You propose 36 men would occupy 90 feet, which means each man has the exact width of his shield (2.5 ft wide as described by Polybius) as his personal battlespace. Even Vegetius said 3 feet. Polybius and Caesar both claimed in their own works that fighting in such close proximity was bad, at least for the Romans, who fought with sword and scutum in close range, not with overlapping aspis. Michael Taylor's article brings up further reasons why as well. So far, the sources kind of back the more independently orientated formation. But let's forget about all those things and just focus on some basic movements and mechanics of it
Envision you are a Roman in the fighting line, with no gaps between shields, meaning the sides of the shield are either touching or overlapping, or even very limited gaps exist (inches). In mid battle, the Roman to your right takes a small step back, opening up a three or four inch gap between your shield and his. In front of him is some sort of other warrior trying to kill him. You suddenly see the gap out of the corner of your eye and using your trusty gladius, with its sharp blade 20-25" long, you stab forward into the gut of the man opposing your mate through the small gap between your shield and the guy next to you.
But wait? What happens if while doing that, your buddy moves forward again? The blade gets trapped. Or what happens if that other person has body armor, as most front rankers in the Roman infantry generally possessed, or a scutum of his own? You can stab low into guts all you want but that gut will probably be protected by something and your target is limited. Additionally, a man moving independently can MOVE. He is not a sitting duck, so to speak, he can dart left, right, front, rear, and is not a stationary target.
Also, what is the guarantee that the length of your blade sticking out between the shield is enough to even reach your opponent? A sword armed warrior fighting from behind a shield wall of scuta has only 20-25" of reach to kill someone, without exposing any more of his arm as possible. The soldier can either fight from above the shield rim, or very occasionally, from around the right side. Independent steps forward, diagonally or to the rear open up kill zones in your shield mates areas, the limited lateral distance between people curtails movement and forces the loss of integrity of the shield wall. If the whole point of stacking men that close is to maintain integrity, you can't allow anyone to advance independently to jeopardize it.
Meanwhile, the Roman soldier opposing your closely ranked formation, because he is fighting in a looser formation, has four feet of reach in regards to the bottom rim of his shield which he can strike with (length of arm extended plus bottom half of shield held parallel to ground), or a two foot reach with the umbo (based off reach of my own shoulder/arm, from armpit to fist, at 70" tall), as opposed to you, who because you are touching shields in a wall, your shield must at all times be braced against your left elbow and knee, thus making it incapable of being used offensively, or to some extent, even defensively to parry with the thick umbo. As long as the Roman fighting loosely doesn't try to go shield to shield with you for an extended time period, he has a reach advantage and can strike at you at will and not worry about counter blows as long as he maintains a safety distance of 20-25" away unless attacking. If he does go shield to shield, he doesn't have to stay there long, while your closely ranked soldiers have no other option. The Roman opposing your men can jump in, stab high over the rim of his shield and over yours, try to hit your neck, and then hop back or to the side or whatever, all in the time it takes to do it, before being safely out of your reach. He can also team up with a buddy and attack a single target together. Because he has that option. All the while, your men has two options as I see it: stab back over his own shield or try to duck and hide behind your shield. Fighting from a shield wall means having a better reach than your opponent. Hence why I think the Greeks and early Romans used spears while in the closely packed phalanx, because an 8 foot spear meant at least 4 feet of it (possibly more if a counter weight is used) is sticking out in front of a shield wall, vs. 2 feet for a sword. So if you arm your men with swords as their primary close quarters weapon, something has to make up for the shorter reach. A change of tactics?
