Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why didn\'t Romans fought in single line?
#31
Quote: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

He asked about Rome: Total War specifically in the original post, and I was just posting about how it can actually work in the game.
Reply
#32
Hopefully this comes out properly, I spent some time working on it, it explains historical examples of intervals in ancient combat and a bit of why they are necessary.

To view properly, open up in another tab and increase size to view text.

[attachment=12648]GapsandIntervals.png[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#33
Hopefully this comes out properly, I spent some time working on it, it explains historical examples of intervals in ancient combat and a bit of why they are necessary.

To view properly, open in another tab and then increase size to view text.

[attachment=12649]GapsandIntervals.png[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#34
Quote:...

How come the UK riot police are never attacking the rioters on the run, offensively? I'm seeing a lot of defensive standing still, not a lot of the style of fighting with "impetus" like what Caesar describes. If a force is defensive, basically serving as a human wall, to either stop or press their foes into a different direction, their tactics, deployment, formation, and fighting style will differently greatly than another unit whose purpose is to break an enemy's line. The Romans had defensive formations too, like the testudo, but those weren't exactly good units for attacking.

Did your riot units ever use a formation resembling a wedge? Did they get flanked or swallowed up by the mob? Something like this.
Reply
#35
Quote:How come the UK riot police are never attacking the rioters on the run, offensively? I'm seeing a lot of defensive standing still, not a lot of the style of fighting with "impetus" like what Caesar describes. If a force is defensive, basically serving as a human wall, to either stop or press their foes into a different direction, their tactics, deployment, formation, and fighting style will differently greatly than another unit whose purpose is to break an enemy's line. The Romans had defensive formations too, like the testudo, but those weren't exactly good units for attacking.

It depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. When a dispersal operation takes place that almost always uses the speed of the units to create a 'flocking' effect on the crowd and start them running away. In the incident in the video I posted earlier the police task was to prevent entry to a specific area, followed by containing the crowd after they became violent which is why they were mainly static.

This is what a multi-unit dispersal looks like;
Dispersal in Hackney

Although that is using the Mets equipment and tactics which are slightly different to those used in NI.

Quote:Did your riot units ever use a formation resembling a wedge? Did they get flanked or swallowed up by the mob? Something like this

Not against violent crowds. There is a tactic known as the wedge which is for escorting someone through a largely peaceful crowd.
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.
Reply
#36
Quote:It depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. When a dispersal operation takes place that almost always uses the speed of the units to create a 'flocking' effect on the crowd and start them running away. In the incident in the video I posted earlier the police task was to prevent entry to a specific area, followed by containing the crowd after they became violent which is why they were mainly static.

And there in lies why having riot police in continuous lines is necessary. Because in the way you used them and were trained on them, it appears that they weren't used for the type of violent assaults that Romans were famous for, at least according to Caesar. Not slighting your service or the tactics at all, its better than they didn't wade into mobs of civilians with swords killing everyone.

Imagine same enemy, an undiciplined mob. Your forces are armed with sharp swords, not clubs. Your orders are very specific, kill as many of them as you, as violently and quickly as you can, show no mercy, demonstrating as much virtus and discipline, hoping senior officers recognize your heroics to reward your bravery and effectiveness with your sword. Would you still worry about your line being broken or gaps being exploited? Its a mindset thing.

"Some goddamn fool once said that flanks have got to be secure. Since then sonofabitches all over the globe have been guarding their flanks. I don't agree with that. My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the bastard's throat."
George Patton

"There was so much space left between the two lines, as sufficed for the onset of the hostile armies: but Pompey had ordered his soldiers to await Caesar's attack, and not to advance from their position, or suffer their line to be put into disorder. And he is said to have done this by the advice of Caius Triarius, that the impetuosity of the charge of Caesar's soldiers might be checked, and their line broken, and that Pompey's troops remaining in their ranks, might attack them while in disorder; and he thought that the javelins would fall with less force if the soldiers were kept in their ground, than if they met them in their course; at the same time he trusted that Caesar's soldiers, after running over double the usual ground, would become weary and exhausted by the fatigue. But to me Pompey seems to have acted without sufficient reason: for there is a certain impetuosity of spirit and an alacrity implanted by nature in the hearts of all men, which is inflamed by a desire to meet the foe. This a general should endeavor not to repress, but to increase; nor was it a vain institution of our ancestors, that the trumpets should sound on all sides, and a general shout be raised; by which they imagined that the enemy were struck with terror, and their own army inspired with courage."
Caesar on Pharsalus, BC 3.92
Reply
#37
Quote:And there in lies why having riot police in continuous lines is necessary. Because in the way you used them and were trained on them, it appears that they weren't used for the type of violent assaults that Romans were famous for, at least according to Caesar. Not slighting your service or the tactics at all, its better than they didn't wade into mobs of civilians with swords killing everyone.

