File recoil

[Erpingham]

Returning belatedly to a comment Patrick made a few posts back, in which he remarked that the French at Agincourt had neither rank or files, how important was the rank and file structure in the application of "weight" (usual caveats apply )?

If Patrick's aside is considered, disorder meant that greater depth did not give an advantage.  Now we may argue how well ordered medieval armies were in this context - they certainly had ranks but did they have files?* - but one might make this comment of other non-drilled forces.  So perhaps a horde of generic tall naked hairy pale barbarians, with limited structure, might have difficulty pushing Romans in less depth because the Romans actually had the organisation to make controlled use of their "weight"?

Just a thought.

*The only medieval files I feel confident are those of the Swiss, who, perhaps not coincidentally, drew up deeper than your normal medieval infantry and could make it count.

[RichT]

While people are thinking about number of ranks (or size of files) they might also ponder cavalry formations. Cavalry also generally formed up multiple (8?) ranks deep. For similar reasons to infantry? Completely different case? We can at least be sure that cavalry did not practice othismos. Or can we?

For infantry, degree of organisation files smells of red herring to me - it would be important if we were certain that there was a formal drill whereby rear members of a file engaged in a concerted push of those in front of them - but that is precisely the point at issue, and there is no evidence for it. That said, I expect organised ranks and files did offer an advantage over mob (but not necessarily an advantage in organising a push-of-war).

Edit to add a nice quote in this context:
Xen Mem 3.1.8
[7] "It is well to understand tactics too; for there is a wide difference between right and wrong disposition of the troops, just as stones, bricks, timber and tiles flung together anyhow are useless, whereas when the materials that neither rot nor decay, that is, the stones and tiles, are placed at the bottom and the top, and the bricks and timber are put together in the middle, as in building, the result is something of great value, a house, in fact."
[8] "Your analogy is perfect, Socrates," said the youth; "for in war one must put the best men in the van and the rear, and the worst in the centre, that they may be led by the van and driven forward by the rearguard."
( ἵνα ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν ἄγωνται, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ὠθῶνται -  ina hypo men ton agontai, hypo de twn othontai - led by the one, 'pushed' by the other ). 

[Erpingham]

For infantry, degree of organisation files smells of red herring to me - it would be important if we were certain that there was a formal drill whereby rear members of a file engaged in a concerted push of those in front of them - but that is precisely the point at issue, and there is no evidence for it. That said, I expect organised ranks and files did offer an advantage over mob (but not necessarily an advantage in organising a push-of-war).

A mob can exert a great deal of pressure, as anyone who has been carried along by a crowd knows.  If all multiple ranks did was recreate this in a glorious rugby scrum, order wouldn't matter.  Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.  Hoplite phalanxes seem to be able to control their use of weight.   I don't think we need to call on the physical pushing school to explain co-ordinated forward pressure in system, just an ability to act together.  "Give me one more step" and all that.

[Duncan Head]

While people are thinking about number of ranks (or size of files) they might also ponder cavalry formations. Cavalry also generally formed up multiple (8?) ranks deep. For similar reasons to infantry? Completely different case?

Ancient writers on cavalry depth suggest that different factors applied than for infantry:

For to be really useful cavalry should not be drawn up more than eight deep, and between each troop there must be a space equal in length to the front of a troop so that there may be no difficulty in wheeling and facing round.

For they drew up the riders with a front of sixteen and a depth of eight, but they doubled the interval between the riders because of the length of the horses. And some made the number of men in length three times that of the depth and then tripled the interval in depth, so that it again appeared to be a square, and these, in my opinion, had the better plan; since the depth of the cavalry unit, provided it is enough to hold the squadron firm and in line, does not have the same importance as in the infantry, rather it may work more havoc than the enemy themselves, for when the riders run afoul of one another they frighten the horses.

