Project- Influences of Roman military on modern day riot control

[Bryan]

For someone who thinks riot control is not relevant you sure do like to write a lot about it.  Unfortunately most of it is plain wrong and badly researched.

You mention the incident I referenced earlier as if it was a one off, it was only significant in its scale and the speed it spread across the entire city and into the surrounding towns.  Firearms and pipe bombs are not unusual in riots in Northern Ireland and have been for the last 40 years.

Off the top of my head I can think of firearms being used during riots in the last few years in; London, Manchester, Ukraine, Kosovo and at least 3 incidents in your own country.  None of them resulted in the kind of massacre you keep insisting would happen.

Firearms weren't used in Ukraine riots? Surely you jest. There is video of govt snipers lighting up civilians left and right, and there are pictures of rioters shooting to, trying to bait them into shooting into the crowd in order to make a political statement. This is the same reason in Northern Ireland every once in a while someone throws a bomb or shoots. If that was a real threat you and your bros wouldn't have been standing in the middle of the streets, formed up in close formations, with plexiglass shields. They did it simply in hoping the riot police and military would do the natural thing and shoot back, escalating the riot while videos showcase how "evil" the govt forces are. Don't act as if commander's were expecting sniping and pipe bombs, because if they formed up their men in close ranks in the wide open knowing there was a substantial threat from snipers and IEDs then they should have been relieved for incompetence. 
Why wasn't martial law declared and military troops sent in as part of riot forces in the 2015 Black Lives Matter riots in America? One city called the National Guard and then stuck them in small teams, armed with their service rifles, a few magazines, and full canteens. Because that's what they were trained for, not doing any of the complicated and unrealistic stuff your company gets paid to teach. Soldiers and Marines make crappy riot control because they are focused too much of their training and mindset on aggressiveness and killing. Police don't, heck, in the UK most copper aren't even armed with firearms. So its natural to put them into situations where nobody expects a battle, they want to contain protests and riots. 

Is particularly far off the mark.  In none of the incidents where the USMC were confronted by rioters in Afghanistan did they open fire into the crowd, even in incidents such as Darvishan where in addition to the rioting they were being shot at by the Taliban.  Similarly UK Infantry did not open fire on rioting crowds in any of the riots they were involved in while in Southern Iraq, despite the fact that they too were being shot at by the Mahdi Army during the riots.  The German Army did not open fire on rioters in Kosovo when they were shot at during the riots there a couple of years ago.  Media reports and videos exist of so many instances where this happened you will easily find them if you choose to look.

As I've said, public outcry, lawyers and journalist are the reason why they didn't shoot back, despite being shot at, not because their tactics work better. In all those riots you mentioned, all of them were not quelled by riot control, most blew up into full blown uprisings that turned into shooting conflicts. Riot control FAILED in their mission. 
As to why they choose methods that repeatedly lead to failure, its not surprising considering that how politically correct most westernized nations act. Like the Germans in A-Stan, its not surprising at all they choose not to shoot back in Afghanistan (where its no secret that regular Bundswehr units cant even be trusted with conducting actual combat missions because of ROE concerns). The same goes for the Brits in Basra and Helmand, it wasn't even the fault of the soldiers, they did a great job despite being handed a hot mess caused by fraidy-cat, risk adverse civilian and military leaders back home pressuring the commanders to minimize rioting casualties, to not create an international incident (too late), forcing them to adopt ineffective riot control tactics of the sort you recommend because they were all afraid of getting hit with war crime charges if they shot the people shooting at them or lighting them on fire. It was a sick joke they kept that charade going as long as they did, the worst part of the Brits in Basra and Helmand was that the regions they occupied got substantially worse before they pulled out even. Why? Because they brought a baton to a gun fight and by not shooting back at people shooting at them they demonstrated weakness and an ability to be led by the nose. 

US Army and Marines get stuck doing crap jobs like riot control for the same reason they have to walk through IED invested areas and risk ambush because their 23 year old lieutenant wants to have a chai tea sit down meeting with the local tribal elders about building a well, all of the elders being the leaders of the local insurgency, and everyone knows it, but we're not allowed to do anything because of idiots watching television back home and commenting on politics they don't understand "You can't just shoot people, even in war!" Yes you can, its quite easy actually. And it works better than kid glove tactics. 