I disagree, here is a completely different example. Every year at Wolin the large scale battles end the same way; one side will create a breach in the other shield wall, more and more people will force their way into that gap and the now split shield wall gets surrounded and wiped out. If the gaps were there to begin with then it would all just happen that much quicker.

Wolin battle
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.
Reply
#38
Quote:
Bryan post=369270 Wrote:And there in lies why having riot police in continuous lines is necessary. Because in the way you used them and were trained on them, it appears that they weren't used for the type of violent assaults that Romans were famous for, at least according to Caesar. Not slighting your service or the tactics at all, its better than they didn't wade into mobs of civilians with swords killing everyone.

I disagree, here is a completely different example. Every year at Wolin the large scale battles end the same way; one side will create a breach in the other shield wall, more and more people will force their way into that gap and the now split shield wall gets surrounded and wiped out. If the gaps were there to begin with then it would all just happen that much quicker.

Wolin battle

That's play fighting. It has as much to do with ancient or medieval combat as paintball does with modern combat. Do the leaders at Wolin normally beat or execute participants that break from formation without orders? Because pretty much everyone in the ancient period did. They aren't disciplined, no true cohesion, and there is no worry about life or death, so it makes for much more audacious "combat". Real battles, you're looking at 5-10% of forces killed or wounded in the battleline, with the rest happening during the rout. Is that similar to Wolin? I think not.

The style of fighting shown in the video, with strict overlapping shield walls, that isn't how the Romans fought, its how the northern and western Europeans of the Viking age and the Medieval period fought. They didn't even use multiple lines as reserves. Completely different tactics, different cultures, different mindset.

Lastly, In the videos, the unit that surges forward and creates a gap in the enemy line, also creates a gap in their own line. Why isn't their own gap attacked? If gaps are so important to keep closed, why did they open one in their own line?


[attachment=12650]MOREGAPS.png[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#39
@ Bryan

I do not understand the usefulness of the image you posted, apart from the fact that some are drawn according to your line of thinking and not like the sources present them. How exactly does it help with establishing the fact that they have anything to do with the real descriptions, their being the tactical norm and the manipular system of the Republican Roman army? If you really need to find clear examples of how armies fought with gaps do look into the battles I mentioned and the Byzantine manuals. But, personally, I do not think that these diagrams are helpful in discussing the gaps between maniples.

As to why sizable gaps, or any gaps, against a spear or sarissa phalanx mainly, is a generally bad idea, I will make an initial attempt to list some issues.

1. A unit that is outflanked has vulnerable edges. Even if another unit stands behind or near it, the men in the edges will be simultaneously attacked by more spears / sarrisas than the rest of the unit, without the need of the enemy to actually surge into the gap. Especially the right side of the subunit will be attacked on the shieldless side along much of its depth, in the case of sarissas, even along the whole of its length.

2. Apart from being needlessly exposed to spear and sarissa attacks, the subunits are also exposed to missile attacks. The fact that you have a heavy infantry line does not mean that the lines do not keep attacking each other with missiles too. Light infantry would shower the enemy from behind the lines and even the heavy infantry would throw various missiles against the enemy. Again, there would be no need to really lose integrity to exploit the flanks of the opponent subunits.

3. The argument that some propose that with such subunits you could actually draw parts of the enemy phalanx and thus force it to lose cohesion is also invalid. Lines (and if there is any doubt to this I can provide the exact sources as this issue is being discussed in the ancient texts) would resemble more like snakes than real lines. One can see that even today you can have a line of riot police keep its 'line integrity' even at very 'unline' shapes. Having part of your line step forward to follow the retreat of a Roman subunit would not break the line, while the Romans who had not followed the retreat would see themselves engulfed (by simply looking to the left and right), which would result in loss of morale, even if they were not actually attacked themselves. An actual battle would never look like the neat lines in your black vs. red diagram.

