Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(Late) (Roman) Formations
#46
If your riding Cody I sense that wouldn't be much of a problem from what i've heard about the "anti-social pony"! I've been following this thread with much intrest, I really doubt that i've got anything particularly useful to put forward though, nevermind citing sources Big Grin One thing I will say (put me on the right track if i'm completely wrong) is that if there are so few examples of very large late Roman battles (If i'm right in thinking someone mentioned that previously) how can we truely argue whole-heartedly one point or the other, surely most is just speculation?
Dave Bell/Secvndvs

Comitatus
[Image: comitatus.jpg]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">www.comitatus.net
Reply
#47
South Korean riot police. Highly trained and in very mortal danger, against protesters. The protesters have long poles (spears), sticks, swords, and even improvised flamethrowers.

The police even have a shield technique (the same shape as a rectangular scutum) where they use the bottom edge to strike with. It's gruesome viewing, but I think relevant to the thread. Where the police have the upper hand is when they manouevre to encircle groups and individuals, but other than that, even with locked shields against untrained and disorganised opponents, they actually come out pretty badly a number of times.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KKJyR_JFOKs

here are the Korean ploce on a riot training exercise. Note that for all of their intricate and well timed moves, when contrasted with the real deal above it's very different.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_AshcDGa234

This is a G8 summit protest with British riot police, in an open field and the police in open order.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=05W2fi1zSqw

But you'll really enjoy this Korean exercise, and these guys definitely study the Roman army (some of you are in for a treat about 4 minutes in).
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W65Qn4r8P0o
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns-StY31FSs
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#48
Paullus Scipio\\n[quote]The dangers of analogies and narrative history:
Sonic has illustrated a point by reference to an incident at the battle of Waterloo, or Mont St Jean as Napoleon and our continental members might prefer, to illustrate how “a few volleysâ€
Ian (Sonic) Hughes
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
"I have just jazzed mine up a little" - Spike Milligan, World War II
Reply
#49
Quote:Cavalry charging Close Order Infantry;
I shall try to be brief here, as it is really off-topic and is worthy of its own thread. Throughout the history of warfare, no cavalry have broken close-order infantry with good morale, ready and prepared, and the weapons to resist. There are rare exceptions such as the incident in the Napoleonic Peninsula battle of Garcia Hernandez, when a dead horse crashed into a French square, opening a large hole and causing its demise, and two other French squares were sufficiently demoralised by this to break and run, with predictable results.
.
That was idscussed previously in another thread, thre are plenty of examples throughout the history of warfare, of cavalry breaking close-order infantry with good morale, ready and prepared, and the weapons to resist. The view you hold is based on English Historiography, and it is limited basically in Napoleonic Wars to the Peninsular War and to Waterloo, but of course there were many more actions, and every time someone boast that I recall Eylau, for instance.
BTW Keegan´s conclusions about Agincourt are based on a false premise, as Curry has sufficiently proved that the French large superiority in numbers was just a myth created by the Nationalistic history in XIX century, and that French forces were actually only marginally superior in numbers.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#50
Thanks you for the clips - quite astonishing! Confusedhock:

Quote: even with locked shields against untrained and disorganised opponents, they actually come out pretty badly a number of times.

It's curious that the police are employing their shields apparently as a primary striking weapon - I would have thought this opened one up, rather. They certainly appear on the defensive and avoiding the use of comparable long weapons.

Quote:here are the Korean ploce on a riot training exercise. Note that for all of their intricate and well timed moves, when contrasted with the real deal above it's very different.

I've never seen anything like the fast footwork showcased by this display (outside of a musical chorus number!). I'm fascinated that they dress by touching hands: contact does appear to help them change order at speed, but I wouldn't like to try that in full riot gear!

Quote:This is a G8 summit protest with British riot police, in an open field and the police in open order.

Chilling. However, as they appear to be beating up unarmed, unarmoured and largely unresisting civilians, most of whom are on the ground, retreating or of retirement age, I think it demonstrates more the aftermath of a clash, where one might expect a successful unit to open up to press home a rout, killing the wounded and fleeing, relatively safe from organised resistance, or indeed a similar 'police action' by legionary cross-border patrols and raiding parties, the purpose of which is to terrorise and disperse barbarian civil populatons.


Quote:But you'll really enjoy this Korean exercise, and these guys definitely study the Roman army (some of you are in for a treat about 4 minutes in).

