Rear unit suggestion

[deadtorius]

I watched a u-tube History channel video about shield walls where they showed modern riot police using shield wall tactics, that are most likely copied from the dark past. The only common factor is that it is a human standing in the line, and one would have to assume that our instincts have not changed a whole lot from our ancient ancestors.... although they probably had more guts being willing to look into the eyes of an enemy that is trying to kill you and all

[SRW1962]

Apparently modern police shield wall tactics are copied from Imperial Roman infantry tactics. I used to have a couple of mates who were cops and also wargamers and this is what they were telling me, they also asserted that most crowds react much in the same way as barbarian hordes and the police training was such that they would sometimes deliberately give ground, use reinforcements to prop up an area and help push foward and even have snatch squads that would burst through their own ranks to grab a particular individual etc. How true this is I don't know, it was just their testomony based on their own training and experience in riot situations (miners strike, football riots, racial riots, polltax riots etc. etc.).

[Morbio]

ITo be honest i have a hard time beliveing it was standard practice to send in a staggered line of hastati, who then withdraw, principes go in etc... Withdrawing from melee combat always run the risk of that line turning into a rout, also , what would prevent the enemy from simply keeping the pressure on the retreating ist wave?

I suspect a rout is unlikely with disciplined (drilled) troops because they know the drill and that the withdraw is not because of cowardice, but a planned tactic.

[TheGrayMouser]

ITo be honest i have a hard time beliveing it was standard practice to send in a staggered line of hastati, who then withdraw, principes go in etc... Withdrawing from melee combat always run the risk of that line turning into a rout, also , what would prevent the enemy from simply keeping the pressure on the retreating ist wave?

I suspect a rout is unlikely with disciplined (drilled) troops because they know the drill and that the withdraw is not because of cowardice, but a planned tactic.

Very true, but i also imagine how difficult it would be to turn around and retreat when one is shield to shield with an adversary, just because the withdraw trumpet blows....Also, if troops did withdraw, it would be because their momentum is depleted, what prevents the enemy from keeping contact and surging fwrd?

[SRW1962]

From what I have read on the subject the fatigued Roman unit was withdrawn during an ebb in the melee, in other words what was assumed to happen is that both sides would back off from time to time to redress ranks, catch a breather etc. If you look at video footage of police vs crowds you do see much the same thing happen in such conflicts, the crowd surges forward, both sides engage and then the crowd surges backwards after a few minuted or seconds, unless one side or another gets a breakthrough. With disciplined armies one could only imagine that it would be an inbuilt part of training to pull back and redress ranks etc. every so often, it seems that the Mid-Repulican Romans simply added to this by exchanging units.

[deadtorius]

One would assume that pulling back was just a normal part of battle and it had probably been that way since the beginning of organized armies. I did find it interesting while watching an lecture on ancient battles that in the Illiad chariots are mentioned many times, but how they were used is never explained since it is assumed the listener knows how chariots work and going into detail about their tactics etc was an unnecessary break in the action. The same idea could apply to breaks in the fighting to catch ones breath. Every one at the time knew how it worked so no one bothered to explain it or copy the process down on papyrus

[TheGrayMouser]

Not trying to disagree just for the sake of it but I still have a hard time with troops pulling back once locked in a melee... What was that old Spartan saying ? Return with your shield or on it.. Now i realize the hoplon and scutum are slightly different (and the phrase was more about death before dishonour), but in terms of weight and size by that much? I would imagine if pulling back for a breather was being contested (ie the enemy doesnt want a breather and closely pursues, ) it would be quite difficult if not impossible..
Of course Ceasar etc give accounts of Roman vs Roman conflicts where it does appear troops engaged and re-engaged eachother over the course of the battle so....

To have just a 5 minute birds eye view of an ancient battle i think would give someone so much insite they would immedietly become the worlds foremost expert on the subject

[Morbio]

To have just a 5 minute birds eye view of an ancient battle i think would give someone so much insite they would immedietly become the worlds foremost expert on the subject

That is so true!

[deadtorius]

The old Spartan saying was in reference to keeping your shield till you die, not tossing it as you run for your life. The shield being big and heavy was the first thing to get tossed when the rout occurred. if you came back without your shield you must have tossed it and run away, preserving your life but bringing shame for deserting your fellow troops on the field of battle. The hoplite shield doubled as a stretcher for carrying the dead back to the rear as well.

[Skanvak]

About pulling back from melee? The point is that most of time melee are not melee. Take 2 phalanx, they will stay at spear length for some time. Romans try not to break their shield wall which means that the ennemy can generally withdraw without much difficulty (Roman tactics as I have seen it include keeping ones head bellow the shield, that will make it difficult to see the guy retreating). I can quite understand the theory of ebb in battle for drill troops. Less for mobs vs mobs as it become individual battles.

