thoughts on Formations and such

[Tib. Gabinius]

I would be happy about your sources, the ancient literatur and ikonography you used to thorw an eye for.

[Robert Vermaat]

I like to expose you all my reflexion and my theorical work but in english it is completly imposible for me, my vocabulary is not rich enough...

We can maybe translate it? Or Alain maybe?

[Luca]

I know french, probably I could help

[Robert Vermaat]

PAUSE - IMPORTANT: THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL

I agree it's worth bringing up, I merely pointed out that this was not a system for troop rotation, but a system for re-forming troops in the second and third ranks.

Are we sure about that? It seems to me that M. is describing the makeup of a legion to educate the other he is speaking to, after he mentions that the Roman method for the rotation of ranks has been lost. The 'ranks' initially mentioned by him could mean 'maniples', or could mean exactly 'ranks'.

Well, the text seems pretty clear, Machiavelli describes a system where an army is divided into 3 ranks (acies). Sure, you can read into this that he might mean’maniples’, but equally that he described a triplex acies of Late Roman times. But my guess is that he’s describing a hypothetical model based on Republic times.

You'd need a front rank with a double amount of numbers, for if the front rank would be the same number as the double-spaced second (etc.) rank, than it would only occupy half it's length. So maybe you'd need the first two ranks fighting in close space to begin with.

That's obvious, but yes. The front rank needs to be double strength, but that is not an alien concept to Roman military practice with the double strength right flank in the form of the First Cohort.

Indeed.

Yes, that could be done, but the same principle applies: you'd need the opportunity. If the front is heavily engaged, the enemy could also charge after the front rankers who fall back, thereby dangerously charging into your ranks.

This assumes that the Romans are being pushed back, and are not the ones pushing forwards. I doubt the enemy could charge anyway. It takes forward motion and impetus to charge into a body, with space needed to gain acceleration. But if the situation was of strike, parry, push and shove, then quickly stepping back could even overbalance your opponent temporarily. Even if the enemy got between every first rank Roman during the rotation, they would have no great advantage if any, as the shape of the front ranks on both sides would be the same. Sure, the remaining Romans would have enemy at front and both sides, but so would the enemy have Romans at front and both sides. There is no clear advantage to the enemy, but the Romans would have been expecting it to happen and prepared, with the replacements already slamming into position and possibly covered by the standing 2nd ranker on the other side of the retiring front ranker, while he moves into position.

Yes and no. If the style of fighting is strike and parry I agree, there would not be enough pressure to create an immediate problem.
But if there is a lot of pressure, one man stepping backwards could/would invite his opponent to follow. You could cover such a penetrating enemy from several sides, but it would leave at least some men uncovered, and the front rank would likely get uneasy if enemy soldiers managed to infiltrate en masse.

Sure, non-Roman enemies would not likely know how to take advantage, but Roman armies more often had Roman adversaries than not.

It can only de done whent the front is disengaged during some lull in the fighting, or at a moment where the enemy is surprised (which only works if they have no clue about what's going to happen, not likely if this were a normal Roman tactic - they'd be waiting for it!).

There had been plenty of conflict between the Jews and the Romans before Jotapata, yet the Jews still could not take advantage when a rotation (ranks or whole units) happened and Josephus, a military leader, was very impressed either way. Unlike the Romans, the enemy seem to be not particularly trained in these things, and I doubt they knew the commands coming from the cornicen or in many cases even the verbal Latin commands of a centurio.

Agreed, but then the Jews were not skilled warriors and did not have an army. Their resistance was based of gangs and guerrilla warfare. Yet they were adaptable enough – they seemed to have understood Roman artillery practise well enough to spot the incoming fire, forcing the Roman to adapt also.

[Tarbicus]

Sure, non-Roman enemies would not likely know how to take advantage, but Roman armies more often had Roman adversaries than not.

I wish I could find that blasted passage I read from a primary source less than a flippin' month ago that says "civilised" combatants withdrew to rotate in fresh troops at the same time as each other! :evil:

[QFirmus]

A little late, can't find who made the reference to the whistle, but it set me and another member off seraching for info...apparently the Romans do have whistles...there was a reference to galley slaves being signaled by a whistle...I'll hunt down ref, and an item on sale that was called a whistle...not exactly hard academic evidence but it is worth considering...

No idea of the accuracy of this piece, just a possible chance that whistles exist and they cold be used as a signal, in smaller setting

[Luca]

Yes,

I personally tested a roman whistle found in a military context (far I know).
But even if we can accept that roman soldiers were using this very rare military finding, we don't know for what because simply no literary evidence are in our hands (always far I know).

So I suppose they were using it for their football matches.... I'm not kidding.

[QFirmus]

Footbal or Soccer?

I am not married to the idea, I was just surprised b/c I did not think they had whistles at all, based on an earlier comment (or on a ROME series commentary).

It doesn't solve anything, but it does exist so.....

just passing it along

[Luca]

Yes, the best is that whistle is still working nowaday! And it has a very clean sound.