What happens if the Roman in the looser formation facing you, roughly a full pace away, lunges forward really fast to stab you in the face? Like the blow that killed Crastinus at Pharsalus. Using a high guard, with his sword held helmet high with the blade parallel to the ground, the Roman foe is telegraphing his attack. You just KNOW where that point is going to go. As a counter, you also know you just need to simply raise your shield, take the sword point on your shield, blocking the stab. But wait, that pesky mate next to your left, Gaius Standstocloseius, who was only supposed to have his shield nearly touching yours, ended up taking a minuscule step to his right, and now instead of having two shield next to each other, barely touching, his now over laps yours by three inches. So you try to move your shield up but the angle isn't right and his is blocking yours from moving. Since he is bracing his shield with his elbow and knee, as are you, you can't pull your shield up. The opposing Roman leaps forward in the attack, the pace (5 ft) of ground in front of you is covered in a split second, and like a striking snake, he plunges his blade into your open mouth because you were screaming at your buddy to move out of the way so you could move your shield. As your body falls to the ground, the killer is jumps back, safely a pace away from your shield wall, and now trying to figure out a way to exploit the hole in your shield wall. With no one directly in front of him he can strike diagonally as he wishes. Or he can just take a quick breather and bask in the glory of a fresh kill.
So, to answer your question: All other things being equal, which legion would you rather be in?
I'd use the 15-20 proposed by Polybius/Michael/ancient sources, especially if my enemy were formed up closely, because at least those men fighting in my front ranks would have the room to do so in. After carefully selecting the best men out of the bunch to fight in the front lines, I'd hate to waste their ability and enthusiasm by forcing them into a defensive formation that would hinder their abilities to do what they are good at. Killing other people.
Also, why stop at 36 men? Using your logic, If I chopped six inches total off the width of each shield (a Fayum shield?), I could fit 45 men into that same 90 foot area, instead of 36. 45 people can easily take on 15-20, right? But it wouldn't matter, because those 45 men would still not be able to move enough to fight the 15-20 men opposing them, who have the room necessary to advance, retreat, attack frontally or diaganolly as they see fit, in a more independent nature, using their own shield to protect themselves as well as using it as a weapon. Cutting and thrusting and parrying and riposting with their not so short swords and large but maneuverable scuta, bashing with iron and thick wood shield bosses and metal protected shield rims. But this applies to offensive hand to hand fighting. Stacking men up close to one another to protect against missiles or to defensively hold some sort of ground would work as a strategy, to an extent. The best defense is and will always be a good offense. However, if I was ordered to hold the 90 feet at all cost, especially against an enemy armed with lots of missiles or cavalry, I might use a formation similar to the one you described.
But maybe that was the truth of the Romans. Maybe if you were a senior officer and commanded a legion or even an entire army, you'd want to have them fight close, because of your own experiences and such. As I, if I were a Consul/Praetor, would have my forces fight the way I want them too. So we can both be correct and both wrong at the same time because, at the end of it all, we're bringing opinion into this. The Roman fighting style is IMPOSSIBLE to lock down with the sources available, it was different even during the same time period. So definitively stating one way is the Roman way is probably bad historiography..
I think this topic has run its course. Time to move on?
Not quite, for thank you, I finally understand your view.
You simply reject the possibility that one (in this case a Roman soldier) could successfully fight within a 2.5ft space, so it's not up for discussion.
Forget any descriptions of any type of 'phalanx' (the pikeman fits within a single cubit?); any shieldwall formations used, then, a bit later, Germanic formations - ohh, later still Vikings, Saxons - ohhhh, heaven forfend, a bit more modern, Napoleonic soldiers standing side-by-side and still able to do musket drill - or, shock horror, riot troops forming a shield cordon - they ALL got it wrong, you simply cannot fight like that!
So, whilst I might suggest it's a possibility and meets many criteria, you just want to knock it on the head?
Last example - I'm fairly tall for a Roman soldier at just under 5'8" now and I'm certainly wide enough these days to account for any armour. The door frames in my house are 29" wide - and I have plenty of room to fight through that gap. I'll even note that a 4' x 2.5' shield is a very big shield!
If you happen to be 6'6" and the product of 10x the protein any Roman soldier ever saw, then I can understand why it might seem a small space.
The successful Roman soldier was just a soldier - not a super soldier, not a heroic wargod, just a well trained soldier with a tradition to hold up.
The door frames in my house are 29" wide - and I have plenty of room to fight through that gap. I'll even note that a 4' x 2.5' shield is a very big shield!
