Ranks or files

[DBS]

Might I direct your attention to leuthen.

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

You misunderstand, I agree entirely with you about the irrelevance of 18th century drill to the ancient period and the improbability that anyone could  have matched it (or as I think, would have wanted to match it).  But I doubt whether any ancient general would have wanted to fight a battle like Leuthen.  And even then, whilst I am not an expert on Leuthen, my impression has always been that the deciding issue was Frederick's manoeuvres before most of his army came into close contact with the enemy.  In that regard, arguably no more impressive than some of Hannibal's battles, and also not affected by tactical drill to a huge degree, other than perhaps speed.

[Mark G]

I see.
Yes, could the ancients have marched like fredericks army?
Sure - 2 legs, sense of rhythm, professional soldiers you can make do seemingly pointless repetitive movements.

Did they ?
No, why would they- excluding ambushes, the typical battle was by pre formed battle lines moving into each other, why waste time on things they are not useful.

But you should also put that slavish obedience stuff out of your mind, that comes after.  Fred had his recruits out through close benevolent mentoring until they had the drill down cold.  Beatings were only for men who knew how to do it and weren't.

We will leave discussions of sub formation articulation for later

[DBS]

One can debate the degree to which Frederick used carrot or stick, but a) there is more to the history of modern drill than he alone, and b) whilst some might balk at "slavish" for all proponents of the art since him, I cannot think of anyone who would quibble with "mechanical" as a desired response.  Even today, that is one of the goals of British Army drill training, especially in the Brigade of Guards.

Otherwise, you actually seem to be agreeing with my arguments.

[aligern]

A couple of points in this debate.
It makes a big difference to marching/ staying in step, if the unit concerned has musicians or chants. I believe that Landsknechts chanted 'Look out Here I Come ' in German and this would keep the ranks together. This is reminiscent of Plutarch's description of the Cimbri advancing, chanting and leaping into the air. Again this would keep the unit together. It might work for a 1000 man frontage ten deep, but fairly obviously not for managing or turns.
I found the descriptions of ad hoc  small groups following a leader less than convincing . Men fought in teams and yes its very likely that the leader was at the front, but there were social relationships within the teams. Probably the leader would choose good fighters to be either side of him , have his servant behind him with  javelins, have a calm fellow with good skills at the back, put an experienced warrior with the new boys to keep them calm.  I suggest that weapon differences and specialism also interacted with position within the unit. If we think of Hastings, the English have not only javelins, but lignis imposita saxa ( stones tied to  a wooden handle) flying overhead. These are like the heavy clubs thrown from the rear by the Goths at Adrianople . Such weapons dictate their positioning in the rear ranks.  At Northallerton the Northern English placed archers in the second rank to shoot at the unarmoured Strathclyde Scots.
Its opinion. but I suggest that Vikings had an advantage  in that being organised as boat crews gave them a structure for creating units with a high degree of internal structure and relationship. This would be much more practised and interdependent than groups with a more agricultural  relationship.
Roy

[simonw]

The armies of the Ancient world are not a cohesive whole. They varied from Roman Imperial armies (some units of) which were as professional and well-trained as any today to close order mobs with less training than OAPs (like myself) just drafted into the LDV in the early days of WW2.

Not only that but when it comes to wheeling of formations, what size of battle are you recreating? Is it one with battlelines 2 miles long and comprising 10s of thousands of men? Not much wheeling went on there, I warrant.

So, you 'pays your money' and takes your pick.

Cheers

Simon

[Erpingham]

Not only that but when it comes to wheeling of formations, what size of battle are you recreating? Is it one with battlelines 2 miles long and comprising 10s of thousands of men? Not much wheeling went on there, I warrant.

This is a reasonable question and, IMO, it relates to mark's point about smaller unit articulation.  Look at the manuals from 19th century and you will see if a larger unit wished to wheel, it did so using it's component smaller elements, not in monolithic long lines.  It is plausible that the well-articulated regulars of the ancient world did the same.  However, if you had a large body made up of massed irregularly organised and sized groupings, your chances of doing any wheeling (or manoeuvering) would be slim.

[simonw]

If there was one thing that the ancient world was expert in, it was organising large bodies of men, in armies, building projects, whatever. Just because their 'manuals' haven't come down to us does not mean that anything done by anybody in the horse and musket period could have been matched in the ancient world. Alexander the Great's army was pretty good. The Romans were highly professional (at times) and there are others.

Don't ever underestimate the ancients! Who built the pyramids!

[Mark G]

no simon,

you are confusing could have with did.

none of the ancient armies had the drill and training to perform the same movements that later infantry did - because they never needed to.

could they have learnt it?  yes.

did they?  no, no and again no.

please stop enabling this silly comparison.  I know you know better than that

[Erpingham]

Don't ever underestimate the ancients! Who built the pyramids!

The Mayans.  If pyramid building = ability to do 18th century drill, then Mayan armies must be made up of drilled regulars.  I don't think anyone denies the ability of the ancients to organise large scale projects (because the remains of said projects are around us), nor that our documentary evidence shows that some ancients could organise and deploy large forces but we are in danger of interpreting the past through a lens of later development if we say, without evidence, that e.g. the Romans were organised like early modern European ones.

[dwkay57]

But if - as discussed on another thread that I can't find now - we've accepted that the Romans swapped ranks and that skirmishers passed through ranks of hoplites, how did they do that without any "drill"?

Based on what I keep reading in my reference books and seen on various (serious) programmes, my view is that square-bashing type drill (that probably incorporated or extended into weapons training) would have been a regular activity in some armies where the soldiers were full-time or near-full-time.

[Erpingham]

But if - as discussed on another thread that I can't find now - we've accepted that the Romans swapped ranks and that skirmishers passed through ranks of hoplites, how did they do that without any "drill"?

Do either of these take more drill than opening and closing ranks?  We know that Hellenistic armies could do this and we know Byzantines could, so I doubt the Romans lost the ability.  But, again, there is a difference between standard practised ways of doing things (drills) and precision, cadence regulated, square bashing (drill). AFAIK, we lack detail of how Roman tactics were delivered on the ground, especially at small scale, and we risk overstating ability by reference to later models.

[Mark G]

you were warned.

required reading for further participation in this thread.

Nafziger - Imperial Bayonets
Duffy - Military Experience in the Age of Reason
Nosworthy - Anatomy of victory
Quimby - Background of the Napoleonic wars
Duffy - The Army of Frederick the Great
Duffy - Russia's Military way to the West
Lynn - Bayonets of the Republic
Griffith - Art of War in Revolutionary France
Muir - Tactis and Experience of Battle
Nosworthy - Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies
Zmodikov - Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars (both parts)

at least 4 must be read and understood.

but as a short cut,
if anyone can identify anything in any ancient army - even a medieval one - where a basic formation was subdivided into 8 (or 6 to 10) identical components, each officered and sub officered and drilled individually and collectively on a daily basis and ONLY on marching in step correctly until it was able to be included in multi unit groupings for further drill, then I will happily listen to their further contributions.

the rest of you - please just stop.

go and do some of the above reading, and then reconsider whether any of what you have learned, or any of the highly detailed diagrams used to explain how these evolutions were performed actually has a parallel in your understanding ofancient military movements.

because it doesn't.

A basic batallion in Fredericks army was subdivided into 8 platoons, each of which had a 3 lieutenants and 6 NCOs all tasked with maitaining correct formation and step.
8 of those 2 a batallion, 2 of those to a regiment in the field, 2 regiments to a brigade, etc.
they trained and deployed in these formations permanently because it was so much more complicated than you think it was.

a lot more complicated than any of the whataboutery thrown in here already.

the comparison is just rediculous once you look into it.

[simonw]

Mark, Anthony (no pun intended), I do not contend that ancient armies were drilled like those of Frederick the Great but I would contend that many were drilled in accordance with their preferred mode of fighting. Romans throwing Pila for instance.  Roman Line Relief protocols. Spartan Phalanx drills(countermarch) etc. are just a couple of examples; albeit we don't actually have hard-copy historical records of the drills written down.
So all I would contend is that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence when it comes to the ancients capabilities in manoeuvring large bodies of formed troops on the battlefield. They were not inferior just because they were about a long time ago. The pyramids are material evidence of the Egyptians' capabilities to mobilise and organise large labour forces and support them with all the associated logistics and training.

Do not underestimate the ancients! They were people like us and just as sophisticated in their own ways. It was only the technologies that were different not their personal and societal competencies in management and organisation.

[simonw]

The Ermine Street Guard (Imperial Roman re-enactors) march 'in step' (sinister-dexter, sinister-dexter).

Alexander the Great's army campaigned 5,000km from home. They were pretty competent at marching, I'd guess.

An interesting link on Roman marching camps; http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arch/Roman-army-campaigning.htm

Cheers

Simon

[Erpingham]

So all I would contend is that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence when it comes to the ancients capabilities in manoeuvring large bodies of formed troops on the battlefield. They were not inferior just because they were about a long time ago.

Firstly, I think noting difference is objective, assigning inferiority is subjective.  I'm pointing out difference. In the absence of evidence it is a judgement call what you think the evidence would be were you to find it. Perhaps, I just take a more cautious view than some.

It was only the technologies that were different not their personal and societal competencies in management and organisation.

Their social organisations were often very different to ours, as were their economies.  Military organisation often differed and what we recognise as regular professional militaries were rare.