After The Charge!?

[Spurius]

I never understood how they could rotate the front rank?surelly when the front try to disengage,the enemy can swarm into the gaps in the lines.Unless the enemy stop bashing hell out of your shield and leave you alone to finish the manuvre,i cant see that happening.

Longbow

 

In the speeches supposedly given to legionaires before battle, much was usually made of their physical endurance. Even if you disregard them as flowery afterthoughts, there would still probably be some decurian loudly reminding you how weak and feminine your opponents are.

 

The legions did a full regiment of PT besides all of the rest of their hard work days. They were as a group in superior physical condition to any non-professional army they faced. They were able to last in combat longer than their opponents.

 

Now, that means as the first rush of the enemies falls away with exhaustion...the Romans could then eother press on, stop up with the frontline still able to hold while the fresh troops move up through the lines to continue the advance, or if immobile on defense the fresh troops could come up and tired legionaires retire to rest.

 

A non-professional army would pile on top of itself trying to get at the enemy, forcing the exhausted troops onto the fresh Romans, or even a combination of fresh and tired Romans still able to fight.

 

Also, as noted above, the fights were not continuous all up and down the line. Quick and disciplined movement of ranks would let the Romans change ranks, or even just ground shields for a fast breather. It's only when you had the mad bunching of desperate men that you got the big slaughters going. Most of the time, it was Romes enemies who were desperate.

[longbow]

Well thanks Spurios,that explanation has cleared it up for me

[Virgil61]

I never understood how they could rotate the front rank?surelly when the front try to disengage,the enemy can swarm into the gaps in the lines.Unless the enemy stop bashing hell out of your shield and leave you alone to finish the manuvre,i cant see that happening.

Longbow

 

Good question, to add to Spurius' post I think the answer may be fairly simple. These battles could take hours and there had to be- great PT or not- pauses in the fighting on both sides as combatants stopped to take their breath, rest, get a drink, etc. Imagine thousands of soldiers hours on line, there's no way to keep up that sort of physical intensity hour after hour.

 

My guess is that during these pauses or lulls were when the rotations took place.

[Aquilifer]

What would happen to a cavalry rider who was unhorsed during the charge? Would he have been able to get to the main battle, or would he have been trampled? And once there, what would he have done?

[Tobias]

He wouldn't be in an enviable position i'd have to say

[Lex]

I don't how relevant this might be, since it relates to modern warfare. During WWII in the North African Campaign, the Axis and Allies had a type of common agreement that both sides stopped fighting in the late afternoon at I think about 5 o' clock. Both sides would then be allowed to send medics on the battlefield to recover the wounded without the fear of being shot. This agreement was obviously of mutual advantage, so I guess it makes sense that both sides would generally abide by the custom.

 

The point is, that I can see reason in both sides stopping fighting for a while to move fresh troops to the front and also for the troops to get refreshments and briefly rest. I remember at school a teacher of ours telling us in class when we were reading "Julius Caesar" that especially when two legions were fighting each other in a battle, that the troops used to rotate so that they remained fresh.

 

Those who were in the front lines would apparently go back through the ranks and recover, get water, have wounds tended to and perhaps get their armour seen to if it was badly damaged. They would then go back to the formation and the process would be repeated.

 

I must admit I only really see this working properly in a Civil War or against another country with a relatively professional army.

[Onasander]

Is there anyone here stumped as to how they started fighting in rank and file besides me?

[Lost_Warrior]

I think they just like...marched up and started fighting each other...one or the other army would usually charge. I read somewhere that centurions would be taunting the other leaders, challenging them to single combat and such...

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

Are you asking how the rank and file system of warfare evolved, or how the initial battle began? The system evolved from the need to find a way to effectively pit large numbers of foot soldiers against another large body of foot sloggers, cavalry, or chariots. Some smart old warriors started to realize that with large numbers comes trouble controlling them. If you take a big milling group and begin to subdivide them into workable units, and then arrange them into some kind of order, then you are able to do more than if you just jumped in front of a mass and yelled "CHARGE!". As the use of cavalry became more widespread during the Indo-European invasion, then need to stops cavalry charges became neccesary. Cavalry charging a milling mass will easily penetrate it and be able to disengage, and regroup almost at will. Conversly charging a well drilled, organized unit armed with pikes and shields is alot harder. It wasn't untill the development of the stirrup that armored cavalry was truly able to charge an infantry line effectively. The rank and file system also appealed more to human nature. Usually human nature isn't to go screaming and charging while waving swords around regardless for your own well-being. However, to form an artificial wall of shields and then to fight from behind that wall is easier for the common soldier. The rank and file system was more suited for common soldiers from a psychological perspective. If you ever get a chance, watch a pickup game of soccer or football played on a school playground where both teams are larger than normal. Usually you have a few kids who are always pushing ahead out into "enemy territory" chasing the ball and being aggresive. Then you have a few who hang back and are less motivated. The buld though are in the middle, jumping on the ball when it is near by, but not chasing it if it is out of their area. The same applies to battles between unorganized groups. There are the ones up front charging into the depths of it trying to gain victory, honor or whatever else. then you have the ones that are slowly edging their way off the battle field, trying to get out of the way. Most, however are in the middle trying to stay alive, but aren't ready to run yet. The system just works well, as evidenced by many many years of being around.

[Onasander]

Usually human nature isn't to go screaming and charging while waving swords around regardless for your own well-being

 

 

I disagree on that, defensive fighting from behind a shield war is unnatural. For a way of fighting to be natural, your aggression and adreniline must be syncronised.... I don't know of any modern way of warfare cept back alley/bar fights that fit's the bill.