Big Grin You've got to love the fans.
Salvianus: Ste Kenwright

A member of Comitatus Late Roman Historical Re-enactment Group

My Re-enactment Journal
       
~ antiquum obtinens ~
Reply
#51
Paullus Scipio\\n[quote]...Greek warfare and Pushing:
There seems to be a view that we generally accept that Hoplite warfare involved locked shields and pushing, and that therefore since Late Romans were similarly equipped, they could have done the same. Vortigern/Robert seems to accept this for Greek warfare, but not Late Roman. As I indicated in an early post, I don’t believe this for one minute, and I suspect that if Mithras were to produce his ’dozen’ references, they would be open to interpretation , like the two he mentions ( see Sonic’s post, for example). I simply do not believe that a concerted “shoveâ€
Felix Wang
Reply
#52
Let me begin with an apology to Sonic/Ian !! Sad
I certainly did not intend any personal criticism, as I had hoped my original post made clear, but evidently did not. Also my remarks about sources were not aimed at you, nor were they meant to connect to what was said previously about Waterloo. On re-reading the post, however, I can see that it might be taken that way, so I have edited it by making it a new paragraph, to make it clear the reference was not to you/your post, but rather a general one about use of sources.
Nor was I criticising the way your point was made - and you have clarified this further in your latest post - it was just that your "few volleys" remark was a good example of the dangers of taking narrative history, often written by the victors, at face value - we are fortunate that in the case of Waterloo/Mont St Jean we have plenty of other evidence. And if it is any consolation, I am criticised in the same way ! :oops: ( see Aryaman2 post above). I guess it is one of the limitations of this medium that we must be brief (relatively in my case :oops: ) which means much must be simplified/generalised.
Nevertheless, I agree with your point, and indeed all your posts on this thread.
As to analogies in re-enactment, I did say they were helpful, but also wished to point out that they have their limitations too - just compare Tarbicus' clip of riot police clashing "in anger" to what you see at a re-enactment display.
And your observations about leaders are to the point - good junior leadership at small group level has been an essential in all Military History.
To Aryaman2 ;
My view on cavalry charging head-on into steady infantry is not based on'English historiography', nor on just Napoleonic sources.Eylau belongs in the 'exception' category - an attack in a snowstorm by cavalry in column, and what happened is debatable anyway.
I don't agree that Keegan's views are dependant on numbers - his description and explanation of what occurred are just as valid whatever the number of the French ( again debatable, and of course there is a huge difference between 'those present' and 'those taking part' )
To Felix: I was asserting no concerted pushing by an entire line, whether it be hoplites or late Romans or anone else, is possible

As I said earlier, whilst much valuable comment is being made on factors in battle, we should bear in mind that what we were trying to analyse was what exactly occurred when two lines of combatants came together - the last few yards, and then what?

To this end, Tarbicus' clips are particularly valuable, and analysis of them is worthy of its own thread ! ( yes, I am aware of the dangers of taking analogies too far :lol: ) Still, seeing these violent clashes between armed masses is probably as close as we are likely to get to an ancient battle.
A couple of points relevant to this discussion:-
Note that "chargers", whether police or demonstrators, invariably stop just outside their opponents weapon reach. ( I have seen many other instances of this phenomenon )."Fighting distance" is maintained, despite ebbs and surges.
Note how frightening and intimidating a barrage of missiles can be, even when few or no casualties are inflicted.
No 'shoving en masse' !! Tongue
The training clips ( more choreographed displays) are less valuable, but do show the impressive extent drill can be taken to - the 'touching of hands' that Salvianus refers to is done in all drill, and is referred to as 'dressing', its purpose being to regulate distance.
And yes, the "treat" is nice, demonstrating just how slick a changeover of lines (albeit in open order) can be, even in contact !
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#53
Quote:To Aryaman2 ;
My view on cavalry charging head-on into steady infantry is not based on'English historiography', nor on just Napoleonic sources.Eylau belongs in the 'exception' category - an attack in a snowstorm by cavalry in column, and what happened is debatable anyway.
I don't agree that Keegan's views are dependant on numbers - his description and explanation of what occurred are just as valid whatever the number of the French ( again debatable, and of course there is a huge difference between 'those present' and 'those taking part' )
Eylau is as debatable as any other battle, there is no perfect laboratory experiment in which in average conditions an unmodified, steady infantry deployed in square (because I imagine you would agree that there is no doubt that infantry in line was regularly beaten by cavalry) was charged by an unmodified cavalry with similar characteristics. However there are plenty of examples in many different conditions in which steady infantry has been defeated by cavalry.
Well, I will not start another discussion in this thread, but if you are interested there was a long discussion in another thread on the subject you can find interesting.
On Keegan and Agincourt, you yourself validated the view it was dependant on numbers when you talked about "small group dynamics and crowd behaviour"
AKA Inaki
Reply
#54
Quote:clips are particularly valuable, and analysis of them is worthy of its own thread ! ( yes, I am aware of the dangers of taking analogies too far :lol: ) Still, seeing these violent clashes between armed masses is probably as close as we are likely to get to an ancient battle.
What strikes me about me the clips is there are two 'states' of formation; in combat, and in drill. Given the nature of the ground and the "enemy" (loathe to use that word), they don't behave as a mass of ancient Germans would in open field, simply because there's no space to do so. However, the G8 protest in an open field shows how both sides naturally extended their lines to face each other, which is why I posted that one, as well as showing an open order formation.