But using your logic, your shield would also be 29" wide, so you wouldn't have plenty of room to get through the door. In the case of the 2.5 feet interval, it isn't a lot of room when the exact dimensions of your frontage coincides with the width of your shield, or very nearly so. Meaning, the open door frame you stand in will move at the angle you move. Twist your hips slightly left, and the door frame would move slightly left, impeding the door frame of the person next to you who is still trying to remain forward.
Its hard to describe. I made some a drawing to describe what I am talking about:
Group A is spaced out using Vegetius' description of 3 foot of lateral space per man, with 6 foot of front to rear spacing. This means that the lateral spacing between the sides of a scutum are between 6 inches, (total width of 36 inches minus 30 inches for the Poybian shield, divided by 2 per man, times 2 for intervals), and 12 inches (36" - 24"/2 x 2 using the Fayum shield). Overall, Soldier #1, has under a foot of spacing between shields as a buffer zone, which is definitely doable in a fight but it is still a bit restrictive for movement laterally and diagonally. As an example, if Soldier #1 moves to his right, at the same time the man on his right moves left, they're shields can collide, impeding the offensive actions of both and making them less effective in a close range fight. Same goes with limiting the movement of Soldier #1's sword arm. Being close allows sword blows from around your own shield's side (and under it when you lift it high or hold it outwards horizontally), without worrying about hitting the man next to you.
Group B is spaced out using Polybius' description of 6 foot total, laterally/front and back, per man. This means that the lateral spacing between the sides of each man's shield is between 42 and 46 inches (72" - 30/24), roughly a little more than a shield's width. All told, as you can see its a much wider formation. Soldier # 2 has complete freedom of movement to move however he wants, as long as he stays in the overall formation, meaning, like the sources say, advancing no further than so and so many paces from the standard, except to retrieve a weapon or rescue a comrade. He can turn to ward off a threat from nearly any angle without worry about blundering into a rank mate to his sides or rear. He can move his sword arm freely without worry about hitting a rank mate. He can turn around and use his shield offensively and defensively any way he can. Should someone attempt to exploit the gap between him and the man next to him, the two can fight together to ward the enemy off, or someone from the rank to the rear can step into the gap to fight with sword or even use one of their pila to throw (the closer a pilum is used, the more effective and 6 ft between ranks allows ranks not engaged in actual hand to hand to remain free from melee weapon range while also using their own missile weapons).
Group C is spaced out how Mark Hyagate proposes, at 2.5 feet per man. The front to back rank spacing (ranks 2-5 touching each other) is based on a previous post. With a Polybian shield 2.5 feet across there will be no interval between shields, they will have to be touching at least, or overlapping. With a Fayum type shield, there will be 6 inches of space between shields (30"minus 24"). So basically a shield wall of touching and/or overlapping shield wall or close too it, since there is no way intervals can be maintained with shields that close while crossing any type of terrain, especially in contact with enemy troops. While this might work for shields such as the aspis, parma, viking or Saxon (just like parma), it means a lot more of a difference with a scutum, which is not designed, from my own experiences holding them, as a team weapon. If Soldier #3 has to, for whatever reason, move his shield, which as a scutum with a single hand grip NEEDS to be braced on elbow and knee to remain stable, any lateral or shifting movement WILL jostle the man next to him. If Soldier #3's shield moves three inches to the left, while he wards off a blow, the man to his left will either now have a shield in front of his, or behind, or it will just shove his entire shield to the left as well, causing a chain reaction down the line. Overall, the shield wall formation is extremely defensive in nature, emphasizes protection, but it limits offensive movements, including over two thirds of available sword attacks (those from the right of shield around its side and from under it are nearly impossible, allowing only high, over the shield attacks), it limits any use of the shield as an offensive weapon (hard to smash someone with the umbo if any side to side movement during the attack or after it jostles the man next to you), and it prevents movement of shield to parry blows (can't raise shield to ward off a blow if the man's next to you has his shield jammed up next to your own, preventing your's from moving).