3. Greek phalanxes would also open lanes for skirmishers, cavalry, to receive elephants and chariots as we perfectly well know. What would stop them from exploiting their tactical doctrines to attack the enemy with even more skirmisers or ekdromoi (heavy infantry in skirmish, like the Romans also did), eventually pinning the Roman (or some) subunits down, making it even more difficult to retreat or get relief? Note, that, although the Greeks also had tactics involving gaps and knew how to form intervals for various tactical purposes, they still normally fought in unison, without intervals between subunits, Having a small gap between legions or units of thousands could work, as the vulnerable points would be few in number, having huge gaps between small units on a relatively even (usual, normal) battlefield is another thing.

4. The Byzantines are those who inherited the Roman military tradition and I have always stressed the importance of studying their manuals in order to understand the logic behind older Roman battlefield tactics. In those manuals, the issue of gaps is often discussed and these discussions are for me very important evidence as to the dangers they would entail (some of them mentioned above) as well as the measures suggested to mitigate these dangers (like how to make gaps invisible to the enemy) and believe you me, they are run by a very different logic as to the one you propose, one that is more 'legion based', than 'maniple based', which is a huge difference. One more thing that is worthy of study in the manuals is the distance between the infantry lines. In your images, you propose that they were very close, which is never suggested in the texts. In contrary, there is a lot of evidence, that the lines were far apart, sometimes in the hundreds of meters, which would make a quick response and missile support actually very unlikely...

The key to all this is that I do not say that intervals were never used. They had their tactical uses and were a viable choice for certain tactical circumstances. However, the manipular tactic proposed, that is maniples in checkerboard formation fighting and then somehow retreating through the maniples behind them etc, is not supported by the literary evidence, ancient or medieval.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#40
As to why sizable gaps, or any gaps, against a spear or sarissa phalanx mainly, is a generally bad idea, I will make an initial attempt to list some issues.

You can go on and on about why you don't think they are generally a good idea, but intervals/gaps in the lines occurred. Even the Greeks and Byzantines sources and manuals report of intervals between units and even had suggestions for what to do with them at times (fill them with skirmishers). Xenophon discusses them, so do multiple Roman sources.

I tried explaining with my illustrations as simply as possible why gaps couldn't be exploited easily, how they worked, and some examples of small and large versions used by the Greek and Hellenistic city states and Rome. Its a bit vexing that you still don't get it, but its really not surprising that you won't acknowledge that all the Roman sources I listed state large intervals between Roman maniples existed in combat.

In a previous thread about this topic you stated this:

"Yes, there are a number of examples of Greek infantry (hoplites, pikemen and possibly other types of troops) arraying with sizable intervals between smaller units. This was nothing (too) strange and the authors described it clearly. "

then in the beginning of this thread you state this:

"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?"

Then you write this:

"The key to all this is that I do not say that intervals were never used. They had their tactical uses and were a viable choice for certain tactical circumstances."

Your stance in this matter is a bit confusing, as if when you edited your last post in this thread you completely changed your mind from a black and white viewpoint and decided to clarify that gaps obviously occurred (at least you're willing to now concede that) but were situation dependent, which I've never said otherwise.

In all of the Roman histories I've read, few actually describe in detail the detail for fighting techniques of the century, maniples and cohorts in combat that you demand as proof. They barely describe the depth of each line, formations, positions of people, spacing between files and ranks, or even if rank and file actually existed. And yet numerous sources state intervals existed before the battle, and then describe them used in battle (such as Zama and Muthul River) but because they don't spell it out for you, stating "And then with maniple sized gaps between maniples, Caesar's legions crashed against Pompeius' lines. The sources you want to read don't exist, what we have are small pieces we need to interpret. I don't think any existing evidence is enough for you to change your stance.

________

"Scipio placed his men on the field in the following order:

The hastati first, with an interval between their maniples; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the intervals between those of the hastati as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because the enemy was so strong in elephants. In the rear of these he stationed the triarii. On his left wing he stationed Gaius Laelius with the Italian cavalry, on the right Massanissa with all his Numidians. The intervals between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples, which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces between the maniples...
...
The rest of the elephants charged the Roman velites in the spaces between the maniples of the line, and while inflicting much damage on the enemy suffered severely themselves; until, becoming frightened, some of them ran away down the vacant spaces, the Romans letting them pass harmlessly along, according to Scipio's orders, while others ran away to the right under a shower of darts from the cavalry, until they were finally driven clear off the field.

