The Batavi and Traditional Japanese Swimming

[M. Demetrius]

No matter what form of float(s) are employed, the problem is greatly multiplied when, say, 15,000 men have to cross a river that's 50 meters wide, in as short a time as possible. It's horrific to be caught trying to get across a river when under attack. Ask the Nervii vs. J.Caesar vs. the river.

[Robert]

This topic came up in the: Why do 1st Century Roman groups avoid combat? thread, so to avoid duplicating the arguments here, I would suggest having a look there. Floats are totaly out, IMHO. The main factors are: speed of deployment, charcteristics of lowland rivers (flow slow and wide) and a trained rider and horse. Remember, they only need to swim the deep part.

[Marja]

I know this is different troops and a later period, but...

I remember, because of the controversy over light-armed legionary troops in the late Roman Empire [late from the western point of view], going over the references to light-armed legionary troops in Ammianus. And almost all of these references were to legionaries on shipboard, or in river crossings, or the like.

So much equipment would be too heavy to swim with, except using something to float with, or would be too water-logged to fight with on the opposite shore, or would be too damaged. I doubt the armor could be taken across, since the padding would soak up too much water. I suppose a light raft could solve that problem. I don't know about the shields, maybe some types of wood would work better, and using plain planks instead of the cross-layering?

[M. Demetrius]

But what about the infantry? After all, the water only has to be deeper than the neck to make swimming needful.

I recall a time when Caesar posted a thick line of cavalry upstream to break the current so the infantry could cross more safely, and this was at a ford. But some rivers don't allow for walking across, then, and now. One deep spot, even two or three meters wide, and armored, gear-laden men can not cross without some kind of floating device, or a bridge, or something. Ten men is one thing, ten thousand men is something quite a bit different.

But the real topic is swimming in armor. I don't think the average hamata-clad man with his scutum and sarcina could manage it. IF haste were needed, as in the enemy army on the other side waiting, the general would simply find another way across. Men swim slowly, and emerge from the water at great disadvantage.

[Robert]

You do have a point there, for infantry getting across it is a different story altogether.
As I suggested in my earlier posts, the use of cavalry crossing up- or downstream from a ford is to disrupt the defence of that ford. Crossing a river at a ford unopposed is not really a problem (you can walk across there or it wouldn't be a ford), but as the ford is often as not narrow, the defence can make life for anyone attempting the crossing very difficult, as those crossing would have to deal with both getting across safely and dodging missiles coming their way from the massed defence, then, on reaching the bank dripping wet and out of formation, would have to face an organised opponent.
If a large body of cavalry were to cross elsewhere, these could open up a second front, causing havoc and disarray in the baggage train. This is where speed and hit and run tactics really come into their own. So I believe this is where the Batavians excelled, mounted troops crossing the river (floating next to their swimming horses, the horse dragging the rider across) at an unopposed site, forming up and then ripping loose in a spot no one expected an attack, outflanking the defenders of the ford and splitting the force. No infantry would need to cross elsewhere, with a second front opened, they could force the ford.

[Vindex]

Well, not quite Batavians and not swimming the Rhine either, but you can see how much fun it is in the UK after all the rain we've had...scroll down to half way through...(Kimblewick Hunt in Buckinghamshire, Christmas Eve)...and still it rains ;-)

http://www.ruralshots.com/2012%20Events/.../index.htm

But you can also see how deep the water has to be before a horse feels it has to swim!

[Robert]

As long as it still has a firm purchase, it will indeed just plow on across. It is only in the deepest parts, where the horse loses its footing, that the rider would have to slide off and be dragged next to the horse. The Rhenus at the time was a totaly different river to what it is today, meandering in a wide bedding as any lowland river does, often dividing in several different streams. The Romans have had to put in a dam (Moles) to guide more water into the Rhenus to allow for navigation. Plus the ships then only had a draft of 50 cm (the recently built freighter in Millingen a case in point) A horse can cope very well with a depth of over a meter without swimming (Moi's pictures are great, it shows them crossing water chest high!). So a ford would not really hinder navigation in most seasons, but would be passable for horses and carts and the odd peasant not minding getting wet.

I am looking forward to Jurjen's viewpoints, there are stretches of the old Rhenus left near Rijnwaarden :-)