Where is all the fancy maneuvering? The perfectly dressed ranks and files? Wait, did the rioters actually bring real weapons to the riot? Uh oh, that's not allowed.
Question: When you train men to perform maneuvers in stressful situations, do you go for simplicity or complexity?
Exactly. The amount of training and discipline required for that kind of manoeuvre is beyond belief. Only the best of the best - soldiers with dozens of battles under their belts might be able to do it, but the risk of casualties to your own men far outweigh any benefit you get from resting a few fighters.
I actually disagree. I think that a non-choreographic system of exchanging ranks and whole lines is totally feasible for a "reasonably" trained army during melee. It is the reasons proposed I find non-convincing and of course the fact that there is no hint at anything like that being in actual use in the sources as far as the alternation of ranks within a single line is concerned. Common sense does NOT dictate that all men of a rank should be relieved at the same time, it dictates that each man should be relieved whenever he had to. Common sense does not dictate that such a maneuver would be employed throughout a unit or line but as circumstances dictated man by man.
The next argument that has to be challenged by those who support that such a maneuver was made en mass is the total lack of any mentioning of any such system or its effects in the sources. We have countless descriptions at "soldier level". We do have mentions of men trying to exit their line, of men leaving their positions, of men falling and dragged back. We have many mentions of relief forces taking the place of units that are tired in battle, we even know of "traditional systems" of rotation of those who bear the brunt of battle between battles. BUT, the relief of units is not the same as the relief within a unit and relief within a unit at individual level is of course attested, it is relief at rank level that we debate.
I would just ask for the proponents of the proposal that the Romans (of some age) systematically used a system of relief that entailed the simultaneous exchange of the first rank with another within the same unit to number their reasons why they propose so. What is the evidence, if any and what are the problems it remedies that exchange at an individual level -the attested method anyways- does not not fix?
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
There is also a big difference between individuals falling back or being pulled back as an improvised action in combat, and there being some kind of systematic drill or policy for moving men out of the front line. Because of the invention of operations research in the 20th century, organizations today are much more systematic about training for eventualities than organizations in many times and places were.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
In the area of Riot Police... and Rioting crowds... Are the Police given the right to "Kill"?
We also have to keep i mind that there is a difference between riots and wars. A soldier engaged in battle is not there to "Keep the Peace." He is there to "KILL."
The restraints on authorities are different in a riot. Yet in the end... the Police always seem to win.
I know that last video showed them drawing back but we also did not see the entire scene.
I am not arguing either way of whether there was a rotation. However there had to be something in coordination as well as discipline or Roman wouldn't have been the Empire militarily that it was for very long.
Quote:Macedon: it dictates that each man should be relieved whenever he had to.
Right. And we are sure that if "the best men" were to have been kept in the front line until they dropped, there would be a constant rotation (of sorts) of exactly who the best men were. Everyone, no matter how strong, experienced, or brave, will reach a point of fatigue beyond which they are ineffective.
Being in the front line at the start of a battle is not insurance that the same man will be in the front line at its finish. And these battles ebbed and flowed, like waves on a beach. As the enemy fell back to regroup and remove the wounded for care, someone who was overtired could be released to rest and water, bandages and catching his breath. What can a soldier do who charges when out of breath?
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to get my ducks in a row (or legionaires at least!)...
Bryan – the video, like often when close up for filming or as I’ve seen in re-enactments where numbers are relatively small, is effectively showing a single century. The most important element in formation fighting is both holding the formation and its position relative to the others around it – ie ‘holding the line’. No differences there to the Greek (spear/pike) practices. It’s maintaining that formation that becomes the focus of the training rather than the individual movements. Given the likely sequence of training (cf Vegetius) of getting the basics right at the individual level, the main concentration is at formation – which is where the true discipline lies.
When it comes to the Centurion – you cannot command from the front. On occasion it is necessary to lead from the front (as we see attested), but the formation would be controlled from the rear, with the centurion at the right corner (looking forwards) and the Optio at the left (looking right to hold the rear ranks).
As a factor of that discipline, btw, the training at formation level would see dear old Pullo punished for his individual display, let alone his subsequent execution for striking his centurion! :whistle:
Macedon – the manipular system and the organisation of the original (Early Republic) 3 lines is all based upon both the pair of centuries operating together in their maniple and then the rotation/replacement of those centuries/maniples with the ones behind; most likely being either by whole sub-unit replacement (within the open chequer-board) if time and space allows, or by filtering through the existing lines to replace when in contact (relief-in-place).
This actually is the whole point about the ‘Roman system’ and why it worked so well. The ‘choreography’ of the Ops Rome extract and the first Police video are possible because we see it. With rigorous training and harsh discipline almost anything is possible. I do think the first Police video is a little over-complex and stylised, but is not impossible.
