Infantry Relief System

[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).

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.

Yes, that was the context for throwing things which I was thinking of. I don't think that lines in close order rushed into shield-to-shield contact and stayed like that for tens of minutes or hours, but I think it happened fairly often for short periods separated by longer periods where the lines had more space between them.

[Timianus]

Thanks Robert. Those photos are really insightful. It is much easier to understand how troops would be in an impossible position and unable to defend themselves if hemmed in from all sides.

In terms of "seesawing," my mind conjures memories from my youth of going to punk shows and having the mob of tightly packed patrons continually engaged in a "seasaw" pushing war with the security staff protecting the front of the stage. (prob. a bad comparison).

But your photos also raise another question for me. It seems as though the LRA almost reverted back to hoplite tactics. What you depict is a far cry from the ordered 3 feet of fighting space described in the sources for the late republic/high empire period.

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks Robert. Those photos are really insightful. It is much easier to understand how troops would be in an impossible position and unable to defend themselves if hemmed in from all sides.

Indeed! Now imagine Adrianople as their flanks are turned and their retreat cut off... :-(

In terms of "seesawing," my mind conjures memories from my youth of going to punk shows and having the mob of tightly packed patrons continually engaged in a "seasaw" pushing war with the security staff protecting the front of the stage. (prob. a bad comparison).

I think it's a great comparison. You see similar battles between police and porotestors. i think the momentum is what's important.

But your photos also raise another question for me. It seems as though the LRA almost reverted back to hoplite tactics. What you depict is a far cry from the ordered 3 feet of fighting space described in the sources for the late republic/high empire period.

The main similarity is the long lance, but that's only comparable to earlier hoplite fighting. Alexandrian dories were much, much longer, and the fighting must hhave been very different because of that. Also, there are differences, such as the long spatha and the much larger scutum. But sure, it can be compared up to a point. Btw, the 3 feet of fighting space for each man is still possible for LR armies, but this is just one of the possibilities. When the command 'junge' comes, the formation draws in on itself, up to that very dense 1 foot per soldier (synaspismos).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Wait I thought it was Vegetius who dictated the Three feet of frontage to each soldier anyways?

[Mark Hygate]

Wait I thought it was Vegetius who dictated the Three feet of frontage to each soldier anyways?

Vegetius has a 3ft per man frontage and a 6ft separation between ranks (so almost 9ft per man) and 6 ranks.

Polybius has 3ft between each man both in ranks and files (so ~6ft per man).

I am minded to believe both are accurate, but at different points in the same set of formation changes. It's why I do not accept that pike phalanxes are so unstable and uncoordinated on moderately difficult ground that they can be 'held' by unsupported Romans - I think there's more to it than that. But a drill manual hasn't survived, just the long range single observations we have as above.

[Mark Graef]

When speculating on the existence of a tactic like the rotation of ranks in extended sword combat, it is not enough to just declare it to be possible, and cite how it would fit in with modern military practice and principles. Something more is needed to move the discussion from just speculation to the establishment of some degree of likelihood.

There are two ways to do this —by the traditional method, finding direct evidence in ancient literature or art; or by creating a theoretical model that fits both ancient accounts and scientific evidence (such as has been done in recent studies).

I've discussed rank rotation before in a different venue; I did an extensive search of ancient sources see if I could find evidence of it. Theoretically, the rotation of ranks could have been readily adapted by Romans of Caesar's era or even earlier, if there was a need for it, and it worked in combat . The rotation of ranks in the HBO sequence is very similar, in movement and concept, to a countermarch by files, a type of change of front described in detail in Roman theoretical treatises on tactics (a version of which might have been read by Caesar, later versions were certainly available and read by later Roman military commanders).

The purpose of a countermarch in these sources is not to rotate fresh men in a file to the front, but to change an infantry formation around so that the leaders and front rankers/rear rankers remain in the same order in the file, which is useful in cases where an enemy force appears to the rear at some distance. The actual use of this tactic is may be indicated in a few passages in Caesar, Livius, Plutarch, and Cassius Dio. Interestingly enough, in Dionysius, Roman Antiquities 8.67.6 there seems to be a description of the Volscians using a reverse rank rotation to retire slowly from a battlefield into a camp while maintaining a front to the enemy. (It doesn't matter in this case whether this is an accurate account of a 5th century BC event, as it indicates that Dionysius thought that the concept would be understood by his readers in the Augustan era). However, my search through the ancient sources did not reveal any instance of relief by rank rotation in theory or practice (even though I was somewhat hoping I could). Rather, he evidence I did gather weighs against it.