As far as the depth of the line is concerned, the ancient authorities wrote that it had formerly been regarded as sufficient to form the ranks four deep in each tagma, greater depth being viewed as useless and serving no purpose. For there can be no pressure from the rear up through the ranks, as happens in an infantry formation, which may force the men in front to push forward against their will. Horses cannot use their heads to push people in front of them evenly, as can infantry.

Maurikios goes on to say that greater depth may be required when you don't have enough outstanding men to act as file-leaders, so poorer units form more deeply, but:

The depth, therefore, must be no more than eight or at the most ten men, no matter how weak the tagmas might be, nor shoudl it be less than five, even for the best units.

We can at least be sure that cavalry did not practice othismos. Or can we?

Not until we agree what othismos was 

[Patrick Waterson]

Very useful post, Duncan: cavalry and infantry are different arms for good reasons.  The general classical period view of cavalry depths and reasons pertaining thereto seems to be that one should not go too shallow (4 ranks minimum) and greater depth is largely a matter of quality and/or convenience, while more than 8-10 deep is wasteful.

Maurice's comment that, unlike infantry, horses cannot push is revealing.

For infantry, degree of organisation files smells of red herring to me - it would be important if we were certain that there was a formal drill whereby rear members of a file engaged in a concerted push of those in front of them - but that is precisely the point at issue, and there is no evidence for it. That said, I expect organised ranks and files did offer an advantage over mob (but not necessarily an advantage in organising a push-of-war).

A mob can exert a great deal of pressure, as anyone who has been carried along by a crowd knows.  If all multiple ranks did was recreate this in a glorious rugby scrum, order wouldn't matter.  Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.  Hoplite phalanxes seem to be able to control their use of weight.   I don't think we need to call on the physical pushing school to explain co-ordinated forward pressure in system, just an ability to act together.  "Give me one more step" and all that.

The other side of 'mob pressure' is the situation at Adrianople:

And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed, as if by the downfall of a mighty rampart. The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. Because of clouds of dust the heavens could no longer be seen, and echoed with frightful cries. Hence the arrows whirling death from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against. [3] But when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape, our soldiers also, showing extreme contempt of falling in the fight, received their death-blows, yet struck down their assailants; and on both sides the strokes of axes split helmet and breastplate. - Ammmianus XXXI.13.2-3

We may note that, file organisation or no, the Goths (for it was they) were able to exert pressure which crowded the Romans into an unmanageable mass.  This also seems to be what happened to the Greek mercenaries at the Granicus, the Romans at Cannae and certain other contingents which ended up surrounded and unable to make use of whatever qualities regular files may have entitled them to.

This suggests that undisciplined pressure is still pressure, but undisciplined pressure may be trumped by disciplined pressure, and disciplined pressure may be what Greek authors mean by othismos.

[RichT]

Yes very useful, Duncan. The Maurice quote is nice.

Maurikios goes on to say that greater depth may be required when you don't have enough outstanding men to act as file-leaders, so poorer units form more deeply

That's obvious once it's said, but I hadn't really thought about it before, as a reason for poorer quality units to form deeper.

Given that different factors apply to cavalry than to infantry, it's still not necessarily clear (to me) what those factors are - what the rear ranks of a cavalry formation are for. At any rate, presumably not to fight with weapons.

Duncan:

Quote from: RichT
We can at least be sure that cavalry did not practice othismos. Or can we?
Not until we agree what othismos was 

Indeed - it was sort of a leading question, since Arrian at least uses othismos in the context of  Alexander's cavalry and Poros's elephants. But then we shouldn't discuss othismos...

Patrick:

disciplined pressure may be what Greek authors mean by othismos.

Maybe - or perhaps not, given the contexts in which the word is used, but we aren't discussing othismos...

[Patrick Waterson]

Given that different factors apply to cavalry than to infantry, it's still not necessarily clear (to me) what those factors are - what the rear ranks of a cavalry formation are for. At any rate, presumably not to fight with weapons.