As has been noted, the main issue with the 2nd video is certainly that Police are trained differently to soldiers and there is no intent to kill or even risk maiming.
From others posts I would note that I think there are some over-complications and disbelief over what is possible. Firstly I would note that the Roman soldier only has to think of very few things and the discipline over him is far beyond what is possible today. He wears his comprehensive armour package that he has confidence in; his shield can protect nearly all of him and is his primary weapon; he can thrust out and stab anyone who comes close and grind them down. All his other thinking is done for him.
Whilst I’ll re-note that the Korean Police demonstration is a little over the top, my own riot training (big oblong shield in one hand and baton in the other) did include all the right elements of: ‘holding the line’; dealing with casualties; coping with petrol bombs; and having options like ‘snatch squads’ and how to deploy and recover them. I would love the opportunity to try and re-train/re-enact what I see as the Roman system if it were possible with the appropriate equipment, but someone would have to lend me a suitable cohort and enemy!
Overall, we have confidence that whole centuries could be replaced and that individuals could be withdrawn. The only sensible way to train for the latter, however, is to replace ranks just as, or similar to, we see (to train sufficiently to make the process simple and effective) in the first video. There is also a definite military reason to do so. You can indeed hope that no one dies, gets badly injured, and therefore the front line holds – but those men will get tired. However it would be timed, it would make a great deal of sense to rotate the front lines whenever suitable, both to rest the men before they are too tired, but also because it gives the men more confidence. They can then fight for their ‘minute’ and go hard and fast – for they know that they will be relieved.
This ‘system of reliefs’, whether it’s at the individual or group level is the big benefit of the Roman system over the Greek. The Greeks (long pointy spears that will get in the way if they tried it) relied on a rigid and hierarchical rank structure (literally), where the man in front was only ‘replaced’ when he died and was stepped over. The Roman’s is all about flexibility, management and controlled ferocity. Simple movements and systems practised over and over and subject to harsh discipline for infractions.
Quote:I would just ask for the proponents of the proposal that the Romans (of some age) systematically used a system of relief that entailed the simultaneous exchange of the first rank with another within the same unit to number their reasons why they propose so. What is the evidence, if any and what are the problems it remedies that exchange at an individual level -the attested method anyways- does not not fix?
I agree. Of course it's 'possibe', but I'm sure it would also be 'possible' that the first rank formed a pyramid of 5 levels, if well-trained. Thing is, like Macedon, I would like to see evidence for the need.
Footage of riot control and nice and even good to study how well-trained units should behave, but they're also limited: it's RIOT control. I don't suppose that any police force trains its officers in dealing with an equally armed and trained opposing force. Crowd control is just that - crowd control. The dynamics are entirely different from an armed opponent which will use every weakness and opportunity to breach your lines. Which is my main point of concern: if entire ranks are relieved, surely an opponent will see this and attack, creating chaos? Yes, in 'Rome' this lloked all so so easy, but that because that's Hollywood...
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
I only showed the second video to demonstrate that in a truly stressful situation, meaning real life with actual rioters intent on hurting you and not following your commands to disperse peacefully, fancy tactics and strategies go out the window. The rioters weren't ineffectually kicking at their shields, they were full on trying to cave their skulls in with big ass metal poles.
Also, neither of the two riot control videos shows a century, they show a unit of South Korean national police of a size similar to a century (or more). But they aren't soldiers, they are police. There jobs isn't to kill the enemy, its to drive them off with as low numbers of casualties as possible (or else why not use a rifle?) Riot control is not warfare. Just because someone hands a cop (or British Army officer) a shield in a similar size to the Romans (but not used the same way) and a baton (a wooden bludgeoning weapon vs. iron sword), doesn't mean they are Roman infantry in combat. You can use videos of riot police in action to judge how some humans operate in stressful situations, to watch examples of command and control in hand-to-hand fighting, small and large unit dynamics, etc. But you can't say, "Sure, the Romans could have done complex and unnecessary maneuvers because here is a video of a group of riot police practicing a highly choreographed series of similar maneuvers in a sterile and contained environment."
KISS Principle=Keep It Simple, Stupid
Also, your hypothesis of centurion positioning is illogical. Why would a centurion feel the need to command their centuries in battle from the rear? Exactly what orders did they need to issue, once the battle commenced? Was the centuries/maniples fighting complex? If they were in the rear, how did they even know what was happening in front of them? Were they hoisted on someone's shoulders to see over the seven crested helmets of the ranks in front of them? Were the men in front passing messages back in the files to the rear so the centurion knew who was wounded, who was hesitating?