From everyone one of these formations, it is possible to use a sword or one handed spear. However, only in Group A and B is it possible to do so effectively while maneuvering forward, or while engaged in combat, using a thureos type shield, with a concave bend to it. Close intervals (Group A) works but makes it a bit more difficult. Open interval (Group B) works better for offensive attacks but is less protective. Ultra close interval (Group C) is just too close. Like I mentioned earlier, it has mostly to do with the scutum itself. Without bracing it, the shield is very unstable, tilting every which way. However, bracing it requires the left knee/shin and the left elbow to be in constant contact with it. Using the weapon offensively means pushing it away from your body, using its weight, umbo boss and bottom rim as a weapon, all the while attempting to control the angle of it while it tilts, which is impossible to stop but easier to control with experience. The slightest mistep or off angle hit on the shield when it isn't braced means either the top of the rim smashes into your mouth (bloody lip, spitting teeth) or the bottom edge wraps into your knee or shin (why Romans wear one greave?) Having scutum touching side to side, which requires it braced, means movement grinds to nearly a crawl and a complete loss of momentum, neither of which the Romans were known for in the attack. So its basically a testudo formation without the roof and side walls.
Its a question of shield mechanics, weapon use and reach, freedom of movement vs. protection, and mindset.
Drawings nice - started doing a few of my own for related reasons...
Carrying a shield - quite understood, it takes a good deal of training to get right.
But there is an even simpler reason why I maintained that Polybius' 6ft (which I calculate as a rather larger 42 inches between shields (72" - 30") and not 30") is just not credible. You train soldiers to fight out of a' bunched up and tight' formation, because that's how they are always going to end up in a close order battle situation when 'heavy infantry' go toe to toe.
Give a soldier somewhere to step back to - and they will take it. There are one or two 'braver' who may not (initially), but the vast majority will. You have to train them to step in (whilst putting men to the side and one behind) and constrain them somewhat.
The drawings are great to illustrate my point - Gp C when contacting Gp B will almost always (they might be on 'tricky' ground, or fighting up a steep slope, mind you) push Gp B back - it will happen, Gp B simply cannot prevent it, all Gp C has to do is push, they don't even have to kill anyone. Thus Gp B will be pushed into a yielding and potentially more frightened mob - and we have to assume are not trained to fight out of it.
But if I am a charging Gp D of very large Celts, or savage Germans with axes, then I'll simply flow into those gaps and rip Gp B apart.
Gp B is a picture of how skirmishers like the velites could form up, and even then it may be too wide!
So how does Group C ward off a phalanx? Once pila are expended, they must rely on their gladii, which have waaay less reach than spear/pike/sarrissa, etc. There is no way for group C to close the distance to strike offensively.
[i]The drawings are great to illustrate my point - Gp C when contacting Gp B will almost always (they might be on 'tricky' ground, or fighting up a steep slope, mind you) push Gp B back - it will happen, Gp B simply cannot prevent it, all Gp C has to do is push, they don't even have to kill anyone. Thus Gp B will be pushed into a yielding and potentially more frightened mob - and we have to assume are not trained to fight out of it.[/i]
I get what you are saying but its easy to say Group C can drive Group B back. But we're not talking about a more powerful truck getting put into gear and pushing a smaller sedan back. In order for Group C to push Grp B back, it must literally push them back, which means the fight turn into a pushing/shoving match, which the scutum just isn't designed for, as compared to other shields. (Can it do it? Yes, but it isn't easy, as the forward left leg must always be braced.) Or, for Grp C to push Grp B back, they must kill the front rankers in Grp B, and step forward over the bodies taking their place, all while maintaining perfect alignment. But like I stated before, in my opinion, for the reasons stated in my previous posts, the men of Grp B, and even Grp A, are better set up for offensive acts. If the mission is to use your sword and shield to kill the people in front of who, wouldn't it make sense to put them in the formation to allow them to do it?
