Infantry Relief System

[Macedon]

I do not understand, is there anyone who has asserted that there was no relief of lines Steven?

[Bryan]

Steven wrote:
Hmmm, the old Livy uses anachronistic terms mantra surfaces again. If you believe Livy uses anachronistic terms....can you prove it?

I just go by what I read. Livy use of anachronistic terms is mentioned in just about every secondary source I know. Many others can demonstrate it better than I can, but here is one:Livy 7.10. Use of a Gladius Hispaniensis by Titus Manlius Torquatus in the middle of the 4th century BCE, a century too soon.
Some more if care to do some searching too: Google Search of Livy's Anachronisms
Additionally, I read that Dionysius does as well. If we are to believe cohorts of infantry were used during the 5th century BCE. (8.84 and 10.36)

Like Macedon wrote, we weren't discussing line replacement, we were discussing the replacement of individual soldiers within a maniple or century. ie. Rank Replacement, similar to what was shown in the TV series Rome.

[Mark Hygate]

For Bryan's query...

Curiously my personal research over the last year or so has concentrated much more on organisational structures and numbers and it is the last few months where I have been wonderfully side-tracked into the detailed deployments of the Century/Maniple and also the individual soldiers. None of that I feel has been at all wasted and I feel confident that one day I might write a theoretical drill/tactical manual for the century that it would be very interesting to test against anything we can all find.

That brings me to Stephen's point, for, unless I misunderstand, I assume that it might certainly be a negative view on my more recent assertion(s) that the sources do not tell us 'everything'. I would point out that 'dismissing' any of the sources is not something I would ever do lightly (although I think I have found one that perhaps we may think of doing certainly, but have reasons to consider that), but much more importantly would wish to determine what is missing - and it's a lot. The sources, by no means, tell us everything. What I think needs to be done if we are to try and advance our knowledge, is to try and fill the gaps and test any theories against what is written.

I'll illustrate that by the example we used earlier......Polybius' own puzzlement that apparently the individual Roman soldier, with no one else sufficiently near him, could somehow withstand the 32 men of a pike phalanx opposing him. Obviously something is awry with his own observations simply from a basic physics POV. So we can try and understand, for not to is to be blinkered.

That said, I am also immensely grateful to Stephen for the reference (BC 3.91) that I am looking at right now, for my only conclusion would be that it must be a mistake - but it's apparently written that way so it's a definite negative against my theory. For there to be at least 120 men in a century in order to provide the 120 'volunteers', would mean that the century has to be that size or bigger. I know that I would, however, happily accept it as a small 'error' without much concern, because I would easily understand that - given that Caesar only uses the word 'maniple' a single time (quick check and search) in his entire commentaries - that it could well be the exact size of a fighting maniple (less detachments) of the cohort concerned.

Back to the issue at hand, however (and dependant on when exactly you mean when referring to mid or late republican) I have simply based my initial understanding of the role of the century from the primary sources I have been using for those periods of Polybius & Livy.

In that context it has seemed only sensible to conclude that it is the century, operating in pairs as maniples, that is the primary tactical unit. With nothing to detail at that level thereafter, except to note that cohorts become the units mentioned in later texts, I do not have any problems with considering that situation not to change, however. Moreover, I've even wondered if later 5x2 cohort deployments (such as Caesar attests once) might still be deployed in a way that still means the consular army layout deployment frontage is exactly maintained - but I've not see any 'proof' anywhere - it does, however, make lots of sense. If true, then century/maniple pairings and tactical usage could have continued for 800+years.........

Perhaps one for a whole new thread!

[Bryan]

Mark wrote:
I'll illustrate that by the example we used earlier......Polybius' own puzzlement that apparently the individual Roman soldier, with no one else sufficiently near him, could somehow withstand the 32 men of a pike phalanx opposing him. Obviously something is awry with his own observations simply from a basic physics POV. So we can try and understand, for not to is to be blinkered.

Like I pointed out in the last thread, Polybius wasn't puzzled, he wrote two massive paragraphs (Pol 18, 31-32) explaining why Romans win against phalanx. Whether you want to believe him is up to you. And physics has nothing to do with this.

Lets try to stay on topic.

[Timianus]

My own opinion is that the system shown in the TV show "Rome", while it looks cool and organized, and disciplined, could never have worked. Even assuming the whole unit could hear the "whistle" or whatever other signal was being used, it still requires the man in the front line to break off contact. Is his barbarian opponent going to stop his axe mid-swing to allow the rotation?

