Question about the Roman 'wedge formation'

[Dithrambus]

A few years ago I happened to catch a documentary featuring the Celtic queen Boudicca, primarily based on her defeat at the hands of Suetonius? Anyway, my question pertains to the formation of the legion which according to the documentary resembled more of a 'saw tooth edge' consisting of many wedges, a search at wikipedia quickly produced an image of the Roman wedge formation but as a single wedge and not as depicted in the doc. It is an interesting formation and I could imagine the devastating effect it would have produced, especially for those caught between two wedges ie: the 'killing zone', I have not seen this portrayed before or since the documentary. Would anyone care to elaborate on this seemingly unique formation?

Thanks

[Sardaukar]

I doubt that was Roman formation. Such formation would naturally develop when more brave and aggressive soldiers outpace more cautious ones in advance in battle line, usually among less-disciplined troops.

[Nathan Ross]

I've seen this 'saw tooth' idea portrayed a couple of times in TV reconstructions of the Boudica battle. I think it must be a recent theory by some historian or other. Cassius Dio describes the battle (briefly) as a straightforward scrum; Tacitus mentions the wedge, but the Romans only use it to charge after breaking the main assault with missiles - "when the closer advance of the enemy had enabled them to exhaust their missiles with certitude of aim, they dashed forward in a wedge-like formation. The auxiliaries charged in the same style; and the cavalry, with lances extended, broke a way through any parties of resolute men whom they encountered" (Annals, XIV.37). This suggests a single wedge, with the auxiliaries forming another.

Actually, this 'saw tooth' formation would seem to be a very poor tactic, militarily speaking - it denies the enemy any possibility of retreat, forces him to fight to the death, and leaves a sizeable mound of corpses guaranteed to break up any advancing line. The normal wedge is intended, as Tacitus suggests, to 'break through' and rout an enemy formation, not competely annihilate it. Deliberately putting a heavily outnumbered force in close combat against an enemy with nowhere to run and overwhelming weight of numbers would seem to invite disaster, no matter how disciplined that force may be.

This is quite a good documentary reconstruction (aside from portraying Boudica as a rock vixen in a tight leather corset!), perhaps the one mentioned above, showing what is intended to be the 'saw' formation:

Battle of Watling Street, Part 2

- Nathan

[Astiryu1]

Actually, this 'saw tooth' formation would seem to be a very poor tactic, militarily speaking - it denies the enemy any possibility of retreat, forces him to fight to the death, and leaves a sizeable mound of corpses guaranteed to break up any advancing line. The normal wedge is intended, as Tacitus suggests, to 'break through' and rout an enemy formation, not competely annihilate it. Deliberately putting a heavily outnumbered force in close combat against an enemy with nowhere to run and overwhelming weight of numbers would seem to invite disaster, no matter how disciplined that force may be.
- Nathan

As I have read in that battle; weren't carts drawn up by the rebels to prevent themselves from retreating? If so that actually is a good reason for doing this at the particular time.

Although it is a computer game I try things like this in Rome: Total War. Surprising results often come from these experiments. In regards to the wedge I have found that "if you have 2 wings in wedge formation and a straight center the formation enables a crossfire, gets the enemy within range without jeopardizing your entire line;thereby enabling a flanking maneuver, wings can retreat after throwing of pila while being covered by center." I favor the inverse wedge as it really helps in some situations. At least in Rome:Total War.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

I also remember reading (LONG ago) that the Roman force used a "saw" formation against Boudica's rebels. But if it's not mentioned in an ancient account, it must be a modern theory. The impression I got was that a series of small wedges would dig into an enemy formation and tend to crowd them, meaning the Britons would not have had the elbow room they needed to wield their spears and longer swords effectively. Meanwhile the Romans would still have plenty of space for their own weapons. I don't think a line of small wedges would be any hinderance to a force breaking and running, no more so than a straight line.

It was also my impression that the carts and wagons were lined up across the back of the battlefield so that the wives and kids could stand on them to get a good view of the battle. The Britons were planning on *winning*, after all, and after a string of victories had no reason to fear defeat. But when they did break and run, the wagons trapped many of them, hence the horrific casualties. (Or wonderful casualties, depending on your point of view!)

Valete,

Matthew

[Dithrambus]

Thanks guys!

I have come to realize that you cannot believe everything you see on the History channel, perhaps they should call it the: History? channel As I stated in the OP I had not seen this formation portrayed before or since and was not sure whether to believe it or not. It would seem to me that if the sawtooth formation is not mentioned in the literary record then perhaps it should be considered theoretical? As far as a retreating army being hampered by it's own baggage train, this would not be a unique occurance. I believe we get the English word impede from the Roman term for baggage train? That may be out of context but still...