You train soldiers to fight out of a' bunched up and tight' formation, because that's how they are always going to end up in a close order battle situation when 'heavy infantry' go toe to toe.
I disagree. If the unit gets bunched they lose the ability to fight back. As what happened to the Roman heavy infantry at Cannae, and under Caesar at the Sabis. So starting out in an ineffectually closely packed formation just because there is a chance that if the worst happens under combat conditions you end up in it is not very efficient. If you lose your best 30 men in your century, you might be forced to stick the sick, lame and lazy in the front ranks too, but I sure wouldn't want to start that way either. Your centurion might be killed in battle, that doesn't mean you train to fight without a leader.
But if I am a charging Gp D of very large Celts, or savage Germans with axes, then I'll simply flow into those gaps and rip Gp B apart.
Like I stated before, if someone tries to exploit the wide spaces, someone from the side can still help out, as well as the person in the back rank.
Gp B is a picture of how skirmishers like the velites could form up, and even then it may be too wide!
Velites are skirmishers, with no body armor but a helmet and a parma shield. They have a sword but aren't sword fighters. They carry javelins and that's what they fight with. They have no leaders, no one with them controlling, no centurions directing them, no file leaders, no file closers. Considering that they would also be having javelins or stones (sling bullets) or arrows being shot at them, I doubt they even bothered with formations. They just go out, throw their javelins.
But there is an even simpler reason why I maintained that Polybius' 6ft (which I calculate as a rather larger 42 inches between shields (72" - 30") and not 30") is just not credible.
Is my math off? I thought the formula for each persons lateral battle space, shield to shield is:
Size of space in inches minus width of shields, which gets you the amount of inches total not covered by the shield.
Divide that in half to get inches on each side of shield
Multiple in half, which when combined with the dude next to you gets a shield to shield interval.
Since the two above nullify each other, just subtract the shield with from overall width of space. 72 inches minus 30 inch shield is 42 inches between shield edges. Right? I could be wrong, math was never my specialty.
Quote:What the devil are we arguing about? Of course, the Romans were a warlike people; otherwise, how did they come to dominate the Mediterranean world? And, of course, instances of personal heroism, such as saving the life of a citizen or being the first over the enemy's rampart, were rewarded. Likewise, there were occasions when a perilous situation was saved by an act of individual bravery, such as that of the aquilifer of the 10th legion during Caesar's first expedition to Britain. However, Roman military discipline was designed to curb natural impetuosity to ensure that orders were obeyed and soldiers kept their positions in the line and did not indulge in unnecessary (and I stress that word) bids for personal glory. Remember the story of Manlius Torquatus, who had his own son executed for disobeying orders and accepting a challenge to personal combat from the enemy commander, even though he triumphed and brought the spoils back to the Roman camp. The tale may be apocryphal but you can bet your boots that it was drummed into the soldiery to stress the importance of obedience to orders and not endangering the army by breaking ranks.
Renatus, Lendon has compiled many more examples of the Romans encouraging individual acts of aggression in Soldiers and Ghosts. In the linked article, Taylor says that Roman soldiers swore that they would only leave the line to save a citizen ... or retrieve a projectile, or strike the enemy, two clauses which give a great deal of leeway. Some modern writers want to see the Roman army as a clockwork machine controlled by the general like Alexander's Macedonian phalanx or Frederick's Prussian infantry, but the sources for the Middle Republic suggest that most Romans of that period had a much more individualistic and aggressive spirit of virtus which disciplina only moderated. It seems to me that this spirit would not fit well with a fighting style centered around a continuous shield wall.
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.
Quote:So how does Group C ward off a phalanx? Once pila are expended, they must rely on their gladii, which have waaay less reach than spear/pike/sarrissa, etc. There is no way for group C to close the distance to strike offensively.
Indeed Tim, which is why I was keen to firstly ensure that my basic understanding of phalanx warfare didn't have any contradicting views that I would have been keen to appreciate; sadly no one has commented on that.
