Ranks or files

[Jim Webster]

A stray comment got me thinking.
I was trying to put together some 'pick up' ancient rules for the club, because most people will play ancients (or anything else) but they want ancient rules they have never read but can still play once every couple of months.
Ancients without the headache.
People commented on the fact I didn't let troops turn 90 degrees (but let them wheel slowly with the risk of problems doing something complicated)

The problem is that Fredrick the Great raised his head at this point and everybody assumes that what he achieved was industry standard a thousand years before.
Somebody raised the sensible point, you just need an NCO at each corner of the unit.
Now the game was Roman Republic v Carthage. So I had to point out that a lot of the units were 'freshly raised' and I tried to explain about file leaders and a shortage of 'professional NCOs'

Now for a 'Hellenistic' army I can see how, with the experienced (or wealthy) men at the front because they've got the best kit anyway, and a reliable man at the back as a file closer, you have in the file a useful subunit. You could put younger men in each file (in case they had to charge out to get the enemy skirmishers) or tuck your green troops in the middle where they'll get to experience combat without necessarily being in the front and just dying because they don't know the ropes.
But what about a Roman century of the 2nd century BC. Six men deep? Ranks of 10 men.
The contubernium seems to have been a subunit of eight men but was it present in the 3rd century?
Was it earlier a subunit of six who would have formed a file?
So what was the subunit? The file? The Rank? Do we even know?

[Mark G]

Frederick inherited an army with strict drill and training, and cadence marching (in step),

Not true in ancients at any time.

Before that, no one did what his chaps did, so the question is mute., and your sensible somebody is not sensible at all

[Duncan Head]

But what about a Roman century of the 2nd century BC. Six men deep? Ranks of 10 men.
The contubernium seems to have been a subunit of eight men but was it present in the 3rd century?
Was it earlier a subunit of six who would have formed a file?
So what was the subunit? The file? The Rank? Do we even know?

Probably not the contubernium, since apparently we know of contubernales who served in different centuries or even different regiments - implying, surprisingly, that the contubernium was not a "sub-unit" at all.

Otherwise, don't know.

[Jon Freitag]

...so the question is mute, and your sensible somebody is not sensible at all

Does this suggest the question should not have been uttered at all?

[Nick Harbud]

I am always taken by Paddy Griffiths' explanation of the Viking Art of War.  Essentially, you had one keen guy at the front, generally known to us as a berserk or similar and often depicted as gnawing his shield rim.  He went wherever he wanted and everybody else followed in a loose mob.  No need for bawling NCOs, etc.  Keep it simple.

 

[Imperial Dave]

Follow the chap eating his shield.....sensible warcraft the world over 

[Erpingham]

Hmmm, I think PG was on more solid ground on tactics in the 19th and 20th centuries  However, trying to work out how leadership in early medieval warfare worked is difficult.  Essentially, a man of some status in the community (social, reputational, family) is acknowledged as leader. Beneath that, there will be experienced men, perhaps related, or in service or perhaps drawn to the leader's reputation. And the bulk of band will follow their lead.

Now, it seems to me that regular armies are different particularly in having a more formal method of establishing authority and a pattern by which small units inter-relate in a larger whole.  But to view them through a lens of European linear warfare structures is, as already said, a mistake.  A Roman century would certainly be deficient in command by these standards and probably relied much more on its internal social hierarchy in the same way as our imagined Vikings did.  IIRC, Caesar's centurions were expected to be respected as warrior-heroes by their men, not just because they carried a vine stick.

[Mark G]

Follow the guy in front is not enough to perform the sort of complex marching that a 90 degree wheel requires, especially in a combat situation.

Mute was auto correct from moot.

It's totally foolish to compare the 18th c drill with ancients- it's like arguing that because the Greeks knew about using steam to power toys, they should have had railways

[DBS]

One big problem with "modern" (ie Frederick onwards) drill is that it functions best when one has someone out in front giving the commands.  He is able to see where the formation will be able to fit, does it have the room to carry out the manoeuvre, and is the manoeuvre going wrong.  The larger (and especially the wider) the formation is, the more difficult it becomes.  In such circumstances, wheeling a line is actually far more challenging than getting everyone to turn left, right or about on the spot.  It is why columns are easy to manoeuvre on the march, as they have a rather narrow frontage.  So the question becomes when is it practical on the ancient battlefield for someone to give commands stood out at least several paces in front?  Not in close proximity to the enemy, for a start.