This would depend upon your cavalry: most classical cavalry could skirmish, allowing everyone to be involved and show their marksmanship (see Arrian's Hippika Gymnasia).  By Maurice's time, Byzantine cavalry were archers and  carried lances, so rear ranks could at least make an effort to harm the enemy from their rearward position.  Rear ranks of a Parthian/Persian/Roman cataphract formation or of a Companion wedge would tidy up any opponents the front ranks missed.  Hence every rank could be useful in the course of a battle, but some were more useful than others and adding ranks after the 8th or so generally left very little for ranks 9+ to do.  A wedge was the exception as the 'buzz saw' would be biting into an increasing width of opponents so was cost-efficient even with greater depth.

[Jim Webster]

It is interesting. Following Maurice and Duncan's comment, unit depth may be a function of quality as well as the amount of frontage you need to cover.
But poor units were drawn up deep, not because the men were poor but because there was a shortage of  competent file leaders and closers.
So in theory, it must have been comparatively easy to keep the quality of units up on campaign, (Green men just got slotted into the ranks and learned by doing) the big destroyer of units would be combats where you lost large numbers of your front rank.

[Dangun]

We can at least be sure that cavalry did not practice othismos. Or can we?

Yes we can.

It is interesting. Following Maurice and Duncan's comment, unit depth may be a function of quality as well as the amount of frontage you need to cover.

In this particular variation of the othismos thread, Anthony suggested this earlier.
Granted its mentioned in that quote, but the relative scarcity of file leaders seems a bit overly specific.
More simply, narrower and deeper formations would be easier to manoeuvre and hence better suited to poor quality troops.

[RichT]

Patrick

Rear ranks of a Parthian/Persian/Roman cataphract formation or of a Companion wedge would tidy up any opponents the front ranks missed.  Hence every rank could be useful in the course of a battle, but some were more useful than others and adding ranks after the 8th or so generally left very little for ranks 9+ to do.  A wedge was the exception as the 'buzz saw' would be biting into an increasing width of opponents so was cost-efficient even with greater depth.

I guess this assumes that the cavalry actually pass into/through the target cavalry/infantry formation (you might almost say - like a knife through butter). But that model is disputed, I believe, and it wouldn't apply in any case for non-wedge-using, non-sarissa-bearing cavalry. Yet Greek and Persian, non-knife-through-buttering cavalry by anyone's account, still formed deep - they are the ones that seem curious to me.

I agree (if that is what is being said) that depth may be more about movement, command control, and morale/psychology, than about fighting (which is what seems to be agreed for infantry too, to some extent).

We can at least be sure that cavalry did not practice othismos. Or can we?

Yes we can.

Sure - though e.g  Arrian, Anabasis:

1.15.2  Granicus - "Then ensued a violent struggle ( ἱππέων ὠθισμός = othismos of cavalry) on the part of the cavalry, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."

iii.14.3 Gaugamela "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, pressed on vigorously, thrusting (ὠθισμοῖς) themselves against the Persians and striking their faces with their spears,"

v.17.5 Hydaspes - "The beasts (elephants) being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their wheeling and pushing about (ὠθισμοῖς)."

All of which are just pushings, shovings, jostlings etc of course, not concerted organised planned massed pushing drills (but then why does anyone think infantry othismos is different? Rhetorical question not expecting an answer).

[Erpingham]

All of which are just pushings, shovings, jostlings etc of course, not concerted organised planned massed pushing drills (but then why does anyone think infantry othismos is different? Rhetorical question not expecting an answer).

Fortunately, we are not discussing othismos but the effects of depth and how those worked in organised and less organised forces.  Otherwise, we might confuse the two.  If we continue to assume that depth works whatever we call it, we'll be OK

[Patrick Waterson]

Yet Greek and Persian, non-knife-through-buttering cavalry by anyone's account, still formed deep - they are the ones that seem curious to me.

And late Achaemenid Persians deeper than most.  The column of armoured cavalry making shock attacks, often in conjunction with scythed chariots, had become their favoured tactical ploy, as Agesilaus found to his occasional discomfiture. 