Mathew makes a valid point, the Britons had every reason to believe they would be victorious, they had been successful up to that point and they far out numbered the Romans in this battle. The Roman commander made a balsy move placing a thick forest to his back, it worked though and of course it prevented any flanking maneuvers by the much larger enemy force. I am certainly no expert on Roman military, but it seems that Roman commanders were in the habit of placing their legions in seemingly impossible situations, Julias Caesar comes to mind .

I understand there is a new film featuring Boudicca in the works? Produced by Mel Gibson, isnt he a little these days? I guess thats what he gets for marrying someone young enough to be his grand daughter!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I was trying to post earlier that we do the cuneum formation in our displays with the XIIIIth Legion in the RMRS.
I read a book in the last year or so about the use of the formation by the legion in taking on Boudiccas horde, can't recall the title offhand.
It would certainly have cut into the large mob fielded by Boudicca, and as mentioned, trapped by the wagons and the spectators, it would have been a
slaughter.

[Dithrambus]

I understand there is a new film featuring Boudicca in the works? Produced by Mel Gibson

I found this on-line, the movie was actually in development back in 2004, it had been refered to as 'Braveheart in a bra' , considering Gibsons' temper that pun was probably enough to sideline the project. It would be a good topic for a film though, if done properly.

[Vindex]

I was trying to post earlier that we do the cuneum formation in our displays with the XIIIIth Legion in the RMRS.
I read a book in the last year or so about the use of the formation by the legion in taking on Boudiccas horde, can't recall the title offhand.
It would certainly have cut into the large mob fielded by Boudicca, and as mentioned, trapped by the wagons and the spectators, it would have been a
slaughter.

It's great to hypothesize about such a formation against a non formal front line, but without source material it could be a little dangerous. Are we being led into one of these instances when a good hypothesis voiced in a book is beginning to take on reality as opposed to supposition?

Changing formation in the face of the enemy requires confidence and VERY good drills to achieve - everything the legions have - but surely there would be more reference to this formation in the face of "barbarian hordes" in Caesar's accounts if no where else?

And don't forget...a victory is always the sweeter if the legions were allegedly at a disadvantage. A bit of jurno technique from the great Caesar I would say - he was certainly no fool as a general to deliberately put his men at a disadvantage in order to get a more stunning victory. The ancient sources are just as likely to have spin as modern reporting of archaeological finds...(ie female gladiators assumed because a female skeleton is considered over sized!!)

[Sardaukar]

To hypothesize more:

Apparently wedge-formation was more psychological than adding any combat power. It might help to breach enemy line, since those facing "wedge point" would be nervous and might want to shift to left and right. On the other hand, it'd be risky, since it limits the amount of men able to bring weapons into combat to very small number. This could easily lead to extra casualties and disorganized formation, if wedge is stopped cold.

During late Republic and Principate, Romans apparently favoured more shallow battle line, that being more effective in combat power but required disciplined troops. Of course triplex acies helps, but generally deep formation was seen as mark of inexperienced troops.

One good example of discipline and training of Roman troops was of course Pharsalus, where Caesarian troops coolly stopped their assault and calmly redressed their formation before continuing. Of course not all units had that sort of proficiency.

One trait Romans also had was that they rarely took enemy assault standing still. Usually, even when in defense, they charged toward enemy, making most of use of thrown pila & charge.

[Marcus Octavian]

Just my humble un-learned opinion...

The "center fall back, sides move up" is and has always been a favored tactic in a lot of armies of the time. If you watch/read of many of the "great battles", they have a lot of similarities. I'd say it is even almost a fair estimate to say 90% of those battles almost always had to do with either a right or left flank coming around and rolling up a line from the side.

The strat employed in this case could have also been a dumb luck victory. The center of the line could have been pushed back far enough that it allowed the sides to close in on the center. Hard to say really, because as someone mentioned earlier, victory stories are always written better and more glorious by the people that won. The old "You should have seen the other guy" thing. Even stories of loss, seldom was it written "we got our rears handed to us today". Its usually far more noble of a loss. Like in the opening lines of the movie Braveheart, "History was written by those that have hanged heroes".

I also just realized that I most likely shouldn't try to have an intelligent discussion before I have had morning coffee...

Edit: I stand corrected. The Saw Wedge wasn't what I first thought it was. I just found this "The saw was opposite tactic to the wedge. This was a detached unit, immediately behind the font line, capable of fast sideways movement down the length of the line to block any holes which might appear to develop a thrust where there might be a sign of weakness. In the case of two Roman armies fighting each other in a civil war, one might say that the 'saw' inevitably was the response to a 'wedge' by the other side."

That excerpt was taken from http://www.roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html

Edit 2: Ok..again I fail. lol Only saw the words "saw" and "wedge" in the first post, rather they were the only words that stuck in my head. Sorry for the waste of time. lol

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If the point of a wedge fails to penetrat, the sides move forward regardless. So the risk is not great.
The had already demoralized the enemy chariots with pila volleys, as well as the mob itself, IIRC.

[M. Demetrius]

It would be kind of rough for the guy whose job was to be on "point", though. Better send your roughest cob up there....

[Vindex]

It would be kind of rough for the guy whose job was to be on "point", though. Better send your roughest cob up there....

Might be rough on point...but do we know it was only one man?

A modern "point" man is usually out on his lonesome in a patrol (and never your commander), but a point in a formation may have been more than one. A point of three has more penetrative effect than a whole line; and I don't personally think they would have been short of volunteers, when the psychological advantage was already in place to require a wedge formation (whatever it was!)

[Dithrambus]

Marcus Octavian wrote:

I also just realized that I most likely shouldn't try to have an intelligent discussion before I have had morning coffee...

Don't sweat it, I am not that sharp even after a whole pot of coffee!

[Astiryu1]

So if the wedge with a multiple man point were tried what would be the best number? I would choose nine as you have a man guarding each direction set up like a grid. The man in the middle could fill in any casualties and more could be brought up from behind. Basically acts like a funnel but it is just a theory of mine.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Another advantage of a wedge is that it means you need a smaller gap in the enemy lines.

[Dithrambus]

While this has become an interesting conversation and I thank each of you for your insightful responses, I am having difficulty determining the general consensus. Perhaps I should also apologize for my use of a made-up term: 'sawtooth' was simply the only phrase I could think of to describe what I had seen in the documentary. I am familiar with the 'boars head' or single mass wedge formation, it is the use of multiple wedges across the front line that seemed odd (at least to me). The documentary also seems to conflict with itself because the Romans are depicted in a typical line formation with the front rankers alternating I believe every six minutes and without much explanation they are depicted in the multiple wedge form, I do understand that the 'boars head' was used to break an enemy line, however if the Celts were already 'broken' so to speak, then I had assumed this was simply a 'killing machine' ('Mill of Ares' to us hoplites ) to finish the gruesome task. It is also quite possible that I have missed a point or two along the way To be more direct, am I to understand that this formation is simply theoretical? Or is there classical literary reference to it's use?

[Astiryu1]

Sorry I should have specified "I would do this in multiple places where necessary".
I know of none but wedges are a simple thing that is understood by many cultures/skilled tradesmen. To not see it on the battlefield at some point or other would be weird to me.
Anything that breaks marble and logs, should break a wall of men.

[Vindex]

To be more direct, am I to understand that this formation is simply theoretical? Or is there classical literary reference to it's use?

There's the Tacitus quote above (Annals XIV: 37) but I only have a Penguin translation and not the Latin word which has been translated as wedge (need a LOEB edition...) but it says the Legions and the Auxiliaries did the same thing, so you have at least two wedge formations on the battle field in front of the Celts.

The theories then fall from there, I would suggest. My assumption is that not the whole legion, but constituent parts formed a wedge (by cohort?) merely by the logical thought process of how do you get an entire legionary front into one formation and what would be it's use. If it were by cohort, the effect would be a line of wedges...hence the saw analogy...

Off to look up the Tacitus' actual phrase if I can find it...

(Good discussion though - thanks!)

EDIT:

Tacitus' phrase is "velut cuneo erupit" literally "as if in a wedge burst forth/out/on"

Cuneo can be translated thus:

Noun:
cune.o 2 1 DAT S M
cune.o 2 1 ABL S M
cuneus, cunei N (2nd) M [XXXBO]
wedge; wedge-shaped stone/area/rack/block of seats; battalion/etc in a wedge;

Verb

cune.o 1 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 1 S
cuneo, cuneare, cuneavi, cuneatus V (1st) TRANS [XXXCO]
wedge in, secure by wedging; force in like a wedge; form a wedge, taper; mass;


So it suggests a blunted 'point' if one considers a block of seats (which I think is a great analogy when you consider amphitheatres...)