Infantry Relief System

[Bryan]

Sempronius Densus,

If I could throw my two cents in, current western military forces generally have a support to fighter ratio of at least 10 to 1, if not more, yet from what I've seen cohesion within the military forces does not suffer greatly due to the disparity from my experiences (though there is some good-natured ribaldry between "grunts" and "Pogues" in the US Army and Marine Corps). And within any company I ever served with, certain squads or even platoons were more commonly used than others, especially for more dangerous missions, mainly due to leadership and performance indications. I got stuck in a platoon one time that was relegated to basically "busy work" missions because my platoon leader was a fool and a coward. No organization is fair even though the men want it.

Food for thought, in terms of sticking your best men in the front lines to fight: Assuming you were a modern day infantry leader, who would you give your most casualty producing weapon, the machine gun, to? An untested and untried private who based on what you've seen is simply an "okay" soldier, not great but not horrible? Or would you be more inclined to hand it over to that maniac soldier, the aggressive guy who is always getting into fisticuffs, who is itching to mow the enemy down, and also is proficient in gun drills?
Within a Roman century, the front rankers were the most casualty producing weapons. Once spent (tired, wounded, dead, poorly motivated and scared), the entire century was combat ineffective and would need to be replaced by another.

[Macedon]

Do keep in mind that battles were the exception. Skirmishes and other out-of-battle clashes (like sieges, foraging etc) were much more dangerous during a campaign as far as the probability of getting killed was concerned. In skirmishes though, many more than the mere "front-rankers" would fight.

We cannot easily compare the psychology of a Roman soldier to that of current Western privates. The pursuit of excellence in battle was deeply engraved in these men's psyches. For them it meant real glory, wealth, social advancement, their names being remembered, it may have been the single most sought after, profitable, praised quality in the Roman world. Why compare them to an average US or British trooper and not to a fanatic Arab who has no inhibition whatsoever to give his life for his beliefs or to a Japanese Samurai? And the Romans really did reward such men.

In Greece, the hoplites would often quarrel for the honor to be front-rankers, or to be posted in the most perilous positions. And for them, risking their lives in battle would not get them a tenth of the rewards that Romans got. However, ever since they were young boys, they would be raised with Homer, they would learn that glorious death was the most coveted fate for any man. And those states which could better convince their youths of these ideals would be most successful in war too..

In all, Romans (as well as most youths of ancient cultures) were raised on very different values than those that our children today are. And good performance in battle also meant much more in all sectors of these men's lives.Wealth, glory, status, women, slaves, the incentives were enormous even for those who were not that honor-bound. And of course, we are always talking about a fraction of the army consisting of such men. I guess, many, if not most, would still like the idea of showing such bravery but in reality were incapable to and so they remained in the mid ranks, were discharged or deserted.

[Mark Graef]

- In the Romans case, we also know that they could replace entire centuries and maniples (let alone having allowed velites to pass through) with ones behind, the movement happening one way or another (either advancing or withdrawing), either between files or by whole sub-units - the detail is not in fact described anywhere as far as I know

Here are the descriptions I have found (so far) of maniples or light infantry falling back through — or being absorbed into — the rear formation's files:

Livius 8.8.12 : Triarii consurgentes, ubi in intervalla ordinum suorum principes et hastatos recepissent, extemplo compressis ordinibus velut claudebant vias, unoque continenti agmine iam nulla spe post relicta in hostem incidebant; (The Triarii rising up, after receiving the principes and spearmen into the intervals between their ranks, immediately closing their files, shut up as it were the openings, and in one compact body fell upon the enemy)

8.10.5: ubi triarii consurrexerunt integri refulgentibus armis, noua ex improuiso exorta acies, receptis in interualla ordinum antepilanis (When the Triarii arose, fresh as they were, with their arms glittering, a new line which appeared unexpectedly, receiving the antepilani into the intervals between the files)

38.26.8: consul iam per se turbatis si legionum signa ostendisset, versuros extemplo in fugam omnes ratus receptis inter ordines velitibus et alia turba auxiliorum aciem promovit. (The consul, thinking that if he disclosed the standards of the legions to an enemy already disorganized on its own account they would all at once turn to flight, received within his files the skirmishers and the rest of the throng of auxiliaries and moved forward his battle-line.)