"But on one occasion, while the soldiers (stratioton) were getting their provisions in disdainful and careless fashion, because they had not previously met with any mishap, Pharnabazus came upon them, scattered as they were over the plain, with two scythe-bearing chariots and about four hundred horsemen. [18] Now when the Greeks saw him advancing upon them, they ran together to the number of about seven hundred; Pharnabazus, however, did not delay, but putting his chariots in front, and posting himself and the horsemen behind them, he gave orders to charge upon the Greeks. [19] And when the chariots dashed into the close-gathered crowd and scattered it, the horsemen speedily struck down about a hundred men, while the rest fled for refuge to Agesilaus; for he chanced to be near at hand with the hoplites." - Xenophon, Hellenica IV.1.17-19

The approved procedure for dealing with same was devised by Episthenes of Amphipolis, who led the peltasts at Gaugamela and simply opened up to let Tissaphernes' heavy cavalry thunder through, using them for target practice meanwhile (Xenophon, Anabasis I.10.7).

I agree (if that is what is being said) that depth may be more about movement, command control, and morale/psychology, than about fighting (which is what seems to be agreed for infantry too, to some extent).

Indeed, although 'standard' javelin-armed classical cavalry seems to have been quite happy to 'caracole' and pelt infantry opponents with javelins, thus ensuring everyone had a turn at shooting.  One presumes there is an optimum depth for this sort of thing so that the people at the back of the formation can keep their orientation and those who have just thrown get a chance for a quick breather not not a long enough wait to become bored.

We can at least be sure that cavalry did not practice othismos. Or can we?

Yes we can.

Sure - though e.g  Arrian, Anabasis:

1.15.2  Granicus - "Then ensued a violent struggle ( ἱππέων ὠθισμός = othismos of cavalry) on the part of the cavalry, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."

iii.14.3 Gaugamela "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, pressed on vigorously, thrusting (ὠθισμοῖς) themselves against the Persians and striking their faces with their spears,"

v.17.5 Hydaspes - "The beasts (elephants) being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their wheeling and pushing about (ὠθισμοῖς)."

All of which are just pushings, shovings, jostlings etc of course, not concerted organised planned massed pushing drills (but then why does anyone think infantry othismos is different? Rhetorical question not expecting an answer).

Because classical infantry were more disciplined than, say, elephants.   The cavalry struggles quoted incidentally involved wedges on at least one side, and wedges seem to have been more 'othismotic' or at least inclined to enter out-and-out melee than standard classical types, with the possible exception of armoured late Achaemenids.

Fortunately, we are not discussing othismos but the effects of depth and how those worked in organised and less organised forces.  Otherwise, we might confuse the two.  If we continue to assume that depth works whatever we call it, we'll be OK

One effect of depth in disciplined armies was, by all accounts, a superior shove, for which we shall avoid any specific terminology.   Throughout the general drift of history, the major benefits of depth seem to have been controllability and morale, not necessarily in that order.

[Dangun]

Sure - though e.g  Arrian, Anabasis:

1.15.2  Granicus - "Then ensued a violent struggle ( ἱππέων ὠθισμός = othismos of cavalry) on the part of the cavalry, on the one side to emerge from the river, and on the other to prevent the landing."

iii.14.3 Gaugamela "For a short time there ensued a hand-to-hand fight; but when the Macedonian cavalry, commanded by Alexander himself, pressed on vigorously, thrusting (ὠθισμοῖς) themselves against the Persians and striking their faces with their spears,"

v.17.5 Hydaspes - "The beasts (elephants) being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their wheeling and pushing about (ὠθισμοῖς)."

All of which are just pushings, shovings, jostlings etc of course, not concerted organised planned massed pushing drills (but then why does anyone think infantry othismos is different? Rhetorical question not expecting an answer).

Great quotes.

But I think it offers more insight into the lack of precision with which the word othismos was used in regards to infantry, rather than telling us anything about scrimmaging horses.