Ask the Romans how they dealt with major riots. Offensive shield walls battering at the crowds while advancing, with cudgels and sometimes even cold steel, they'd push them out and leave streets covered in bodies and then that would be the end of it, nice, quick, efficient. 

[quote pid='342362' dateline='1480289606']
As for the use of historical sources I would suggest that you stick to Roman ones, because you are flat out wrong if you think Norse commanders stood in the front rank through out the battle.  Norse commanders and their bodyguard usually came forward when the battle was at a critical stage, either when victory was close or when the shield wall was starting to break.  That is confirmed by multiple sources.  One of the easiest ones to check for yourself is Stamford Bridge, the last large battle involving a Viking invasion in England.  Although the King died (hit by an arrow, just like the Anglo-Saxon King who faced him would a few weeks later) the vast majority of the other senior leaders survived and were able to negotiate with King Harald after the battle.  Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away.
[/quote]

No, King Harold didn't negotiate with Harald after the battle, because Harald was dead long before it ended. How can you lecture people on Viking warfare if you didn't realize Harald didn't survive Stamford Bridge? 

Furthermore, what was Harald wearing when he was killed? No armor at all (he'd left it on the ship, as had most of the Norwegians). What weapon was he armed with? A single sword, no shield (also left on his ships). Was he acting in the role of berserker when he died? Yes. 

"Norway's King had nothing
To shield his breast in battle;
And yet his war-seasoned
Heart never wavered. 
Norway's Warriors were watching
The blood-dripping sword 
Of their Courageous leader
Cutting down his enemies." 
- Arnorr the Poet (from The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066, K. DeVries) 

Does this sound like Harald was commanding from the rear, coordinating forces? No, it sounds like he was leading from the front. 


Also, its kind of disconcerting that you would try to play historian when it comes to the battle of stamford bridge and then copy paste info from Wikipedia. 
Wiki- "Norwegians had suffered were so severe that only 24 ships from the fleet of over 300 were needed to carry the survivors away." 
You- "Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away."

Everyone on this website should know at this point that giving sources for your claims is the standard and that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. 
So you still owe me an actual source from the Viking sagas that shows kings, chieftains, and nobles commanded from the rear. More so, since you tried to play it like leading from the front isn't something that actually happened much in history, you need to provide historical sources to counter all the other situations I mentioned previously:
"Modern US Army, Team Leaders are typically sergeants, they lead from the from, walk point, they lead stacks, they do everything first, the US Army Infantry's actual motto is "Follow Me." Typically the same mindset with the US Marine Corps in actual practice (though not in some doctrine), Corporals lead from the front, by example. WWI, WWII, those wars were characterized by whatever side of infantry led by pistol or SMG waving officers and NCOs screaming "Follow me" from the front, leading men into grazing fire and artillery and mortar impacts. The American Civil War, leaders led. During the Napoleonic Wars, all nations participating had officers that led from the front in most formations and conditions. Where as Gustavus Adolphus when his cavalry was performing an attack? In the battle of Agincourt, where was Henry V and why was he standing where he did? Where would a Scandinavian Thegn or chieftain/warlord position themselves in a shield wall, back or front? Where would a Gallic chieftain position himself in battle? Where was the commander of a Macedonian file placed in the formation? Where did Alexander ride in the wedge formation of a Royal Agema troop? Where did Greek kings or Strategos place themselves in a hoplite phalanx?"

---

As for the use of historical sources ...

I like your thinking. Given your experience in the police, I'd be interested to know what you think the typical depth of the line is - or more realistically because it probably varied, what the minimum depth of line the Romans would use.

Ancient historians actually wrote down the depth of Roman lines quite often, Michael J. Taylor, who commented in this thread (which you ignored) has written academic articles that specifically describe how deep they fought in numerous battle. So its not necessary to use modern riots to try to figure out how Romans fought.