Recoil - when did it historically happen?

[Justin Swanton]

This might have been discussed elsewhere, but I can't find a post dedicated to it, so here goes.

Recoil is virtually the lynchpin mechanism of DBx and it features prominently in other gaming systems. It is assumed that any troop type that feels it is getting the worst of a fight will fall back, to be followed up or not by its opponent. But is this true? My impression is that historical recoil was a very variable thing: on some occasions one line fell back an impressive distance, on other occasions the two sides slogged away without moving at all until one side broke.

So, what troop types did recoil, when was it voluntary or involuntary, and how far did they recoil? To narrow things down, I'm specifically interested in Republican Roman, Carthaginian, Gallic, Hoplite Greek, Macedonian, Persian and Successor armies, but of course this thread can look at any army.

[Erpingham]

At Agincourt, the English men-at-arms were pushed back "a spears length" initially by the French men-at-arms.  After that, the melee became static, with the build up of bodies on the front line (which wouldn't have happened if the lines had moved about a lot).  The English were noted to be in quite a shallow formation (perhaps 4 deep), which may (or may not) have some significance.

[Mark G]

Well first of all, you need to decide whether you think men engage in continuous melee contact or not.

And you may consider cannae a good example of 'recoil'

[Paul Innes]

The main initial Gallic line at Bibracte was pushed back an impressive distance, at least until the Boii arrived on the Roman right to stabilise things somewhat.

[Duncan Head]

The clash of phalanxes at Sellasia:

Then a fierce struggle arose: the Macedonians sometimes slowly giving ground and yielding to the superior courage of the soldiers of Sparta, and at another time the Lacedaemonians being forced to give way before the overpowering weight of the Macedonian phalanx.

[Erpingham]

Thinking on Mark's point, there is a difference between forced back in contact and giving ground by breaking (or attempting to break) away from your opponent.  I'm not sure that non-continuous combat automatically leads to ceding ground - there could be separation and re-contact over the same ground - but this could be one of the mechanisms involved.

We then need to consider what the rule writers intend when they include recoil as a result.  Is it a physical push-back or does it cover the act of retreating (temporarily or permanently)?

[Duncan Head]

Livy on Zama:

When the infantry lines closed, the Carthaginians were exposed on both flanks, owing to the flight of the cavalry, and were losing both confidence and strength. Other circumstances, too, seemingly trivial in themselves but of considerable importance in battle, gave the Romans an advantage. Their cheers formed one united shout and were therefore fuller and more intimidating; those of the enemy, uttered in many languages, were only dissonant cries. The Romans kept their foothold as they fought and pressed the enemy by the sheer weight of their arms and bodies; on the other side there was much more agility and nimbleness of foot than actual fighting strength. As a consequence, the Romans made the enemy give ground in their very first charge, then pushing them back with their shields and elbows and moving forward on to the ground from which they had dislodged them, they made a considerable advance as though meeting with no resistance. When those in the rear became aware of the forward movement they too pressed on those in front thereby considerably increasing the weight of the thrust. This retirement on the part of the enemy's auxiliaries was not checked by the Africans and Carthaginians who formed the second line.

Clearly a recoil, possibly in game terms several successive recoils, in circumstances where one might normally expect "non-continuous" combat - that is, Roman hastati against Gauls and Ligurians. However in this case the initial Roman advantage may have been such that they had no need for the usual piecemeal charges and pauses, but "their very first charge" was enough.

[Mark G]

So, plenty of justification for one side pushing the other back - othismos style.
But that's not necessarily recoil, where a clear break in contact is evidenced.

Hence my point about non continuous melee, which presupposes breakoffs and standoffs over a broadly static line, and into which it becomes much easier to include a push back and recoil situation.

For the continuous melee luddites, there is a mechanism gap - how does a recoil happen without a follow up if melee is continuous and the recoil is not a predicate to a break?
Hence my point on first principles.

[Duncan Head]

So, plenty of justification for one side pushing the other back - othismos style.
But that's not necessarily recoil, where a clear break in contact is evidenced.

Which is relatively rarely.

Hence my point about non continuous melee, which presupposes breakoffs and standoffs over a broadly static line,

Does it? It presupposes successive charges and breakoffs, but it does not seem necessary to me that the two sides line up post-breakoff in the same places as before.

and into which it becomes much easier to include a push back and recoil situation.
For the continuous melee luddites, there is a mechanism gap - how does a recoil happen without a follow up if melee is continuous and the recoil is not a predicate to a break?
Hence my point on first principles.

