Login

Goffredo · 03-14-2005, 11:16 AM

Hi Tim, 
never said re-enactment doesn't give a valid measure. 
Between accurate and wrong there are shades of grey. 
Indeed I wrote of 'bias' and I do believe I wasn't aggressive about it; e.g. no sarcasm, just a lazy armchair thought. Aware I suffer biases too having never participated in a 
'real re-enactment'. 
 
I like the idea of a wedge! Indeed I acknowledge it could work. But to claim that it always worked makes me ask: why wasn't it used all the time? 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 3/14/05 12:19 pm

Thiudareiks Flavius · 03-15-2005, 03:36 AM

Goffredo wrote: 
 
Quote:<hr>I never said re-enactment doesn't give a valid measure. 
<hr> 
 
Okay, but that's something that others have said in these discussions many times in the past. I still just don't understand this 'but you aren't really in danger of being killed, so it's invalid' objection. So what? We're still doing everything we can not to be hit in the head, chest, back etc . Or not be hit anywhere at all. 
 
If anything, I'm always amazed at how remarkably timid re-enactors are in combat, not remarkably foolhardy. This objection seems to be based on an (armchair) assumption that re-enactors would be more foolhardy than real fighters, but I personally doubt that this is the case - quite the opposite. Modern people fighting for a hobby are rather wimpy about even a small amount of pain. 
 
Ever seen a group of people playing paintball for the first time? You'd think they'd charge into the game screaming and blazing away like Rambo. After all - it's not as though they are really going to get killed and the worst thing that can happen is they'll get stung a bit by a gel ball filled with paint. But do they? No - they cower behind trees, crawl in the dust and do anything they can to stay away from the nasty, stinging paintballs. 
 
See what I mean? 
 
Quote:<hr>Between accurate and wrong there are shades of grey. 
Indeed I wrote of 'bias' and I do believe I wasn't aggressive about it; e.g. no sarcasm, just a lazy armchair thought. Aware I suffer biases too having never participated in a 
'real re-enactment'.<hr> 
 
I didn't think you were being aggressive. But I've come across this 'objection' a lot in the past and it just doesn't make any sense. 
 
Quote:<hr>I like the idea of a wedge! Indeed I acknowledge it could work. But to claim that it always worked makes me ask: why wasn't it used all the time?<hr> 
 
Because it has its limits. A smallish wedge can go through two or even three lines like a hot knife through butter. But the deeper the defending formation the larger the wedge needs to be effective. And the larger the wedge the greater the training and discipline needed to hold it packed together tightly enough to be effective. 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius / Thiudareiks Gunthigg

<a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/bthedavincicodefactandfiction"><img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/935133/DVCBanner.jpg" width=588 height=135>

03-15-2005, 06:31 AM

"And the larger the wedge the greater the training and discipline needed to hold it packed together tightly enough to be effective. " The force of the rugby wedge comes from people binding on to one another and hitting as a cohesive unit. Are there any reference to soldiers holding on to each other in the wedge? 
Most reenactments of the wedge that I've seen (eg ESG) are almost in open order, which I do not believe would be so effective. 
(PS My 12 year old son, reading over my shoulder before school, is now convinced that the Roman Legions used wedgies to take out their opponents......... )

Goffredo · 03-15-2005, 10:50 AM

Hi Tim 
I very much liked your answer to why wedge wasn't used all the time, as it was limited unless... 
 
So I imagine ancient battles as 
1) on the average not too much agressive fighting (just some spear stabbing and fencing,...) 
2) local surge of activity: someone builds up determination, due to shyness of eneny directly infront, to go for a charge backed by buddies; i.e. a natural wedge of the scale of a few meters; 
3) two things might happen: wedge makes progress and develops, or simmers down as enemy formation absorbs it with no net progress; 
4) training can allow better follow-up of these natural wedges; small scale command structure (centurions) can even organize and set off wedges with widths of the order of a few tens of meters. Unless enemy is well organized such a larger wedge will do real damage. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 3/15/05 2:51 pm

03-15-2005, 01:11 PM

Goffredo 
I pretty much agree with your schemeÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â§ 
 
Tim 
You didnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t answered my question, you pointed out you never saw that happening, but sure it could happen very easily, man charging are are not that fast, and it seems to me that shooting down the first ranks of the wedge in an obvoius tactic against it, after all there are only 6 men in first 3 ranks. there are plenty of examples in battles in which tightly packed formations got inmobilized because the front rank fell down, I thnik that could very much happen to a wedge 
 
As for reenactment, I have never been a reenactor (although i would like to btw) but it seems to me that the emotions are not the same as felt in a real battle. For example, in battles normally panic started in the raar ranks, with people throwing their weapons away and running, does this happen in a reenactment?

