Battle-line rotation during the combat

[Mitra]

However I would like to depart from a stable point: the change of line there was for everybody and not only when one was wounded or died.

So the battle-line rotation existed, there is no doubt.

Hi Velite

Very interesting information , but like the other is only speculative. Obvisiously everyone is free to propose and experiment freely, but the "no doubt" isn't acceptable, for each historically theory, but especially when literally or artistic or archeological or documentary proofs no exist.

Let tell me, that archeological experiments are very useful, but more useful for technical-pratical reconstruction (of sources/documentary bound theory) that for test unit tactics or battle conditions first because the problematics to fight with 20 men aren't the same of made the same with 80-100-1000-10000 men, with multiple units and battle lines of 1-2-4 km, second because the dead-or-alive condition cannot be recreated, and it is a fact that the psicological-phisical-perception man conditions are greatly alterated in these situation.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

I am completly agree with Velites.

This subject fascinates me for a long time, and I know that hypothesis of the rotations of lines in the contact with the enemy will never make the unanimity...

Nevertheless I always wonder arguments which counter this idea. By caricaturing, it is often said that there are no proofs, that there are no literary mentions. That it is impossible. The enemy would not leave the time becaus the clash between both lines frontally forbidden that he individual soldiers, and cannot have place to make it there...

Concerning the argument of the literary mentions, there are already two very different mentions at Ammien Marcellin, and I am sure that he is not the only one to evoke it.

For the impossibility of the individual retreat in the contact, only the training and multiple methods in situation allows to say if yes or not this relay technique is more effective than the other one, because for the fact what I believe to understand, i do not ask any more the question to know if the internal rotation of the lines was made but how it was made.

There is only a training and practice which allows to answer this question.

My thin knowledge on the subject allows me however to defend the idea that the individual retreat and relay of a back companion could be made and quickly. All the fight does not amount to the clash of both lines frontally. Neither has a constant push, nor has duels of groups. They are a lot of variations in these fights which gives the occasion at the right time to make an individual relay between a soldier in the front line and the second.

[Epictetus]

I thought that I remembered something in Caesar, so after some searching I found this. I do understand that this can be interpreted in different ways, though.

Even when the rest of the night was spent, there was fighting at every point, and ever the enemy’s hope of victory was renewed… ever, on their side, fresh men replaced the weary, and they believed that the deliverance of Gaul depended on that moment of time.

Gallic War, VII, 25.

Some of the enemy discharged missiles, others moved up in close formation (‘tortoise’) under their shields; fresh men quickly replaced the exhausted.

Gallic War, VII, 85.

It is interesting that Caesar is talking about the tactics of the Gauls in these instances. However, they must have been using some Romanised formations if they were in the ‘tortoise,’ I would think.

[Mitra]

semperque ipsi recentes defessis succederent

Continually them (the gauls) changed the tired with the fresh.

Pass that these are siege episodes and not a battlefield passage: this is for you a proof of rank rotation? He speak of ranks? The sense is good also for unit changes.

Anyway this is also a linguistic image for create the sense of the big number of enemy and of the assault violence,

The same for the successive image:

defatigatis in vicem integri succedunt.

the fresh changed the tired

Concerning the argument of the literary mentions, there are already two very different mentions at Ammien Marcellin, and I am sure that he is not the only one to evoke it.

What are these passages?

[Mitra]

Other use in Caesar, other siege, other image of roman inferiority and gaul ferox

hostes defessi proelio excedebant, alii integris viribus succedebant (BG3.4)

enemies tired retired from the battle, others token the place with intact strenght.



More clear this passage , always the referred to enemy:

BG(5.16)

Equestris autem proeli ratio et cedentibus et insequentibus par atque idem periculum inferebat. Accedebat huc ut numquam conferti sed rari magnisque intervallis proeliarentur stationesque dispositas haberent, atque alios alii deinceps exciperent, integrique et recentes defetigatis succederent.

Make reference to reserve units and it is not a infantry battle

other passage always a siege (7.41):

Summis copiis castra oppugnata demonstrant, cum crebro integri defessis succederent nostrosque assiduo labore defatigarent, quibus propter magnitudinem castrorum perpetuo esset isdem in vallo
permanendum.

The gauls are in so great number that they can change the men which fight with men not proved by the fighting, but the romans cannot.

[Hibernicus]

One of the things we guess at based on our experiences..

Front lines can be fluid, wavy.. men fall back or surge in waves, like the "wave" at sports events.. a perceived threat and a section of the line can move backwards, creating space between opponent's lines, a perceived advantage and the line sways forward to take advantage.

