How continuous was combat?

[Patrick Waterson]

Rope a dope technique.
This was Muhammad Ali's way of dealing with George Foreman. Ali sat back on the ropes protecting himself and letting Foreman tire himself out ...

If we are back to boxing as a measure of human endurance, try these.
1) Longest bare-knuckle fight in America
2) Longest gloved boxing match in America
3) Longest bare knuckle fights worldwide

And, out of interest, regarding a man who was probably a better boxer than Cassius Clay:
Joe Gans.

One big demerit of the 'continuity' case is that, given that we are talking about several thousand men in contact both sides could become so exhausted that there would be no decision.

And this seems to be exactly what happened in Dionysius VIII.63.2

"It seems that even before their expedition the Volscians and the Aequians had led an army against the Roman territory, having resolved not to let the opportunity slip, but to attack their adversaries while they seemed to be sit panic-stricken; for they thought that in their fear they would surrender of their own accord. But quarrelling among themselves over the command, they rushed to arms, and falling upon one another, fought without keeping their ranks or receiving orders, but in confusion and disorder, so that many were killed on both sides; and if the sun had not set in time to prevent it, all their forces would have been utterly destroyed. But yielding reluctantly to the night which put an end to the quarrel, they separated and retired to their own camps; and rousing their forces at dawn, both sides returned home."

[aligern]

Good quote Patrick, and I find it comfortingly supportive of punctuated flurries of combat. The Volscians and their opponents go at it without organisation and exhaust themselves so no one is a winner.  Makes the point beautifully.


Roy

[Erpingham]

Patrick does not have a 'continuous combat' theory.

Perhaps if I call it a model?  For example, I don't think all advocates of continuous combat would say that the man at the front of the file was pinned in place till he was killed or died through blood loss - some might see a rotation of ranks as necessary.  Then there is what counts as combat - you have allowed not just physically striking with weapons but also shooting missiles or engaging in a scrum-like pushing match.  So you have a model which forms the lens through which you view the evidence.  This is perfectly normal intellectual behaviour.

If we go back to the well worn line about Romans and Persians (on which you invited my observations)

First, the author (Ammianus?) makes it clear this fight forces the Persians to behave abnormally.  They are cavalry and normally move in and out of combat shooting.

Second, we don't seem to have a duration of combat, although the Romans endure better.

Third the highlighted line

And in the heat of the combat that followed, the clash of shields, the shouts of the men, and the doleful sound of the whirring arrows continued without intermission.

There is nothing in the English translation that implies that all people on the field did all of these things simultaneously.  It's evocative but (I think) echos classical descriptions in its styling.  Also it doesn't tell us everything. If we insist on being literal, the Romans use no weapons except shields and arrows (assuming they are Roman arrows).  I don't believe that - I think that they used the spears, swords, pilum-type weapons and even darts which they were apparently issued.  So, if the author was more interested in giving an evocation of hard fighting (which I think he does very well) rather than a precise description of low-level tactics of Roman infantry, I can't see how we can claim that there is anything probative in the passage about discontinuous or discontinuous combat.

[aligern]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Prize_Ring_Rules
The notes at the front explain how the boxers not only only get 30 second rests, but go down from a weak blow in order  to get another 30 second breather and a drink.
That introduces another limiting factor to ancient combat, how was refreshment organised? Intense physical activity in armour on a hot day would demand rehydration. Have we any indication how this was accomplished?
Roy

[Mark G]

One of the better passages in a good pot boiler novel on the siege of Malta, featured the armoured Christian defenders rotating back from the immediate breech to refresh themselves with bread soaked in wine passed around in buckets by the non fighting monks. ( the religion, Tim willocks).

Albeit modern fiction, and a siege defence of a narrow breech, the passage worked very well .

(an entertain summer read, BTW, but the follow up on the Bartholomew massacre is rubbish.  Maybe part three will redeem the trillogy it it makes it to print)

[aligern]

Looking at The Battle of Maldon
The armies advance to battle and commence fighting. Then there are several advances and stepping forwards by Vikings to fight against Byrrhtnoth. Of course there s is a poem, but if it dies give a good approximation to combat then there is clearly enough separation for warriors to have to advance to recomjence combat. An alternative would be that both sides advance to witni a few yards and then halt with individuals advancing to combat and then dying or falling back. That would accord rather well with punctuated flurries, with the modification that combat was not actually joined along the whole line initially, but can't mmenced with flurries. I would find that difficult to square with Roman accounts where a mass coordinated throw of pila and then sword fighting along the line looks to be what is described.