33.9.1 Quinctius iis qui in proelio fuerant inter signa et ordines acceptis tuba dat signum. (Quinctius absorbed into his files and among the standards the men who had already been engaged and gave the signal with the trumpet.)

Frontinus, Stratagamata, 2.3.10 & 11: Xanthippus Lacedaemonius in Africa adversus M. Atilium Regulum levem armaturam in prima acie conlocavit, in subsidio autem robur exercitus praecepitque auxiliaribus, ut emissis telis cederent hosti et, cum se intra suorum ordines recepissent, confestim in latera discurrerent et a cornibus rursus erumperent; exceptumque iam hostem a robustioribus et ipsi circumierunt. 11 Sertorius idem in Hispania adversus Pompeium fecit. (Xanthippus, the Spartan, in the campaign conducted in Africa against Marcus Atilius Regulus, placed his light-armed troops in the front line, holding the flower of his army in reserve. Then he directed the auxiliary troops, after hurling their javelins, to give way before the enemy, withdraw within the ranks of their fellow-soldiers, hurry to the flanks, and from there again rush forward to attack. Thus when the enemy had been met by the stronger troops, they were enveloped also by these light-armed forces. 11 Sertorius employed the same tactics in Spain in the campaign against Pompey.)

(Note: In the above Latin passages the word ordines is sometimes translated as ranks and sometimes as files; the word actually means something closer to "rows" and could mean ranks or files depending on the context; some translators are not always careful with this distinction. The formations in the above cases would be in open order, which would create a 3 foot wide empty interval or "lane" between each file through which the troops being relieved could easily move through without disrupting or jostling the formation of the relieving unit.)

[Luca]

The additional query over the segmentata statement would also be most interesting - please do say more.....

Well, this is one of the controversial theories by Dario that in the past months was not directly criticized by a new article about the composition of the garrisons in roman times... a very long story.
Anyway you can read directly his theory here (in italian): http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_00009d.htm
and also here about the leather segmentata:
http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_000037.htm

Since years I would write an article about that experience (I have video and pictures, unfortunately not my copyright) explaining everything went wrong, facts, philological issues, etc. but on one hand I have no time, on the other I'm afraid to break the "peace" between roman groups in Italy... remembering the wars in the past.
To be done correctly this would require much more space than a response in this forum. I will evaluate to write a brief article on the web.
Thank you all for the interest!

[Mark Hygate]

....................... The formations in the above cases would be in open order, which would create a 3 foot wide empty interval or "lane" between each file through which the troops being relieved could easily move through without disrupting or jostling the formation of the relieving unit.)

Mark,

Thank you for that useful summary of quotes - for that's exactly where I'm coming from. I, indeed, would have no real problem accepting your last bit as a likely possibility - but the fact is that we don't know. From my current experiences (whilst I sometimes enjoy the cut and thrust) - if I said such a thing then I'd have all sorts of 'quote your source' & 'where's the evidence'!

For the bit we don't have is - 'the Triarii, currently resting in the kneeling position in 'Formation 3' (individual staggered quincunx 3ft separation laterally and 6ft by depth), stood to their feet and adopted 'Formation 4' by having even-numbered files step one pace to the right, thus opening a 3ft gap between files that the 'other troops' were able to transition easily; before stepping left once more to 'Formation 3'; advancing one pace to 'Formation 2' (ranks closed up to 'shieldwall'); and then rear ranks closing ranks to 'Formation 1', thrusting spears forward and leaning into the front ranks to provide physical support.'

That's what we don't have - it's just a theoretical and speculative interpretation - but it would work, so it's at least viable. Definitely teachable, simple orders, practice makes perfect and I know I could do it. But it might not be accurate - for we don't know.......

My interest is certainly picqued and, when the little thesis is done I shall happily try and put together a 'century drill manual' just for fun - with pictures!