Using the Rome TV show as an example since you brought up Pullo, how could Lucius Vorenus have learned that Titus Pullo broke ranks and was fighting amidst the enemy if Vorenus was seven ranks behind him and Pullo wasn't even visible to him? Did someone radio back to Vorenus that Pullo had broken ranks?
Watch that second riot video again. Pick a guy in the rear of the riot police formation, about 8 ranks back from the front of the fighting. Try to imagine him controlling anything that is happening in front of him. Rethink your hypothesis.
My opinion: In battle, the centurions didn't command, they didn't manage, they led by example. Tribunes commanded from the rear, centurions from the front. (hence the high casualty rates, their high amounts of awards for bravery, the high number of wounds celebrated centurions endured, etc)
Why have two officer ranks commanding from the rear and no rank leading from the front? If the centurion was in the rear, who was in the front leading the men forward?
Quote:....................
Footage of riot control and nice and even good to study how well-trained units should behave, but they're also limited: it's RIOT control. I don't suppose that any police force trains its officers in dealing with an equally armed and trained opposing force. Crowd control is just that - crowd control. The dynamics are entirely different from an armed opponent which will use every weakness and opportunity to breach your lines. Which is my main point of concern: if entire ranks are relieved, surely an opponent will see this and attack, creating chaos? Yes, in 'Rome' this looked all so so easy, but that because that's Hollywood...
How will an "armed opponent which will use every weakness and opportunity to breach your lines"? Who's doing the co-ordinating? Who's spotting and immediately taking advantage of this trained, practised and hopefully slick rotation that we're/I'm perhaps suggesting?
Indeed, when we are considering the classic and supposedly undisciplined charges of the average barbarian type, is that not actually fairly analogous to 'crowd control'?
As part of this discussion we do seem to accept that individually replacing a man lost or injured (and indeed suggesting that the latter can even be extracted from the melée for treatment) is indeed possible, but that the idea of a whole rank being replaced (as I suggest is what might well be trained and quite sensibly considered when suitable) is somehow not possible.
The charge has been held (hopefully originally disrupted by pila), the fight has been going on a very short while ( a minute or two at the outside), the line has held and the first contact has resulted in enemy casualties. Before the enemy re-engage then that's the exact time a rank rotation (to replace with fresh troops) could be considered - a process that could be accomplished within a couple of seconds. Is such a thing not reasonable?
More importantly it's essential. Whilst not trained (apart from the elements of bayonet combat) in armed hand-to-hand combat with sword and shield, I did study several martial arts over a 20 year period. Hand-to-hand is certainly not Hollywood'ish - it lasts very short periods of time. Most of soldiering is hanging around waiting. I would not expect even a trained Roman soldier to be expected to engage with shield and sword against more than a very few individual enemies for much more than a minute - perhaps two at the outside - before resting.
Against Hellenic-style of enemies, we would be thinking something different - longer periods of push and shove before openings are made. But once a breach happens and a line is broken, then the killing starts and then does the routing. Equally, when considering spear/pike-armed soldiers, rank replacement cannot be considered - only replacing dead/injured by stepping over them. But for the Romans, a perfect part of their repertoire. How else do we account for their stunning victories when often outnumbered and their very low loss rates?
As part of this discussion we do seem to accept that individually replacing a man lost or injured (and indeed suggesting that the latter can even be extracted from the melée for treatment) is indeed possible, but that the idea of a whole rank being replaced (as I suggest is what might well be trained and quite sensibly considered when suitable) is somehow not possible.
We aren't arguing that a rank rotation wasn't possible, at least I don't see it that way. We are stating that it was unnecessary.
Please open the below illustration:
Diagram A. shows a 80 man century in fighting formation, 10 files by 8 ranks. They march ahead, throw their pila and engage in close combat with an enemy. Diagram B. takes place 1-2 minutes later when the centurion in the rear decides the men in the 1st rank have fought long enough. So he blows a whistle, yells, has the cornicen blown, waves the standards, etc., signalling that entire 1st rank to be replaced by the 2nd rank, ala Rome Tv show. Fresh fighters fed into the front.
Unfortunately, this method fails to take variables into consideration. Diagram C. shows the century drawn up in its initial order. Diagram D. shows what happens when the Fog of War shows up, casualties have occurred during the initial clash. We have a total of four men out of action from of the 1st rank, one from the 2nd rank. (the Roman's weren't the only ones throwing missiles before a charge and a scutum was not missile proof) So within the 2 minutes allotted before a rank rotation occurs (or 5 minutes or 10, doesn't matter), we have four soldiers who have already individually relieved the man in front of them, three of whom were on the 1st rank.