It was just at the moment of this stampede of the elephants, that Laelius forced the Carthaginian cavalry into headlong flight, and along with Massanissa pressed them with a vigorous pursuit. While this was going on, the opposing lines of heavy infantry were advancing to meet others with deliberate step and proud confidence
"

There is the evidence that proves spaces between maniples existed in combat. Since its your contention that they didn't exist, its on you to prove Polybius got it wrong.

When you get done with that one, work on accounts of the battles of the Muthul River, Chaeronea, and Pompey's battle against Oroeses. How are all those sources wrong and you're right?
Reply
#41
Ah, I think I understand what has confused you...

As I have stated :

'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.'

With 'battle' I meant during the engagement of the infantry lines and not battle in general. Pre-battle maneuvers, opening of lanes when disengaged etc are a different matter.

The issue was supposed to have been about gaps between maniples in the Roman army of the Republican years and them being standard tactics for a field battle. The same, though, applies for other field battles. Of course we have very good examples of intervals in lines, but always, these accounts give a very straight reason as to why these intervals were used as a tactic (which I clearly stated in my very first post). Usually they are formed in order to address a specific tactical challenge, be it the ascending of a rugged hill or the charge of chariots or elephants. However, using such intervals in a straightforward, normal engagement of two battle formations on a normal field? That is another issue that has nothing to do with the examples given to us by the sources and quoted here.

You look like you are trying to generalize on a tactic that was just one weapon in the arsenal of ancient commanders and seem to ignore the shortcomings that also come with it. No tactic is the panacea that makes all other tactical options obsolete and sizable intervals in the line is also not a fit tactic for all circumstances, which is why it was not used as such.

In my opinion, we have to be very careful, when we form opinions based on the assumption that the sources do not say, as this is mostly an excuse for not further researching the matter. I do not demand definite proof but I demand thorough study of the sources before stating that the sources are not enough before applying our own subjective rationale. And then I prefer theories that can follow the sources rather than disparage them or use them out of context.

You cannot, for example, state as an argument that battle-lines (and more specifically the Republican Romans) used sizable gaps in their formations as a standard tactic when in hand to hand combat against other infantry lines because Polybius describes a standard Roman formation before battle (he also describes Greek formations before battle that are not close ordered...), because Scipio used intervals to counter Hannibal's elephants at Zama, because Alexander ordered his men to form lanes for the Persian chariots to pass through at Gaugamela, as did the 10,000 at Cunaxa, because Xenophon arrayed his men in speirae when attacking the barbarians uphills, as did Antigonus at Sellasia, because Antiochus III arrayed his phalangites in squares with elephants in the intervals or because Perseus attacked the Romans with only half his phalanx. These were tactics employed for specific reasons, not how these armies actually engaged the enemy infantry in normal situations. And if you are trying to link this with the manipular tactics of the Republican Romans, you would need examples and references that I have not seen, else, why not argue that the sarissophoros phalanx of Alexander also fought with sizable gaps, as portrayed in the tactically abysmal movie of Oliver Stone and supported by examples such as above?

In older discussions, I have often written about the Greek texts and how they portrayed battles with Romans, Polybius being one of those writers who wrote in Greek. Their descriptions are not as 'vague' as some who have read the translations say they are. When they speak of the Roman battle-line, they often say how it fought in phalanx (phallangidon), which as a term, it normally (especially in the eras of the sources in question), means that they fought as a phalanx, in a continuous line. This is usually rendered in English as 'the Roman line / formation etc' and so questions arise that should not have. The very Greek name of a legion in the later Roman years is 'phalanx', like 'the 5th phalanx' when speaking about the 5th legion, which is also indicative. Polybius does not describe the Roman battle-line in hand to hand combat with gaps, so I do not see why I would have to prove that he got it wrong. The same applies to other sources you propose, which I also urge you to re-examine, as for example the battle against Oroeses and the battle of Chaeronea (I presume you mean the one between Sulla and Archelaus?). Maybe, you are the one getting this wrong, trying to use the examples trying to present an order given to form lanes as a standard tactic to engage the enemy infantry line in, which is a very different thing. Remember here, that no one disputes the existence of gaps for a variety of tactical reasons. What I disagree with is their use as a standard tactic against infantry lines in hand to hand combat.

