Regarding the Gladius and Mail

[Robert Vermaat]

He's extrapolating on Philip Saban's work, but there's a citation for it... what you heard and considered dumb, and what happened in history may be two different things.

Or you can read about incidents and recognize them for what they are because you know of the context.

What is described about the standards clearly signifies that these were incidents, based on local needs and circumstances. Unlike in modern reenacting, Roman battle standards were carried at the front of the line. Only a rank of fighters (the antesignani, ‘those who fight in front of the standards’) separated them from the enemy. Of course those carrying the standards were often killed, which often happened to junior commanders and all who led from the front. But then you only became a standard bearer when you had proven yourself in battle on earlier occasions.

So why were standards NOT flung into the enemy as a rule? Well, that’s because the main task of a standard in the first place is to act as a focal point and a signal to all troops, who won’t be able to hear all vocal commands over the din of battle. All soldiers look to the standards at some time for those reasons. Flinging tem away would be totally counterproductive, and therefore if it was done the reason would have been extraordinary. Adrian is right about that - losing a standard was a capital offense!

The ‘true cross’ was mounted on a wagon (as was common with main medieval army standards) and it was lost, not flung into the ranks of Saladin’s troops.

Logically, I think he's almost certainly correct in his hypothesis.  Imagine being a front line soldier, wildly stabbing.  You kill a man, and...?  Someone takes his place.  This continues until you're killed.  
Human psychologically doesn't work in this manner and could not take this strain;  we're not terminators.   Battles that last all day with two joined lines?  Eh... even the physical exhaustion alone of standing there in gear, much less dodging attacks and fighting.  Yarmouk lasted SIX days.

Sabin says a lot of things, some of them totally counter to Roman battlefield strategy:
"Why would parts of each line sporadically surge forward into contact? The key individuals would surely be the 'natural fighters' and junior leaders, who would encourage a concerted lunge forward to overcome the understandable reluctance among their comrades to be the first to advance into the wall of enemy blades. Roman sub- units such as centuries, maniples, and cohorts offered an ideal basis for such localized charges, whereas tribal warriors would mount less disciplined attacks led by the bolder spirits among them."

Actually Roman tactics would be to await those undisciplined enemy attacks, quickly counter them and move into the gaps. Small units attacking themselves would be open to enemy counter-attack and give away their tactical advantage of discipline and missile support.

But indeed, battle that lasted all day would usually involve a lot of marching and counter-marching, and of course waiting. And when battle was eventually joined, there would be lulls in the fighting in order for the men to catch their breath.