeting under Tribune/Legate/Consul to communicate to centuries/cohorts across greater distances.

[Bryan]

Mark wrote:

I would train them a little differently (and the centurion wouldn't be at the front for starters) and it has to work in a full line (phalanx) situation.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Macedon]

What do you mean by "the manipular rotation of centuries", Mark ?

[jkaler48]

Here is a video involving a riot training exercise of what amounts to three centuries of South Korean Police. I feel that this give some sense of the pulse of battle pass through reliefs by Century etc. must have been in the Roman era. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uREJILOby-c