Roy

[Erpingham]

Maldon does seem to fit a suggested early medieval pattern of lines in close proximity, either at short missile range or spear-poking range, and sallies into the enemy line.  Whether this pattern can be extrapolated to other periods is of course harder to judge.   

[Duncan Head]

...(a) pattern of lines in close proximity, either at short missile range or spear-poking range, and sallies into the enemy line.

Which could be described either as "continuous" or as "intermittent" combat, depending whether one stresses the continuing spear-chucking or the intermittent sallies.

[aligern]

It would have to be a very low rate of continuous spear chucking or soon all the spears would be gone.
Roy

[Erpingham]

...(a) pattern of lines in close proximity, either at short missile range or spear-poking range, and sallies into the enemy line.

Which could be described either as "continuous" or as "intermittent" combat, depending whether one stresses the continuing spear-chucking or the intermittent sallies.

Absolutely I think, if you were in it, it would feel quite continuous, albeit varying in pace.  A warrior in the line would be under continuous threat of violence. To an outside observer, though, the ebb and flow might be noticeable (the shoreline with promontories image in the Irish Pharsalus, for example).

[Patrick Waterson]

Good quote Patrick, and I find it comfortingly supportive of punctuated flurries of combat. The Volscians and their opponents go at it without organisation and exhaust themselves so no one is a winner.  Makes the point beautifully.

Yes, but which point, given that organising an intermission without getting the would-be departees massacred when both armies are unorganised is conceptually even more challenging than when they are acting as entities?

Patrick does not have a 'continuous combat' theory.

Perhaps if I call it a model?  For example, I don't think all advocates of continuous combat would say that the man at the front of the file was pinned in place till he was killed or died through blood loss - some might see a rotation of ranks as necessary.  Then there is what counts as combat - you have allowed not just physically striking with weapons but also shooting missiles or engaging in a scrum-like pushing match.  So you have a model which forms the lens through which you view the evidence.  This is perfectly normal intellectual behaviour.

With all due respect, it sounds more like a priori self-inflicted distortion to me.  Better in my view to air as much evidence as we can find and see where it points.

Here is an interesting action: First Philippi, Romans against Romans.  (Cassius Dio XLVII.44)

"For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword, as they were at first cautiously looking for a chance to wound others without being wounded themselves, since they were as eager to save themselves as to slay their antagonists ..."

This may be a key to low casualty counts in extended actions.  Where we have two sides using an identical combat technique and hence knowing how to avoid being hurt, things could stay indecisive and relatively bloodless for quite a while.

What happens next is interesting.  For many participants, battle is not so much a procedural as an emotive experience, and emotion starts to take over.

"... but later, when their ardour increased and their rage was inflamed, they rushed together recklessly and paid no more attention to their own safety, but in their eagerness to destroy their adversaries would even throw away their own lives. Some cast away their shields and seizing hold of the foes facing them choked them by means of their helmets while they struck them in the back, or else tore away their armour and smote them on the breast. Others seized hold of the swords of their opponents, who were thus as good as unarmed, and then ran their own into their bodies; and some exposed a part of their own bodies to be wounded and thus gained a freer use of the rest."

This, as can be imagined, drove up the casualty rates on both sides.  It also raises questions as to exactly how one is going to get these emotively-soused individuals to back off and rest even when they get tired.

"Some clutched their opponents in an embrace that prevented either one from striking and perished through the commingling of their swords and bodies. Some died of a single blow, others of many, and they neither were conscious of their wounds, since death forestalled their suffering, nor lamented their end, since they never reached the point of grieving. One who killed another thought in the excessive joy of the moment that he could never die; and whoever fell lost consciousness and had no knowledge of his state."

So - did they get tired, give it up and break off for elevenses, or at least a quick bit of rehydration?  Apparently not.

"Both sides remained precisely where they were at the beginning and neither side retired or pursued, but there, just as they were, they wounded and were wounded, slew and were slain, until late in the day."

What kind of 'model' do we draw from this?

[Erpingham]

With all due respect, it sounds more like a priori self-inflicted distortion to me.

Also with greatest respect, it is better to acknowledge one's a priori assumptions rather than apply them unacknowledged.

[Jim Webster]

It would have to be a very low rate of continuous spear chucking or soon all the spears would be gone.
Roy

although the other side would be re-supplying you 

I think that you'd reach a low level of throwing as spears were thrown back, with the level of throwing dropping off as spears were damaged or lost in other ways

[Erpingham]

What kind of 'model' do we draw from this?

Bit of a purple passage, isn't it?  Anyway, trying to strip it back a bit, we seem to start with a tentative combat.  At some later stage, pumped up troops enter combat.  It is unclear from the passage whether these are fresh troops - the implication seems to be they are the same ones, now wound up to berserker style fury.   It is unclear from the quote at which point in the battle the "berserker" attack happened, how widespread it was or how long it took.  It seems to have been completely ineffective, as the armies stayed in the same positions (unless the tale goes on to state that the frenzied attack broke the stalemate, when we would know when it happened).

As usual we lack the internal evidence to know whether this is a continuous or discontinuous action.  The fact that troops start cautiously but then charge later into contact means not everyone was in contact continuously, but we already noted that continuous hacking is not everyone's definition of continuous action.  The frenzied nature of the attack would fit a short, high energy onset.  This then seems to subside to low intensity action and stalemate.

[RichT]

What kind of 'model' do we draw from this?

We draw different models, it seems.

"For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword, as they were at first cautiously looking..."

You presumably interpret "they" in this case to mean "all of the Romans on both sides" - though perhaps you also understand "all the front rankers" or possibly "all the front rankers of all the cohorts in the first line" (which therefore remained in contact through the entire battle - what did the other lines do? Or were there no other lines? How would you interpret the role of rear ranks and initially unengaged cohorts, given that Cassius Dio says nothing about them? Were there none?) Others might interpret it to mean "those who were engaged at any particular time"

battle is not so much a procedural as an emotive experience, and emotion starts to take over

This is based on your mental model of combat? Or is it your intepretation of the following passage? How does 'emotion taking over' square with other aspects of your model, such as the methodical, energy-preserving method of combat? Presumably the 'later' at which this inefficient form of fighting began was only shortly before the 'late in the day' at which the battle ended? i.e. in your model, several hours of calm methodical prodding, followed by a few minutes of emotion, perhaps?

It also raises questions as to exactly how one is going to get these emotively-soused individuals to back off and rest even when they get tired.

Perhaps before they got soused, while they are still in the methodical phase? How are these soused individuals replaced in the Roman line relief manoeuvre? Or should we undertand that you interpret this battle as being different from other Roman battles so that your "battle is not so much a procedural as an emotive experience, and emotion starts to take over" is not, despite your words, an attempt at generalisation - you just mean "this battle was not so much procedural..."?

"when their ardour increased and their rage was inflamed, they rushed together recklessly"

Are "they" (whoever "they" are, see above) not already "together"? How do they "rush together" again? You perhaps interpret this to mean that they pressed even more closely together, intermingled perhaps?

This, as can be imagined, drove up the casualty rates on both sides

Is this a quote from Dio? Or is it your interpretation?

"Some clutched their opponents in an embrace... Some... One... whoever..."

You presumably interpret this to account for all Romans present (or just all those in the front rank, or all those who were fighting at the start of the battle?), and these sentences cover the experience of all of them (even though none of them survive); nobody was present who did not do one of the things Dio describes, and/or nothing Dio does not describe was done by any of those present - in your interpretation?

"Both sides remained precisely where they were at the beginning and neither side retired or pursued, but there, just as they were, they wounded and were wounded, slew and were slain, until late in the day."

You interpret, presumably, 'both sides' to mean 'every individual on both sides' (rather than, for example, 'both armies').

given that organising an intermission without getting the would-be departees massacred when both armies are unorganised is conceptually even more challenging than when they are acting as entities?

This is a quote from which source? Livy? Caesar? Cassius Dio? Or is it derived form your mental model?

(Cross posted with Anthony's more succinct version of the same points!)