To stop a wedge.

[M. Val. Naso]

Hi guys!


Was wondering for a few days now, how could the romans stop a good wedge from the germanic people (esp. in late roman times)? Did they just trust in their lines, or could they do something against it?

[Nathan Ross]

Vegetius (III.19) mentions a formation called the forfex (forceps, or pincers) apparently an open V designed to envelop an attack by wedge:

"There is also a method of resisting the wedge when formed by the enemy. The wedge is a disposition of a body of infantry widening gradually towards the base and terminating in a point towards the front. It pierces the enemy's line by a multitude of darts directed to one particular place. The soldiers call it the swine's head. To oppose this disposition, they make use af another called the pincers, resembling the letter V, composed of a body of men in close order. It receives the wedge, inclosing it on both sides, and thereby prevents it from penetrating the line."

But we should not imagine Roman infantry of any era passively awaiting the arrival of the enemy. Late Roman troops in particular had a formidable array of missiles, and any attacking force would have to wade through a barrage of arrows, catapult projectiles, sling bullets, javelins and plumbatae before reaching the Roman front line. Such a bombardment would very likely either break up the attack or stall it completely, making the attackers vulnerable to a Roman counter-charge.

[Macedon]

Furthermore, a wedge is not some super-formation. A good, sturdy phalanx, men who remained firm in their positions had no problem stopping a wedge, whether of infantry or cavalry. The two advantages of the wedge were:

A) its ability to concentrate its missiles against the enemy posted against its tip (which of course would most usually be a number of men, thus effectively making its shape trapezoid instead of triangular) raising the possibility to put this specific part of the enemy line in disorder before the actual clash.

B) its ability to more easily exploit a gap formed in the enemy line where the wedge would hit.

Nevertheless, the one thing that anyone should first keep in mind is that the wedge was not some formation that provided some great advantage. An advantage under circumstances yes, but not something real extraordinary.

[M. Demetrius]

Any infantry advance can be discouraged by caltrops (tribuli), or other ad hoc field traps/pitfalls/"lilies". Not every battle was fought on unprepared ground. Frequently, commanders picked the spot for the battle, and camped so that they could have that land they considered fortuitous.

So a horde of charging infantry, finding themselves suddenly with sharp things sticking through their feet would be in significant distress, and could be much more heavily damaged by missiles.

[66kbm]

To stop a wedge, ensure underpants are below trouser line. Simple.
Kevin

[M. Demetrius]

:-o :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

To stop a wedge, ensure underpants are below trouser line. Simple.
Kevin

Glad you said that...saved me confirming my troll status! :mrgreen:

[ValentinianVictrix]

Any infantry advance can be discouraged by caltrops (tribuli), or other ad hoc field traps/pitfalls/"lilies". Not every battle was fought on unprepared ground. Frequently, commanders picked the spot for the battle, and camped so that they could have that land they considered fortuitous.

So a horde of charging infantry, finding themselves suddenly with sharp things sticking through their feet would be in significant distress, and could be much more heavily damaged by missiles.

Field defences such as caltrops, pits full of stakes etc can be of equal menace to those who emplace them as they can to those who attempt to cross them. This probably explains why the use of caltrops fell out of use certainly by the beginning of the Late Roman period. Field defences imply that the troops employing them do not believe that they can defeat their opponent in open battle, either by their lack of numbers or by lack of morale. The reasoning behind this is that field defences prevent the defender from pursuing an enemy who breaks off or routs from combat.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Vegetius (III.19) mentions a formation called the forfex (forceps, or pincers) apparently an open V designed to envelop an attack by wedge:

"There is also a method of resisting the wedge when formed by the enemy. The wedge is a disposition of a body of infantry widening gradually towards the base and terminating in a point towards the front. It pierces the enemy's line by a multitude of darts directed to one particular place. The soldiers call it the swine's head. To oppose this disposition, they make use af another called the pincers, resembling the letter V, composed of a body of men in close order. It receives the wedge, inclosing it on both sides, and thereby prevents it from penetrating the line."

But we should not imagine Roman infantry of any era passively awaiting the arrival of the enemy. Late Roman troops in particular had a formidable array of missiles, and any attacking force would have to wade through a barrage of arrows, catapult projectiles, sling bullets, javelins and plumbatae before reaching the Roman front line. Such a bombardment would very likely either break up the attack or stall it completely, making the attackers vulnerable to a Roman counter-charge.

You would think that such a bombardment would have that effect Nathan, but its clear in Ammianus and other works that this was rarely the case. There are several battle accounts where casualty figures were given, its stressed that most casualties were caused when one army broke and the victorious one then slew the routers in the pursuit. And of course whilst the Romans did indeed put up a tremendous missile barrage at battles such as Argentoratum, that did not prevent the Allemanni from breaking through the Roman front line and crash into the second where they were finally beaten off.
Both the Late Romans and their barbarian counter-parts used wedge formations called either the 'Hogs Head', the 'Cuneus' or the 'Saw tooth', these are described in action by Ammianus and others.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

Field defences imply that the troops employing them do not believe that they can defeat their opponent in open battle, either by their lack of numbers or by lack of morale. The reasoning behind this is that field defences prevent the defender from pursuing an enemy who breaks off or routs from combat.