Accounts of extended static sword combat are not too numerous. In some battles the enemy was routed at the first shout or shower of missiles (Livius 8.16.6; 25.41.6; 32.30.11; 38.27.1&4). Some battles lasted for many hours but consisted almost entirely of missile combat (a good example for this discussion is Caesar's description of the battle of Ilerda, BC 1.45-46, where legionary cohorts engaged in 5 hours of missile combat, which ended only when Caesar's men finally drew their swords, advanced, and put Afranius' men to flight). Some battles were very fluid affairs with lots of advancing, retreating, and maneuvering. Still others resulted in the Romans being encircled and forced into a mass where no order was possible (such as at Cannae). Many other accounts do not mention what sort of combat took place.

Also, there are several instances where the relief of tired or hard pressed troops was achieved by cohort (Caesar, BC 1.45; Livius 34.15.1; Appian, Iberica 40), legion (Livius 27.12.14; 29.2.9), or acies (Caesar, BC 3.94.1).

However there are a few accounts of fairly static and prolonged sword combat (mostly against opponents that were stubborn and proficient with the sword: Celtiberians, Italic peoples —but especially other Romans). Some of the best descriptions come from Appian's The Civil Wars, which are worth examining:

3.68 (Battle of Forum Gallorum):

"Thus urged on by animosity and ambition they assailed each other, considering this their own affair rather than that of their generals. Being veterans they raised no battle-cry, since they could not expect to terrify each other, nor in the engagement did they utter a sound, either as victors or vanquished. As there could be neither flanking nor charging amid marshes and ditches, they met together in close order, and since neither could dislodge the other they locked together with their swords as in a wrestling match. No blow missed its mark. There were wounds and slaughter but no cries, only groans; and when one fell he was instantly borne away and another took his place. They needed neither admonition nor encouragement, since experience made each one his own general. When they were overcome by fatigue they drew apart from each other for a brief space to take breath, as in gymnastic games, and then rushed again to the encounter. Amazement took possession of the new levies who had come up, as they beheld such deeds done with such precision and in such silence."

Noteworthy in this passage:

1. Veterans in the front ranks (instead of distributed throughout the formation's depth)

2. "there could be neither flanking nor charging amid marshes and ditches, they met together in close order" (in order to rotate ranks, there would need to be enough room to open up the files to open order and then countermarch)

3. "No blow missed its mark" (I imagine some did, but this nonetheless suggests a high rate casualty for sword combat for not a lot of fighting)

4. "when one fell he was instantly borne away and another took his place" (individual replacement as necessary vice replacement by rank)

5. "each one his own general" (this suggests that tight command and control by a superior was not always necessary)

6. "drew apart from each other for a brief space to take breath" (resting of the entire unit or line, as opposed the ranks in the rear)

7. Back and forth combat (instead of sustained sword combat, intermittent engagements over a protracted period)

8. New recruits coming up (Fits with having veterans in the front ranks. It might not go well if a whole rank of recruits rotated into line and went up against an opponent's tough veterans, Better to use them in to plug gaps in the line in between your own veterans)

4.128 (Battle of Philippi):

"The onset was superb and terrible. They had little need of arrows, stones, or javelins, which are customary in war, for they did not resort to the usual manoeuvres and tactics of battles, but, coming to close combat with naked swords, they slew and were slain, seeking to break each other's ranks. On the one side it was a fight for self-preservation rather than victory: on the other for victory and for the satisfaction of the general who had been forced to fight against his will. The slaughter and the groans were terrible. The bodies of the fallen were carried back and others stepped into their places from the reserves. The generals flew hither and thither overlooking everything, exciting the men by their ardour, exhorting the toilers to toil on, and relieving those who were exhausted so that there was always fresh courage at the front."

Notes: This suggests that a battle with all sword combat was unusual. Here again individuals are replaced when wounded, and in this case the exhausted are relieved by the general, presumably ordering up subsidiary formations.


But if you consider ancient literature to be unreliable or insufficient evidence for Roman military practices, the only other way of establishing what might have happened in combat at the century level is to create a theoretical model which can be compared to the archaeological and literary record, as well as subjected to mathematical, scientific, and medical analysis. I think Adrian Goldsworthy in his 1996 book The Roman Army at War 100 BC — AD 200 was one of the first historians to analyze the Roman army in this way, focusing on the stress and conditions a Roman soldier endured in combat.

