Some Questions About Ancient (and Medieval) Warfare

[Prometheus]

Ok, so no one knows what exactly happened.

 

I am not sure if everyone saw this series but if there is a tightly packed unit of troops fighting I can imagine they would bumb and push against each others and that these actions would actually go through the troops as a wave. So if you want the first line to fall back through the rows the rows have to be very straight.

 

 

Too bad things like communication and specific unit tactics like rotation of the troops are unknown.

[Furius Venator]

Obviously men in melee combat could last only a short time if going all out to kill their opponents. Of course many did not seek to kill but fought defensively instead. Nonetheless the probability is that units were only relieved when not in physical contact (as opposed to proximity).

'

The men are shoulder to shoulder, three feet per man. How does a heavily armoured Roman (with a large shield) get through a space 1.5 feet wide? He's simply too wide for the gap (I'm 18 incher across the shoulders clad in a shirt and I am not exactly broad. It's simply not physically possible unless you assume they fight in open order at 6 feet per man in which case a Roman might be facing 3 opponents and will not have the moral reassurance of his mates shoulder to shoulder.

[Germanicus]

Caesar does say that tired troops were relieved. At no time does he suggest that this was a replacement of front rankers by rear rankers. What is more probable is that centuries were relieved by other centuries when there was a lull in the fighting.

 

Okay, but the author of the other commentaries seems to :-

 

 

From the African War:-

 

 

The enemy's forces were increasing, and cohorts were frequently sent to their aid from the camp through the town, that fresh men might relieve the weary. Caesar was obliged to do the same, and relieve the fatigued by sending cohorts to that post.

 

I agree this indicates dispatch of a larger body of troops rather than individuals.

 

Cneius, Pompey's son, who commanded the Egyptian fleet, having got intelligence of these things, came to Oricum, and weighed up the ship, that had been sunk, with a windlass, and by straining at it with several ropes, and attacked the other which had been placed by Acilius to watch the port with several ships, on which he had raised very high turrets, so that fighting as it were from an eminence, and sending fresh men constantly to relieve the fatigued,

 

Sending fresh men constantly ?

 

Labienus was continually sending fresh reinforcements, to replace those that were wounded or fatigued.

 

Continually sending fresh reinforcements, to replace those (individuals ?) that were wounded or fatigued.

 

From the Alexandrian war :-

 

fresh men continually succeeding in the place of those that were fatigued

 

My rational is simply that men in the rear would be "fresh", men in the front would be "fatigued".

 

I have no idea how this would be accomplished, as it is obviously not stated. My only dispute was that a Lull in the fighting is required for relief.

[Furius Venator]

The first quote agrees with me, as you point out.

 

The second refers to a naval action. It is unclear to me whether these men are engaged in close combat or throwing missiles. In any event they are fighting across a physical barrier which would allow retirement of a soldier and his reliever to gain position before an opponent could cross over. Troops defending an obstacle such as a wooden pallisade or a tower are not in formation.

 

Reinforcements to replace the injured or fatigued... Labienus is doing this. He is a general and responsible for the movement of cohorts, perhaps even centuries. He's not talking about the replacement of men actually engaged in close fighting.

 

Fresh cohorts or centuries would replace those that had seen fighting. But until I have explained to me a reasonable mechanism that would allow front rankers of close order foot to be replaced whilst actually fighting or have unequivocal evidence presented that this did happen (which I do not believe exists, though it may, one can hope...) then I will maintain that it is far more reasonable to assume that lulls in the fighting would allow replacement, whether by rear rankers replacing the front or by wholesale replacement of a fatigued unit.

 

Troops in combat tire. Stress wears them down even if they're not actually being engaged. Also studies of units in WWII (by both US and UK officers tell us that even in the best units, only about 25% of the men actually fight, as opposed to merely stay alive. Fewer in non elite troops. A unit will waver and need replaced because these 'gutful men' (as the British army called them) tire, lose heart, and/or take casualties. Casualties will be disproportionate from this group also. So as the better men get fatigued, the whole unit suffers. One might argue that the Roman soldier was somehow hardier than a US paratrooper or UK regular longserviceman. But as men's natures has not changed it seems likely that it still holds good. Look at the high numbers of casualties in the centurionate. Also there are numerous examples in the literature to bear this out. But I digress. The long and the short of it is that for a whole number of reasons it is very unlikely that rear rankers replaced front rank men (unless perhaps they were killed or incapacitated). And the best reason is the one I first stated: it seems physically impossible for a man just under two feet wide (allowing for shield and armour) to pass through a gap one and a half feet wide whilst his comrade tries to fall back through a similarly impossibe gap...