The Korean drill clearly illustrates to me that it is more than possible for deep spaces between the ranks to be effective. When the second rank swaps with the first they do so at the run, and I think that's the key. Their momentum alone carries them past the front rank and slams them into the opponents, and I think this tells a lot about the dynamics of close order battle. They couldn't repel the opponents completely, but it was very fast and gives credence to the whole idea that ancient armies could actually swap front ranks in a melee even when engagement was already taking place, without losing any advantage at all.

In actual battle I have a feeling, though, that in the later stages the front lines would be more like the first video I posted. But there's no reason to suppose that the second line of maniples/centuries/cohorts couldn't manouevre for relief and tactical purposes just as seen in the drill videos. Once in formation they could then move to engage the enemy (by either advancing very rapidly, and/or the front ranks retiring very rapidly), and could in fact completely change the nature of the battle and take the enemy by surprise. The Roman front could suddenly change from a disorganised near-scattered line to a tight and orderly frontage. Speed, momentum, surprise and confidence would be the key traits, and the changeover doesn't need to lose any ground at all. Replace the batons, poles and bricks for weapons, and the shields for scuta, and the videos become less analogous in my mind. If nothing more, they do at least demonstrate what's possible, and real behaviour when in peril, in large formations.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#55
Quote:Let me begin with an apology to Sonic/Ian !! Sad

Apology accepted, however I should also apologise: I fell into the trap of reading into the post what I thought was there: sorry! :oops:

Anyway, back to the thread!

As a small aside to the use of re-enactments, there will always be one great doubt in my mind, which can be illustrated by the following story:

A few years ago I was talking to a re-enactor about the use of the Viking double-handed axe. The gentleman in question stated that such axes are vastly over-rated: all the opponent had to do was to raise his shield-arm, take the blow of the axe upon his shield and then stab the - now practically defenceless - axeman in the stomach. He and one of his friends proceeded to demonstrate, with the speaker being the spearman and his friend using a 'rubber' axe.

At this point, I asked if I could have the axe. Letting out a deranged yell, I quickly charged the guy with the shield and really smacked his shield with the rubber axe. He fell over, after due consideration then admitting that maybe his theory wasn't quite as neat as he thought it was.

My point is this: re-enactors do a vast amount of work and research and offer many insights into the world of ancient warfare that otherwise we wouldn't have. Yet, when it comes to the process of battlefield actions, there is one major aspect removed from their re-enactments: nobody is trying to actually kill you.

It is easy to state that, in a pushing match, the strongest, or best-trained side will win, and that almost certainly holds true. But there is nobody on the other side of the 'scrum' trying to physically smash your brains out. This was gently pointed out in an earlier post, where it was noted that the 'push of pikes' of 17th century re-enactors was different to the reality because the re-enactoirs raised their pikes and pushed man-to-man. In reality, the pikes were used in an attempt to kill people. This would result in a completely different dynamic and outcome to that experienced by modern 'pushers': maybe the pikemen remained at the edge of reach of their pikes, stabbing at the enmy in the hope of causing a casualty? I don't know.

In summary, then, I believe that the re-enactors and their photos can offer us insights into how things may have been - and almost certainly tell us how things definitely were not - but their findings must be used with caution: there are limts to their activities that the original troops didn't have.

As to the photos of riot police etc, I think this is probably as near to some events as we will ever get. However, even here, it must be remembered that the chances are that the majority of individuals on both sides would not be interested in personally maiming or killing one of their opponents face-to-face. Although the same may be said to a certain degree of the individuals in Roman armies, they at least have had the training to enable them to do just that when and if the need arose. The rioters usually haven't had such training.

Finally, in light of recent posts, can everyone please be aware that I am merely pointing out the limitations of all of the 'modern' evidence we are using: I am in no way attacking the acitivities, knoewledge or findings of re-enactors, except where it comes to the actual contact of battle, where deaths are desperately to be avoided, rather than a sought-for outcome.