I have to disagree there. It might, but it need not be the reason for such defences. It could equally mean they wanted to bolster the infantry on the flanks so as to be able to strengthen the centre, while the enemy could still be broken and persued over the flanks. Which I believe was a tactic employed by Belisarius in Parsia?

You would think that such a bombardment would have that effect Nathan, but its clear in Ammianus and other works that this was rarely teh case. There are several battle accounts where casualty figures were given, its stressed that most casualties were caused when one army broke and the victorious one then slew the routeres in the pursuit.

perhaps these were batles in which no cuneus was employed? Supressing missile fire could also prevent cunei being formed up, keeping most defenders hidden under their scuta and unable to offer tactical support. This is how I believe plumbatae were used after the front lines had made contact.

And of course whilst the Romans did indeed put up a tremendous missile barrage at battles such as Argentoratum, that did not prevent the Allewmanni from breaking through the Roman front line and crash into the second where they were finally beaten off.

Missile fire is not the end to all attacks of course. And unfortunately the details we have about this battle are still very scanty, and we could even interpret the description as a Roman answer to the cuneus attack - open up and attack the flanks.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Hi Adrian,

Field defences imply that the troops employing them do not believe that they can defeat their opponent in open battle, either by their lack of numbers or by lack of morale. The reasoning behind this is that field defences prevent the defender from pursuing an enemy who breaks off or routs from combat.

I have to disagree there. It might, but it need not be the reason for such defences. It could equally mean they wanted to bolster the infantry on the flanks so as to be able to strengthen the centre, while the enemy could still be broken and persued over the flanks. Which I believe was a tactic employed by Belisarius in Parsia?

Ah, your thinking of the Battle of Dara in 530AD Robert? This exactly illustrates my point, Bellisarius was heavily outnumbered by the Sasanids and he dug some ditches to try and break up the Sasanid attacks. These were only partly successful as the Sasanids did force the ditches and engage Bellisarius. It was the interevention of a small group of Huns that saved the day.

You would think that such a bombardment would have that effect Nathan, but its clear in Ammianus and other works that this was rarely teh case. There are several battle accounts where casualty figures were given, its stressed that most casualties were caused when one army broke and the victorious one then slew the routeres in the pursuit.

perhaps these were batles in which no cuneus was employed? Supressing missile fire could also prevent cunei being formed up, keeping most defenders hidden under their scuta and unable to offer tactical support. This is how I believe plumbatae were used after the front lines had made contact.

If I remember correctly Robert practically all the accounts in Ammianus have the Romans and their opponents bombard each other no matter what formation they were in, it appears to have been a standard battle field tactic for all nations at that time. As to Plumbatae or Martiobarbuli, I have found no mention of these missile weapons in use during the 4th century, they are not mentioned by name in Ammianus, he does mention other missile weapons by their specific name by never mentions darts by any of their various names. I've not seen mention of them in Julian, Libanius or other works either, the only mention I can find is within Vegetius. Anyone have a 4th Century source they can quote?

And of course whilst the Romans did indeed put up a tremendous missile barrage at battles such as Argentoratum, that did not prevent the Allewmanni from breaking through the Roman front line and crash into the second where they were finally beaten off.

Missile fire is not the end to all attacks of course. And unfortunately the details we have about this battle are still very scanty, and we could even interpret the description as a Roman answer to the cuneus attack - open up and attack the flanks.

I tend to read both Ammianus and Libanius together when trying to decipher what happened at Argentoratum, they both have some interesting details that are missing in the others accounts. Still, where you get an account where the Romans lose less than a thousand men and the enemy lose over 5000 when they break and are pursued, that would tend to indicate that missle fire caused very few casualties, it was the hand to hand combat where most deaths occured. I'm in the camp that believes the missile barrages were more to bolster morale than to actually kill masses of the enemy (I was reading in Ammianus over the weekend an account where the Allemanni picked up the Roman javelins and other spear types that were thrown at them and threw them back at the Romans in turn!)

[Sardaukar]

There is also the theory that wedge was not really a planned tactical formation but natural phenomena for less-disciplined (like tribal armies etc.) troops making charge. It could been caused by bravest men hurrying forward and more cautious hanging bit back, which would cause naturally a wedge-shaped formation.

I think that was in Goldsworthy's Roman Army At War.

[Urselius]

Narses destroyed a Frankish attack column, or large wedge, in the wars in Italy. His centre was of infantry, incuding dismounted heavy cavalry, backed by archers. His centre held long enough for his cavalry to hit the wedge's flanks and rear. The Franks were butchered, their fate was sealed when Narses'disgruntled Herul infantry returned to the fight and attacked the head of the Frankish column.