But my understanding is simple - that in order to be effective a phalanx (pike more so than spear) the phalanx has to remain in a single contiguous and continuous line. If it doesn't and if it breaks up, then it becomes two, three and then a broken up phalanx and no longer effective (because spears, particularly long ones, only point one way). That is why the Romans adopted the more flexible sword-armed manipular system.
For, looking at the microcosm of the century/maniple, each part of the Roman line is separate, even though I am convinced that they too start with a relatively contiguous 'phalanx' too. Across the line the centuries, as part of their maniple pairings, seek to (tautology deliberate) manipulate the element of the phalanx opposite them. One century attempts to hold, or even push back, whilst the other gives a little ground, and then they switch (this is the Roman's 'saw formation'). This happens all along the line, the intent being to disrupt the enemy phalanx line. It only takes a single instance of an element of the enemy phalanx to slip past the side of a single century, whereupon the Roman soldier, unencumbered by the unwieldy pike/spear, to turn slightly and start killing the men next to him.
A gap/break is thus created, the second line of principes crash into the gap (with yet more pila fire perhaps, if they've not used them previously) and the phalanx is now 'outflanked'. More troops, perhaps cavalry too, can now flood through the gap and get behind. The enemy phalanx is destroyed. Whether it's helped by uneven ground, a slope, or a feigned retrograde movement of a single century that was unwisely followed up; all it takes is a single (more is better) disruption of the enemy phalanx line, and the Romans are past all the spears and the killing starts.
As noted before - a long period of pushing and shoving with relatively few casualties, until 'the line is broken'; after which the loser breaks and runs and normally suffers horribly. This is why the normally disproportionate casualty figures we see.
Quote:.................., which means the fight turn into a pushing/shoving match, which the scutum just isn't designed for, as compared to other shields.......................
Velites are skirmishers, with no body armor but a helmet and a parma shield. They have a sword but aren't sword fighters. They carry javelins and that's what they fight with. They have no leaders, no one with them controlling, no centurions directing them, no file leaders, no file closers. Considering that they would also be having javelins or stones (sling bullets) or arrows being shot at them, I doubt they even bothered with formations. They just go out, throw their javelins.
But there is an even simpler reason why I maintained that Polybius' 6ft (which I calculate as a rather larger 42 inches between shields (72" - 30") and not 30") is just not credible.
Is my math off?...............
A 3ft round shield; an oval shield of similar dimensions to a 4x2.5ft scutum; and larger 42" hoplon/aspis are all so much better for a pushing match - but a full body covering [i]scutum [/i], of similar mass and total area isn't? That one I'll please ask you to explain, for I don't get it?
Each maniple has 2 centurions and 2 optios and you suggest that no one might be available to control the skirmishers directly attached to that maniple? That these, certainly of the manipular/Polybius period, are all the youngest and least experienced soldiers you have - and you suggest they are given no leadership, no control, no 'management'?
No, the poor velites/antesignanii/lanciarii aren't written about much, but then they are always part of the side-show that contribute to the main battle. But they are there. If you don't believe that one-quarter of your soldiers don't need controlling, then I simply have to disagree.
And yes, your 'maths' was a little off before editing I see. I'll simply note that 42" is a massive gap.
I'll make an 'assumption' - that I think a lot of people are heavily, if perhaps often subliminally, influenced by too much entertainment media (including not only modern films/tv/pictures, but also poems, stories, sagas, legends and myths) that heroes fight alone and don't need help - why? - because we're all individuals and we not only seek inspiration, but it's nice to glamorise and make wars glorious.
You can exhort your soldiers, you can reward and praise acts of heroism, but you simply don't expect it - soldiers are just men and you seek to keep them alive whilst killing your enemy - and you don't do that by placing them in little bubbles all alone with no one to support them.
There is a reason we have the buddy-buddy system still today and a reason you always have more than one man in a trench - even in these days where tactical dispersion is very desirable. If you don't understand, then you won't get it.
Tim post=349019 Wrote:So how does Group C ward off a phalanx? Once pila are expended, they must rely on their gladii, which have waaay less reach than spear/pike/sarrissa, etc. There is no way for group C to close the distance to strike offensively.
