Counter marching

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
A subject that comes up when discussing the battlefield tactics of the Roman army is how the front ranks were relieved. One of the methods used was that of changing the battle lines, a process by which the front battle line was relieved by a fresh one. However some modern studies suppose that within each battle line the ranks of troops would relieve each other in some manner. My questions therefore are these:<br>
<br>
Would in your opinion the Roman army have used a technique similar to the countermarching of 16th/17th century musketeer formations to let alternate ranks throw their javelins at the enemy or would they be thrown in a formation that would keep all troops at their own spot?<br>
<br>
Would in your opinion the Roman army have relieved the ranks of their heavy infantry formations, during pauses between charges, when engaged in sword fighting?<br>
<br>
In my view the latter at least appears to have some serious drawbacks. Not only would this have great potential for confusion within the formations, but also it would place green troops at some point in the closing rank, which would increase the risk of such troops leaving their position and the collapse of the unit's cohesion. Counter arguments and source references supporting the other point of view would be very welcome though.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

The issue of rotation has always been a mystery for me.<br>
Goldworthy mentions lulls in the fighting due to fatigue that could allow rotations but I have a series of comments and questions. Situation: I am a soldier and in front of me there is an opponent. Correctly Goldsworthy points out the there is a whole spectrum of aggressiveness from wild (attacking and out to kill) to mild (just on the defensive trying to stay alive). Both him and I tire at different rates according to training and constitution. Two ways to change a line come to my mind: all at once (like musketeers), or as needed individually (a continuous rotation). Lets indicate the first with MR (musketeer rotation), the second with CR (continuous rotation).<br>
The problem with MR is what will the opposing line do: will the enemy let us do a ballet? Will the rotating lines be momentarily vulnerable to a dashing charge or missile barrage? The only way I can imagine MR to succeed is if supported by a barrage of missiles of the upcoming second line. The soldiers of the opposing line would be stooping and covering themselves with their shields to meet the barrage and then would need to a certain amount of time to recompose themselves immediately after receiving (before sticking my head out I would want to make sure its all over! The dead and wounded need to be replaced and the continuity of the line re-established). During that time interval the rotation would be completed. To increase the time interval one could also have the third or forth lines throw their missiles in successive waves. The enemy would have to wait out the end of this bombardment in a defensive stance. The problem with this is how many pila would the legion have to carry to allow a certain number of line changes? A little math: number of legionary lines TIMES two pila per legionary DIVIDED by the number of supporting lines (1 if only second line throws, 2 if the third line participates etc) = maximum number of rotations supported by pila barrage. Considering one rotation every 5-15 minutes would then give the maximum duration in minutes a battle in this regime of pila supported rotations could last. Maybe more pila could be supplied from the rear?<br>
The problem with continuous rotation (CR) mode might be the difficulty of an individual to break away from his opponent. Could training and armour help make the legionary less exposed and in a better position to impose a rhythm and time scale in dueling with a badly trained barbarian? What about fighting other legionaries (wasteful civil wars). Maybe CR rotation occurred when the fighting was fatigue dominated AND/OR once everyone ran out of missiles. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 3/6/01 4:26:49 pm<br></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your reply. When considering the rotation of troops in the first rank of a formation, whether individually or by the rank as a whole, it seems important what space the individual soldier was allowed. This seems to have been either six (Polybius) or three foot (Vegetius). In the first case there would be room for exchanging places, but in the second case there would be less room and more oppurtunity for the formation to break up. This then brings up the question with what space allowance the files were drawn up for close combat, six or three? Was the six foot an open order for manoeuvre and would this be closed up to three by some means of moving men up to close the line or would this be the actual space retained for sword fighting? Some modern writers envisage the latter, but this does seem an awful lot of room to watch when engaging the enemy at close quarters. The shield wall idea with three foot space seems to me a more plausible formation for close combat. What are your ideas?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

The 3 foot spacing (wall) sounds tight as the 6 foot spacing is too dilute. Probably they are both extremes. The reenactors should have something to say about this if they ever simulated mock battles. I think that missile supported line exchange shouldn't be imagined like a parade ground maneuver with a lot of room. Maybe it can be done in a tight space if well trained and as long as the enemy is momentarily kept in check by missiles thrown almost point-blank! The romans maybe put a premium on training and discipline precisely because this way of fighting requires everyone to meet a minimum standard.<br>
P.S. In another forum I asked if mock battles had ever been orgnanised among/between roman reenacting groups. The answer was essentially a NO. I was told that Viking reenactors DO have competitive mock battles. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
The <i> Ektaxis</i> of Arrianus seems to suggest that missiles, his <i> kontoi</i> almost certainly referring to <i> pila</i>, could be thrown in the closest order, though it is uncertain how common this was. His first ranks are described as to brace themselves for the attack of the Alani in the densest order and for the ranks behind the first (which was instead to stab their enemies with their <i> kontos</i>) to throw their javelins at the enemies. Since this was to be done at point blank range, one supposes that any decrease in range imposed by lack of space would be negligible in effect. Hopefully there should come available some more information on various formations and their range effects on thrown weaponry in the near future. On the Roman Army Forum a member of one of the British groups posted that his group was doing some tests with various throwing weapons and would publish the results of their experiments later on. That should be an article that I am eagerly awaiting since there are so few hard and reliable data on weapon performance as of yet available.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>