I believe anyway "soccer" that in Europe is called "football", you know, this sport born here, and romans invented everything... )

Back to the topic, in battle I personally would prefer to give orders with proper (terrific and powerful) sounds, not whistles, also to be more impressive on the enemies.

[M. Demetrius]

Not to create more confusion, but a human voice gets lost quickly among all the shouting, crashing, screaming, etc that would accompany a shield/sword battle. High pitched sounds carry further, so whistles and higher notes on trumpets or bugles would work.

From just fun, mock combat, I've been hit on the helmet, and I can't hear much of anything after that for a while, let alone someone shouting an order above the tumult.

If I were pressed, I'd vote for a spoken command to a bugler or whistler, and the signal given and relayed to the troops with bugle, trumpet or whistle.

I have no idea how the Romans did it, just a confidence that they did it. Fun to talk about though, eh?

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

I must say that even in a testudo commands are hard to hear.I had to listen very closely to hear the Centurio during a demonstration and had it been a real battle would never have heard a word.Surely something other than voice commands were used.

[RUBICON]

Having just skimmed the above passages it has always fascinated me whether this could have been done as effectively and without confusion as one would think.

Ive tried to find actual practices amongst re enactment groups but until now havent been able to, until....not that it would be historically correct but I have just been watching ROME and in the opening scene they dramatically show troop rotation from an "up above view" which made me really start thinking how this was done.

For those who havent seen it, it shows the troops in the second and thrid lines holding onto the troop infronts mail ( bit hazaardous as swords would be drawn ready and waving around) and on the Centurions command ( a whistle in this case) they drag the front troop back and to the side allowing the next line to rush forward and confront the enemy.

Having read all your comments, many of you have some good questions as there would be instances where two troopers would be side by side and an easy target for an enemy to rush forward and strike one or both down.

Ive continue dto re look at the scene and try to work out how it could have been done.

it does look spectacular on teh movie but in real life it would have been haphazard.

Also, I must admit in teh movie, during teh changeover teh enemy is not enagaing the roman army at close contact...there seems to be a waiting lull as teh enemy allows the romans to perform this...somehow I dont think this woudl have been the case

Im really interested in this so if anyone has soem actual battle formation practice Id be interested to read it

:lol:

[SOCL]

At the recent Castra Romana in South Carolina, as Andy pointed out, we all had quite a bit of difficulty hearing commands while in testudo. We had even more trouble when we went into needlefelt mock combat, wherein we, the Romans, were destroyed 2 out of 3 times. Then again, those damned barbarians pretended to not get hit...

But I digress. :roll:

This may sound amateaurish, but I did silent, armed drill with M1 Garands in the JROTC for four years. Obviously, vocal commands were out (i.e. "silent drill") so we resorted to certain combinations of rifle pounds on the drill floor by our commander or raps/tap/slaps on the rifle itself. We only resorted to this, though, after we realized that the commander stomping his foot or some other rubbish was too difficult to hear (not to mention strange to view). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can see why they would use whistles as they would have been a sound distinctly out of place on a battlefield polluted by the crashing and shouting sounds of combat.

And, rereading that, perhaps that was terribly pointless... :?

In any event, would the first battle in the HBO/BBC series Rome seem to be a rather accurate look of combat and the relief of the first file during combat? At least as far as expressing or explaining to someone who knows nothing or very little about Roman combat.

[Luca]

Before to discuss anything about "how" the orders were given it is a must to understand that ancient battles were 99% movements&tactics and only 1% fight. Not to mention that very often many of the "players" (soldiers) didn't "play" (fight) and that very often the battle finished without a true fighting, with one of the two sides disrupting due to the fear before the "contact".
So in non-fighting phases the orders were more "easy" to hear and to see.
My idea, supported also by Flavius Josephus (Bellum Iudaicum VI,4,6), is that if the fight starts ther is no way to change something and the only chance to do it is lull.
"... [the roman soldiers] didn't hear vocal orders because of the loud confusion and didn't see any hand sign because too concentrated in the fighting."
Basically all that can do by generals is "before" the fight starts (training, movements, disciplina etc.), but when the enemy is engaged, well that is only confusion and explains why it was rare to get in touch and die in the one-to-one fight.

[RUBICON]

"In any event, would the first battle in the HBO/BBC series Rome seem to be a rather accurate look of combat and the relief of the first file during combat? At least as far as expressing or explaining to someone who knows nothing or very little about Roman combat."

As I am short of video footage from 2000 years ago, I was simplyt stating that the ROME series gave an interesting interpretation of troop roatation.

Historically correct? I wouldnt think so

To us amateurs, non re enactors and whom may be attempting to broaden their knowledge on Roman Military tactics it was just a suggestion if not merely a method of visualising the manouvres being diiscussed.

for someone who hasnt experienced combat, I would even go as far as saying, voice commands in the field, with barbarians shouting, the clanging of swords & shields, I would pretty much have a wild guess that trumpets or even a whistle could have been used....then again much the way it was depicted on that non historical tv series....now what was its name?

So, Saul, if re enacting Romans is your thing, I think that's great, and I imagine you live and breathe it, even better....twas just putting in my five cents worth. I didnt even ask for the change!