Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why didn\'t Romans fought in single line?
#1
Hello everybody,

I read that historically, Romans were deployed in checkerboard formation, composed of 3 lines. But I play Rome Total War and in the game, that deployment means a nice recipe for high casualties. In the game, I deploy in a single line, with my cavalry (or a couple of units) protecting the flanks, and as soon as the center of the line engages, rush my troops at the flanks to the rear of the enemy and order them to charge at these engaged troops from their rear, killing them and their morale in a very short amount of time and winning the battle. Now I know that RTW is just a game but it is a realistically made game indeed. And thinking about this tactic, it makes a lot of sense to me. So I wonder, why didn't the Romans employed a similar tactic in their battles?

Best regards
Reply
#2
Because the Romans were REAL. They didn't play games and wanted a good back-up man behind them. :whistle:
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#3
If you are interested in Republican Roman tactics and the checkerboard formation theories, you might want to search the forum for relevant discussions, where members extensively debate on what Polybius meant and how this could have worked. I personally do not believe that the Polybian Romans actually fought in quincunx formation, I am a proponent of the formation being only (or primarily) used as a marching formation, but the arguments for and against are many and diverse, so my advice would be for you to look them up here. The same you should do about the historical value of formation depth.

If you need any help with finding the relevant topics, do ask for assistance and if you have questions after that, I would be happy to give you my opinion on them.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#4
Actually the checkerboard formation works quite well in Rome Total War if you know what you're doing.

We actually have the Roman perspective on this very topic, albeit from the late Empire:


Quote:To form the whole army in one line facing the enemy for a general cavalry battle and to hold nothing in reserve for various eventualities in case of a reverse is the mark of an inexperienced and absolutely reckless man. For it is not, as some laymen might imagine, by the number of bodies, by unquestioning boldness, or by plain assault that battles are decided but, under God, by strategy and skill. Strategy makes use of times and places, surprises and various tricks to outwit the enemy with the idea of achieving its objectives even without actual fighting. Strategy is essential to survival and is the true characteristic of an intelligent and courageous general. Skill enables the army to maintain discipline and coordination, as well as its own safety, while varying its battle formations and attacks, and not only to foil the wiles of the enemy but to turn them against them. With this in mind the older military writers organized their armies into droungoi, divisions, and moiras of varying strength as conditions dictated, just as the Avars and Turks line up today keeping themselves in that formation, and so they can be quickly called to support any unit that may give way in battle. For they do not draw themselves up in one battle line only, as do the Romans and Persians, staking the fate of tens of thousands of horsemen on a single throw. But they form two, sometimes even three lines, distributing the units in depth, especially when their troops are numerous, and they can easily undertake any sort of action. To draw up the whole army in one battle line, especially if it is composed of lancers, is, in our opinion, to invite a host of evils. If it is a large army, it will have to stretch over a great distance; part of it will be located on unfavorable terrain, the length of the line will cause it to be disordered and hard to manage, there will be no coordination between the units, and as a result, it may well break up even before contact with the enemy. Then, if it should be outflanked or unexpectedly attacked by the enemy, and it has no support from its rear or flanks, without any protection or reserve force, it will be forced to retire in headlong flight.

Furthermore, in actual combat nobody can properly supervise the entire battle, since the line is spread out so far, and some can desert from their bandons unnoticed, and give all the others an excuse to retreat. If they do retreat, there is no way of turning back or checking the flight, for nobody is able to get them back since, as we said, the whole army is routed. Sometimes troops formed in a single line may seem to be winning the battle and driving the enemy back, but in the melee their formation will certainly have become broken up and the pursuit will be disorderly. If the fleeing enemy should suddenly turn upon the pursuers as the Scythians frequently do, or if some other force should suddenly appear out of ambush, then the pursuers would certainly be forced to take flight since, as mentioned above, there is nobody to ward off this unexpected attack. It seems forming all the troops in a single line has one advantage, actually an advantage in appearance only, that is, at a distance such a line will appear very large and imposing and can readily be employed in encircling movements, but this can also be accomplished easily in other ways which will be explained later. We believe that, as far as human reasoning goes, there are many exceptionally compelling reasons which lead to the conclusion that there should be two lines, one of them a support, according to the diagram given below. First, the troops in the front line will fight more eagerly knowing that their rear is protected by the second line, and their flanks by the flank guards. Second, a man in the first line is not as likely to run away knowing that many other soldiers are stationed to his rear, that is in the second line, and will see anyone deserting his post. In combat this can be extremely important. Supposing that the first line retreats or is pushed back, then the second line is there as a support and a place of refuge. This makes it possible to rally the troops and get them to turn back against their attackers. Also, when we are pursuing the enemy, we can make our attack safely, for if some of the enemy turn back on us or if there is a sudden attack from another quarter, then the second line can hold its ground, join battle, and protect the first. In addition, if the first line is actually routed, so that it cannot be brought back into action against the enemy, the second line, still in good order, will easily join battle with the enemy, even though, as mentioned, they have routed the first line. For the enemy's formation will necessarily be broken up and disordered when it meets a force still in good order, such as the second line. The most compelling reason of all is that not only is the double line of battle, as said, appropriate against an enemy force equal in numbers, but also against superior forces, which is clear from reason and from a study of the diagram below.