Which is why, for Bryan (and I am sure that Forum rule has been tweaked, for I don't recall the "(first)" addition at all - and I've been 'talking at the TV this week over the twitter issues - for they wouldn't happen if people had to register and use their name - free speech and the right to face your accuser in action!).......but yes, it did seem personal, but no matter.

Your little 'thought piece' was interesting, but a big question intrudes.......you obviously don't think that the Roman century operated in 'semi-fixed' files of sections/contubernia and that you can happily muck about with internal structures at whim to move men about to your current desire?

And you would have been happy to be treated like that? For I think Sempronius/Adam is absolutely right - that dovetails with exactly my own experiences and I don't see the Romans as fundamentally different at all. The absolute situation may be a bit different, but 'man' hasn't evolved at all in about 10,000 years - and the harsh discipline of Rome is not that far removed from 18th & 19th century army discipline.

[Mark Hygate]

Luca,

Thank you. I perhaps understand the sensitivity, and sadly cannot read Italian, but if you do have time to add more, I know I for one would be grateful.

If it's an attached text, I'm sure people would be interested.

[Bryan]

Mark,

Your little 'thought piece' was interesting, but a big question intrudes.......you obviously don't think that the Roman century operated in 'semi-fixed' files of sections/contubernia and that you can happily muck about with internal structures at whim to move men about to your current desire?

Feel free to rip my narrative apart. I put it out there, I should be able to defend everything in it. In term of the semi-fixed files, I am not sold on the idea that they were fixed or even subunits. Mucking with the internal structure of your own unit is a time renown right of commanders. What's the point of being a centurion if you can't even decide where to place your men? Was micromanaging as popular in ancient times as it is today?

I am a believer of the school of thought that the Roman legions, especially during the Republican era, weren't a well drilled war machine. They were a militia army of hardened farmers who brought their own equipment and went off to war to earn a reputation as a warrior (virtus), kill the enemy, and earn some money in the form of pillaged loot. Most were illiterate, most legions weren't seriously trained or drilled it seems, and those that were were usually armies that had performed badly before and were taken over by a more competent commander who wanted to beat them into shape. I am not the only one who believes this, either, it seems to be a pretty popular idea according to many authors. What we seem to be experiencing is comparable to the Othismos debate within the Greek history purview. The ancient sources aren't clear enough so the debate is technically not possible to prove 100%. The only thing you can do is show reasoning behind your theories. I've done that but may have done it poorly.

And you would have been happy to be treated like that? For I think Sempronius/Adam is absolutely right - that dovetails with exactly my own experiences and I don't see the Romans as fundamentally different at all. The absolute situation may be a bit different, but 'man' hasn't evolved at all in about 10,000 years - and the harsh discipline of Rome is not that far removed from 18th & 19th century army discipline.

Heck no I wouldn't want to have been treated like that. But at the same time, I am a wimpy American that grew up in the culture of be nice to everyone and political correctness. If you taught me proper Latin and stuck me in a time machine and dropped me off in Ancient Rome, I doubt I'd last a day or two before I was killed. And I consider myself a capable person. But I am not Roman and they were a much "hardier" people. When I grew up, my father didn't throw away unwanted siblings because he didn't feel like feeding them. I didn't have a slave working my land for me, preparing my food. Also, Dad didn't legally murder my mother because she was unfaithful. And when I served in the military, if I fell asleep on guard duty, I wasn't beaten to death the next morning by my squad mates. During battles, I wasn't expected to murder unarmed men, women and children and to capture the rest to sell as slaves. I didn't spend the better part of three days drunk and doing whatever I wanted after taking control of an enemy held city. I wasn't even able to bring any loot home from Iraq, think how disappointing that was! Humans from 10,000 years ago and today are genetically pretty much still the same but modern humans, especially westerners such as Americans and British, are completely different culturally than the Romans were or to put our cultural identity, whether morally or militarily, on them is wrong and is bad historiography in my opinion.

Below is a picture from Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts. It illustrates a possibility of how maniples were formed during the Republican era. Find me a source that says it could not have happened that way. I looked and couldn't.
[attachment=7761]SoldiersandGhostManiple.png[/attachment]