Phillip Sabin in his article "The Face of Roman Battle" [The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 90 (2000) pp.1-17] took this method further. On page 11 he specifically discounts relief by the rotation of ranks (as was suggested by J.F.C Fuller in Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, and Tyrant (1965) 90-1). Sabin uses a mathematical model of sword combat to support his argument: "For example, even if we assume that just 5 percent of the troops were in the front rank, and that they struck their adversaries only every five seconds, and that less than 1 percent of these attacks caused death or mortal injury, each army would suffer 5 per cent fatalities every ten minutes." He notes that in ancient battles victors generally only suffered about 5 percent of dead, with the loser taking most of its casualties after it was routed and cut down in flight.

In Sabin's model, even the victor would sustain about 50 percent killed or seriously wounded in one hour, if sword combat were to actually last that long. He rather proposes that in battles where there was a protracted engagement of the infantry lines the actual periods of sword combat were brief and intermittent, with lines coming together and then separating a distance, punctuated by longer periods of missile combat. (Missile combat would produce lower casualty rates, but would be almost as fatiguing to the rearward ranks within a century as the front rank, with the need to continuously watch for incoming missiles and to hold shields up for protection, and hence almost as stressful because of the near equal danger).

The burden is upon the proponents of rank rotation in sword combat to either find a instance of it in ancient literature, or come up with a theoretical model that fits everything we know about ancient combat and casualty rates, weapon effectiveness, and the limits of physical and psychological endurance — as well as explain why other models aren't sufficient or likely.

[Calvo]

Quite a few people believe that missile combat lasted much longer than hand-to-hand sword combat, but if each legionary only carried 2 pilum, how would the extra munition come from? Of course there are also light troops, but each of them also carried a very limited number of javelins.

[Bryan]

Desmond wrote:
Quite a few people believe that missile combat lasted much longer than hand-to-hand sword combat, but if each legionary only carried 2 pilum, how would the extra munition come from? Of course there are also light troops, but each of them also carried a very limited number of javelins.

A Few Ways:
- Not everyone throws them at the same time. How many of the ranks actually NEED to throw pila for an attack to carry force and momentum? The rest hold onto their javelins.
- Pick up and throw enemy missiles that have first been thrown at you. The ground would probably be littered with them.
- Have someone run out into no mans land to collect spent missiles.
- Spare missiles are carried by mules arrayed behind the line and maintained by the century's camp servants (purely hypothetical but possible).

Mark Graef, outstanding post!

[Q Rutilius]

Mark: I have been a member for years and this topic has been discussed many times. That is the best single post on the topic I have ever read.

I have always thought that some rotation had to have been done. Now, I am not so sure; probably think otherwise.

[C Crastinus]

In addition to the points made by Mark Graef, does not the prerequisite for being awarded the corona civica, that the recipient must have held his position without retreating for the remainder of the day, preclude any regular system of rank rotation? (Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae 5.6.13, Pliny Nat. Hist. 16.5.12)

[Agraes]

Very interesting subject. Just to add a few comments to Robert's experience in Marle, like said there were obviously a few biais in the fight.

There wasn't much spears used by the germanic side, especially underarm, but quite a good deal of sax, axes, swords. In a real migration period battle, spear would have been the dominant weapon on the field, especially in germanic hands.

Fighting with spears, and especially fighting with an underarm grip, means there would be much less pushing, and more space between the opposing sides, with shorter weapons beeing rendered much less usefull except for gripping shield boards with axes, knocking spears aside, or beeing used on the side of the formation when a spearman would be very exposed to a swordsman.

I have experienced re-enactment battles when we used a relief system, with lot more spears used on the field. That was last year in Hastings. We were in a two rank deep formation and we used relief on an individual basis, not a collective one. When one felt tired or had received a hit, he would retreat behind his compagnion, the later one taking place in the first rank. It worked quite well, to the despair of the Saxons facing us (and we had climbed Senlac hill singing our war song).

Both situations likely happened in ancient battles. In my opinion, a more open type of fighting leaves room for relief system, when a dense clash, with a synapysmos, doesn't.

[Mark Graef]

Quite a few people believe that missile combat lasted much longer than hand-to-hand sword combat, but if each legionary only carried 2 pilum, how would the extra munition come from? Of course there are also light troops, but each of them also carried a very limited number of javelins.

That's the first question that came to me as well when I was going through the battle accounts. After further research, I began to suspect that part of the answer is that in the post-Marian/late Republic & Early Imperial periods not all legionaries carried pila as their only missile weapons — the evidence suggests that the rear ranks in a century were "light armed" with throwing spears, at least for particular campaigns or battle situations. A concise treatment of the reasoning and archaeological evidence for this can be found in Michael Speidel's paper "The Framework of the Roman Imperial Legion" published in Birthday of the Eagle: The Second Augustan Legion and the Roman Military Machine (you can read a good part of it online through a Google Books preview). The section about weapon specialization & light arms starts on page 129.