One thing that happens with trained and disciplined combatants is that they do not sway and wave without command. Individuals do not go "hero" in order to get a kill. An undisciplined surge forward can be hazardaous.. gaps are created between soldiers, soldiers are unsupported left, or right or to the rear, .. and if the enemy's pull back is a planned movement on his part you may be surging forward into a killing pocket in which he will be able to attck your formation on three sides!

A feigned charge can cause a section of the enemy line to surge backwards creating a gap and time to pull the front rank back.

A practiced line change, front rank back or 2nd rank forward, can be somewhat demoralizing to an opponent.

[Velite]

Avete

Dear Mitra, I would like to explain you three things.
The first thing is that the ancient authors have NOT written ALL of this that the war concerned; besides a lot of of their works have gone lost.
Then to pretend to reason with the equation: "it has been written by ancient author = then it has existed - It has not been written by ancient author = then it has never existed" it is wrong from the beginning.

Second thing: before speaking that you would say about making some practice fencing Roman? This way you realize what it means to fight.

Third thing: here it spoke of seconds and third files, but let's not forget us that the centuries were prepared in file of 8-10 men of depth.
The first and the second line they fought to contact full with the enemy, the 3th it tried to give support but the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and octave line thing they did? The Public? hock:
According to your reasoning these 5 last files would be due to come into contact with the alone enemy if their contubernalis before had been wounded or they were dead everybody.
And often seen the victorious results of the battles fought by the Romans, those of these last files never fought, rather they played cards. :roll:
What did they make these last 5 files of the centuria?

It would be better for you to directly go down on the field and to experiment as we do us, instead of wanting to contradict to all the costs a fact how evident that existed.

Valete

[Mitra]

The first thing is that the ancient authors have NOT written ALL of this that the war concerned; besides a lot of of their works have gone lost.

This is a old argument in historical reasearch, but as you can find affirmed in many works, the "silence's proof" is not a proof. We have not all but a good number of ancient military manual (comprised the Strategikon which reports the latin command for the units, and i not remember command for rank rotation) and some of works of military men (Xenophon, Caesar, Ammianus) or author with military background (Thucidides, Polybius), epitomi from lost manual (Vegece), we have numerous letters, epitomi and litterature from which we can have inference of battle situations and military terminology. In the last we have other works in other historical periods where the men fought anyway in compact formations like in the antiquity.

We have much at least to found inferences for generate a work hypotetis, if we find them.

Then to pretend to reason with the equation: "it has been written by ancient author = then it has existed - It has not been written by ancient author = then it has never existed" it is wrong from the beginning.

This is a simplicistic view: all literary/documentary sources receive critical analysis of text, author, context, parallel verifications with other sources. No people take like gold all the affirmations in the sources without critic. The history like conceived from enlightment age to today is a science based on the sources (both literary that documentary) as starting point. So a not source-based theory isn't wrong, it is not a historically valid theory, only theory.

Second thing: before speaking that you would say about making some practice fencing Roman? This way you realize what it means to fight.

Thanks a ironsmith create a roman sword with a determinated metal composition and technique; because this type is better and factible with roman technology, he affirm that this is used in roman time, but no roman sword found and analyzed is made in this modality. So i must forgot the historical evidence only on the base of logic work->better->true?

here it spoke of seconds and third files, but let's not forget us that the centuries were prepared in file of 8-10 men of depth.
The first and the second line they fought to contact full with the enemy, the 3th it tried to give support but the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and octave line thing they did?

For this you can read directly Xenophon.

It would be better for you to directly go down on the field and to experiment as we do us, instead of wanting to contradict to all the costs a fact how evident that existed.

This is a methodology's discussion, so it is a little strange, you tell me that i must find the historical truth of a theory using a methodology which I find not historically valid methodology?

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Yes naturally...

The mention the most interesting of Ammien Marcellin on this subject concerns the progress of the famous Andrinople battle ( 378 AD) In the second phase of the fight when the Roman are put in trouble, it is said that it became impossible to space out enough the ranks to retreat in good order. Better still, it is said that the press stop the men to retreat individually and to flee.

Ammien Marcellin, RG, XXXI, 13, 3.

We imagine well that it is not here about lines most in rear of the formations because it is easier for them to escape as far as they are not to the contact of the enemy. The negative formulation implies that in normaly time rows are to space enough out to allow to pass the men to see whole lines in good order. The Latin in text is even more precise than my translation:

"uerum ubi effusi inmensis agminibus barbari iumenta conterebant et uiros, et neque ad receptum confertis ordinibus laxari usquam poterat locus, et euadendi copiam constipatio densior adimebat: nostri quoque ultimo cadendi contemptu occursantes receptis gladiis obtruncabant, et mutuis securium ictibus galeae perfringebantur atque loricae."

Then why not a rational rotation lines system to take over in the battle fight?

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Sorry for my very (always) bad english I don't know if i go to pass my idea...

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Third thing: here it spoke of seconds and third files, but let's not forget us that the centuries were prepared in file of 8-10 men of depth.
The first and the second line they fought to contact full with the enemy, the 3th it tried to give support but the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and octave line thing they did? The Public? hock:
According to your reasoning these 5 last files would be due to come into contact with the alone enemy if their contubernalis before had been wounded or they were dead everybody.
And often seen the victorious results of the battles fought by the Romans, those of these last files never fought, rather they played cards. :roll:
What did they make these last 5 files of the centuria?

To broke enemy's line must be force enough given by a deep formation.
I think that an army doesn't win only killing enemies (in a battle normally died 5% of soldiers, the most died escaping when formation was broken).
It's a play of forces.

[Hibernicus]

In our simulated combat we have found that 2 to 3 ranks of men, practiced and disciplined, can stop a ful speed running charge of men 10 times their number. Stop it. Then bodies and combatants can sometiems pile up but the impetus and force of the massed full speed charge is stopped.

Running wedges led by one man die even faster.

However when you charge (close to contact) at a walk in good order and begin to grind away at an enemy you do not need the weight of the soldiers in ranks 2 or 3 or 8 pressing against you. Your skill at staying alive, staying together and inflicting casualties works very well to get the enemy to fall back, not that falling back is necessary because if he is willing to come forward inspite of his casualties... why clambor over his dead and dying when he's willing to do that to his own!

With practice it becomes simple enough to have the 2nd rank step passed the 1st if the enemy has receded leaving enough space for the 2nd rank.

Or if he continues to come forward, it is possible to pull the 1st rank back through your own ranks creating a gap for the enemy to step into... willingly step into.

[Mitra]

Yes naturally...

The mention the most interesting of Ammien Marcellin on this subject concerns the progress of the famous Andrinople battle ( 378 AD) In the second phase of the fight when the Roman are put in trouble, it is said that it became impossible to space out enough the ranks to retreat in good order. Better still, it is said that the press stop the men to retreat individually and to flee.

Ammien Marcellin, RG, XXXI, 13, 3.

We imagine well that it is not here about lines most in rear of the formations because it is easier for them to escape as far as they are not to the contact of the enemy. The negative formulation implies that in normaly time rows are to space enough out to allow to pass the men to see whole lines in good order. The Latin in text is even more precise than my translation:

"uerum ubi effusi inmensis agminibus barbari iumenta conterebant et uiros, et neque ad receptum confertis ordinibus laxari usquam poterat locus, et euadendi copiam constipatio densior adimebat: nostri quoque ultimo cadendi contemptu occursantes receptis gladiis obtruncabant, et mutuis securium ictibus galeae perfringebantur atque loricae."

Then why not a rational rotation lines system to take over in the battle fight?

Interesting but like for Caesar passages, it is more a classical battle image that a technical precise description: the image of ordines so pressed in little space that they cannot fight properly you can find it both in Caesar that in Xenophon Helleniche or Herodotus persian at the Thermopylis. In Caesar the same happen to Sambre battle when the Gauls go everywhere around a legion: Caesar make laxare the maniples for "quo facilius gladiis uti possent". Same in Appian in Pharsalus description tell of pompeain legionaries that they are so compressed which they made fatigue to move the arms to fight. You find the same image also in Ammianus few lines above "ita concatervatis manipulis ut vix mucronem exerere aut ma,nus reducere quisquam posset."

This is a topoi of greco-roman battle rethoric, without doubt because the compressed ranks are a bad sign also in the reality, but like for Caesar we can imagine that also for Ammianus the problem is the impossibility to use properly the weapons (or to escape like he affirm).

[Mitra]

Sorry for my very (always) bad english I don't know if i go to pass my idea...

Mine it is not better

[Velite]

Dear Mitra

All right, is useless for me to discuss with a dull mind and closed as yours.
You have reason and all we wrong, considering that only you are the depositary of the correct methodology to face a discussion, only you own the methodology to find the truth.
You are here the best on the forum, because you are a researcher (therefore more educated) and me only a woman that speaks. Considering that you write for the SISMA, of sure you know more than me... :roll:

You still have to answer to my question: what did they make the last files of a centuria, considering that they rarely fought? I don't have Xenofont under hand, I'm sorry it, I ignore... :roll:

Then it's useless to continue the topic, considering that Mitra has said the Rotatio or Mutatio ordinis didn't exist. I go...

Valete Optime!