[gabeeg]

I think that there had to be ebbs in battle...have you ever tried boxing a 3 minute round...it is exhausting even when somewhat in shape. I cannot imagine holding the weight of a shield that is deflecting blows and pushing against bodies while thrusting or swinging a few pounds of weapon with intensity and adrenaline pumping. I just do not think it is possible to stay on the front line for 20minutes+ without becoming combat ineffective...exhausted. Either that or you just died quick. Maybe win a melee or two if your good and are fit, and then get killed because you are stuck on the front line and are too exhausted after 5 minutes of combat to move out of the path of that next sword or spear thrust at you by a fresh enemy. If that is the case there would not be many veterans...does not make sense to me.

In non-line type melee I am sure that the itensity ebbed and flowed when fighting in separate man-to-man battles...you win one after a minute or less of fighting, pick out your next opponent (or they pick you out)...fight for another 10-60 seconds....dispatch that foe (I cannot imagine many one-on-one fights lasted more than 30 seconds)...now you are out of breath and your weapon is heavy and you are slow and maybe slightly injured and bruised...you try and avoid combat for 30 seconds or so to catch your breath before engaging or being engaged again....

[TimW]

Many years ago I did a bit of fencing at school and then some kendo for a year or so as a student. Now, I'm unfit and wasn't particularly good at either, but one thing I did learn is that one-on-one sword fighting is hard work even if you're good at it. No shields involved, and no one standing either side of you and no chance of actually being killed or maimed, so I'm not sure how well the comparison holds, but even so I find it hard to believe that sword/axe armed troops could maintain high-energy fighting for very long at all.

They may not have needed to, of course. Attacking a Roman legion head-on strikes me as like running into a giant chainsaw - probably not much clever fencing going on (not enough room for a start), but a solid wall of big shields with the legionaries making short, energy efficient stabs and cuts through the gaps between shields. Even if the Romans had developed a particularly energy efficient way of fighting and could maintain close combat for a while I doubt opponents who favoured a more individualistic method of fighting could.

Modern riot police may have some resemblance to ancient/medieval military drill in what they do, but I'm wary about using them as a guide to what happened historically, or what an ancient/medieval army could/would do in the heat of battle. For a start, the police usually have the advantages of training and equipment. Their opponents are nearly always untrained, have little to no tactical ability, discipline or competent leadership and are either unarmed or have basic improvised weapons and no familiarity with them; and for every person keen to fight there's usually many more people who aren't keen at all. Even armies such as the Galatians/Gauls who didn't drill (as far as we know - unless someone knows otherwise?) would be familiar with and practice with their weapons and have some basic ideas about keeping a line and working together. The police also have the advantage of knowing what to expect and have a hierarchy of command they are used to obeying. When riot police do get beaten it's usually either because their commanders made tactical errors or they get swept away by a sudden rush of superior numbers (the Romans considered the initial Gallic charge to be particularly dangerous).

There's also the issue of familiarisation with violence, which I'm sure also makes a big difference. Mobs (in most parts of the world) generally don't make the kind of all-out assault with absolute intent to kill that the Legions would have faced. Modern Westerners are not used to seeing, never mind dealing out, extreme violence of the kind that gets you covered in your opponent's blood and entrails. Whereas a Gallic warrior may have been very confident in his own abilities and happily anticipating adding a few Roman heads to his collection. Not even modern soldiers get involved in that kind of violence very often and will generally seek to avoid hand-to-hand fighting if they can.

As to how the Romans swopped lines during battles - I'd love to know. I've thought about this on and off for about three decades and the best educated guess I've seen is that they waited for a lull then contracted their frontage into narrow maniple-sized columns and stepped back a few yards while their replacements stepped forward through the gaps in the maniples of the first line. I doubt very much they'd have turned their backs because it could have been suicidal; I can't see how they'd withdraw while actually engaged without getting swept away and probably taking their support line with them.

Or, alternatively, that they actually fought with gaps in their lines. Each maniple formed narrow and deep with a maniple sized gap on either flank with the second line behind the gaps (like a chess board). The first line contacts, and (hopefully) the enemy halts on contact, or (assuming they don't hold a rigid line themselves) flows into the gaps. Either way it can then be hit by the charge of the second line maniples after which the first line steps backwards to rest. Gaps in the line sounds risky to me, but I've never seen an ancient battle or anything like it, so what do I know?

How to best represent this? WRG 5th and 6th ed. allowed for very small units to represent the maniples, but being small they generally got hammered by loss of moral and cohesion very quickly, and the movement to the rear often resulted in a run for the hills; once troops start going backwards it can easily turn into a rout (which could be historically correct and explain the Roman shift to the larger cohort of course. Or not).

[deadtorius]

There's also the issue of familiarisation with violence, which I'm sure also makes a big difference. Mobs (in most parts of the world) generally don't make the kind of all-out assault with absolute intent to kill that the Legions would have faced. Modern Westerners are not used to seeing, never mind dealing out, extreme violence of the kind that gets you covered in your opponent's blood and entrails. Whereas a Gallic warrior may have been very confident in his own abilities and happily anticipating adding a few Roman heads to his collection. Not even modern soldiers get involved in that kind of violence very often and will generally seek to avoid hand-to-hand fighting if they can.