Now the centurion, in the back of the formation as Mark Hygate surmises, outside of visual distance to the fighting on the front line, signals a rank rotation. Diagram E. shows the aftermath of it. Eight of the original 1st rankers have been relieved, they are now in the back of the formation, whether they wanted to go or not. Some might still want to fight some more. But they are at the rear of the formation, doing nothing but waiting. Additionally, due to the casualties sustained in the first minutes of the initial clash, a number of men from the 2nd rank have gotten into the fight earlier than expected, before being signaled by the centurion, when they individually relieved wounded/dead soldiers in front of them. Now, under orders from the signal given by the centurion, these men too have now been relieved, even though they have NOT been fighting the whole time. Maybe one of the soldiers only just got to the front when the signal was given. Doesn't matter now, he goes to the rear and a less able soldier from the 3rd rank now takes his place. (under the hypothesis that the better soldiers were sent to the front ranks and not every Roman in the century was a uber brave killing machine) Add to this, we see more casualties from errant missiles occurring, disorganizing the cohesion of the ranks even more. More men are falling out of formation and gathering in the rear.
Do we need to add more variables into this? Sickness and desertions would have further depleted the numbers of the century. Romans don't show up to battle with 80 men. No unit goes to war at full strength. Heck, my first combat deployment to Iraq, we deployed at roughly 65% strength. And that was BEFORE we took casualties. Throw into the mix that maybe the Romans are fighting an enemy with twice their numbers in infantry and the Romans are forced to extend their own line to counter the enemy line, thinning the number of ranks (Pharsalus). Think of the poor centurion, instead of leading his century/maniple in battle, he is forced to micromanage/control each rank.
The rank rotation shown in the Rome TV show is unnecessary and overly complicated. Individual replacement is simpler and more efficient.
I agree that relief of front line soldiers happened when there was lull in combat, apparently very common of era. Clash of waves, I think, is very good analogue. This apparently does not include removing wounded from front line, since I think it was imperative to keep that line intact and have someone step in immediately.
I wonder if Romans (for manpower reasons and need to get maximum number of men active in combat) often deployed ranks more than 4 deep (of course triplex acies was quite common, but different from century). There are some exceptions, like Pompeius in Pharsalus, of course. If legion was understrength, even if it's like 60 men in century, it's be foolhardy to deploy e.g. 6 ranks deep and only 10 wide...risking envelopment.
(Mika S.)
"Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris? Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior." - Catullus -
"Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."
We know that the Legions themselves owned slaves. Could it be possible that the army's slaves (I believe they were called "helmet wearers") had the job of slipping between the files during combat lulls and dragging the wounded to the rear? It's a stretch, i know, but anything's possible.
Tyler
Undergrad student majoring in Social Studies Education with a specialty in world history.
"conare levissimus videri, hostes enimfortasse instrumentis indigeant"
(Try to look unimportant-the enemy might be low on ammunition).
Centurions in front rank. Caesar's Commentaries show very well these leaders did not command from the rear. At the battle against the Nervii Legio XII lost all the centurions of its 4th Cohort while almost all of the centurions of the other cohorts were wounded or slain among them the Primus Pilus P. Sextius Bacilus. At Gergovia of 700 soldiers lost 46 of them were centurions. At Pharsalus 200 soldiers and 30 centurions were lost. These are not the casualties of officers commanding from the safety of the rear of the formation rather it represents the casualty rate of officers leading from the front, first into the most dangerous situations: defending the dangerous flank of his century or charging into the enemy's staunchest defenders or covering the retreat of his men when things went badly. They were not Tribunes or the Legate who normally commanded from the rear and drew sword only in the most desperate situations they lead from the front and paid the price in blood for the honor and privilege.
Lulls in combat would have been normal because exhaustion sets in very quickly. Professional fighters who are in peak condition carrying no extra weight of armor or arms can become exhausted after 5 minutes. To my understand it is largely thought battles went through waves of skirmishing with missiles, close combat, withdraw, skirmish and then reengage. And it would be very simple for a force as organized as the Legions to quickly rotate ranks. Professor Rosenstein even asserted that less tactically flexible organizations like the Phalanx would attempt to give their front rank fighters a break, otherwise being in the front rank would be a veritable death sentence because no matter how good you are you cannot hope to survive a full day of consistent close combat against an array of new foes as you cut them down.
Also don't we have accounts of Centurions being the front ranks? I seem to remember Ceasr describing one of his Centurions being killed in the Civil War trying to demonstrate how to go over the shields of the enemy legionaries.
I think Dancing with the Stars is less choreographed than that riot training demonstration. 