Vegetius says that soldiers should be trained in the use of arrows (2.15) and slings (2.16). Examples of evidence that legionaries used these weapons in sieges include Tacitus' account of the storming of Cremona in 69 AD (Hist. 3.27) or the lead sling bullets with legio numbers cast into them excavated around Perugia, relics of the 41-40 BC siege by Octavian of an Antonian faction (see illustration on pg. 124 of Keppie, Making of the Roman Army, 1998 ed.) It would not be too big of a stretch to suppose that some legionaries carried slings as a matter of course, considering their negligible weight and bulk. An archer could carry a lot of arrows, but these would eventually be used up in a protracted fight. But a slinger could re-use enemy bullets or pebbles the right size when his supply ran out

Missile combat might include a lot of simply picking up and throwing rocks. Scipio's soldiers and camp-servants used the plentiful throwing sized stones laying around to throw at the Carthaginian light-armed troops in the opening stages of the battle of Baecula (Livius 27.18.12). Rocks could be practically an inexhaustible supply of missiles. (see Livius 9.35.4)

There also are several references to Romans or their opponents re-arming themselves with missiles lying on the ground. (Caesar BG 2.26.4, 3.5.3; Livius 10.29.6, 38.22.6: Sallust, Jug. 58)

Missile combat might also have been intermittent, taking place in front of the standards in open or a very loose order, allowing combatants space to move in and out of range of their opponents a few at a time and not all at once -- this would allow for longer periods of sustained combat.

[Ovid]

Mark: I have been a member for years and this topic has been discussed many times. That is the best single post on the topic I have ever read.

I have always thought that some rotation had to have been done. Now, I am not so sure; probably think otherwise.

Apparently the Legions drilled ALL the time. I always thought the HBO Rome scene would explain that discipline that they were renowned for best. If you have the boxed set there is an interview with the writers that states that scene (and others) were based on new evidence of tactics. They include it in the Phillipi battle scene also .

[Mark Graef]

Mark: I have been a member for years and this topic has been discussed many times. That is the best single post on the topic I have ever read.

I have always thought that some rotation had to have been done. Now, I am not so sure; probably think otherwise.

Apparently the Legions drilled ALL the time. I always thought the HBO Rome scene would explain that discipline that they were renowned for best. If you have the boxed set there is an interview with the writers that states that scene (and others) were based on new evidence of tactics. They include it in the Phillipi battle scene also .

I would be interested in watching that interview. I don't remember seeing it, but I only own the season 1 set. Was it in the season 1, 2 or a combined set?

I remember the interview with Ray Stevenson (Pullo) where he commented on their training and practice for the battle scenes, commenting that he thought the rotation method was a really nifty maneuver. (I also remember how proud the prop people were in reproducing those "authentic" ring helmets!)

I read an news article about a seminar at the Getty Museum at which Jonathan Stamp, the series historical advisor, was a keynote speaker. He readily admitted that the series was largely fiction and what the producers strove for was not authenticity but a realistic feel and look. Sometimes the writers would come to him and ask him if something was authentic, or find an authentic reference to what they were proposing, but sometimes they did what they wanted to in spite of what he told them.

The problem with using semi-historical entertainment for historical study (especially video or film) is that it doesn't come with footnotes or citations. So you never really know for sure what is pure fabrication and what could be a nugget of historical truth from an academic consultant or new, not quite published ground breaking work. You can't check any references. I have a hunch that the writers new evidence of tactics was the rank rotation system proposed by J.F.C. Fuller's 1965 book on Caesar, or some other historical work which incorporated his ideas.

I have no doubt that Romans had an understanding of complex linear infantry tactics and practiced some of them regularly as field exercises, and could do maneuvers that were similar to the HBO sequence, but for different purposes, and before close combat occurred.

[Robert Vermaat]

Both situations likely happened in ancient battles. In my opinion, a more open type of fighting leaves room for relief system, when a dense clash, with a synapysmos, doesn't.

Benjamin, I have some doubt as to the originality of such fighting. Perhaps this works in skirmishes, but open ranks, underarm spear action - this sounds much like one-on-one modern fighting, not a real battle. If real, you would be open to hits from other opponents - exactly what modern 'orchestrated' fight mean to prohibit. I think that the shield wall belongs to spear fighting, and calls for dense ranks and overarm spear use.