For example, we have Mauricius write that the interval between two infantry lines in parallel formation should be 100-200 feet wide (31.23-62.46 m). This interval helped them to not get crowded together on the march, while being short enough to allow the lines to join for the melee and thus support each other. This coming from a manual of the 6th century based on Roman tradition is very important in order to understand how gaps were used not only in battle but also outside it.

Mauricius, Strategicon (sub nomine Mauricii Imperatoris vel Urbicii), B.12, ch.8.17, p.3, l.1 “τάσσονται δὲ τὰ μέρη τῆς παρατάξεως ἀπὸ ἑκατὸν ἢ διακοσίων ποδῶν ἀλλήλων διακεκριμένως, ἵνα μὴ στενοῦνται ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων ἐν τῷ περιπατεῖν καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς συμβολῆς ἑνοῦνται καὶ βοηθοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς”

Leo VI also advises that the meroi of his mixed formation be arrayed with intervals ranging from 100 to 200 feet (about 30-60 m), so that they would not hinder each other’s movement. However, when it is time to engage the enemy, he orders that they unite so that they can assist one another and all should obey the middle meros, where the bandon of the commander of the line was located

Leo VI Sapiens, Tactica, ch.14, s.65, l.1 “Τάξεις δὲ τὰ μέρη τῆς παρατάξεως ἀπὸ ἑκατὸν ἢ διακοσίων ποδῶν ἀλλήλων διακεκριμένα, ἵνα μὴ στενοχωροῦνται ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων ἐν τῷ περιπατεῖν, ἐν δὲ τῷ καιρῷ τῆς συμβολῆς ἑνοῦνται καὶ βοηθῶσιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παραγγέλλωνται τῷ μέσῳ μέρει πείθεσθαι, ἔνθα τὸ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ ἤ τινος ἑτέρου τεταγμένου ἄρχοντος βάνδον ὀφείλει τάσσεσθαι.”

And in the Sylloge Tacticorum, we are given the info that Intervals between units are formed to serve the following functions: First, they allow the orderly withdrawal of friendly units operating in front. They also are used to transport the injured to the rear, where medics can treat them with safety. Furthermore, the gaps are used by the mandatores to relay orders from and towards the first-rankers, since movement through the lines when the enemy is near is not safe.

Anonyma Tactica Byzantina, Sylloge tacticorum, ch.45, p.19, l.1 “Ἀναγκαῖα δ’ εἰσὶ τὰ διαλείμματα ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς παρατάξεσι. Κενώσαντες γὰρ τὰ βέλη οἱ προκουρσάτωρες διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων διαλειμμάτων ἐπὶ τὴν οὐραγίαν ἀναταράχως ἀποκομίζονται· καὶ οἱ τραυματίαι δὲ διὰ τούτων ἀσφαλῶς παρὰ τῶν καλουμένων δαιποτάτων διαβιβαζόμενοι τοῖς ἰατροῖς ἀποδίδονται· ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ μανδάτωρες διὰ τῶνδε διϊόντες τῶν τόπων τὰς παρὰ τῶν ἡγεμόνων ἐπιταγὰς καὶ παραγγελίας ἐπὶ τοὺς τὴν οὐραγίαν τεταγμένους διαπορθμεύουσιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀσφαλὲς τοὺς χρεῖαν ἔχοντας ἐν πολέμου καιρῷ περιϊέναι τὰς τάξεις.”

These (and other) such accounts of the tactical use of gaps are well worth studying by those who try to explore the use of gaps in the line. And will it or not, they have to be taken into account when debating the issue, consist primary sources and, as already stated, within the Roman military tradition. Any theory, in my opinion, should also try to reconcile the manuals too as well as the many descriptions of Romans actually fighting an infantry opponent in continuous lines.



Anyways. I am generally open to theories but in order to really make a serious proposal, one needs to first have researched the available material in depth and then resort to subjective, personal opinion. In all, you are of course welcome to make a point about such gaps and I am following all such discussions with interest in search of new ideas and possibly information I have not encountered (which is a lot... I still am planning of studying dozens of other authors), but from this to jump into how well-known or well-substantiated it is that the ancient battle-lines formed with sizable gaps between units, be it Greeks or Romans, Republicans or Imperials and how such gaps were not vulnerable to attacks from the enemy, there is a long distance.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#42
Nice dodge, please address this:

Polybius wrote:

The hastati first, with an interval between their maniples; behind them the principes, their maniples [i]not arranged to cover the intervals between those of the hastati as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance,[/i]
(Hist 15.9)

This source provides the evidence that it was Roman custom to stagger the maniples, with unit sized intervals between them. So that answers the question about whether the quincunx was used. Polybius says it was the Roman custom.

