Heavy infantry fighting density

[Erpingham]

My curiosity piqued by recent arguments learned debate on the fighting densities of Macedonian infantry, which were digressing in various directions, I thought I'd start something a bit broader to consider non-Polybian records of the matter and any experiments attempted.  I'll start us off with curiosity, which is the only thing I can find online for a well known Swiss experiment on pike squares done in 1974.  Here 400 recruits from the Swiss army antitank school are set to work.  Sadly the photos are poor (if anyone has access to better or knows where an online copy of the report from 1975 can be found, please enlighten us) but we can gather that the re-enactors are placed at a frontage of 0.6m per man and a similar depth.  I think the depth is wrong - according to renaissance manuals the "footprint" of a pikeman was 3ft front x 7ft depth.  The tight depth is only permitted by not giving the flank squaddies pikes.  But the width seems to work.  Of course, these men don't have shields.

I believe I have seen references to Byzantine formations and Richard taylor has noted Vegetius has something about Romans.

So, if anyone has any interesting evidence from various times and places.  I do have one more medieval one up my sleeve but lets see what else we have.

[RichT]

Groan...

OK I'll just toss this in, though it's from outside our period, but relates in obvious ways to the discussion we have been having (and indeed since it is probably derived from Aelian, may even go back ultimately to Polybius, but that's another matter):


INSTRVCTIONS For MVSTERS AND ARMES, AND the vse thereof
1623

"First of all, it is to be vnderstood that there are three sorts of distances, to wit, Open Order, Order, and Close Order. Open Order or the first distance is, when the Souldiers both in Ranke and File stand sixe foot remooued one from another.

The second distance, or your Order is, when the Souldiers stand three foot remooued both in Ranke and File, one from another; and this Order is to be vsed, when they are embattayled, or march in the face of an enemy, or when they come to stand, or when you will wheele. But when you march thorow any Country, you must obserue three foot only from File to File, and sixe from Ranke to Ranke. The third distance, or your Close Order is commanded, by this word Close, which is when there is one foot and a halfe from File to File, and three from Ranke to Rank, and this is for the Pikes onely, and must neuer be vsed but when you will stand firme to receiue the charge of an enemy. The Muskettiers must neuer be closer then the second distance of three foot in square, because they are to haue a free vse of their Armes.

In exercising your motions, you are alwayes to obserue your Open Order of sixe foot in square, in which the company being first placed, you are to acquaint them to these termes of directions."

[Duncan Head]

The infantry should be arrayed such that the space between any two men is a sama (14 angulas); cavalry with three samas; chariots with four samas; and elephants with twice or thrice as much space (as between any two chariots). With such an array free to move and having no confusion, one should fight. A bow means five aratnis (5 x 54 = 120 angulas). Archers should be stationed at the distance of five bows (from one line to another); the cavalry at the distance of three bows; and chariots or elephants at the distance of five bows.

An angula is about an inch.

[Justin Swanton]

Connolly's experiments with reenactors:

[Imperial Dave]

Groan...

that one word made me spit my coffee out and nearly choke with laughter.......

[Andreas Johansson]

"First of all, it is to be vnderstood that there are three sorts of distances, to wit, Open Order, Order, and Close Order. Open Order or the first distance is, when the Souldiers both in Ranke and File stand sixe foot remooued one from another.

That sounds rather like the gaps should be six feet. Assuming a man to be something like 1½ foot wide, that 'd then give a frontage of 7½ feet per file.

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that that's how it was done in the eighteenth(?) century, specifying gaps rather than frontages: and the Arthashastra clearly does the same.

(Incidentally, the spacing for chariots works out to less than 1.5 m - presumably caracole was not on the reportoire.)

[Imperial Dave]

Connolly's experiments with reenactors:

awesome find Justin.....the diagrams suggest an oblique stance rather than square on - a possible missing link between formation widths?

[Erpingham]

Veg. 3.14.6-7:

'Individual infantrymen regularly occupy 3 feet each. Therefore in a mile 1,666 infantrymen are ranked abreast, without light showing between them but leaving room to handle their weapons. Between line and line, they wished to have a space of 6 feet in depth behind them to give the fighting men room to move forward and back, missiles being more forcibly thrown from a running jump.' (Milner's translation)

[nikgaukroger]

awesome find Justin.....the diagrams suggest an oblique stance rather than square on - a possible missing link between formation widths?

Was anyone actually thinking such pikemen would stand in any other way?

[Imperial Dave]

awesome find Justin.....the diagrams suggest an oblique stance rather than square on - a possible missing link between formation widths?

Was anyone actually thinking such pikemen would stand in any other way?

quite right too. I of course meant that the pictures suggest 'side on' posture and normally would expect oblique with body posture at  45 degrees and shield more or less full facing.

d'oh 

[Justin Swanton]

awesome find Justin

Actually a gift from Paul Bardunias.

[Imperial Dave]

and jolly good it is too. I was then minded to trawl through You tube for various offerings of Macedonian phalanx formations but sometimes the detailed bit you want to see is only fleeting or too far away...

I am also reminded to watch the Alexander film again (just for research obviously)

[Erpingham]

Maurice Strategicon 12.B.16.30–38 (as given by Philip Rance). 

They advance in a fulcum, whenever, as the battle lines are
coming close together, both ours and the enemy's, the archery is
about to commence, and those arrayed in the front line are not
wearing mail coats or greaves. He [the herald] orders, "ad
fulco."17 And those arrayed right at the very front mass their
shields together until they come shield-boss to shield-boss,
completely covering their stomachs almost to their shins. The
men standing just behind them, raising their shields and resting
them on the shield-bosses of those in front, cover their chests
and faces, and in this way they engage.

Rance clearly believes that Byzantine drill at this time contained different levels of order

Before close-quarters contact
with the enemy, about two or three bowshots from the enemy
battle line, upon the order "iunge," the infantry were to close in
from both the flanks and rear, a manoeuvre Maurice calls
puknosis or sphigxis. Traditionally puknosis meant reducing the
space allotted to each man in a rank to two cubits (three feet),
creating a dense formation in which each man was still able to
manoeuvre and employ his weaponry; this conventional "close
order" appears to correspond to what Maurice describes.
During this manoeuvre "the men deployed at the front come together
side-by-side until they are shield-boss to shield-boss with
one another", while those in the ranks behind stand "almost glued to one another"

The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: the Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics? Philip Rance p.271

(I've extracted the Greek text where possible and transliterated it where not - correctly I hope )

So, approach order closes down to puknosis and then foulkon.  I'm not sure the latter two are at different spacings - both are described as "boss to boss".  This ought to be traditional 1 cubit spacing but both formations can manoeuver so may in reality have been somewhat looser.

There is another description of this close order in the later Sylloge Tacticorum, under the name syskouton.  I think this means literally shields together, skouton meaning "shield" at this point.  Here it is stated as 1 cubit spacing.  If I can extract it, I'll reproduce it because it contrasts it with normal infantry formation (which it doesn't given a frontage for alas).

[Erpingham]

Sylloge Tacticorum Chapter 45 (Chatzelis and Harris translation)

32 Whenever the enemy attacks the Roman army with great force and
prevails, the formation must become dense to such an extent as to
be impossible for anyone to turn about and move from one spot to
another. Because each [man] occupies a space of no more than a cubit,
the formation is, therefore, called ' locking of shields'.
33 The Romans usually make this formation round but also square.
Sometimes it has more length than depth and sometimes the opposite.
Those who stand at the front put forward the man-height shields which
some call thyreoi, and turning their faces towards the enemy, they fight
boldly without breaking the close order at all. If they are on the move,
they conduct the march slowly and in step. Each of those in the middle
covers the heads of those who are standing by him by quickly raising
his shield high, and so everybody remains unharmed, since due to
the density [ of the formation], the missiles and stones released by the
enemy do no harm. Consequently, this formation was called the tortoise
by the tacticians, because it has so much density as for someone
to easily stand in file and not fall, and for the very large stones which
are thrown to roll upon the shields and to fall onto the ground without
any result at all.


This probably illustrates a conflation of sources, the foulkon as described by Maurice and the classic Roman testudo.  But it does give us some interesting bits of info.

Locked shields has everyone with one cubit of space.  Movement inside the formation is no longer possible (which implies it is in normal formation density).  Note that the fully enclosed version, the tortoise, can move slowly and in step.

[RichT]

Another out of period but pike-related one - there are a million 17th C manuals all saying much the same thing but I'm going to quote this one as I like his style:

#######

MILITARY DISCIPLINE: OR, THE YOUNG ARTILLERY MAN
By William Barriff
1635

But because it is held by some a matter disputable, whether distance be one of the motions or no: We will first declare, what is distance. To which I answer, that indeed Distance it selfe is no motion, but there is motion in producing such distance; for Distance is the space of ground between man and man either in File or Ranke, having relation onely to the place between each partie, All the rest of the motions having not onely relation to the one, but the other. Wherefore not to spend more time in a matter so apparant, we will say that the discipline of a foot-companie consists chiefly in distance and motion. And therefore seeing that distance is the ground of motion, and that no motion can be performed without distance, wee will leave to discourse it, and fall to the matter it selfe, and shew how many sorts of Distance is ordinarily used in our moderne discipline, which are these foure here under named:

Close Order               (which is            One foot and a halfe.
Order                        (both in             Three foot.
Open Order               rank and            Sixe foot.
Double distance         file)                   Twelve foot.

It hath been the opinion of some ancient Commanders, that the distance of Ranke, was alwaies double the distance of File, although they went
both under one and the same denomination. As that order in File was three foot, order in Ranke sixe foot, open order in file sixe foot, open order in ranke twelve foot, and so of other distances. But the best received opinions hold them to be alike both in ranke and file.

There is to be considered in distance these three especially, that is,

                     For March.
Distance        For Motion.
                     For Skirmish.
      
You are to observe, that your distance for march is to be three foot between file and file, and sixe foot between ranke and ranke; distance for motion sixe foot both in ranke and file, distance for wheelings and skirmish three foot in ranke and file. Onely if you were to receive a charge from the horse, it is necessary for your files of Pike-men to be at close order.

######

He does talk as if the distance is the gap between men, not the distance between midpoint and midpoint of each man - I don't know if this is just an artifact of the writing style, since that would make all the intervals wider than we expect.