Some rules already allow for recoils to which a follow-up is either optional or in various circumstances forbidden. It's hardly a major mechanism problem.

[Nick Harbud]

IMHO, recoil is one of those mechanisms that can be anything the rules' author cares it to be.  It can simply indicate that one side has an advantage in the subsequent melee round or, as others have suggested, a prelude to break off or rout.  A couple of random observations...

I remember under one version of DBA having my chariots recoil from Steve Neate's Blades, which because of the former's great base depth, put them outside the latter's charge distance.   

The 'Agincourt spear length' is indistinguishable from being stationary under most rules.  Also, one might question whether the French had the advantage over the English at this stage of the battle.  Incidentally, my demented software suggests 'Encouraging' as the correct spelling of this epic battle.   

[Justin Swanton]

Recoiling is sort of an attritional disadvantage in DBx since it breaks up a line, allowing overlap advantages in the next round of combat, and if there are enough recoils the player at the receiving end may not have enough pips to repair his line in time.

Blade vs doubled pike for example: if 2 pike force recoils on either side of a blade they will supply double overlap modifiers in the next round of combat, changing 6 vs 5 to 6 vs 3, with a real chance of doubling against and killing the blade, something virtually impossible (well, a 1:36 chance) when the two lines are straight.

Of course since the pikes have to follow up, that inflicts overlaps on them, worst-case scenario 4 vs 5 with a smaller chance of being doubled.

[Erpingham]

Recoiling is sort of an attritional disadvantage in DBx since it breaks up a line, allowing overlap advantages in the next round of combat, and if there are enough recoils the player at the receiving end may not have enough pips to repair his line in time.

But is this the effect the author designed for -and the recoiling is only an abstract to make it happen - or is the recoil a reflection of the authors' view of ancient combat - it was full individual bits to-ing and fro-ing which came disorderly over time and local advantages were the key factor?  If the former, it doesn't matter if it happened like that on an ancient battlefield, it is just to achieve a higher level result.  Not to say we shouldn't discuss the topic and how to model it in wargames, just a tad unfair to criticise DBx on detail if they are abstracted for effect.

[Justin Swanton]

Not to say we shouldn't discuss the topic and how to model it in wargames, just a tad unfair to criticise DBx on detail if they are abstracted for effect.

No criticism meant at all.  DBx's recoil can be seen as an ingenious way to avoid bookkeeping since it creates incremental disadvantages for the recoiler without the player having to mark step losses on the units or a piece of paper. As a gaming mechanism it works fine, question is, to what extent does it represent reality? (accepting of course that no wargame is expected to represent reality 100% or even 90%)

[Patrick Waterson]

I think non-continuous combat really deserves its own thread and discussion as it appears to be muddying the waters here.

Thucydides VI.70

The armies now came to close quarters, and for a long while fought without either giving ground. Meanwhile there occurred some claps of thunder with lightning and heavy rain, which did not fail to add to the fears of the party fighting for the first time, and very little acquainted with war; while to their more experienced adversaries these phenomena appeared to be produced by the time of year, and much more alarm was felt at the continued resistance of the enemy. [2] At last the Argives drove in [osamenon = thrust back, push back] the Syracusan left, and after them the Athenians routed the troops opposed to them, and the Syracusan army was thus cut in two [parerregnunto = broken] and betook itself to flight. [3] The Athenians did not pursue far, being held in check by the numerous and undefeated Syracusan horse, who attacked and drove back any of their heavy infantry whom they saw pursuing in advance of the rest; in spite of which the victors followed so far as was safe in a body, and then went back and set up a trophy. [4] Meanwhile the Syracusans rallied at the Helorine road, where they reformed as well as they could under the circumstances, and even sent a garrison of their own citizens to the Olympieum, fearing that the Athenians might lay hands on some of the treasures there. The rest returned to the town.

This action, shortly after the Athenians landed at Syracuse in 415 BC, appears to show an absence of recoil ("for a long while [the armies] fought without either giving ground").  Once a contingent was forced back, rout soon followed; it looks as if being forced back was an effect rather than a cause of being overcome.

[Justin Swanton]

It would be interesting to narrow down, if possible, a set of general conditions/circumstances that cause a line to recoil.