https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/the-republican-armys-skirmish-position/?fbclid=IwAR27b9RPGoYGqOobgqSVvvepcDHesjR4zF7pvvNuvcryOBJtHwcJlnvfWeo
another interesting article that's bound to generate discussion....
This is one of several pieces by Gary Brueggeman, who used to have a very extensive set of pages online about the Roman army, but the original site I believe disappeared. Karawansaray are now giving him a platform for some of his work - see https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army for the index page.
thanks for the info and link Duncan, much appreciated
This is where we would normally have had Patrick drop in with a post :-(
aye, you can imagine the detailed (and contrary) view he would have on such a proposal!
This is what Jasper Oorthuys said about the Brueggeman archive in his blog :
Many years ago (by internet standards) Gary Brueggeman started a website on the Roman Army, full of tactical and operational analyses illuminated by his own drawings. It disappeared for a while, then reappeared in a revised version on the romanarmy.info domain. A year or two ago, Gary and I got in contact and he told me that due to his age, he was no longer interested in the hassle of renewing domains and hosting contracts. As a result of those talks, the content of his site will be hosted here, in their own category. That does mean all pictures and links have to be revised, so it'll probably be a while before it's complete. For now, I'll just go down the sitemap and add pages one by one. Check back soon!
I like his diagram, but I'm not sure what point if any he (GB) is trying to make in that post.
I am not sure that there is one single "point". It follows on from his pages about gaps in the lines, though, which you can see on the index page - particularly https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/gb_army/alternative-to-gaps-the-articulated-phalanx/ - he is saying among other things that the small gaps he proposes there are adequate for skirmishers to pass through.
I was struck by how close together he envisages the main lines to be when javelin-skirmishing starts. Not sure whether I am convinced or not.
QuoteI was struck by how close together he envisages the main lines to be when javelin-skirmishing starts. Not sure whether I am convinced or not.
He does go for quite a short javelin range. The skirmish lines are only 20m apart. Using the
amentum (thong), modern experiments suggest a range of over 60m was possible. You may not skirmish at maximum range, but would you get in so close? Republican velites were pretty well armed by skirmisher standards so may have expected to mix it a bit. 20m is easily within distance to rush an opponent who has just thrown before he can recover himself. And would the main lines be quite so close in to the velites? Even with GB's shortened javelin ranges, he notes that the battle lines were within missile distance. Why would they expose themselves like that?
interesting about the idea that once lines closed these 'avenues' disappeared
OK - then he doesn't (maybe I am being mean, or blind) seem to have anything new or interesting to say on the subject.
Things like this:
"The distance between opposing skirmishers is only 37 feet. This seems close but the distance from the foremost skirmisher to the first rank of the maniple is 87 feet. From the skirmishers at the back to the first rank is 117 feet and from them to the back rank is 132 feet. With an average range of only about 120 feet, if the skirmishers were much further apart they would not be within effective range of the opposing troops. The drawing below is a detail showing the 17 foot gap between maniples. The gap could probably be smaller, perhaps 10', and still provide enough room."
always make me groan. All these precise measurements! I can't imagine ancient battlefields were carefully laid out with men with measuring tapes making sure the lines and units were all the correct distance apart. There is a certain school of thought that wants to quantify everything, but I don't find it very helpful.
I tend to ignore the precision, and assume that distances are approximate - are they Roman feet or English feet, after all? But I do find the attempt to put some sort of numbers on things quite interesting, especially in the context of the diagrams: an attempt to show "how it really looked" which is much more informative than the usual rectangular unit blocks. Even if it's wrong.
agreed. I'd rather a diagrammatic representation and (sort of) ignore the precise measurements to give a feel for what it might have looked like in reality
Yes I like the diagrams. I think these sort of visualizations, to scale etc, can be interesting to contemplate.
your comment about the tape measures on the battlefield did make me chuckle though Rich ;D
My own problem with the diagrams is of course the chequerboard style gaps and the scattered groupings of the skirmishers. The tacticians devote whole sections to skirmisher foot and their formations were always as structured as those of heavy infantry. Tidy files with fewer men per file than the heavies.
Which leads to one question: what evidence do we have that any formations, mounted or foot, were just loose groupings that moved around helter-skelter? Were even LC like that?
IIRC one (or more) of the Roman/Byzantine manuals refers to cavalry operating in "unformed" groups on the flanks of the army.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 18, 2020, 11:56:16 AM
IIRC one (or more) of the Roman/Byzantine manuals refers to cavalry operating in "unformed" groups on the flanks of the army.
This would be the
drungus, also known to Vegetius. Covered by this paper by Rance. (https://www.academia.edu/3677031/_Drungus_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82_and_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF_a_Gallicism_and_Continuity_in_Roman_Cavalry_Tactics_Phoenix_58.1-2_2004_96-130)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 18, 2020, 11:33:30 AM
My own problem with the diagrams is of course the chequerboard style gaps and the scattered groupings of the skirmishers. The tacticians devote whole sections to skirmisher foot and their formations were always as structured as those of heavy infantry. Tidy files with fewer men per file than the heavies.
Which leads to one question: what evidence do we have than any formations, mounted or foot, were just loose groupings that moved around helter-skelter? Were even LC like that?
a good point Justin and one I have pondered myself
Doesn't Polybius give us a description of velite activity which distinguishes them from those who fought in closed formations? That they wore animal headresses to stand out when observed by officers and were given prizes if they killed enemies in single combat? Anyone know the references?
