Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 2:24 a.m. PST |
Some mentioned that Polybius said each legionare had 3 feet beteen the next man. But that does not make any sanse tactically. It would make it easy for enemies to force them self between the ranks. Adrian Goldsworthy makes no mention of this. I see no tactcal or moral advantage to having a huge 3 feet gap between each man. Is this just another case on unreliable old sources that has been debunked? |
MajorB | 25 Jul 2015 2:58 a.m. PST |
The reference in Polybius (18.29) is to the file width of a phalanx, rather than the Roman unit opposing it. |
Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 3:32 a.m. PST |
Most online sources claim 3 feet per legionary. Sounds to much, would be very easy to force enemies into that gap. |
lloydthegamer | 25 Jul 2015 3:49 a.m. PST |
Perhaps the writers meant each legionary took up a 3 foot frontage, not 3 feet between each man. Quite a bit of difference if you look at it like that. |
Dschebe | 25 Jul 2015 3:51 a.m. PST |
Hi, Polybius XVIII,29,2 states that the file width of a phalanx is 3 feet, as MayorB says. In Polybius XVIII,30,6-8 we read that romans also need 3 feet both between files and columns. It's worth reading Polybius from XVIII,29 to XVIII,31 for a comparative between palanx and maniple for III-II centuries B.C. Hope to be usefull. |
Mister Tibbles | 25 Jul 2015 4:31 a.m. PST |
So it seems we wargamers are basing our figures too close together? |
Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 4:42 a.m. PST |
But if there us 3 feet between each roman, then you just take two soldiers and force the Romans apart and wola roman formation is gone and lots of dead Romans |
Swampster | 25 Jul 2015 5:15 a.m. PST |
Since there are descriptions of 17th century pike units with 6' frontages, I think we may have an exaggerated idea of how easy it is to force between armed men. More experienced blocks could have 3', but the author says this is between files, not per file. Even some of the terracotta warriors look to be around arm's length apart. I should think that while there is a gap between the Roman files, if an enemy does try to interpose then the second rank would have something to say about it. |
steamingdave47 | 25 Jul 2015 5:29 a.m. PST |
This link says 3 feet of space per man. My assumption would be that this 3 feet included the man. As tactics appear to involve shields overlapping I cannot see how they could be further apart. Perhaps three feet BETWEEN files might refer to distance on the march or approaching the front. In other periods it was common for files to close up before immediate contact with the enemy. link |
Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 5:32 a.m. PST |
I still don't buy it, goes against logic, it might perfectly well be the marched with 3 feet between files. But closed tge shield as fighting started. And pikes are not the same, naturally its harder to force your way past a dozen pikes, then spread a couple of shields apart. And even if the second rank helped, you could still just continue doing it, and you would continuesly cause disruption in the roman formations. You loose so many advantages by having those gaps there. |
korsun0 | 25 Jul 2015 5:59 a.m. PST |
You need room to move; what is the average width of a man, plus 12 inches of shield on the left and a sword on the right, makes sense to have 3 feet ( roman feet) per man. That would probably be a standard formation subject to loosening or tightening as required. |
Henry Martini | 25 Jul 2015 6:34 a.m. PST |
Many years ago I read a description of Roman formations that insisted that they were highly flexible, expanding and contracting according to tactical necessity. IIRC an interval of three feet was used during the advance; the formation closed up when combat was imminent. |
Extra Crispy | 25 Jul 2015 7:01 a.m. PST |
I am reminded of the story of three blind men and an elephant… |
Leadjunky | 25 Jul 2015 7:07 a.m. PST |
An attacker wedging himself between two unwounded Romans would soon find himself attacked by three or possibly four defenders if not very well supported. He would actually be just that wedged between the shields and stabbed to death. |
jowady | 25 Jul 2015 7:09 a.m. PST |
You need room to fight, it's not like an American Football line, anyone trying to "force" his way in is probably going to be killed by the legionary's gladius. Remember, Polybius was alive at the time, he saw legions train, he talked with Roman soldiers. I think that for us, 2,000 years later to say that he didn't know what he was talking about is just plain wrong. |
Dark Knights And Bloody Dawns | 25 Jul 2015 7:57 a.m. PST |
So how do you rotate your front ranks if you don't have room to move? YouTube link |
Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 8:13 a.m. PST |
An attacker wedging himself between two unwounded Romans would soon find himself attacked by three or possibly four defenders if not very well supported. He would actually be just that wedged between the shields and stabbed to death. It wouldn't be one attacker, but two creating a door that those behind could force them self in, even if stopped by the second rank of romans, you would now have split the roman first rank creating disorder. Also most modern writers are sceptical ancient sources, and more and more use experimental archiology, and archiology Thats how you attack an shield wall, it would be easier if the romans had 3 feet of room between them. 3 feet per man sounds more realistic. That video from rome show about 3 feet per man not 3 feet between each man. Not that I would use rome as a good source. |
Gray Bear | 25 Jul 2015 8:31 a.m. PST |
Nothing like experimental "archiology" to figure out things. |
Battle Phlox | 25 Jul 2015 8:42 a.m. PST |
Although this is a Greek Phalanx and not A Roman Cohort, I think it is worth mentioning. According to Victor Hanson in his work "The Western Way of War" space was very limited when two phalanxes clashed. They wouldn't have room to use spears and it was difficult to use swords or daggers. I think it is safe to assume the Romans fought the same way. Even in post Roman Europe most armies fought with shield walls and fought in a similar way to the Greeks. Three feet apart is way to spread out to make contact. |
Patrick R | 25 Jul 2015 9:36 a.m. PST |
This is where stuff like crowd dynamics come into play. It would make sense that if experience showed that people have a tendency over time to bunch together to allow for more room at the start of an engagement. It seems the Romans noticed that phalanxes were very tight and inflexible with people ending up very tightly packed. I'm not a subscriber to the theory that armies systematically would crash into each other and hack away at each other until one side broke. While some armies would rely on the an initial rush to try and break the enemy it's more likely that armies like the Romans used a more open and flexible setup to allow their troops to move and fight more effectively and also manage things like fatigue, even a highly trained, high endurance soldier will last only a few minutes in a furious melee with a more open formation you can still close ranks in a matter of seconds if the enemy does charge headlong at you, and you're going to be able to better manage the ebb and flow of a battle, allowing men to fall back after a brief engagement. |
Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 10:39 a.m. PST |
Having tight formations does not mean clashing. Adrian Goldsworthy paint a picture if both sides walking into each other. Not clashing. And he claims after a few minutes of mele, both sides would pull back, and yell at each other and fling more spears, then the mele would start again. The romans them self had wedge formations speificaly to force apart shield walls, it would be stupid to have a meter of gap between each man. |
Lee Brilleaux | 25 Jul 2015 11:34 a.m. PST |
The best understanding that I have seen is this. Each legionary stands in the middle of an imaginary six-foot square. The men in front and behind him stand in a chequerboard formation, so each rank is off-set between alternate ranks. It's eight, twelve or sixteen ranks deep, and quite open. It's easy to manoeuvre, and to pass through. As it approaches the enemy – possibly immediately after throwing pila, which can't be easy in tight formation – each rear rank steps up into the gap between the men in front. They now have half the number of ranks, in close formation of around 3 feet per man. Then they advance the last few steps into melee at a fast pace. |
Gunfreak | 25 Jul 2015 12:28 p.m. PST |
That sounds realistic and logical. It gives lots of flexibility. |
Korvessa | 25 Jul 2015 12:50 p.m. PST |
Wasn't that one of the problems for the Roaman at Cannae? They got pushed in so tight they couldn't wield weapons? |
redbanner4145 | 25 Jul 2015 5:13 p.m. PST |
You need space to throw a pilum. |
The Dozing Dragon | 25 Jul 2015 5:25 p.m. PST |
Tight? Never knew one to buy a round. |
LEGION 1950 | 25 Jul 2015 8:30 p.m. PST |
They bought a round once !!!!!!!!!!! Mike Adams |
Dan 055 | 25 Jul 2015 9:40 p.m. PST |
I just watched a rather silly video on utube of police vs rioters. Obviously fake, or should I say propaganda for the camera, and the formation dance routines look silly but the way they replace the line in contact looks very well done, perhaps something like what the romans did. YouTube link |
Swampster | 26 Jul 2015 3:18 a.m. PST |
Polybius 18.30 is clear that the Roman needs three feet for the man _and_ a space of three feet between him and the next man. He even says that this means that each Roman faces two phalangites in the front rank (plus all the pike [oints poking from behind.
" But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx" link Against other opponents, at other dates or in other circumstances, the Romans may have used a tighter formation. But we have the word of someone who was there and was specifically writing about the differences between Roman and Hellenistic military practice. |
Edzard | 26 Jul 2015 2:33 p.m. PST |
Romans where human beings able to adapt to situations. That said, with a big shield and a deadly sword, having room to use them would be nice. Professional soldiers versus levies or barbarians would be, I think, be able to win 1-on-1 fights. So I think that is what the Romans went for (especially from Marius, or Pompey onwards) |
Winston Smith | 26 Jul 2015 4:52 p.m. PST |
No one seems to have brought up the second and third ranks. They should handle nicely the chaps who "broke through". That takes trust in your unit. Not unlike the British at Culloden who were taught to bayonet the guy in front of the guy on the left. Not the guy in front of them. Or was it the right? |
Henry Martini | 26 Jul 2015 9:16 p.m. PST |
That would be the right, Winston, so as to attack their unshielded side. |
Gunfreak | 27 Jul 2015 2:56 a.m. PST |
And the enemy doesn't have a 2nd, 3rd or fourth rank? Simply by disrupting the firt rank(mot really a rank at 3 feet apart) You get the advantage. The 2nd rank is 6 feet behind, in esence if we belvive this, each roman soldier fought alone, they would easly be be mombed by ther enemy, they would be forced apart, enemy would grap the shields pull them away and kill them.
As said romans THEM SELF has formations spesificaly to perice shield walls. Now just imagien, what would be hardest to pierce. A WALL OF SHIELDS some might be overlaping, with troops behind the first rank ready. Or a formation were soldiedrs stand by them self in 6 feet squares? |
Patrick R | 27 Jul 2015 3:48 a.m. PST |
It would make sense that they leave gaps in the line to allow troops to move. If the rear ranks are tightly packed, the guy at the front is up for a death sentence since retreat is not an option. I'm highly skeptical of those who claim that ancient battles were long, drawn out scrum-like affairs with ranks of people pushing each other forward. At some point the pressure becomes untenable and people get crushed, even if your shield has as a so-called "breathing space" built in, several hundred kilos of pressure will buckle even the strongest man and suffocate them. Some tactics did appear to involve getting into contact, most notably the Greek phalanx, it's still unclear if people fought shields locked all the time with a mass of people behind them slowly building up pressure, or that they had a gap between the two armies, allowing troops to surge for a while before falling back to rest while the others would exchange missile fire and insults to the other's masuculity. Even so Greek phalanxes appear to have been set up for short and brutal clashes, trying to get a definite result in a very brief window of opportunity before exhaustion and the crowd-crushing mechanism started to become a factor, or maybe the phalanx also had gaps to limit this pressure. Taking an example like Marathon, it seems plausible that the Persians would have expected their enemy to pause and trade missile fire before making an advance once enemy ranks had been thinned out. The Greeks did not pause, charging headlong in heavy armour into troops with much lighter kit causing panic in the army that spread and broke their ranks. My guess is that the Romans noticed that densely packed troops did lack flexibility and that they opened up their formations to be able to react more effectively to the changing conditions of the battle and manage their forces more effectively over the course of a battle by allowing lines to advance or fall back when required. Even with gaps in the line, be it between soldiers or even maniples, I doubt that an enemy would have recklessly charged into these gaps as this would probably distrupt tight formations while troops moving into the gaps might find themselves surrounded on three sides. We simply don't have much evidence about crowd dynamics during battles. Troops in large formations would have been hindered by the following ranks, possibly feeling eager to join in, slowly building up pressure from behind. So a lot of care would have been taken to avoid these problems. |
Gunfreak | 27 Jul 2015 4:24 a.m. PST |
But we do know how humans work, humans worked the same then as now. Why is it hard for romans to fight in shieldwall when we know Vikings and medieval soldeirs did, vikings also flung spears, and were have clear evidence for this? What magical thing did viknigs invent that romans can't do? "romans noticed" dosn't mater. If I notice my moped is slow and I fit a rocket engine on it to make it faster, dosn't mean it works. There is a WORLD of diffrece between having 3 feet per man vs shields overlapping. and having 6 feet squres pr man and overlapping shields. If the romans had 3 feet pr man, then yes, their formations would be somewhat looser then a true shield wall. It's perfectly possible this is what gave the romans their "tactical felixbitly" But 3 feet betweem each man, 6 feet to the man behind, isn't a formation any more…. It's single men standing by them self. Try it, get 12 guys have 3 feet between each man and 6 feet to the guy behind you. You will feel very loney. Now try and stand there with 12 guys comming at you with locked shields and see what happens. |
Mars Ultor | 27 Jul 2015 10:34 a.m. PST |
I recall Peter Conolly's description fitting what Mexican Jack said above. Caesar, in one of his battles in Spain, has to personally intervene amongst his troops and get them to space out in order to be effective. |
handgrenadealien | 27 Jul 2015 2:00 p.m. PST |
I would surmise that the Romans tailored the density of their manipular formations according to the local terrain and what they needed to achieve tactically. Take for example Pydna, where they initially fell back in front of the Macedonian phalanx until the latter was disordered in rough ground. Given that they were falling back surely a more open formation would have made accomplishing this manoeuvre easier. Once they went over to the attack the individual maniples acted independently to exploit the gaps opened up in the phalanx by their moving into broken ground. Couldn't say for sure how they would have taken on their Celtic foes, but I would think initially a denser formation, shower of pila then a sharp counter attack once the force of the charge was broken would have worked alright. All this relies on having well drilled soldiers & officers who could make these decisions. We don't get to hear about many of the Romans failures, where through inexperience they got off to a very poor start in some campaigns & it was only their persistence & reserves of manpower that allowed them to learn from mistakes & make improvements, a luxury denied to most of their opponents. Point being the system wasn't infallible by any means. |
Elenderil | 29 Jul 2015 5:57 a.m. PST |
We have similar problems with calculating troop densities in the English Civil War. Period manuals will give details of the difference between close order, order and open order but don't make clear if the distances quoted are measured from the soldiers centre line (so include the soldier) or are spaces between files. From what we know it appears that early 17th century Dutch manuals (based on Roman drill which is why I draw the comparison) do include the soldier in the spacing quoted. Now someone is going to ask what those spacings were aren't they and I don't have my source material to hand, sorry! What I do recall is that (as mentioned above) the spacings were wider as the formation approached the enemy and closed up once the unit was in combat reach of the enemy. |
VicCina | 02 Aug 2015 12:19 p.m. PST |
John Warry writes in "Warfare in the Classical World"(pages 34-7 and 72-73) that The Greek phalanx fought with the aspis, a large round bronze faced shield and a large spear. Frontage per man was the width of the shield (about 3 ft.) and normal formation depth four to eight men. The later Macedonian phalanx used a smaller shield but replaced the spear with a sarissa, a long pike used in two hands. Normal frontage per man remained the same but normal depth grew to 16 ranks. An innovation was the introduction of a "locked shield order" (synaspismos) with a frontage of only about 18 inches. If you look at the shield found Kasr El Harit and use it's width which is reported as 63.5cm or 25 inches then add a bit of wiggle room to move it left or right to stab the Gladius at your enemy, say 6 inches or there about on either side you get close to a 3 foot frontage. |