Maintaining formation during the melee

[Calvo]

While many ancient military manuals have often discussed infantry fighting formation in rather idealised terms, such as each Roman legionary occupying 6 ft front space (which means 3 ft between each soldier), and men in alternating rank occupying a "chessboard" configuration, I often wondered what the situation was like in a real-life melee.

I'm sure that in many cases, especially when the unit is actively engaged with an aggressive enemy, some soldiers might be pushed back, some might leap forward for a few aggressive strikes, others might be knocked to one side or the other... I doubt that the resulting formation would be idealised as those specified in military drill manuals. Also, it is said that psychologically, in hand-to-hand combat, it is very important that each soldier felt protected by those to his left, right, and behind, so in the cause of a battle, the gaps between each soldier would tend to close and the frontage of the century would be reduced.

Has anyone ever made any reliable study as to what extent the formations were kept according to the book during an active melee?

[FarDarter]

Common sense states that one could only do stuff like this through lots and lots of drill. I am in a marching band; I know this well. The Spartans universally walked slowly into battle, keeping in step with their flutes and maintaining a very even front. Same with the Macedonians, Swiss, etc. Certainly, the famed Roman discipline would come from intense and extended drilling, for they were not born with it.

Train, train, train.

[Macedon]

I think that It is actually not that difficult to keep battle-formation as long as the troops maintain the mentality that they HAVE TO keep it. However, there are two different aspects of formation keeping one has to study. The one is the formation of the army, that is the shape it is supposed to have over several hundred yards if not miles and the other formation of the position, that is the men keeping their relative positions to each other.

As far as the former is concerned, the sources speak of lines often/usually becoming snake-like, so for several thousand men to keep a completely straight line is very difficult and wasn't actually expected to.However, in a smaller scale, the men would not realize that nor would that pose a problem in their position. It could produce other issues, like a wing advancing to far and fall into an ambush or enter unfavorable ground, shifts to the left or right (like that famed shift of the hoplite phalanx), men closing up their ranks more and more and other such inadvertent motions could and did occur. Of course they were unwanted and better disciplined troops were less likely to do them but the average soldier had no idea of that happening. In their limited perception, they would try to keep their relative positions which would ensure them (more) safety. Keeping right next to your right man is relatively easy if you want to. In cultures where personal valor was valued, they would indeed exit their lines. In more disciplined armies they would not and those who would (I guess that in the thousands of men some would for some reason or other do something spontaneous thinking that they were exploiting some advantage) would not really endanger the line so much since their position would immediately be covered. We do know that such action was generally prohibited, often under sentence of death.

And as Jack pointed out, slow march was very helpful in covering the several hundred yards to the enemy.

One can again see these videos posted in the threads about the Roman relief system to see how the riot police, a roughly 50 yard line really does that snakelike motion without really losing its cohesion or close order. It is a fact that it is more of a skirmish action but still it is indicative of how a close ordered line can really change "shapes" and remain a packed, ordered line.

Of course, men retreating, running away, many casualties, inability or unwilingness to follow commands and/or keep the line would endanger the whole lot, lines could collapse and their shape destroyed in a very short time. This happened once the will to keep next to your right man ceased for any reason.

[Thomas Aagaard]

If we look at the "small picture" on the fontline, I think that the most important things is actually to make sure you keep your distance to the soldier let and right of your so you don't end up in one big masse. If you can't move, you die.

What Desmond descripe about the the gaps getting smaller during combat, is something you can easily find in a moderen reenactment fight.
People tend to "hug" their neighbor to the right, with the result that they might end up without the needed space to use their weapons effectively.
(humans are pack animals in this regard)
And if trying to fall back, it happens a lot . Thats why it is a lot easier to move forward or just hold a position, than than try to make a fighting retreat.

And if that "pack animal" reflex shows itself in a sport it must be much clearer ifl.

[Mark Hygate]

This subject, as Macedon has already noted, touches greatly upon things we have already raised in the 'Infantry Relief' (which I will reply to next) thread and the earlier one that I started on 'De-constructing Polybius'. In short, discussing such also touches on the point I'm about to make back to Macedon's comments in the first.

When it comes to the century/individual level that all of these threads have discussed, what does/should appear obvious when we are looking at things is the lack of detail in the sources to cover all that we would like to know - so much is missing.

Polybius is the one who has the men occupying a 6ft space (3ft between each man and just about exactly what most people teach today in regular military drill and is suitable for marching); Vegetius has each man occupying 3ft frontage (ie next to each other) and 6ft between ranks and thus is different again; as the OP notes, just as the centuries/maniples are supposed to have formed a 'chequer-board' so can the individual.

Are some of the right and others wrong? No, I believe they are all right and simply arrangements all possible if we only re-wrote the drill manual that way, although I am already of the belief that 3ft is used by the ancients (2 cubits), because that was well known - and actually the Romans certainly used the pace (2.5 Roman feet) for marching and deploying and drill. Why? Because it's the absolute easiest to maintain using the arm as the measure, just like now. Even the Roman's shield is so designed.

Within such a system, and for all infantry-based armies fighting in formation and 'holding a line' (phalanx), then yes the line doesn't have to be straight as a ruler, but can undulate rather a lot. What is important is the degree of unevenness and the important requirement is the ability to support your neighbour. The entire thrust of an opposing army is to break up that cohesiveness and penetrate the 'line' and start to cause damage - hopefully leading to the 'breaking' (and that's exactly why that term is used) of the enemy line and the, hoped for, destruction of the enemy once they 'fall apart'.

[Calvo]

Thanks for the interesting replies.
Video games such as Rome Total War often depict the Roman battle formations to be less rigid than the Greek Phalanx. The centuries, maniples, or Cohorts, rather than strictly square or rectangular formations, often appear to be just a group of men clustered around the standard as the battle develops. I don't know how reliable this depiction is and why the game designers have put it this way.

Another factor that might lead to the "distortion" in battle formations would be the casualties, as dying or wounded men might not be inmediately replaced by those behind them considering that dragging someone wearing 20kg amour wouldn't be such a light task.

[Mark Hygate]

...........Rome Total War ............

It is only a game and they try hard - but try 'Guard Mode'. It works reasonably well.

[M. Demetrius]

Just an observation: if the units stay generally in their formations, it's not a "melee".

[Bryan]

Just an observation: if the units stay generally in their formations, it's not a "melee".

And just like that the topic was whipped and beheaded.

[M. Demetrius]

:eek:
I'm just sayin' --

[Robert]

And rightfully, too! The main objective of "holding the line" is to prevent a melee in the first place, providing a solid battlefront and an advancing killing line. This is one of the things that so often go wrong in a demo at an event, as there are just not enough men to provide a more historicly accurate picture and pretty soon it all ends in a sort of free for all, the melee. But that is moving a bit off topic ....

[Mark Hygate]

Just an observation: if the units stay generally in their formations, it's not a "melee".

And just like that the topic was whipped and beheaded.

It's a really good chuckle......and let's not forget it's a French word - with all the jokes and fun we could have with that too! :lol:

In all seriousness, however, 'melée' is now used as a convenient term for hand-to-hand combat as opposed to 'ranged' combat - the former not being all that common in the modern world, whilst indeed it comes directly from the age of chivalry and describing the tourney-type free for all.

The time taken to deploy armies correctly, face off, work slowly towards the lines meeting, the stand-offs, the long periods of stagnancy, push and shove, recoil and re-alignment.......all these things are under appreciated these days. Hollywood, Gaming and a lack of patience even act against the understanding of such things.