Twenty metres quite sufficient for the skirmishers to flee. Wargamers have this idea that opponents can dash out of formations and catch skirmishers, but it is inherently unlikely to wirk
Firstly no man dashes out on his own...unless he is a Galatian who has been tormented for some time by slings, javelins and arrows that he cannot reply too. If he goes on his own he is immediately the focus of several skirmishers , including some on his unshielded side, and goes down.
Secondly Men who are going to run forward together need to be commanded and organised. If, lije the Spartans you send say the men in rank five out then the ranks have to be opened up and the designated troops move up to the front , from there to move off at a run . Are the skirmishers not going to notice this and guess what is coming and they do not need to be ordered back, they just run into the space,
Third the charging infantry stand a very good chance of arriving in front of the line troops backing the fleeing skirmishers disordered and blown, the very state Pompey was trying to induce in the Caesarian legionaries at Pharsalus..
When lines if troops are close up against each both time and distance work differently from the normal rate. I think its Ardant du Picq who describes how in a column the mass of men shudders as it takes fire. There is a mass psychology, the crowd, sharing a common and restraining fear, the officers working against that fear to keep them moving. In an ancient context the men will huddle to get the maximum protection from neighbouring shields. Unless its a prearranged drill or desperation I cannot see line troops just breaking formation and running at the skirmishers.
Isn't there a country and Western song.'.Gimme three steps , gimme just three steps'? 20 metres is thirty steps!
Roy
Just to avoid talking at cross purposes, the velites are at 20m distance, not the battlelines. Anyone dashing out from the main line would have to run through his own skirmishers, which seems unlikely. I am less sure that skirmishers would not run at one another, or that they were in close order formations. The Polybius quotes I await, referenced by folks like Lendon, suggest they did sometimes mix it.
Overall, I sometimes thought that ancient skirmishers are, in wargamers eyes, based on Napoleonic skirmishers in different uniforms, rather than real evidence of ancient behaviour. I do have a bit of a question of how skirmishing took place if the manuals tell us it was all done in deep close order blocks though.
I wonder if the skirmisher screen is actually part of the main battleline that just pelts forward at a predetermined distance or signal to lob javelins etc with greater freedom and accuracy before scarpering to the back through these gaps
I suppose that mostly the skirmishers are dealing with other skirmishers. Mutually they are preventing the other side targeting their mine line of battle. Only if the enemy is deficient in skirmisher numbers is a main battle line going to be taking missile casualties.
Roy
There isn't a single passage (to my knowledge) that clear describes what velites do. Their equipment is in:
Polybius 6.22
"The youngest soldiers or velites are ordered to carry a sword, javelins, and a target (parma). The target is strongly made and sufficiently large to afford protection, being circular and measuring three feet in diameter. They also wear a plain helmet, and sometimes cover it with a wolf's skin or something similar both to protect and to act as a distinguishing mark by which their officers can recognize them and judge if they fight pluckily or not. The wooden shaft of the javelin measures about two cubits in length and is about a finger's breadth in thickness; its head is a span long hammered out to such a fine edge that it is necessarily bent by the first impact, and the enemy is unable to return it. If this were not so, the missile would be available for both sides."
And their method of fighting in lots of places, such as this:
Polybius 2.30
"But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were the better chance had the missiles of going home. At length, unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness. Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers; but the main body of the Insubres, Boii, and Taurisci, once the javelineers had withdrawn into the ranks and the Roman maniples attacked them, met the enemy and kept up a stubborn hand-to-hand combat."
Both familiar passages...
There isn't any single source that absolutely clearly spells out how skirmishers skirmish, AFAIK, but the assumptions (looser order, individual action) seem reasonable to me, in light of descriptions like above.
The Hellenistic tacticians are describing something quite specific (Hellenistic armies) and while I'm a big fan of their reliability and usefulness, applying their description to Roman velites is like taking a drill manual for Marlborough's army and insisting that it accurately describes how Americans fought in the AWI.
Lendon references this passage in relation to velites
After a battle in which some of them have distinguished themselves, the general calls an assembly of the troops, and bringing forward those whom he considers to have displayed conspicuous valour, first of all speaks in laudatory terms of the courageous deeds of each and of anything else in their previous conduct which deserves commendation, and afterwards distributes the following rewards. 3 To the man who has wounded an enemy, a spear; to him who has slain and stripped an enemy, a cup if he be in the infantry and horse trappings if in the cavalry, although the gift here was originally only a spear. 4 These gifts are not made to men who have wounded or stripped an enemy in a regular battle or at the storming of a city, but to those who during skirmishes or in similar circumstances, where there is no necessity for engaging in single combat, have voluntarily and deliberately thrown themselves into the danger. Polybius 6, 39
He relates it to the animal skin headgear by which the velites tried to attract the attention of senior officers. I'm not sure though how much "skirmishing" relates to the phase of battle before the main clash and how much to less formal small scale combat.
Quote from: aligern on March 18, 2020, 04:13:09 PM
I suppose that mostly the skirmishers are dealing with other skirmishers. Mutually they are preventing the other side targeting their mine line of battle. Only if the enemy is deficient in skirmisher numbers is a main battle line going to be taking missile casualties.
Roy
agreed. Cant remember where I read of one account but didnt greek army psiloi start off as the fittest and youngest of the hoplites that helped to chase off enemy skirmishers - possibly Anabasis but cant be sure
Let us not overlook the age of the velites.