Perhaps some may object that if the first line is thrown into confusion or driven back, the second will be easily pushed back with it. Our answer is that if victory seems precarious with two lines, what hope can there be if there is only one line and that one breaks up? To the further objection that the army's formation is weakened by dividing it into two battle lines, we would admit this to be valid if the force were really divided and half of it kept out of action. But as a matter of fact, we have not divided the force, we have merely changed its formation. What happened is that the entire force that was previously deployed in a long and thin straight line, we have now formed in two lines. We have taken none out of action, but have only modified its disposition and by the methods described increased its strength.
Reply
#5
Holy shamoli! Who wrote that amazing advice? Sun Tzu?
Nice work, Evan.
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#6
However, it is not the multiple line system that is disputed or that is the main characteristic of what is called a quincunx formation, it is the intervals between the bodies of soldiers, their dimensions and use in battle. Multiple lines were indeed useful and were used by many nations, the Gauls and Greeks among them. We should also be careful to discuss intervals in the infantry line, as cavalry formations were diachronically very different with sizable gaps between squadrons.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#7
That's from Maurice's Strategikon and yes it does discuss cavalry specifically. Although there is a section on infantry deployments and formations, it more-so glosses over it.

It also shows that the Romans were the masters of run-on sentences.
Reply
#8
I guess the checkerboard formation is utterly overrated. Especially in books with more colored pictures than scientific value. As already mentioned, Polybius is not very clear, when, how and against whom this formation was used.

The common opinion, I could find amongst modern military historians is, that intervals might make sense if fighting against a macedonian phalanx (not against standard greek hoplites), which can't exploit these intervals succesfully. But against barbarian hordes, such intervals would have been deadly. Therefore e.g Caesar could not not use intervals. Not against Germans or Gauls, and of course not against roman legions. He sometimes used 3 lines, but this is not disputed and has nothing to do with checkerboard formation.

So this formation was just one of many formations, the romans used situationally. But it was not a standard. Not even close!

I have no proof for my opinion, but there is no proof for a standard checkerboard formation either.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#9
Well the Romans did use a quincunx, but you're right in that we don't know what situations it was used in.
Reply
#10
There was a good thread on formations three years ago or so. It did get a little heated and a bit personal at times, but the whole thread is worth reading anyway. My own thoughts on the matter can be found on the fourth page of the thread.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...l?start=45

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#11
Livy describes what is commonly referred to as the quincunx formation, not Polybius.

While the texts aren't clear or consistent enough to 100% state how it worked or why it was employed, the common ideology behind having a broken line, supported by other lines behind it, is that each unit is independent of each other, and don't need to rely on the line holding completely or collapsing.

Once battles stopped being under an hour in length, it became very important to have the ability to relieve front line troops. The older Greek hoplite phalanx method was insufficient, the traditional 8 deep phalanx had no staying power in a long fight. The Greeks overcame this by adding depth to their phalanx, making it 16, sometimes 32 deep. Meanwhile the Romans went a different direction, taking the lines, keeping them relatively thin in depth (3-6 deep seems to be average during Republican period), while adding different lines. This meant it was not only harder to break through the overall infantry line but that each line not directly in battle was physically safe, outside the danger area of the enemy, allowing them to watch, cheer, but not be overcome by fear or excitement, like those present in whatever battleline was engaged. Once that line was too exhausted, overcome by excessive casualties, or morale was too poor to throw back into battle, units could be relieved by entirely fresh ones. No other nation or city state infantry fighting method allowed for anything similar.

As for the gaps, its generally acknowledged that by the time of the Hellenistic period, all infantry units would have had some sort of gaps separating them from friendly units, in order to keep integrity, prevent bunching or being squeezed, while stationary, marching, or in battle. The ancient Greek hoplites are thought to have fought in a near unbroken line, with minimal gaps separating the city state contingents within a single battle line. The problem with this method is that since it is a single unbroken line, if the line collapses and breaks then the whole line is in jeopardy. In the Roman method, each line fought independently of one another, each maniple (and later cohort) fought independent. A single line could attack, fight, pull back, and be relieved without threatening the integrity of the line. For the more complicated tactics used at battles such as Leutra to have occurred, each polis contingent would have had to be separated from the city state units on their flanks, or else the oblique order echelon tactics couldn't have worked.

The Macedonians and Successor states most likely had gaps between units. The Romans did too. Or else any unit moving forward or backwards, even when locked in arms in combat, would have either become too strung out or too bunched together. The Romans are said by Livy to have used gaps equal in width to the frontage of their maniples (unit type), with maniples of the lines behind them covering those gaps.

One of the most convincing ideas is that when fighting an enemy that fights in a single unbroken line (or with small gaps), that require the line to remain unbroken to keep integrity, the Romans could match the frontage of their enemy while having 2/3 of their overall line infantry not engaged, in separate lines. The gaps between them maniples would be safe from enemy attack because to do so meant breaking men off from the line to attack those gaps, which itself would jeopardize their own line's integrity. Going into the fight, the Romans would be okay with gaps and the issues they caused, while the enemy, almost all of whom fought in continuous lines, would have not been comfortable doing it. This means that the gaps wouldn't be attacked in force, or if they did, the enemy's line would collapse, leading to chaos.