[Germanicus]

And the best reason is the one I first stated: it seems physically impossible for a man just under two feet wide (allowing for shield and armour) to pass through a gap one and a half feet wide whilst his comrade tries to fall back through a similarly impossibe gap...

 

And it's a very good reason too.

 

Could you give me an example of what you are talking about in terms of re-enforcement during a lull in fighting ? I ask because I can't recall one myself.

[Furius Venator]

Well virtually any quote where fatigued or hurt troops are being relieved.

 

I agree that they can be interpreted two ways.

 

The first, and most commonly assumed is rear rankers swapping places with their front rankers. Yet this seems physically impossible to achieve.

 

The second is to assume that troops spent much of the battle in very close proximity to the ememy but not actually fighting. Actual burst of fighting would be short and retirements would be as a body, allowing a reinforcing unit to take over. The difficulty with this is merely that it runs counter to the hollywood conception of hand to hand combat. Such withdrawl requires discipline to be done effectively. Hence 'barbarians' would tend to fight fiercely at first as the 'gutful men' (see my post above) amongst them engaged

but when they became dispirited, orderly withdrawal would be nigh impossible and the rout. Drilled troops could withdraw as a body, requiring steadiness but if their foes were tiring after a few minutes of combat and reluctant to follow up then one can see how it might be achieved.

 

To be fair though it is possible that if units met only in very close proximity one might get a situation like this:

 

80 Gauls, formed about eight deep, including 12 'gutful men' engage a century of 48 men (8 'gutfuls') formed four deep. The unit frontages as they face each other are roughly equal, 12 across. The Gauls charge, their heros leading the way and their battle line becoming slightly disordered. The Romans throw their pila, causing further disorder in the Gauls (the heros tending to push on, the rest tending to lag). Let us assume that three pila cause wounds sufficient to disable and that the 'heros' suffer disproportionately (being in the front rank, 2 of them go down). The Romans now counter charge, keeping better order but moving more slowly.

 

Let us now assume that we have ten Gallic 'heros' coming up against the Roman line but that the pila charge has meant that they come raggedly. The other Gauls see that the Romans have not fled precipitately and so slow to a halt, encouraging their mates with shouts and throwing the odd javelin.

 

Let us now assume that the Romans hold. Two of their front rankers are disabled and a couple more sustain minor wounds. In return they bring down another two Gauls. The men standing behind the fallen Romans move forward and stand above them to prevent the Gauls breaching the formation. The two less seriously wounded men hang in there, fighting defensively. Now if we assume that the 'gutful' Romans are more evenly distributed in the ranks then there would be say four in the front rank of whom we will count one as slightly wounded.

 

So we now have 8 Romans, three fighting aggressively and five holding their own against eigt Gauls who are laying about them with a will. After a few minutes the Gauls tire (all that flailing of swords). The Romans are also tiring but to a lesser extent. Another Roman has been brought down and two more slightly wounded. Two Gauls have sustained minor wounds.

 

Now its 8 Romans (let's say two fighting aggressively) against 6 Gauls (the two wounded retiring (they can do this as the Romans can't follow up without breaking formation. The Gaullic gutfuls have been reduced by 50% and are now effectively outnumbered. The Roman front rank is still at full strength and their 8 gutfuls are reduced to 6 (only 25%).

 

Total losses thus far are 5 gauls disabled (4 heros) and 2 heros slightly wounded (a couple of the back markers might have been hurt by the pila too so we'll say 5 down and 4 hurt. The Romans have 3 down and 4 hurt.

 

At this point, the tiring Gauls break off combat and run back to the rest of their unit which, seeing them withdraw, retires swiftly about 50 paces. This gives the Romans time to replace the slightly wounded front rankers and toget their disabled behind the unit (they don't pursue as they have been ordered to hold their ground so as not to expose their flanks. The front rank is now comprised of fresh men (except the centurion who holds his place) and will contain as many reliable men as it did before.