Ammianus Marcellinus describes the battle of Andrianople thusly:

Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks of ships, and thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro, like the waves of the sea.

It would seem much more, dare I say, logical, that unit relief would occur when one of the "waves" was pushed back and the enemy regrouping?

[Mark Hygate]

.....................
It would seem much more, dare I say, logical, that unit relief would occur when one of the "waves" was pushed back and the enemy regrouping?

To be fair, had it been done (and I'm on the side that it's both perfectly practicable and sensible to do so if possible), I don't think anyone's been arguing that it wouldn't be done in a 'lull' and not in continuing hand-to-hand combat. So yes - 'when the wave retreats before the next one'.

[Robert Vermaat]

Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks of ships, and thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro, like the waves of the sea.
It would seem much more, dare I say, logical, that unit relief would occur when one of the "waves" was pushed back and the enemy regrouping?

I think you misread that description. Having done just one reenactment battle (without the use of any weapons of course) :whistle: but having seen many, I would say this is not a movement of lines engaging and then disengaging, but a to-and-fro movement based on the pushing of one side and then another, causing the front to see-saw. No time to relieve anyone whatsoever. I can imagine, as this is very intensive with every man involved, that at some point both lines draw back to draw breath, after the first group to feel refreshed enough will charge again. It likely that during such lulls with everybody panting and leaning on swords and shields, wounded can be taken to the back. But everybody pushes and everybody will be tired - there's just no question of anyone being 'fresh'.

Perhaps this is different for other eras, but for the 4th c. it's not.

[Mark Hygate]

............................ But everybody pushes and everybody will be tired - there's just no question of anyone being 'fresh'.

Perhaps this is different for other eras, but for the 4th c. it's not.

Robert, that's rather valuable. Can you please describe in more detail exactly what's happening? I'm particularly curious about how you have the ranks fighting? Any form of 'rank relief' (however theoretically practicable it might be as a drill exercise) would assume that the guy in the front rank is doing an awful lot more than the guy(s) behind him. What are your 2nd (and behind) rank guys doing that tires them out so?

I am assuming that your 4thC troops are armed with the oval shields and spathae?

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, that's rather valuable. Can you please describe in more detail exactly what's happening? I'm particularly curious about how you have the ranks fighting? Any form of 'rank relief' (however theoretically practicable it might be as a drill exercise) would assume that the guy in the front rank is doing an awful lot more than the guy(s) behind him. What are your 2nd (and behind) rank guys doing that tires them out so?
I am assuming that your 4thC troops are armed with the oval shields and spathae?

Last question first - oval shields indeed, but most had spears. The main difference with an actual battle was that in case of the latter, ranks 2 to 4 continually use their spears in overarmstabbing. In our 'battle' this was of course not done, so we mostly pushed and shoved at the enemy. We were supposed to break ranks and use the spears on the opponents shields, but it's very hard for a group of men to break contact with the enemy! :whistle:

[attachment=7585]pushcomestoshove.jpg[/attachment]

In a real Late Roman battle, this shoving (pushing in your front man's back) would also be a normal part of the battle - a concentrated push of of the enemy would break through your lines if your don't do that. So, while Principate ranks would certainly push and shove, they would not be taking part in the overarm stabbing (lacking a spear that was long enough). In a Late Roman battle, all the ranks are involved, certainly 1-4, but 5-8 as well if you have them. You see the spear in a vertaical position, in an actual battle these would of course all be horizontal. there's really no room to use the spatha in a slashing motion here, when you're not squashed the only manner is stabbing over and under shields.

[attachment=7586]allranks.jpg[/attachment]

All Roman armies would somehow form shield walls, but Late Roman armies did so with overlapping shields, including ranks 2 to 4. You will say - ah, but the Principate had the testudo! True, but that was not a formation used on the battlefield (despite many reenactment groups using it). The Late Roman army had more need of this, apparently, all with a very dense formation (synaspismos - 1 foot for each soldier), no doubt to help the pushing and shoving described above. There were two variants, the 'mobile' fulcum (rank 1 shield wall, rank 2 and 3 shields locked overhead) and the 'static' fulcum (ranks 1 - 4 locked shields):

[attachment=7587]fulcum.jpg[/attachment]

So you see, there's no time for resr and relaxation of the men directly behind the first rank! :grin:

[Sean Manning]

And of course, in a real battle the men in the middle are throwing things and worrying about things being thrown at them.