Things are quite different between now and back then. It seems that as time continues we seek ways to further distance ourselves from our enemies when we kill them. Perhaps this is the results of firearms coming into general use in our armies as we finally could kill from a distance and not have to look into the eyes of the enemy as our ancestors did. I was told recently of the British army doing its first bayonet charge in decades in Afghanistan where a patrol was cut off and running out of ammo in a firefight. The commander was running out of ideas so ordered bayonets fixed and they charged the Afghans, who being totally shocked at being charged buggered off. I guess it took a lot of nerve to stand and face a charge as well as stand and beat an opponent to death at arms length.
I read recently that Pyrrhus troops were appalled at the wounds the Romans gave their dead with their swords. They were used to seeing bodies stabbed with spear points, not have limbs hacked off or nearly hacked off. Seems to have unnerved his troops over time.

As for the whole checkerboard thing, historians are still not sure on that one as having huge gaps in your line seems like a bad idea, but the writings on this are not clear as to how it would actually look or function

[Skanvak]

How many dead people have all of us seen in our life? How many time did we kill our food? Compare your answer to that of a standard legionnaire (or even your great grand-father) and you will have an element of answer.

To comeback to the original discussion, I don't believe the gap in the line. The shield wall has to be continuous, the Greek or Goman ones. But I don't see front line fight all day long and rear line just standing there chatting all day long. If someone can find historical information that would be interesting.

[SRW1962]

The need to dress ranks and take a breather etc. is a very real one in any ancient or medieaval army purely for practical reasons. In melee people people get injured and killed and for those beside them, behind them etc. they are a nuisance as they are not standing in line anymore. What do you do, continue as though they weren't there, trampling over the bodies and pushing forward or do you try to get them out of the way, drag them to the rear etc. If you choose the former then eventually you will have a wall of bodies to climb over and as more bodies pile up you will find that they cause even more injuries and deaths as men lose their footing etc. No, the only answer is that every now and then each side would step back and take time to withdraw the dead and injured and also take a breather. I would imagine that these lulls would actually be longer than the period of fighting as it takes time to pull back injured troops and also take a breather etc. During these lulls, the Romans exchanged their ranks a maniple at a time and if you consider it a maniple only had a frontage of 10 yards, 30 feet or 9 metres so not a massive gap at all when you consider it. Could or would the enemy have poured through such small gaps as they appeared, probably not especially as they would have been busy tending to their own ranks. They might have been puzzled by the Romans and even have commented 'look at those Romans, bloody show-offs!' but it would have taken a brave man to seize the initiative and chase after them into the heart of the Roman army, and if he had done so, not many of his men would have followed as they themselves would have been breaking up their own ranks. As for the barbarians, well they had methods of fighting too, which I don't believe for one second didn't involve some sort of method and I do believe that formation mattered to them as it would any body of melee troops, afterall they had leaders, standards and musicians for the same purposes as the Romans etc.

As for information about exactly how the Romans exchanged their ranks, there are plenty of books about the Roman army of this period that give an insight into how this might work, and looking at my own books I see no reason why it couldn't have done so. In terms of the game I don't think it can be achieved to be fair as it would cause more problems than it solves, but it can be dealt with in a more abstract way by considering your Roman army and deploying it in a way that you feel best simulates the army and not what gives you the best advantage in gamey terms. The first line should be Velites, second line (with suitable 1 hex space between) Hastati, third line (again with 1 hex space between) Princepes, fourth line the Triarii. As for the abstract way of exchanging ranks well this can be done with use of rear support (not so satisfactory really) or if the lists were changed slightly to allow the Hastati to be upgraded to armoured (same as TT lists) this would better represent the abstraction of the bolstering effect exhanging ranks would have on the army.

[deadtorius]

And it would be nice if offensive spear armies could deploy as optional HF instead of just MF, like the TT lists. Why should the Romans be the only ones who get special treatment.
I still believe that pauses in fighting was a normal way of combat that started with the first masses of prehistoric fighters beating each others heads in a long long time ago and was an accepted part of combat. Some armies may have perfected the process but I think it was a natural necessity.
Thinking of the Iliad battles there seem to have been personal challenges by heroes or some other higher rankers while the rest of the boys stand back and cheer them on, then when one falls both sides underlings charge in and tried to grab the corpse to keep or steal the armour of the fallen. Another insight from an earlier period.

[Skanvak]

I remind that the question is about swapping BG in place where movement in not normally possible (narrow valley).

When engage and when not engage.

Even, n FOG there are lull in the battle especially with fortification. An you cannot withdraw your first line unit (not engage in melee but battered down to 50%) with the rear full strength BG because they are in a one hex wide valley and you don't want to leave the fortification either.