A hoplite commander stood in the front rank of a phalanx is particularly poorly served, which is one reason why I am sceptical of some of the claims made for even the Spartans carrying out complex manoeuvres, unless like Xenophon they are cutting about on a horse.  I can envision Hannibal possibly having his Libyans in columns on the flanks of the Gauls and Iberians at Cannae, and simply having them turn left or right into line to flank the Romans as they pushed into the "net", if that is what happened.

The more I think about it, most of the complex manoeuvres mentioned in ancient times are either before the battle, or conducted with thoroughly unengaged troops.  The potentially most difficult manoeuvre routinely carried out (and one we do not understand) is the Roman "relief in place" practised with the quincunx / triplex acies formation.

[dwkay57]

Checking through some of my reference books I found the following:
Adrian Goldsworthy on p80 of "The Complete Roman Army" specifically mentions that men were taught to march in step.
Chris McNab on p152 of "The Roman Army" also mentions marching in time along with other training exercises.
Michael Simkins on p9 of "The Roman Army - Caesar to Trajan" mentions square bashing and different marching paces for Roman legionaries.
Peter Connolly on p44 of "The Roman Army" mentions that recruits drill twice a day and thence once a day.
Phil Barker on p17 of "The Airfix Guide to Ancient Wargaming" states that ancient armies had higher levels of drill than anything up to the 18th century.

It strikes me that all of these authors can't be wrong, surely? And if you think of the formations and fighting styles then a high degree of at least "keeping in line" was necessary if they were to be effective. Would the files of a phalanx advance at different rates? Or would men in a file have different gaps between those to the front and rear than others in their rank?

Going back to Jim's original question: I always thought the century was the basic (smallest) battlefield unit of a Roman army and have assumed that all manoeuvres were performed at this level, including turns, wheels and forms. In my youth as a member of the Boys' Brigade, I and other teenage lads used to do marching drill and became quite competent at carrying out quite complex stuff and we practised for just 30mins each week. So, near-full-time soldiers doing it more regularly shouldn't have any problems.

Agreed that performing them when actually engaged in melee is probably quite a challenge, but the authors listed earlier all refer to getting men to react to the blasts of trumpets and their standards, so some limited "drills" (e.g. swap lines, fall back) must have been anticipated.

[Erpingham]

I think we are in danger of mixing up ideas of what "drill" is here.  I don't there can be any argument that Romans practised their actions.  But their weekly drill may not have been about complex evolutions. It may have nailed the basics that allowed the unit to function effectively, which would still have put it streets ahead of irregular opposition, who may have had weapons practice but not tried moving en masse before being on a battlefield.

[tadamson]

Two questions..
1. subunits
2. cadence

1. Roman sub units:
Roman military practice was a development of Greek, Hellenic, Macedonian practice. All (from the limited written sources) based around the file. Roman sources add the 'tent' as a an alternative to this. It's essentialy the same thing and, much later, imperial decriptions of contubernium being geographically split is from a much more beaurocratic system (very similar to modern practice with detached service etc). Archaeology (virtually all Imperial) shows brracks blocks for squads of 8, later 6, some with additional NCO accomodation). I'm inclined to agree with Phil Barker's thoughts (from our mutual distant past) that files of eight or ten led by the file leader was the operational basis for late republican cohorts, with the cohort as the operational unit.

2. Cadence and drill.
There is a trope that marching in step is 'modern' (variously set as 16th/17th/18thC). This is belied by numerous ancient references from multiple culturs describing it's use, even to the extent of Macedonian, Archaemede, and Early Han troops performing displays of marching and manouver to overawe opponents.
There are repeated refernces in sourced to generals taking over troops, toughening them up with route marches, having them practice manouvers et...

Regards,
Tom..

[Mark G]

FFS guys.

Just marching in step is not enough to perform the complicated drill that Freerick had his troops perform.

10 year old kids who have an outdoor assembly once a week can be taught to march in step in a couple of classes, but they can never perform the detailed drill evolutions that the Prussians could.

if you don't stop this undergraduate level whataboutery, i will start recommending books - and be forewarned, books on horse and musket era drill are incredibly dull.  I've read them so you don't have to.

[DBS]

The other major question is what perceived benefit ancient peoples and cultures might have thought modern drill would bring them. It is questionable what actual battlefield benefits drill gave to Frederick's troops, other than utterly slavish and mechanical obedience, which is a product of parade ground beastings rather than complex drill per se.

[Mark G]

Might I direct your attention to leuthen.

Tell me an ancient army could have marched into that position.