 

If the Gauls come again, they'll only have 6 heros to lead the way and the Romans (though reduced in numbers, will still be fighting 8 wide and in 3 ranks. It's unlikely that that Gallic unit will charge again but if it does it will likely be no more successful. Notice the Romans could probably hold at least one more charge by an entirely fresh Gallic warband.

 

 

Now all the above is merely hypothesis. But it would allow for replacement 'in combat' (the unit hasn't been relieved but replaced its front rank after the Gauls withdrew.

[Prometheus]

I haven't had time to read the last post but since these are accounts from the point of view of the general/commander I am pretty sure it is sending in new troops and not a cohort cycling around the people fighting.

 

 

And the issue about people not wanting to kill the enemy. I thought about that, because warfare is much more hands on than today. I knew about the problem and the techniques that were developed to build in a reflex so that troops would instinctively shoot. If anyone has a historical source that touches on this issue I would like to read it too.

[Furius Venator]

Keegan and Goldsworthy are good on this. For studies of men in battle, the works of Marshall (for the US) and Wintringham (UK) are best. These men were serving soldiers who studied what men in battle actually did. Their findings influence small unit tactics to this day.

 

Human psychology remains stone age. Same for us as the Romans etc. Now cultural attitudes change and we have a veneer of socialisation that abhors violence as entertainment, but now as then nobody wants to get hurt.

 

Once more, a commander would not tell a century to send new men to the front, that job would properly be the centurions (when he did it is the issue). So when Caesar tells us he sent fresh men to relieve the tired and wounded, what are we to believe? That he did the job of the centurions? Or that he did his own job and sent up fresh cohorts (or centuries if he was micro-managing).

 

Instances of the acts of the 'gutful men'. Josephus is quite good on this but Caesar mentions the odd incident too, as do others, not always writing about Romans. Just a few examples.

 

Sabinus and eleven of his comrades (from an auxiliary cohort perhaps 240 strong in action, so perhaps 5% of its strength) are the only ones to mount an assault on a breach in the Antonia fortress at Jerusalem (Josephus VI 54f). Sabinus reached and took the wall alone. Eight survived the unsuccessful attack. All were wounded and brought down by their comrades, indicating that the mass of the cohort was near the action but unwilling to commit until they had seen the results of the assault party of 'gutful men'.

 

Later in the siege of Jerusalem, a centurion seeing a party of Romans retreating in disorder launched a single-handed attack that drove the Jews back in panic. He was unfortunate to slip on smooth flagstones and seeing him fall, the Jews rallied and dispatched him only after a prolonged struggle (Josephus VI 81f).

 

At Carrhae, the Romans harassed by cataphracts: 'Some...found the courage to dash out against their attackers' (Plutarch, Crassus 27).

 

The Persians at Plataea: 'Sometimes singly, sometimes in groups of ten men- perhaps fewer, perhaps more- they fell upon the Spartan line and were cut down' (Herodotus IX 62).

[Prometheus]

I understand that the idea of 'gutful men' and the others just passively following and only protecting themselves would be really important in ancient and medieval warface. But there will also be a difference between enlisted and drafted soldiers, soldiers who defend their wife and children, those who are in it for the money and those who just do their duty in their society by following orders.

 

This does bring up the question about how intense the fights were. I know of stories from the first and second world war where soldiers of opposite sides just greeted each other when they realised neither of them had any interest in fighting. I know about guns from the american civil war being discovered that were loaded 10 times, the soldier just didn't fire his gun. I heard about a soldier in the Libanon civil war that was just standing there smoking with his buddies until they realised they were the enemy, both where so shocked that they couldn't do anything and they just ran away from each other.

 

Politicians have to force war down the throats of their subjects. So they do this by dehumanising the enemy. Without this war would almost be impossible.

 

Maybe most fights were quite passive in that it allowed to refresh front ranks without problems because both sides were just standing there looking at their opponents. Actually there are quite a few accounts of agreed pauses to rest and take care of the wouned. Even more interestingly there is an account from one of the wars between England and France where soldiers were calling challenges to each other. In the end the war was paused and a jousting duel was organised between two knights from either side. I think this created so much respect between the two sides that the war was aborted. Same thing in the bible with Goliath. Why was Goliath insulting and challenging the Israeli battle line? Why weren't they engaged in intense combat? There is also a story about Alexander where his men refused to assualt the wall where he ended up climbing the ladder up the wall with only his bodyguards. Ironically after Alexander was severly wounded his troops massacred the population as a retaliation.

 

I guess Caesar didn't want to write down that he had to force his troops to actually fight by threatening to crucify some of them when both sides refused to fight and nothing happened. He just wrote down the had to 'encourage the troops' because the truth would just make them look folish.

Edited March 21, 2006 by Prometheus

[Furius Venator]

The mass of men in a Roman legion would be willing enough to serve, and to kill if at an advantage (in pursuit for instance). They would not have our modern morals and many would have few qualms about killing a man who was trying to kill them. It is the aggressiveness and/or confidence that most would lack. One must be both brave and competent if one is to successfully assault another armed man with melee weapons. Even trained and experienced soldiers might well baulk at increasing their own chance of injury by trying to kill an opponent.

 

And I suspect that Caesar, as a competent commander, would seek to inspire by encouragement (and we have many examples of him doing this) rather than by threat of punishment.

 

But as you say, the only time the front rank can have been replenished were in lulls (barring a man stepping forward over a fallen colleague which is not the same thing).

[Primus Pilus]

And I suspect that Caesar, as a competent commander, would seek to inspire by encouragement (and we have many examples of him doing this) rather than by threat of punishment.

 

And his method of quelling the mutiny of the 10th, essentially chastising them as a parent would a child, so affected their sense of pride as soldiers and their personal love of Caesar that they abandoned any thought of disloyalty. Of course, Caesar (or Hirtius, or whomever) has a clear motivation in the way the story is presented, but since there were thousands of actual witnesses to the events and we must assume that the 'meat' of the story is largely true.

[Germanicus]

The first, and most commonly assumed is rear rankers swapping places with their front rankers. Yet this seems physically impossible to achieve.

 

This gives the Romans time to replace the slightly wounded front rankers and toget their disabled behind the unit (they don't pursue as they have been ordered to hold their ground so as not to expose their flanks. The front rank is now comprised of fresh men (except the centurion who holds his place) and will contain as many reliable men as it did before.

 

So you just mean that the front ranks can be replaced by those in the rear, but only in a lull in fighting when the men can break ranks and reform.

 

I don't think there's enough extant information to extrapolate all you are saying, but as I have no alternate theory, I'm arriving at the conclusion that we simply don't know. I do agree that the "strap grabbing" in HBO sounds like invention.

[Furius Venator]

When we don't know, we try to come up with reasonable theories. Front rankers can only be replaced if incapacitated (ie collapsed on the ground, dying, unconscious or in too great pain to remain on their feet), their rear man can conceivably step forward over them. If 'merely a flesh wound' then he has little option but to hold his ground as best he can because his rear ranker is physically prevented from moving forward as I pointed out earlier.

 

I'd love someone to come up with a better theory though.

 

Any takers?

[Ovidius]

Perhaps the Romans, with their wider-than-normal-gaps, had a system like this. The centurion signals, the we have a small gap in the front, then the fresh troops pour in, with the spent troops, moving out the fray, like the caracole formation. I Think I sa that in "Rome", the original HBO production.

[Furius Venator]

But how is this physically accomplished?

 

Do you mean that they go intobattle in their open order of six feet per man (that would allow room for ranks to move forward).

 

The only way I can see it being done in contact with the enemy is thus:

 

ABCDEFG

1_2_3_4

_5_6_7_8

 

 

where '3' is hurt and 7 reinforces (the letters are attackers and the numbers are the Romans in open order).

 

ABCDEFG

1_2__7_4

_5_63__8

 

and then some shuffling in the rear.

 

But note that this opens a big gap in the Roman formation into which big 'D' can advance. If you simply assume that another Roman moves forward to prevent that then pretty soon you'll have a solid rank preventing withdrawl. Notice that the legionaries are outnumbered also making their right sides vulnerable to attack.

 

So it seems less likely than the sensible alternative that they formed up 3 feet per man and had to wait until their enemy broke off before the fatigued and injured could be relieved (see lengthy post above).

Edited March 21, 2006 by Furius Venator