But I am still confused as to what actually happened, and still believe it was down to individual circumstances in individual battles.
______________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes
Ian (Sonic) Hughes
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
"I have just jazzed mine up a little" - Spike Milligan, World War II
Reply
#56
From my personal experience in riots (in front of the police line)
1) The excitation is very high, people respond with outburst of courage and panick liberally displayed at every movement. We lacked any training, discipline and, except for a few people, any command organization.
2) From the police line there were, however, similar movements
3) We exchanged insults and bad gestures almost continually, by instinct rather than by design we understood we had to destroy their formation by encouraging individual policemen to attack, so we abused them as best as we could. Some of them actually broke ranks and went after us, and some of them receive some damage because of that. I understand perfectly why Romans were so insistent on no one breaking ranks. While they were in close formation anyone of us trying to beat any of them got more than he asked for.
So, to sum up, in my experience to remain in formation at every cost, and the discipline and command and control to achieve that is the key to success.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#57
Quote:the 'touching of hands' that Salvianus refers to is done in all drill, and is referred to as 'dressing', its purpose being to regulate distance.

What surprised me was the 'double arm distance' manoeuvre: I've only ever dressed to one side (matron!) at full arm length or to the elbow, and never at the run backwards! You must need a cow-pat free parade ground for that one! Mmmm, why don't we have have one of those... Big Grin
Salvianus: Ste Kenwright

A member of Comitatus Late Roman Historical Re-enactment Group

My Re-enactment Journal
       
~ antiquum obtinens ~
Reply
#58
Quote:
Paullus Scipio:nbdixtrg Wrote:However, even here, it must be remembered that the chances are that the majority of individuals on both sides would not be interested in personally maiming or killing one of their opponents face-to-face.
But isn't that also how things can turn out in battle? I'm thinking of modern behavioural studies of men in combat, including Ardant du Picq's studies.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#59
Quote: And yes, the "treat" is nice, demonstrating just how slick a changeover of lines (albeit in open order) can be, even in contact !

Ah, I hadn't appreciated that they were in "open order" (6' each). I had thought they were in "open order" in their six lines and move to "order" (not quite "rim to rim" with those shields) when they compressed to two lines. I had assumed they were having to turn their shields to let the relieving rear rank through :?

In fact (& I can't believe I just calculated this - you can tell I'm on holiday & missing teaching problem solving! :roll: ) if they started with 12 files 6' apart, dismissed half & then compressed the 36 left into two lines of the same frontage: 72'/18 = 4' each. Perhaps they started closer: 5' would close to 3'4".

Whatever the actual starting width, by putting 18 officers into the frontage originally used by 12, they ended up with 2/3 of the original width each, rather than halving it - clearly an adaptation from the classical system, perhaps specifically to allow their interchange? Perhaps it facilitates their 'shield as a weapon' tactic? Certainly the first clips of them in action show them advancing in a close line, but not as a shield wall with shields rim to rim, like the British Police at Orgreave. Please excuse the digression...

I completely agree that they didn't get into what I'd call "close order" (18", or what Regia calls "boss to boss" for meeting another shield wall). I'd love to see it from a 'protesters eye view'. But only at the display ground Sad
Salvianus: Ste Kenwright

A member of Comitatus Late Roman Historical Re-enactment Group

My Re-enactment Journal
       
~ antiquum obtinens ~
Reply
#60
Quote:What strikes me about me the clips is there are two 'states' of formation; in combat, and in drill.

Absolutely - I think these clips are fascinating to study Smile

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood dimm'd tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned


'The Second Coming', W.B. Yeats

For example, it seems unlikely that a wall of officers would simply back away from a flamethrower unit, compared to the very violent responses we have seen to people people merely gesturing surrender, but the unexpected and real threat takes a while to digest, they may not have rubber bullets or snatch squads on hand, they may have simply been keeping to the last set of orders to contain the crowd or minimise escalation or the traditional imperative: "Hold the Line".


Was none who would be foremost
To lead such dire attack:
But those behind cried ‘Forward!’
And those before cried ‘Back!’
And backward now and forward
Wavers the deep array;
And on the tossing sea of steel,
To and fro the standards reel;
And the victorious trumpet-peal
Dies fitfully away.


'Horatius', Macaulay
Salvianus: Ste Kenwright

A member of Comitatus Late Roman Historical Re-enactment Group

My Re-enactment Journal
       
~ antiquum obtinens ~
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Military formations MonsGraupius 12 2,844 09-14-2014, 03:14 AM
Last Post: antiochus
  Roman Battle Formations Mid Republic to Late Rep. Bryan 89 19,802 07-03-2014, 02:53 PM
Last Post: Bryan
  Roman Army Formations Flavivs Aetivs 3 1,324 09-24-2013, 03:22 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs

Forum Jump: