Why didn\'t Romans fought in single line?

[Scipio Second]

Ave,

I have been told that perhaps the best representation of the deployment of a Roman legion can be found in the battle scene in the film Sparticus starring Kirk Douglas from the early 1960s.

Vale,

Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre Kleff)

[Frank]

Ave,

I have been told that perhaps the best representation of the deployment of a Roman legion can be found in the battle scene in the film Sparticus starring Kirk Douglas from the early 1960s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgywD3XJaWU

Just a movie, but it shows, how the gaps can be easily closed for melee combat. The same gaps can be opened again on command. Of course not, if the line is under pressure.

Imagine, what happens, if they would not close the gaps. These gladiators would immediately occupy the gaps and attack every unit from 3 sides. They could even attack the 2nd line and encircle the units of the 1st line in worst case. Thats what I meant with: gaps are suicidal against barbarian hordes.

[66kbm]

The only fault I would have with that was the deploying into single line.......boy, those blokes had to run some.
Still, the best impression of a legion coming over the hill ever......
Kevin
It was the Spanish Army providing the Legion, No CGI....it was real.

[Bryan]

Ave,

I have been told that perhaps the best representation of the deployment of a Roman legion can be found in the battle scene in the film Sparticus starring Kirk Douglas from the early 1960s.

Just a movie, but it shows, how the gaps can be easily closed for melee combat. The same gaps can be opened again on command. Of course not, if the line is under pressure.

Imagine, what happens, if they would not close the gaps. These gladiators would immediately occupy the gaps and attack every unit from 3 sides. They could even attack the 2nd line and encircle the units of the 1st line in worst case. Thats what I meant with: gaps are suicidal against barbarian hordes.

The first problem with the idea that 'barbarians' filling in those gap and attacking from the sides is that they also will be attacked from three sides. Sources make it very clear that these gaps often had skirmishers standing in them (Sallust, Plutarch), that Roman infantry had the independence to turn about to face sideways threats (Polybius), and that often the maniples of the second line typically covered the gaps of the first (polybius, Livy).

The second issue is that by leaving their own lines to attack into the Roman gaps, any 'barbarians' would sacrifice the integrity of their own line, an endeavor that can be extremely dangerous, especially if small unit leaders and men aren't drilled to close those gaps.

Third, the assumption that barbarians fought in wild unorganized masses is absolutely wrong. The Teutones and Cimbri both fought in disciplined and orderly lines, led by their own standards, with the Cimbri even considering the need for line integrity so much they chained the front rankers together at Vercellae. Caesar describes summer of his German and Gallic enemy fighting in phalanx like shield walls. So which unnamed barbarians will be the ones attacking into the gaps?

That Spartacus line maneuver is vastly overcomplicated and slow and could not work in battle with casualties, leaders dead, excitement, poor morale and loss of unit cohesion.

[Bryan]

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

No, only on paper. Military forces need distance between each other or they will be just be one unit. Caesar even emphasizes this in DBC, describing his force composition at Pharsalus, where because both the 8th and 9th legions were so depleted he placed them so close together they effectively became one unit. Independence means being independent of others, meaning some sort of internal is necessary.

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.

Relieving units on line with trail units can be really easy. Lead unit retreats backwards, adjacent trail unit fills gap. Done. No fancy drill maneuver. Follow the standard, march to the rear, while facing forward against threat, keep cohesion and bring any wounded with you.

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.

Romans didn't close the gaps always, that is evident by numerous sources. No need to close the gaps either.

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.

Do you think melee combat is stationary? Look at Pydna, Munda, and Forum Gallorum, all three had maniples in contact fighting over hundreds of meters. Not the whole line either, just certain units. How could that have happened unless recognized intervals existed between units? Look at battle of cynoscephalae, some Roman legions were driven back, while others advanced forward; how can that happen if there is no definitive separation between units actively fighting, not in approach march?

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.

Forum Gallorum had a unit back step hundreds of paces with the enemy in their faces. Cynoscephalae and Pydna and multiple battles in phyrric war had Romans retreating while in contact with the enemy.

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.

Macedonian phalanx weren't the only type of infantry present, they had lighter versions armed nearly identical to Romans and just as flexible, yet these didn't penetrate the gaps, probably because the aren't willing to sacrifice their own line integrity to do it. Without firm unit cohesion, performance in combat drops dramatically.

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.

At Pharsalus, Caesar charged 1/2 mile or so. When did his legions before a complicated gap closing drill maneuver? Is it your belief that battle was stationary and that forces didn't move front, back, sideways, while engaged in direct hand to hand fighting?

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

No, see my previous post. Any force that tries to enter the gap will first destroy the integrity of their own line by detaching dozens or scores of men to move forward independently, and they will still be hit missiles from velites, armed calo, and the Romans standing in the exterior files of the first line maniples and the front ranks of the 2nd line maniples covering the gap.


Doing this on phone, sorry about typos.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Being a bit Rome: Total War specific, here's a test battle I did for IBUR. The quincunx is effectively a static, reactive formation in the game. Very flexible, basically allowing units in the rear to respond to trouble spots quickly and with ease, and the second line of the checkerboard can either let the 1st line be pushed back into it, or pull up to engage. It distorts an enemy line with ease, causing it to break and create key exposures that can be exploited.



Where I re-organized units for relief and other stuff:

[Bryan]

I like using two examples of modern fighting situations to demonstrate while intervals between men would be necessary for movement and fighting, and why having exposed flanks doesn't always mean death.

A gif of an Ukranian Govt riot force during the Maiden riots, in a line formation, close interval, attempting to cross minor battlefield obstructions

When I watch this, I notice two things immediately: One is that because they are bunching up, they have no where to go when people to their sides or rear press against each other. This causes bunching up and even people tripping and being walked over, with the line bending. If under attack from missile weapons or threat from a front attack, this unit would be in bad shape to stop it.

Two is that while there are no doubt multiple units actually involved in this formation, I don't think anyone can you tell where the seams between units are. And neither could their own commanders, or the men within the ranks. If no one can tell which side people belong to it turns into a mob, where control is almost impossible. If two separate groups mass together so close, without gaps or intervals, they effectively become one group.
__________________

Russian football/soccer hooligans engaging in a large brawl

This Youtube video does a good job of explaining the frontage of a force, its width, and why even when the terrain doesn't stop the two forces from forming wider, they chose not to. As to why they didn't go wider, my only belief is that the frontage was limited by the number of true brawlers who have no concerns about being the first to fight and risk injury if it means kicking the crap out of their opponent. The rest are either wanting to fight, but unwilling to be in the front, or they are too timid to fight and just want to be part of the crowd. This social phenomena was also an issue in the ancient period, as demonstrative by the many accounts of soldiers and warriors being too timid to attack, poor morale, etc.

Watch the two forces make contact at 1:40 in the video. Both sides, red and blue, have a frontage that seems thinner than their depth. Their flanks are completely open, to be exploited by either side that wants to peel off people from the group to run forward and hit their foe's flanks. The natural reaction is that the first side that does this wins. But the reality of it is quite different, as soon as fighters rush the flanks of the other side, they leave the safety of the group, becoming lone fighters, unsupported unless by one or two of their buddies. Meanwhile, the side being flanked solves the problem by having their outside ranks face outward, and fighters from the rear ranks left their positions and attacked the flankers, widening their own frontage. It should be noted that neither maneuver required any signal or drill movement, its completely natural.

This is why the gaps between units, whether they be Roman maniples or Macedonian speira, whether small intervals or large, couldn't easily be exploited. Add in additional factors like more effecient missile weapons, pilum, slings, arrows, vs rock and alcohol bottle, and it gives the defender an even better chance to stop flankers. Another thing missing is if it was the Romans being flanked, they would have been better drilled to perform an already easy maneuver to carry out.

Another cool aspect of the Russian Riot video, not directly related to this discussion but still worthy of pointing out, is the turning nature of the fight. In the beginning, in relation to the screen, Blue rioters face right, Red rioters face left, but shortly after contact, the momentum of the fight turns the fighting line, similar to those reported by the Ancient Greek hoplites. By the time the fight ends when half of Red routs, they are on the bottom and Blue is on top.

[66kbm]

The urge to resist has become too much....
Why the F**K are we using a computer game to try and sort out the fact that Romans fought in 1 rank or not?
Seems very illogical and very irrelevant and very silly to me.
Kevin

[Densus]

Bryan,

I agree 100% about the need for individuals to have enough space to fight, every time I have seen a unit try to engage with a crowd that is prepared to fight while they are as bunched up as the Ukrainians were in that video they have ultimately lost. It is a very common problem in all the Former Soviet Republics. But I disagree about the requirement to have gaps between units. I have seen well trained units work literally side by side on the same street many, many times and not have any issues.

Some people in rioting crowds will enter the gaps between units and exploit them (I will explain why it is only some people in a moment) and when it works for them others will join them. This clip from Moldova will demonstrate what I mean, the relevant bit starts at 1:55 where they get into the gap between two units, surround each in turn and rout them.

Moldovan Parliament riots

In the video of the Russian soccer hooligans the reason they stay in such a compact mass is to do with the number of what we call 'hardcore personalities' in the group. They are the ones with the right type of aggressive personality to be the ones that will actually be first into the fight. The remainder are what we refer to as 'hangers on' who will join in when they think it is safe for them to do so. They are staying tightly together as group, behind the hardcore, for the confidence it gives them. It is a very natural reaction to being in a violent situation and with no training, tactics, chain of command, disciplinary system or anything other than peer pressure to keep them there they have no real incentive to get into the 'front rank' unless they think it is safe to do so.

The major reason for the turning motion as they fight is that the majority of people are right handed and individuals with little training will do almost all of their striking with their dominant hand/foot. When the front of both groups are all swinging with their right hands and kicking with their right foot they are almost all moving forward behind the blow, in the direction the blow went. They don't let me use a spear at work (although sometimes it would have been nice :evil: ) but the Greek phalanx turning as it fights is probably caused by the same thing.

[Bryan]

The urge to resist has become too much....
Why the F**K are we using a computer game to try and sort out the fact that Romans fought in 1 rank or not?
Seems very illogical and very irrelevant and very silly to me.
Kevin

I think the pics and videos can be used as a tool to explain what words sometimes cant articulate.

For instance, in the last couple of months I saw a RTW video of a Roman infantry line with intervals between maniples encountering a solid phalanx of some sort of Greek hoplites. That one video was perfect for demonstrating the problems inherent with the idea that one side that operates in a solid line can break off in bits and pieces to push into any open intervals of their enemy, because as soon as they do it, their own line collapses.

I just spent over an hour searching for that video but have been unable to located it.

Also, we know for a fact that the Romans often fought in more than a single line, that part isn't disputed. They never fought in a single rank, that term has a very specific meaning, a line with the depth of a single person. Multiple lines were usually, between 2-4, and intervals between units, in combat, not just the approach march, are described by multiple ancient sources.

[Frank]

[quote][quote="kevin mills" post=369235]
Also, we know for a fact that the Romans often fought in more than a single line, hat part isn't disputed. They never fought in a single rank, that term has a very specific meaning, a line with the depth of a single person. Multiple lines were usually, between 2-4, and intervals between units, in combat, not just the approach march, are described by multiple ancient sources.[/quote]

When I used the word "line", I meant "acies", which is 3-6 man deep in republican times and 4-8 man deep in imperial times. Even more or less. It is fully situational and decided by the commander of the army.

I would be interested in these multiple ancient sources which definately describe intervals for the moment of melee engagement.

PS: Total war is a bad example. It is just a simulator and it often simulates wrongly. Even a macedonian phalanx gives up its line cohesion in TW and starts to "blob", if you don't use a mod. And even the mods can't fully fix this behaviour, because it is mostly hardcoded.

[Bryan]

Bryan,
I agree 100% about the need for individuals to have enough space to fight, every time I have seen a unit try to engage with a crowd that is prepared to fight while they are as bunched up as the Ukrainians were in that video they have ultimately lost. It is a very common problem in all the Former Soviet Republics. But I disagree about the requirement to have gaps between units. I have seen well trained units work literally side by side on the same street many, many times and not have any issues.

Lets say you broke down the riot control units you are familiar with into smaller sizes. For the sake of the debate, they will be stationed across a 100 meter wide road. Each man holds about 1 meter of ground, slightly wider than his own shield, allowing him free movement. Each unit is 25 shields across, 4 deep, so there is a total of 4 different units. Based on your description, could that unit, without any intervals or gaps, perform complex drill maneuvers, like having one unit remain stationary, while the others move forward or back (refusing a part of the line, oblique movement, etc)?

Because I've done extensive drilling in my military career, and we ALWAYS separated units, which not only gave each commander his own little area to command without worrying about crashing his unit into a friendly one, but also gave them a psychological autonomy, which is necessary if you expect them to take initiative in combat. I can't see forming a line of men and having them do anything more complex than standing still without at least a few feet, a meter, between units.

If you read the descriptions of battles fought by Epaminondas, Alexander, the various successors generals, and the Romans during the mid-late Republic and into the Principate, its pretty obvious that intervals existed between different cavalry and infantry units, that the battleline was not continuous. The question isn't whether they existed, its how big they were and if the gaps were as wide as the units themselves.

[Bryan]

I would be interested in these multiple ancient sources which definately describe intervals for the moment of melee engagement.

If you are looking for a writer stating unequivocally that intervals were present in combat, I can't provide them, because the ancient sources rarely state anything unequivocally concerning battlefield tactics. Among the Romans, we can't rightly say whether they fought stacked ontop of each other, with more spacing, whether they went into battle with crests and decorations or used them only for the occasional parade, or where leaders were stationed in battle, where the standards were kept at, etc.

However, evidence of the gaps exists, as do suggestions and descriptions that can infer they were used during the battle, not just while standing still or marching. For some reason, the Univ of Chicago's website, which contains my collection of online sources, isn't working at the moment. When it comes up, I'll come up with a list of direct sources that describe those intervals.

[Macedon]

As stated in more ancient posts in similar discussions, I would be interested to see any source even hinting at the use of intervals in the Republican years by the Romans during battle. As I have already stated, according to the Greeks at least, the Romans normally, in field battles, fought in phalanxes, which could hardly be meant with sizable gaps (the theory goes that the fighting gaps were as wide as a maniple, not the smaller intervals described in detail in the Byzantine manuals...) As for fighting with gaps, it was a tactical option perfectly known to the Greeks long before the Punic wars and were used, as would the Romans and others in my opinion, to attack in very rugged and uneven ground, especially uphills (during the retreat of the 10.000 or at Sellasia). Fighting in speirae (that is the Greek tactical term to look for in the sources for you who can read ancient Greek) was not something that innovative. On the other hand, the Romans seem to have employed a more fluid system of phalanx. Tactical retreat was difficult and very few times was used well and successfully (e.g. Chaeronea, Philip against the Southern Greeks). According to the sources, whereas the logical thing for a phalanx was to march forward, the Romans were very good at retreating. They could retreat long distances without breaking into flight (but not without suffering greatly also in the process), whereas other phalanxes would dissolve. This clearly shows some small unit tactic within the line that kept cohesion in retreat at the expense of the attack. As for the theory of Romans surging into gaps in the enemy line, they do not seem to have done so as a regular tactic. At Pydna, the number one example of the Romans doing so, exploiting the gaps of the 'unwieldy' Greek phalanx (a formation that was invented to actually fight in the extremely rugged Greek -and Italian- terrain), it was Paulus who in the face of defeat rode along the lines ordering the legionaries to do so, which clearly shows that it was not a standard tactic, not against the Greeks, not against the phalanx, not in the Balkan terrain.

