08-08-2015, 05:03 PM
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.
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.
