File closers (from Auxilia in DBA)

[Erpingham]

At the suggestion of Andreas, I have extracted the off-topic discussion of file closers from the DBA auxilia thread to enable those who have refrained to avoid leading that discussion astray to consider it for its own merits.

Justin :

My take is that getting around an enemy's left flank to his rear (flank attacks are in effect rear attacks on a wing) involved unengaged subunits moving past the enemy, all wheeling left to form an instant column, marching left into the enemy's rear, then wheeling left again to reform a line facing the enemy. You can't do that with lowered pikes, and I suspect raising pikes in mid-battle is really problematic.

Come to think of it, Asklepiodotus talks about the men turning individually in place when the line is attacking the enemy flank. I took it to mean hitting the enemy flank on its side but it makes more sense if the unengaged wing moves forwards, turns by individual men to the left, moves in column to the enemy rear, and then turns by individual men to the left again to reform line. Quicker and simpler that way. This means the file closers - not the best fighting men in the file - will be fighting the enemy rear. But that's not a problem since they will be fighting the enemy's own file closers.

Martin :

At the risk of some serious thread-creep, may I ask why we'd assume the file closers were "not the best fighting men in the file"? I'd have thought they'd be at least more senior and experienced than the mid-file guys...a sort of NCO to (quite literally) keep the junior ranks in line, so to speak...?

Justin :

To risk a bit of creep, the file leader was always the best fighter of the file since in nearly every case he did the actual fighting. The file closer was senior but not the best fighter though probably better than the regular footsoldier.

Andreas :

Xenophon says (Memorabilia III.1.8 ) that the best men should go in the front and rear of a formation.

I think another author - one of the tacticians? - more specifically says that the best man in every file should be the file leader and the second best the file closer , but I don't have a citation at hand.

Justin :

Could be. I seem to remember the best fighters being the file leader and second man behind him, and the file closer being the third best fighter, but I'm a bit fuzzy on the references for that. Need to look into it.

Anthony :

Surely, the key to being a good file closer is not fighting skills but experience?  An understanding of how battle works, of how the men in front of you are behaving, of how to motivate them to give and absorb pressure?

Andreas :

Xenophon doesn't say what sort of "best" is required of file closers, but for file leaders he says (or makes Socrates say) that they should be the most ambitious and glory-seeking.

So if "best fighting men" means specifically those most skilled with their weapons, no, that's probably not the sort of men he thought appropriate for file closers either. He seems to believe that psychological factors count for more than physical skills. But equally, this presumably means he'd disagree that the best spear-stabber is the best fighting man.

[Erpingham]

Here are the quotes from Memorabilia III, Ch. 1 mentioned by Andreas

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." [9]

<>

"And what should we do with those who are going to face danger? Should our first line consist of the most ambitious?'

"Oh yes: they are the men who will face danger for the sake of glory. About these, now, there is no mystery: they are conspicuous everywhere, and so it is easy to find them." [11]

[Ian61]

Richard Taylor talks about this in the Greek Hoplite Phalanx, my memory is that he end up following Xenophon in that file leader is the no 1, file closer no 2 etc. although this still gives problems the more the lines are spread. I suspect that Anthony is close and the file closer might be a sergeant type figure keeping the others 'in line' in both senses of the phrase.

[Justin Swanton]

My PC monitor is dead so I can't access my primary source material for the moment (writing this at work). It makes sense that the file closer is a good fighter in his own right as the rest of the men in the file have to respect him since he keeps them in line and they wouldn't respect a supply clerk. But it's common sense that the rest of the file is organised from best to worst fighters. Need to check if the second man in the file had a particular rank/designation - I seem to recall he did.

The passage from Memorabilia shows how much fighting was about morale, since the men need a recklessly brave leader to inspire them on and a competent file closer to stop them from panicking.

One other thing: the tacticians talk about the infantry marching in column with file leaders on one side so the column could instantly convert into a line by the men turning individually in place. Since this was done in close proximity to enemy it makes sense that the man on the opposite side be a good fighter since might find himself in the front rank of the line if the enemy approached from that direction.

[Erpingham]

Two observations.  In Memorabilia v 11, the conversation has been about picking the right men for the key roles.  The young responder replies essentially it is easy to spot the file leader candidates but leaves hanging the question about the closers, who need a different temperament.  Perhaps a harder post to fill?

The other is to note that the Byzantine reworking of the file as given by Maurice has each sixteen man file with eight experienced men and eight inexperienced.  The experienced men form the first four and last four ranks.  When the unit splits into half files, eachthus retains half the experienced men.  The Greeks may have done things differently but it should caution us about assuming the hoplite "house" was mainly bricks and wood, with thin roof and foundations. 

[Justin Swanton]

Two observations.  In Memorabilia v 11, the conversation has been about picking the right men for the key roles.  The young responder replies essentially it is easy to spot the file leader candidates but leaves hanging the question about the closers, who need a different temperament.  Perhaps a harder post to fill?

The other is to note that the Byzantine reworking of the file as given by Maurice has each sixteen man file with eight experienced men and eight inexperienced.  The experienced men form the first four and last four ranks.  When the unit splits into half files, eachthus retains half the experienced men.  The Greeks may have done things differently but it should caution us about assuming the hoplite "house" was mainly bricks and wood, with thin roof and foundations. 

Interesting. The Byzantine army was heavily weighted towards cavalry facing cavalry opponents, with infantry in very much a supporting role. IIRC, the infantry would regularly form hollow squares within which the cavalry could shelter and sally out from at the right moment. Which seems to imply that infantry (when not in square) could face mounted threats from front or rear and had to be disposed to counter them with the best available men. Just a theory.