@Bryan

What do you mean with

'If you read the descriptions of battles fought by Epaminondas, Alexander, the various successors generals, and the Romans during the mid-late Republic and into the Principate, its pretty obvious that intervals existed between different cavalry and infantry units, that the battleline was not continuous. The question isn't whether they existed, its how big they were and if the gaps were as wide as the units themselves."?

I have read all the battle description and much more and I have certainly not come to that conclusion or even been given that idea. What makes it so obvious that intervals existed between infantry units?

[Densus]

Lets say you broke down the riot control units you are familiar with into smaller sizes. For the sake of the debate, they will be stationed across a 100 meter wide road. Each man holds about 1 meter of ground, slightly wider than his own shield, allowing him free movement. Each unit is 25 shields across, 4 deep, so there is a total of 4 different units. Based on your description, could that unit, without any intervals or gaps, perform complex drill maneuvers, like having one unit remain stationary, while the others move forward or back (refusing a part of the line, oblique movement, etc)?

Absolutely, but with a caveat. We would not teach anything we classed as a 'complex manoeuvre' because the more complex it is the less likely it is to work when the shield line is under pressure and the guys are scared/angry/adrenaline pumping etc. Simple things like getting one unit or a couple of sub-units to move forward and backwards is no problem. In fact we teach exactly that for situations where we end up having to stand still but want to drive the crowd back off the shield line.

To give you an example of the sort of thing we can do; when we stand still or move backwards we move to a formation where our shields are touching (not overlapping) to provide additional protection, that can involve multiple units in a wide street. But if we are moving forward we need at about 2 metres between each shield so the guys can use their batons effectively (when we are teaching we tell them to judge it from the length of their arm, plus their baton, plus 6 inches). I have made 3 units of approximately 25 guys each move from one formation to the other, while being pelted with bricks, bottles and Molotov cocktails, by just shouting 3 words.

I am struggling to think of a good example online (I have loads on my laptop) and the best example I can think of just now is the video below. At 1:12 there are 3 or 4 serials (UK police terminology for Public Order Units, approximately 25 strong). There is a better than average chance these units have not worked together before and may be a mix of Level 1 and Level 2 units (different levels of training and public order experience). When the commander on the ground decides to deploy a mounted unit through that line into the crowd they are able to complete a unit split effectively, even though they were fighting toe to toe and were actually being pushed backwards when the command was given.

Student riots Westminster

Now that isn't a perfect unit split by any stretch of the imagination but because all of the individuals understood the drill, and more importantly what it is meant to achieve, they were able to improvise something that had the same effect. To achieve that effect the commander shouted one word three times.

Because I've done extensive drilling in my military career, and we ALWAYS separated units, which not only gave each commander his own little area to command without worrying about crashing his unit into a friendly one, but also gave them a psychological autonomy, which is necessary if you expect them to take initiative in combat. I can't see forming a line of men and having them do anything more complex than standing still without at least a few feet, a meter, between units.

Public Order is not drill. There is a superficial resemblance and it is very easy to make it look like drill on an empty parade ground or in a training environment if the role players are briefed to do exactly what you want them to do, but in the real world, or in a free play exercise it is a very, very different beast.

Now I would not say that gaps between units never happens or that it will always end in disaster. I you are moving forward rapidly so the crowd doesn't have time to take advantage of it you will get away with it. Units we trained in a Former Soviet Republic did exactly that the first time they used our tactics on the streets a few years ago (I will try to find a video of that online). But if you are standing still or moving so slowly the crowd have time to react with large gaps between units you are probably toast, unless you use something else to keep them out of it like baton rounds, which goes back to what you said earlier about missile troops in a Roman context.