Indeed Tim, which is why I was keen to firstly ensure that my basic understanding of phalanx warfare didn't have any contradicting views that I would have been keen to appreciate; sadly no one has commented on that.
. . . .
It only takes a single instance of an element of the enemy phalanx to slip past the side of a single century, whereupon the Roman soldier, unencumbered by the unwieldy pike/spear, to turn slightly and start killing the men next to him.
A gap/break is thus created, the second line of principes crash into the gap (with yet more pila fire perhaps, if they've not used them previously) and the phalanx is now 'outflanked'.
. . . .
Sorry if I am off base here, I am just trying to understand. Doesn't the open formation of Group B and to a lesser extent the semi-closed Group A formation accomplish this? By its nature, it will cause the front line of the phalanx to be uneven and, allows for natural gaps for each roman to hack/break the spear, pike, etc. and get between them.
By the way, Bryan, how come you use intermediary files in Grp B ? I think that these files that form the "checkerboard" impression should be wholly removed to depict what Polybius is describing, so it would more look like this :
A couple of things that may be helpful to consider when looking at the reality of groups fighting from behind shields.
Firstly, it takes a very experienced and confident unit to maintain any kind of spacing while under attack. It is human instinct to move closer to the person next to you when you are scared. To use a baton to best effect you need to be an arm, a baton and six inches from the person to your right but when you see a unit being attacked by a crowd at close quarters those gaps close entirely naturally as nobody wants to feel 'separated' when they are under threat. I have seen it happen to units that have been in hundreds of riots because it is instinctive and they can't help it.
Secondly, it is very difficult to fight at all if you are so close together your shields are touching. Even attacks over the top are difficult unless the shield is well below shoulder level. You can still strike with the shield effectively but even over the top chopping motions with a baton (or a sword) are difficult and have nowhere . You can step forward to put in a strike but it telegraphs your actions so early you very rarely land one as they will just move back or block.
These videos will give you some idea of what I mean.
Personally I think the reality was more likely to be somewhere in the middle with the men close enough together to not feel isolated and experience that subconscious closing but far enough apart to be able to thrust or slash between shields. Between six and twelve inches would allow for that.
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
If I could answer the questions from your last post instead of Mark I'd say yes.
Macedon,
Either way works. I just copied and pasted the individuals and into ranks and ended up with them in a staggered checkerboard formation. The point of the drawings, at least from my perspective as the artist, was focused on the first two ranks and the issues with shield to shield distances versus maneuverability. Past the second rank anyway there is no real reason to have checkerboard anyway but I think have the second rank slightly offsetted from the first is just more sound. I don't know if the available sources support it, I've seen a stele or a sculpture or something that some scholars think supports a checkerboard spacing, at least for the first few ranks. Since you're the man when it comes to translation, is there anything in Polybius' description of the Roman formation that would allude to strict rank and file?
Adam,
Great post and thanks for the videos, I love a good riot. That video is a good example of the true merit of a close interval, shield touching or overlapping/shield wall formation. Its purely defensive.
I would say that the whole terminology used by Polybius would not allow such theories. The terms he uses are very clear to the Greek frame of thinking. I have also seen it proposed but never (at least afik) supported by sources.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Great post and thanks for the videos, I love a good riot. That video is a good example of the true merit of a close interval, shield touching or overlapping/shield wall formation. Its purely defensive.
This is Northern Ireland, that isn't a riot, it is the warm up for the rioting starting!
The reason the units are in that formation is because if they were in open order (an arm, a baton and six inches apart) those kids would probably have broken clean through, we try to prevent that by covering off the gaps using the checkerboard type formation you showed on your diagrams above but it is still much harder to prevent groups breaking through than when we are in cordon (shields touching).
Because of the room we need to use a baton effectively we have to be in one formation or the other, if we had something we could stab with rather than swing I believe we would use a formation that is somewhere in the middle. Say about a six inch gap between shields that would give us the best of both worlds.
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