Crispvs · 03-16-2005, 12:53 AM

Aryaman, 
 
The 'wedge' you describe, where men cower behind one another to avoid being shot, is not what I would consider to be a wedge. It is probably not so relavent either where the soldiers concerned are disciplined professionals rather than hastily recruited levies and I doubt that in an age before firearms even raw levies would feel quite so much of a need to cower behind one another for protection. True, sling bullets could do serious damage but these probably mainly fell from above rather than coming at a flat trajectory. The same must have applied to arrows much of the time as well. 
A wedge is a solid formation which charges from relatively close range and whose aim is to cause severe trauma to a particular point in an enemy line. It is done most effectively by trained men and is certainly not a cowardly, half hearted feint, although this could undoubtedly occur with untrained irregulars or men with extremely low morale when faced with oncoming fire. 
As Tim says however, wedges are only appropriate under certain battle conditions. The chances are low of the first few ranks of wedges regularly being shot up by archers. It is a technique which is used to force a gap in an opposing battle line rather than a technique for taking on archers, who would be likely to be present in low numbers in most western theatres of warfare in any case. In an confrontation with a large body of archers or a mounted enemy such as might be found in the east, a wedge would be a pointless act of stupidity, and it would be unnecessary against an opponant in open order. Against cavalry, missile fire is more useful; against open order enemies, solid frontal charges; and against sustained archery the Romans never seemed to find a better answer than sheltering behind their shields. 
 
Crispvs

03-16-2005, 07:00 AM

Crispus 
I was thinking of the first ranks shot not by archers, but by javelin volleys, which I think would be not that odd at all. 
As for performance in battle, I have read some psicological studies and the general picture is that, even with seasoned veterans, there is quite a large percentage of soldiers that will cower in all imaginable forms. I remember an study on WW2 american soldiers that held that in battle about 25% never fired a shot and just lied down cowering, while about 65% fired without taking aim.

Tarbicus · 03-16-2005, 06:17 PM

Quote:<hr>I was thinking of the first ranks shot not by archers, but by javelin volleys<hr> 
 
I think you're assuming the wedge would be used at the outset, before the pila had been thrown. I imagine a wedge to be more useful after the pila are spent, when there are two bodies of men facing each other with swords and shields. 
 
Quote:<hr>I remember an study on WW2 american soldiers that held that in battle about 25% never fired a shot and just lied down cowering, while about 65% fired without taking aim.<hr> 
 
I don't see that being possible on the ancient battlefield, where the men had to stand up facing the enemy in organised formation, and 'taking cover' from 'incoming' was not a factor in that kind of warfare (unless it was ducking behind your shield from arrows or javelins, and only very occasionally). A man who broke the ranks to flee ('ranks' being the important word) faced the severest punishment. I doubt he'd get very far anyway before a centurion or his own men sorted him out. There was no rifle fire then, or snipers, or howitzers in the field in those days. I think you need to dismiss the picture of WW2 and Vietnam when imagining ancient battles.

03-16-2005, 09:34 PM

Tarbicus 
1) I assume then that you agree that a volley of javelins would indeed be very efective to halt a wedge formation 
 
2) I know the Ancient battlefield would be very different from WW2, but the psichological reaction of soldiers still would be very similar, panic would start in the last ranks, sure centurions would do their best to prevent that, but in fact Roman armies routed many times, as did any other army, and the sequence always started in the last ranks, with soldiers not directly involved in battle. 
 
I have a question about wedge that maybe a reenactor could answer, how any unit deployed in the battleline redeployed to form a wedge? it looks like a difficult task to me

Crispvs · 03-18-2005, 02:06 AM

Aryaman, 
 
A wedge is actually very easy to form. As long as we are talking about triangular wedges two forms are possible - hollow and solid. My unit normally forms a hollow wedge during displays. We march forward in two files and, on command, fan out, with each man overlapping the man in front so that his shoulder is directly behind the opposite shoulder of the aforementioned man in front. It takes at most two seconds to form and can charge forward immediately if necessary (although we tend to stand for a few seconds rhythmically beating our shields to maintain the interest of the paying audience). A solid wedge could be formed almost as quickly from a solid battle line. On the command each man in the front rank of the unit would make a quarter turn towards the centre man and rush in behind the next man to form a hollow wedge as the centre charged forward. The men in the following ranks would rush forwards and centre to push their weight against the backs of the men in front. This wedge would easily push deep into a solid body of men, with the weight of the entire unit focused on the men at the point and would take a matter off a few seconds to form and put into action. The enemy would not necessarily be aware until the last moment of what was about to happen as in all likelihood the two sides would speak different languages and the meanings of battle commands might not be obvious to the other side until they were put into action. 
A wedge would charge from a very short distance of probably only a few yards, which would be enough to build up the momentum necessary but would not give enemy soldiers much time to prepare to throw javelins or prepare in any other way. This would be even more the case if the soldiers due to form the wedge immediately preceded it with a volley of javelins aimed at the line they were about to assault. On the subject of javelins, I do not believe that missile or artillery weapons would normally be used in an uncoordinated way. Coordinated volleys and barrages are much more useful and effective than the uncoordinated and piecemeal throwing often imagined by people. 
 