Should the gaps become an issue, the Romans could fix the issue filling the gaps with skirmishers to keep enemy infantry away, peel off line type infantry by having those unoccupied in the rear ranks break off, or to do a more complicated drill maneuver to extend the line by doubling the number and depth of files.

Michael Taylor, a PhD in Roman history, and a poster in this forum, has written some about this topic, as did Ross Cowan (another member) and Adrian Goldsworthy, all of whom think the maniple sized gaps existed in battle. Some other historians think, like P. Connolly, think the gaps were closen prior to making contact. But personally, since units engaged fought for hours and moved forward and backwards for hundreds of meters while directly locked in close combat, so I don't think this would have been possible if the line was continuous.
Reply
#12
I understand that 2 lines provide reserves for the first line, had any unit gives up but doesn't it also make the army more prone to encirclement? If you say that 2 lines should be used only in an advantage in numbers, than it is not a very balanced fight after all. So my main concern is, how isn't the army became more prone to encirclement?
Reply
#13
In that sense, to me it seems that Romans must have always fought with a numerical advantage. Is that right?
Reply
#14
Not always.
As Bryan stated: One option to get your front line to last longer is to thicken it. If you don't do it you have enough men to form a second or even third line of reserves who can relief endangered points in the line.

Regarding encirclement: Another advantage of a checkerboard formation is that it is far more flexible than a single battle line. So if the army has to face an attack from another direction than initially expected the whole army can turn very quickly or even form another battleline if the front is already occupied. On a smaller scale single units of the reserve can intercept smaller bands of enemies.
Florian D.
Reply
#15
Quote:..., the common ideology behind having a broken line, supported by other lines behind it, is that each unit is independent of each other, and don't need to rely on the line holding completely or collapsing.

Independency of cohorts is given regardless if you have intervals or not.

Quote:Once battles stopped being under an hour in length, it became very important to have the ability to relieve front line troops.

Again our sources just say, that the romans had a sort of rotation implemented, but the sources are unclear, how this rotation actually worked. However, such a replacement seems to not work, if the line is under pressure. Fortunately, no battle lasts for long without short retreats and breaks. And now it does not matter, if you got intervals or not, in order to replace a cohort with a fresh one. The neccesary manoeuvers for a cohort to retreat, in order to replace it are not that sophisticated as experimantal archaeology shows. And it could work with and without intervals. Actually even without intervals, a cohort, which is not under attack is always able to establish gaps, e.g. in order to let light infantry pass and attack. We know such manoeuvers e.g. against cavalry armies in the 3rd century.

Quote:As for the gaps, its generally acknowledged that by the time of the Hellenistic period, all infantry units would have had some sort of gaps separating them from friendly units, in order to keep integrity, prevent bunching or being squeezed, while stationary, marching, or in battle.

Gaps make a lot of sense while approaching the enemy lines. But it makes even more sense to close these gaps shortly before you get into melee combat. I don't see much disadvantages for the integrity and mobilitys of a well trained cohort, if standing close to the next one.

Quote:In the Roman method, each line fought independently of one another, each maniple (and later cohort) fought independent. A single line could attack, fight, pull back, and be relieved without threatening the integrity of the line.

As mentioned above, retreat is suicidal if the line is under pressure. If the gaps are already occupied by enemies, retreat becomes impossible at all. And if not under pressure, it does not matter, if there are intervals or not.

Quote:The Romans are said by Livy to have used gaps equal in width to the frontage of their maniples (unit type), with maniples of the lines behind them covering those gaps.

This should have worked against a macedonian phalanx, which cannot exploit these gaps and flank a cohort this way. But against barbarian hordes, which would immediately rush into the gap and flank a cohort this way into its unshielded right side, the gaps must be closed.

Quote:Some other historians think, like P. Connolly, think the gaps were closen prior to making contact.


Not just Conolly.

Quote:But personally, since units engaged fought for hours and moved forward and backwards for hundreds of meters while directly locked in close combat, so I don't think this would have been possible if the line was continuous.

I doubt, cohorts moved, while in melee combat. And there is never meleee combat for hours. There were always breaks, as also our sources confirm. Actually it does not matter for the mobility of a cohort, if there are intervals or not. All what matter is, if there is melee combat or a short break.

And if you got intervals, the barbarian hordes already flooded the intervals, before you like to retreat. Or a cohort of the 2nd line closed it and you end with a line without intervals anyways. So intervals are no help! A known exception is a macedonian phalanx, which is not able to rush into the gap, without fully destroying its order and effciency.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Which Roman fought the most number of battles ? Theodosius the Great 8 1,971 10-20-2013, 01:07 PM
Last Post: AMELIANVS
  Why didn\'t the Romans conquer Scotland? AureliusFalco 18 9,781 05-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Last Post: PhilusEstilius
  Galearii - military slaves who fought Tarbicus 5 2,413 04-21-2007, 02:37 PM
Last Post: drsrob

Forum Jump: