Some Questions About Ancient (and Medieval) Warfare

[Furius Venator]

An advance is a manoeuvre, as I said above. And it requires intervals between units.

 

 

Contrary to what you say, column was used extensively in the Napoleonic period.

[roman wargamer]

Q?

 

Q? Roman soldiers able to withstand 70% casualties? I don't think so. All armies fall apart after 30%. However - there are certain circumstances when higher casualties are taken. caldrail

 

yes I said that. There are such circumstances, mostly when the soldiers involved have no other choice. As I mentioned before, human beings are social animals and warfare is an aspect of that. When you're in the line and men are falling about you stone dead or screaming in agony, you instinct is to move away from danger, to return to the safety of the herd. With humans this occurs quite soon. Most military units are finished before 30% casualties are reached (some run away as soon as the fighting starts).

 

reply

 

i am not saying all the army and history, but merely some of the roman case in the time of Caesar.

 

let's consider this case scenario;

 

and Julius Caesar Legiones army suffered a 100 percent WIA casualty:

 

" At the battle of Dyrrachium not one of Caesar's soldiers came out of that battle unwounded."

 

then how can you do it without the rotation of line?

 

The Military Affairs of Ancient Rome:

Digital Attic v2.0

[Furius Venator]

Where in the Civil wars does Caesar claim that all his men were wounded at Dyrrachium?

 

I think the egregious colonel is referring to a small action fought by a cohort under Scaeva that were holding a fort. Caesar says 'Thus on one day there were six engagements...not more than twenty of our men were lost in all the skirmishes put together. In the fort however, not a single soldier escaped being wounded.'

 

Read the full account for yourself in Civil war III.53

 

So he's actually suffered light casualties although one unit holding a fortification, into which Caesar says about 30 000 arrows were fired, suffered very heavily. A unit in a fort reacts very differently to one in open battle, it is not in formation for a start.

 

I am glad that you've brought Colonel Brady to my attention however. when I am in need of some comic reading, I'll know where to turn...

 

Ancient warfare was considerably less deadly than modern warfare, even allowing for numbers of participants.

 

Where on earth does he get his ideas from?

 

Furthermore, and I am trying hard to make allowances for the fact that English is not your first language, if you actually bothered to read my postings you'll see that I do not claim that ranks were never rotated, but that they were not rotated whilst troops were actually in melee combat. That in no way detracts from my utter disbelief that you can refer to a situation where a unit is holding a fort and deduce from that that similar things happened in open battle. I am even more startled that you quote a (very dubious) secondary source when the original is easily obtainable. Why did you not check? I'd have though better of a man who has studied the Roman Army in such depth and for as long as you have.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Furius Venator

[roman wargamer]

Q? So he's actually suffered light casualties although one unit holding a fortification, into which Caesar says about 30 000 arrows were fired, suffered very heavily. A unit in a fort reacts very differently to one in open battle, it is not in formation for a start.

 

reply

 

if all the men did not engage, and keep in the safe distance within the "intervallum",

they well never be wounded. so it is indicative of intense attack that they need to rotate

the lines to relieved the battered men, to avoid the colapse of the camp front guards.

you say's moving forward is already a manouver, how can you manouver without formation.

 

in the book and film "We Were Soldiers" the regiment's engage a 6,000 Vietkong regulars,

killing around 2,000, but their's casualty and wounded was very minimal, in O defensive formation.

 

in this case, not all of the airborne was wounded, but the bullet use is sure more than 300.000,

 

with 30,000 , in Dyrrachium"'In the fort however, not a single soldier escaped being wounded.' "

 

but i am very aware, that not all the the US personnel in Vietnam was enagage in actual battle.

 

a legio have advance guards, main body, rear guards and the camp guards, etc. i know it.

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

 

 

QA I am glad that you've brought Colonel Brady to my attention however. when I am in need of some comic reading, I'll know where to turn...I am even more startled that you quote a (very dubious) secondary source

 

reply

 

i visit it after someone give the links, it take me only one hour to read the entire article,

but i take his word more than your expertise, for he have a name to be blemish if his wrong.

but i know very well what he means, for i also know the law of probability.

if Caesar was not wounded, then not all men was wounded, as JC was never mentioned been wounded.

 

"you have to learn the elementary of Romanus Legiones Military, to begin with ,

like i do myself more than 20 years since i begin researching ,

 

with the primary purpose of "understanding" it, but never to question the writer lacking."

 

my purpose in reading is to UNDERSTAND , what the writer mean, not to attack his lacking.

 

 

Q? ..."but that they were not rotated whilst troops were actually in melee combat."

 

reply

 

the Roman Legion regular line never engage in individual CQC or your "melee combat" terminology,

if ever that happen, it already means that the "cohors signiferi" and "legio signiferi" was lost,

and only fighting to protect the "eagle" and already means that the battle was now a lost cause.

 

 

Q? My point is exactly that men could not fight for prolongued periods. This would give rise to lulls in the fighting during which the troops may heve replenished/swapped their front ranks.

 

reply

 

NO!!!, if you are the ONE who "dis-engage" and or retreate,

 

the whole army might presumed it you are losing the battle,

or you are already escaping.

 

granting without conceding,

 

"This would give rise to lulls in the fighting during which the troops may heve replenished/swapped their front ranks."

 

here is the problem???

 

How are you going to March Forward the thousand fresh men in the front liner position,

in an "intact" organizational structure and not lost their proper function and position,

and still without effecting a chaos and disorientation in the men you will pass by???

 

if you have no pre-arranged battle drill formation march. practiced before the war.

 

...ask a military drill master, even a fire team have a pre-arranged battle formation.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

may i ask your opinion, how are you going to rotate the men of the cohors and legio? after

 

"This would give rise to lulls in the fighting during which the troops may heve replenished/swapped their front ranks."

[Furius Venator]

Oh good grief...

 

Obviously the Romans had a drill for rotating ranks and a drill for replacing formations. The point at issue is really quite simple: did they rotate ranks while the front ranks were in hand to hand combat. I have pointed out that this is a physical impossibility if they are formed in close order and that their engaging in melee combat in open order is inherently unlikely.

 

Brady is simply wrong unless you have quoted him out of context (and I don't think you have). It is an outright lie to say that:

 

in proportion to the number of men engaged, ancient warfare was far more deadly than modern. One example is sufficient. At the battle of Dyrrachium not one of Caesar's soldiers came out of that battle unwounded.

 

As I say we have a single action (which is noteable enough that Caesar singles it out for special attantion) where one of his dozens of cohorts was so reduced. And it was not done in open battle (where he is very clear that few casualties were suffered) but in the defense of a fortification that came under heavy assault. It is well known that the defense of a building, fort or similar protective structure encourages men to fight on beyond the point where in open battle they would have fled.

 

In the battle to which you allude the overwhelming bulk of the NVA were killed and wounded by air and artillery strike. What's your point caller?

 

And you of course are at liberty to take the word of whomsoever you choose, even that of Colonel Brady should you wish. Personally I'd rather look at evidence.

[Germanicus]

Good post Furius, I might only add that casualty figures in classical texts can be highly exaggerated.

 

In terms of this :-

 

my purpose in reading is to UNDERSTAND , what the writer mean, not to attack his lacking.

 

My purpose in reading is to expand my knowledge, and I want that knowledge to be worth something, so I weigh up authors viewpoints, and the evidence they have to support them, and make a decision. I can never read just one source and take it as gospel.

[roman wargamer]

Q? the Romans had a drill for rotating ranks and a drill for replacing formations.

The point at issue is really quite simple: did they rotate ranks while the front ranks were in hand to hand combat. I have pointed out that this is a physical impossibility ...

 

reply

 

if we take your word that it is imposible to rotate legiones front line men when they are engage,

then the whole line of the Hastatus Prior ( or Posterior ) will colapse of exhaustion,

if the enemy will not dis-engage for the very long time.

 

quote "in proportion to the number of men engaged, ancient warfare was far more deadly than modern. One example is sufficient. At the battle of Dyrrachium not one of Caesar's soldiers came out of that battle unwounded."

 

reply

 

in any war, small independent battle could take repeatedly, until the major one or "the longest day",

not and never single one or one day engagement only.

 

Q? In the battle to which you allude the overwhelming bulk of the NVA were killed and wounded by air and artillery strike. What's your point caller?

 

reply

 

in this battle, it take them few days of continous battle. not few hours , not one day.

they hold them at bay for the air and artillery barrage.

without them at open field, in the NVA own place, i do not think the NVA will come out in open to die.

 

for the NVA presumed they have all the military advantage to crush the regiment.

[Furius Venator]

But don't you see? The enemy will be tiring too. Hence there will have to be a break in combat (unless of course one side simply runs away).

 

You don't have to take my word for it. Simply consider this:

 

if we allow 3 feet per man (Roman close order, approx 1 metre) then in order for there to be a switch the men involved have exactly half that space in which to manoeuvre. I am thin yet measure slightly over one and a half feet across the shoulders (or 0.5m). Yet I am carrying no shield and wearing no armour. There just isn't room for one man to back away whilst his colleague advances.

 

In every single other engagement at Dyrrachium Caesar's losses were minimal, trivial in fact. Go and read the account. The Civil Wars Book III.53. Don't come back at me quoting some sorry excuse for a military historian who has either merely glanced at the original source or (much worse) has quoted slectively to prove his own agenda.

 

I don't get what you're driving at with the Ia Drang thing. Can you be clearer please?

[roman wargamer]

Q? I don't get what you're driving at with the Ia Drang thing. Can you be clearer please?

 

reply

 

when we talk of a battle, it do not litterally mean only one and single engagement.

 

first , it is a reply to give a point that Roman legio could continue to fight even after 30% casualty.

 

Q? Roman soldiers able to withstand 70% casualties? I don't think so. All armies fall apart after 30%. However - there are certain circumstances when higher casualties are taken. caldrail

 

so i give it as refference to prove my point

 

" At the battle of Dyrrachium not one of Caesar's soldiers came out of that battle unwounded.

The Military Affairs of Ancient Rome: By Lt. Col. S.G. Brady

 

a two paragraph combine to give a figurative point, but normally accepted to short written article

that have been analyzed for the common reader, it is now you , if your interested to go on deeper.

 

even if he is 50% wrong, 50% WIA casualty Roman legio detach unit did survive.

 

i considered it almost similar in Dyrrachium case,

 

where the advance guard battalion ( 500 men ) fought in the valley that is controlled by the enemy,

while the rest of the regiment is "on the other side of the mountain" fighting their way to reach them.

while the NVA are doing everything to prevent the re-informent to the cavalier's men.

 

the whole regiment was separated by a mountain range but to a general's point of view,

it is the battle of the whole regiment and considered as only ONE battle.

 

 

Q? if we allow 3 feet per man (Roman close order, approx 1 metre) then in order for there to be a switch the men involved have exactly half that space in which to manoeuvre. I am thin yet measure slightly over one and a half feet across the shoulders (or 0.5m). Yet I am carrying no shield and wearing no armour. There just isn't room for one man to back away whilst his colleague advances.

 

reply

 

the distance in technical term;

 

a milites have a shield size of 30"

distance between each other 24" , of the shield

 

a milites have a free space of 06" inside the shield

3" on both sides of the shield

 

so

 

distance between each other 24"

a milites have a free space of 03" right flank

a milites have a free space of 03" left flank

____________________________

.........................................= 30" space for the rear line men use for the rotation of line.

 

 

the men will only slightly diagonally incline the shield outwards. when the man pass by.

 

"the men , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields."

 

it is the Romanus Legiones "double space" formation' use for the "rotation of the line."

 

different formation also have different "signa" and the Roman use many formation , not one only.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

a qoute by Spurius , to give light that they can move the line while battle engage.

 

"Evolutions" chapter by Vegetius could shed some light:

 

... They should learn to dress in a straight line and to keep an equal and just distance between man and man. They must then be ordered to double the rank, which they must perform very quickly, and instantly cover their file leaders. In the next place, they are to double again and form four deep. And then the triangle or, as it is commonly called, the wedge, a disposition found very serviceable in action. They must be taught to form the circle or orb; for well-disciplined troops, after being broken by the enemy, have thrown themselves into this position and have thereby prevented the total rout of the army....

 

 

are we going to think ? that after the Roman legio front line broke down ,

the enemy will temporarily retreat to rest , and let them regroup or reformed unmolested,

 

it is a common sense to press your advantage vigorously when the enemy are at rout ,

and the whole Hastatus acies line are making a rearward moving of the line behind the Triarii.

 

but the Roman after, "being broken by the enemy,"

"have thrown themselves into this position and have thereby prevented the total rout of the army...."

 

"for well-disciplined troops" have a way for them to survive a scenario like that.

[Furius Venator]

a two paragraph combine to give a figurative point, but normally accepted to short written article

that have been analyzed for the common reader, it is now you , if your interested to go on deeper.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

 

What Brady has done is to erroneously claim that ancient battle was more lethal than modern battle. He has given us one out of context example to 'prove' this. Go and read Caesar, Xenephon, Thucydides or any other ancient writer and you'll see that casualties were generally low.

 

The Romans only had 2' between shields in open order. We have only one dubious quote from Polybius that asserts they fought in open order.

 

I really can't bear this any longer. Perhaps I am being deliberately obtuse. If so I apologise. But we're going round in circles.

 

If you want to come back to me with ancient evidence proving substantial losses, or with ancient evidence that can be interpreted quite unequivocally showing men replacing ranks whilst actually engaged then well and good. Otherwise this has degenerated into "'tis so". "'tis not".