Obviously it is true that Roman armies, like everyone else, could be beaten, but this probably was mainly to do with the skill of the general and his ability to command and coordinate his forces in battle. Tactics such as I have suggested here are only possible if soldiers are properly trained, positioned and coordinated. 
 
You are right, of course, that panic and disintegration would normally occur in the rear ranks rather than the fighting line, but the effect of a wedge or series of wedges penetrating a battle line would probably be felt several ranks back and news of the ensuing carnage at the front might encourage exactly the sort of panic you refer to. 
 
Finally, I strongly suspect that the wedge was a tactic used when a deadlock was reached and a break needed to be made, both to force the battle and to re-enforce morale. 
 
Crispvs Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 3/18/05 3:10 am

Marcus Seneca Cato · 03-18-2005, 04:13 AM

As far as rear panic, it would most likely be rear and center as they are the ones who have the most hope of having their escape covered by the fullness of the line of the men he would be abandoning. Of course, they might well have to deal with being cut down by the reserves, assuming any are left. 
 
The utility of a wedge formation, I think would greatly be determined by the forces faced and the kinds and quanity of forces that could come to the opposion force's aide. I'd hate to be the spearpoint of a wedge of swordsmen charging a Macedonian phalanx head on....

Crispvs · 03-19-2005, 09:18 AM

Although I have experience of fighting in a two to three ranked line and in facing wedges in and using wedges against similar lines, like (I suspect) everyone else on RAT I have no experience of standing in battle line seven to ten ranks from the front. That said however, I think that panic and rout would normally start in the rear ranks for three reasons: 
A) the rear ranks would be sufficiently far from the front line for there to be confusion and therefore fear about what was actually happening there. 
B) the rear ranks would normally be expected to have open space behind them rather than more men and therefore a route for escape would be aviailable to them which would not be available to troops closer to the front. If the opportunity was there it makes sense to think that it might seem like an option to men who were worried about events at the front. 
C) it would make sense to put the men most likely to be effective closer to the front. It follows therefore that the less experienced and poorer quality soldiers would be likely to be positioned further back. These soldiers might lack some of the resolve of the men who were positioned closer to the front. 
 
Reserves could be a factor, but the likelihood is high of these same reserves being panicked by the sight of their own men running in panic away from the front. Unless positioned on higher ground reserve troops might have even less idea of what was really going on at the front than the panicked soldiers escaping in their direction. 
 
I agree with you about the phalanx. As I said earlier, I think wedges would only be used if necessary and if conditions were conducive to their use. I agree with those who contend that the reason the Romans adopted a cohort and maniple structure in the middle to late republic was to counter the phalanx. Phalankes work well on even ground but their cohsion is likely to be badly affected on broken ground. If a Roman army could draw a phalanx onto broken ground small cohesive units of cohort or even maniple size could emerge from the main line to attack exposed breaks in the phalanx caused by broken ground. 
 
Crispvs 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 3/19/05 10:19 am

Tarbicus · 03-19-2005, 10:14 AM

Hi Crispus, 
 
Quote:<hr>C) it would make sense to put the men most likely to be effective closer to the front. It follows therefore that the less experienced and poorer quality soldiers would be likely to be positioned further back.<hr> 
 
I'm not so sure of that. I think it would make more sense to put the new 'fodder' in the front line ahead of the veterans to soften up the enemy and give them real experience, as well as 'sort the wheat from the chaff'. The veterans could encourage and keep an eye on them. Evenly distributing the veterans and the inexperienced would make more sense to me. It would make the rank and file more self-policing with less risk of the unit crumbling. If I were an experienced veteran I wouldn't want unreliable greenhorns backing me up if I got into trouble, especially if I were a centurion or optio who must have made the decisions of who went where.

03-20-2005, 09:36 AM

Tarbicus 
I think most armies went for an intermediate solution, it was important to have a veteran front line, because many battles were decided early in the fight, as a front line routing could escalate in the whole army routing, but it was normal to have a small reserve of veterans in the rear, like the triarii of the early Republic. However there is graphic evidence in the draws of battles in the XVI and XVII centuris, they usually depict soldiers running away in the rear ranks as a normal feature, because as Crispus pointed out, they have open space behind them. Those desertions would be part of every battle casualties even for the victorious side, as we know when we have detailed relations of casualties in the XIX century. For instance, in the battle of Antietam, the Confederate army, despite not routing but retiring in relatively good order, had 2700 killed and 2000 missing, while the Union army had 2000 kill and 1000 missing.

Tarbicus · 03-20-2005, 03:18 PM

Okay. But in earlier times not only were the triarii in the rear, the hastati, the least experienced, were deliberately placed in the front line, with the principes between them and the triarii. But yes, I see in later times the veterans were placed at the front. 
 
Jim.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me