 

Was it really out of a way to maximize effectiveness in battle? I really don't see this system surviving contact with the enemy when it was first conceived of, nor even it's full genius realized. The common soldier had to of said screw ranks and the files when he saw the enemy charge for the first time and reverted to the old system.

 

Was it really designed for better overall effectiveness? Or was it the result of a singular reason, like a need for speed, or agility, or better control by it's leadership, the special needs of a adopted weapon, or even for spiritual reasons, like a Roman commanders (or even a families) adherance to a number cult (wasn't Pythagoras from suothern Italy?)

 

It seems so utterly simple to us, rank and file, almost natural. Many of the great states thrughout history employed it, some developing it independantly, others learning it from their neighbors. But, I don't think it's natural in the least, and it probably takes generations of practice to get it right. But within those generations of development, something must act as a anchor holding adhearance to this newly devoloped doctrine before it's full effectiveness is known. I think the rise of roman power is directly related to this question, and may very well prove to be the basis for roman superiority in the field in it's earliest of days, thereby establishing it as Rome's greatest military innovation.

[Tobias]

As far as it not being human nature to go screaming and charging, perhaps one should think of the Viking Berserkrs...

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

I agree that rank and file isn't a natural way to fight. It definitely does require lots of practice and drilling in order to get it right. What is natural is the human fight or flight response, and in most cases that primal need to get away from trouble wins out. Most human evolution has been geared towards the "get out of Dodge" response. But when that response is put against the social unacceptance of running away it kind of cancels out, hence most people stick to the middle. Rank and file was one of the ways to try and use a body of men who are running the spectrum from running away to blindly charge. I didn't mean to imply that was the only reason, because all the other stated reasons are just as important and valid. Very rarely is anything done for a single reason. I don't neccesarily think it took generations to implement those changes because once something works it usually catches on pretty quick. The one thing it will take is discipline during training. Under the right circumstances humans can be taught to do just about anything whether it is natural or not. All you would really need is the initial idea and the right people to carry it through. Take thos crazy airborne soldiers. Jumping out a plane is definitly NOT natural. However once the mecahnics of it was understood and the right skills were identified, all that remains is for some very loud aggresive instructor to pound it into your brain. Suddenly you are jumping out of an airplane. As far as Viking Berserkers go, that is a learned attitude. If you grow up in a society that teaches and rewards Berserker charges then eventually you will over ride those natural actions. Berserkers probably weren't the norm like most of the farmers of Europe, instead they were raised as warriors.

[Flavius Scipio]

generally the rank and file method was used in the more "civilized" armies and it helped to form soldiers into these units to fight more effectively rather than fighting as individuals like the beserkers. also when they charged the idea was to batter the first enemy line down with your shield and then thrust your swords into the second line. then you pull back a short way and continue, or that was the idea but if you could not pull back then you would try and keep fairly level with the men on either side of you to keep the line fairly straight, so as to fight more effectively as a unit.

[Onasander]

I feel that martial responsibilities of comprehending and choosing to stick to a rank and file system can only develope once survivalbility becomes a exclusive group activily, like in the desert tribes and early city states where subsistance and defence was no longer readily available to the lone homestead but rather only possible to the larger, socially minded human co-operatives. The greater the dependancy of the family on the group, the more willing was the soldier to put himself into formations that used the strength of those neighboring him in battle than his own capabilities, as well as put himself in harms way for thier defence. I'm sure there are are hundreds of varients humans used over thousand, if not hundred of thousand years of tribal warefare ofther than rank and file, it's just the rank and file proved itself the most succesful in early historical times to recent times, though by World War I, it had quickly lost it's favor over more dynamic and fluid formations.

[Guest Hagen von Tronje]

The spacing is really hard to do, I've been in a few formation snowball fights, we tried once to hold our formation and charge, and it collapsed real quick and turned into team wedge attacks. We got nothing to do in Alaska during the winter time cept to fight while waiting around for the 1SGT's formations, and I've found out it's not natural to fight rank and file..... not at all! People like using thier strengths, not sacrificing for another man's weaknesses. I greatly admire the romans and the other ancients for this, a hundred yards with two platoons going at it is complete chaos, can't hear nothing beyond the group fighting next to you. How they ever managed it in the beginning is a total mystery to me.

 

This organized fighting is what made Romans, and the Greek phalanx before them, so vastly superior when compared to other 'barbaric' styles of warfare. Never underestimate the threat to the individuals life during a battle. Romans, and Greeks for that matter, fought surely more efficient, knowing that the man beside them would not be likely to give way and provide some cover for them, thus heightening the individuals chance of survival. It must have worked wonders on fighting morale. The importance of soldiers seeking protection was evident in many accounts of battles involving phalanxes - the phenomenon that the entire phalanx would shift to the right (correct me if it was to the left ), because the individual would try to get the maximum possible cover from the man next to him.

 

When you stand alone, on the other hand, you cannot fight efficiently AND take care what happens to your left, right or at your back. Romans, on the other hand, could focus fully on what was directly in front of them. I believe that counted for much more than skills with weapons or battlefield experience. You could put an average man, with some training of course to maintain formation, anywhere in the line, and he would likely perform very well. It did not take great individual courage or skills. Quite ingenious.

 

And, a little bit off topic, concerning Berserkers, at least the parts that can be considered more than being 'myth' concerning these, had likely to do with a great deal of drugs, specifically taking fly agaric. I have tried it, and well, it produces some sort of euphoria, and seems to override fear and pain (to some extent), much like alcohol, but without dulling the senses that much as being drunk. So there you got another way of overriding natural instincts, and explaining the image they had of being totally reckless.