I think that some of the early medieval sources like Maurice are explicit that men in the back push on the men in front (although I suspect that shield-to-shield pushing happens sooner and more often in modern sport combat than it did on ancient battlefields because the rules encourage it).

[Mark Hygate]

...................
I am assuming that your 4thC troops are armed with the oval shields and spathae?

Last question first - oval shields indeed, but most had spears. The main difference with an actual battle was that in case of the latter, ranks 2 to 4 continually use their spears in overarmstabbing. In our 'battle' this was of course not done, so we mostly pushed and shoved at the enemy. We were supposed to break ranks and use the spears on the opponents shields, but it's very hard for a group of men to break contact with the enemy! .................

So you see, there's no time for resr and relaxation of the men directly behind the first rank! :grin:

Ah, no indeed - but it's the spears that are important. Like Hoplites, like Pikemen, like Triarii - even Empire period troops equipped with hasta (incl Arrian's extras - and perhaps even the likely antesignanii/lanciarii/singularii - then you cannot consider rank-rotation with spears. I would only ever argue it as a possibility for suitably shield and short-stabbing sword-equipped legionary-types.

It's now a completely separate thread question really - but I have to ask - why spears and not spiculum, verrutum (thinking of heavy/light javelins) or martiobarbuli/plumbata (thinking darts)? I do tend to think of the general return to spears as more a (Early-) Byzantine thing; with the post-Constantine field armies of the 3rd & 4th (early 5th?) centuries as more like the previous troops, but changing and apparently deteriorating. It's the Byzantine manuals that seem to have forgotten the Roman period, want to be more Greek in style and be reinventing infantry from scratch. :unsure:

[Robert Vermaat]

And of course, in a real battle the men in the middle are throwing things and worrying about things being thrown at them.
I think that some of the early medieval sources like Maurice are explicit that men in the back push on the men in front (although I suspect that shield-to-shield pushing happens sooner and more often in modern sport combat than it did on ancient battlefields because the rules encourage it).

Actually the men in the middle are fairly hard pressed and may not be able to do anything with the lines together like this (and I don't think it would have been that much different in a real battle). But I also don't think that this pushing is very effective throughout the battle, and I suspect that the lines also fought half a spearlength apart to use their weapons.

Btw, Maurikios is indeed early medieval when judged from our modern western historical periodic view, but his tactica is as Roman as that of the writers 200 years before him, when judged from the Roman military tradition.

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah, no indeed - but it's the spears that are important. Like Hoplites, like Pikemen, like Triarii - even Empire period troops equipped with hasta (incl Arrian's extras - and perhaps even the likely antesignanii/lanciarii/singularii - then you cannot consider rank-rotation with spears. I would only ever argue it as a possibility for suitably shield and short-stabbing sword-equipped legionary-types.

And add to that the armour question: only the best armour for the men in the front and rear ranks - rotation would ruin that of course.

[Robert Vermaat]

It's now a completely separate thread question really - but I have to ask - why spears and not spiculum, verrutum (thinking of heavy/light javelins) or martiobarbuli/plumbata (thinking darts)? I do tend to think of the general return to spears as more a (Early-) Byzantine thing; with the post-Constantine field armies of the 3rd & 4th (early 5th?) centuries as more like the previous troops, but changing and apparently deteriorating. It's the Byzantine manuals that seem to have forgotten the Roman period, want to be more Greek in style and be reinventing infantry from scratch. :unsure:

Indeed a separarte thread may be neede, so I'll split the answer should we head there.
You can see it in Arrian already, as I've argued elsewhere (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/arrian.htm) that the 'kontos' may have been a hasta. The reason for this develeopment may have been the development of ever more enemy cavaly, or shield walls perhaps. Missiles remain important, but these are for suppressing fire, while the main weapon serves for gain a longer reach. It's echoed by a certain Julianus Magister during the Several early 3rd century: the spears are too short against cavalry. I think that's part of the development towards spear-armed close-order heavy infantry.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I thought the Spiculum was both a spear and a heavy javelin?

Also, yes the fulcum (Foulkon in the Strategikon) seems to have a very common formation in the Late Era. Jordanes makes a vague reference to its use at Chalons. What Robert suggests is correct, with all the push ans shove there's no room to really have much a relief system. You fight until you drop it seems.

However, what bugs me is that if use of the spatha is constricted in a formation like this, would it not be more likely that spearmen carried a semispatha or seax? We have finds of both dating to the Roman era and in the Roman Empire.