The next issue is whether these intervals were closed in battle or left open. The answer to that is comes in the form of battle descriptions of the Battles of the Muthul River (intervals weren't closed, they were filled with skirmishers), at Chaeronea, and Pompey's battle against Oroeses, where gaps were left open to trap cavalry and chariots (neither of which have to worry about the integrity of their own line, BTW). So at least sometimes, the intervals were purposely left open.

Lastly, there is the question about how easy it would be to frontally exploit a gap in a Roman line using heavy line infantry types. This unfortunately isn't discussed much by the ancient sources that focus on the Roman Republican period, not in relation to the quincunx formation and enemy line infantry. But as I've stated numerous times, the other sides, even the "barbarians" also took great pains to maintain the integrity of their own line, so they couldn't just charge into every open gap they saw, especially when doing so didn't even mean they could exploit the interval.

The type of evidence some people seek isn't available, so this part of the debate will remain forever questionable. But myself and other far knowledgeable persons, like Ross Cowan, Adrian Goldsworthy, and Michael Taylor have all provided evidence that suggest the Romans did use intervals between maniples and that it wasn't suicidal to do so, nor was it the only way in which they knew how to deploy their forces. I tried to explain with pretty simple drawings that if a sold like tries to break into the gaps, their integrity suffers, while the Romans don't, because nothing changes for them, and they have a 2nd and 3rd line to save them, while the solid phalanx has only one line, in great depth.

Commander's discretion means some traditional formations don't mean anything, the forces form up as he wants them to. For example, tactics will differ when Romans are fighting Gauls, who are known for the ferocity of their infantry charges and the abilities of their heavy cavalry, versus fighting a very systematic culture like the Hellenistic Successor kingdoms, versus a fast skirmishing forces like the Numidians or Lusitanians. Triplex Acies with intervals is not the only formation possible or used by the Romans, they were only really limited by the education of their commanders and the skills of the soldiers, and their arms, which can and often do dictate tactics.

Its not a given that Romans fought with intervals, but the sources do flatly state they were kept open sometimes, that it was Roman custom to have a quincunx formation, and that the Romans concept of integrity of the line differed greatly from the period Greeks' conception.
Reply
#43
It all depends on who you are fighting and the quality of your own troops. There are times when it makes sense to have a continuous unbroken line but it has serious limitations.

Once that line is formed it is really hard to do anything other than stay in place or advance very slowly if you want to maintain an uninterrupted line. Highly trained troops can manage a retreat but it is very easy to disrupt if the line is long as inevitably gaps appear and the line becomes disrupted.

As a general you have no control over the battle line once the lines engage. Especially as the thicker the line the harder it becomes to make changes to the formation.

Leaving gaps between units gives you options. As a commander you can see how the battlefield is changing and manipulate it or take advantage of developments. I regularly leave gaps between units and they do not get flooded with troops. In fact that is what I want to happen. The main factor in any battle is morale. Sudden surprises and setbacks are wonderful tools for winning a battle. If your troops are aware of the likelihood of an event, and have trained for it, they are not disturbed when it happens. Those gaps are killing zones if used correctly.

The police tactics shown above are interesting but have a different purpose than killing the opponent. I hope anyway. The shieldwall/testudo formation is obviously defensive and non threatening and allows the protestors to be braver as the risk to them is lower. It is much harder to fight from a tight formation. As the videos showed, aggressive formations have to be more open to be fast moving and allow for individual skill to be applied.
Reply
#44
Korean Riot Police Training. Using gaps in their lines. Multiple lines give you options.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbFSVh1mmiw
-Rod Dickson
Reply
#45
Quote:Korean Riot Police Training. Using gaps in their lines. Multiple lines give you options.

90% of what is in that video only works because the 'rioters' are pre-briefed to do exactly what the police want them to. You will not find any videos of them using those tactics on operations. Real riots in South Korea look like this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgcwkNLY814
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.
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: