Heavy infantry fighting density

[aligern]

I am less keen on 'by eye' for the intervals between men, as it becomes a matter of judgememt by one person, or is it the many? Working by a human measurement has the immense advantage that each man self regulates. What is needed is consensus on the starting point and agreement to shuffle until the agreed distances are reached. Its not going to work if one group is determined not to budge.
There must be some central direction, when Caesar orders four legions into line, they  do not , presumably start from the  right marker and then start extending the line from there. I suggest that someone paces out or rides the distances and places a man as marker for the centre of each legion and the officers then work from there. He could do it on foot, but it could take half an hour to walk the frontage and place markers.
I also suggest that there are gaps between the formations ( which I don't think the enemy will run down, but we have debated that) , so that there is a margin of error and room for manoeuvre.
Barbarian tribes are going to have to do something similar. I buy the idea that, if you have excess numbers, you increase depth, but tribal leaders must have some idea of numbers and do not end up trying to cram a quart of men into a pint pot of frontage, or with a large space to fill and a much reduced and thus vulnerable depth.  Interestingly Agathias tells us that , at Casilinum, the Heruls had not come up into formation when the line was formed and thus left a gap for them. That implies that he knows the numbers of the Heruls and how much space they will need and that the Herul leader knows to deploy into that space, i.e. he knows what the frontage derived from human distances that his troop takes up will be.
At both Cannae and Adrianople a cause of the Roman defeat was that men were crushed in too tightly to use their weapons and injured each other.  That does suggest that the deployment space has to allow everyone to operate , shield spear, throwing weapons...it has to be close enough for mutual protection and loose enough to avoid and deliver blows. Different fighting styles , defence against missiles, , attacking, defending would demand different depths. At Bibracte Caesar remarks upon the Helvetii having two or three shields pinned together by plia, thus a very tight formation, at Vesontio it looks as if Ariovistus' Germans are in a looser formation to attack, but adopt tighter density to defend when they fall back tired.  To me this all argues for natural  human based measurements with easy and easily understood movements for expansion and contraction.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

I am less keen on 'by eye' for the intervals between men, as it becomes a matter of judgememt by one person, or is it the many? Working by a human measurement has the immense advantage that each man self regulates. What is needed is consensus on the starting point and agreement to shuffle until the agreed distances are reached. Its not going to work if one group is determined not to budge.
There must be some central direction, when Caesar orders four legions into line, they  do not , presumably start from the  right marker and then start extending the line from there. I suggest that someone paces out or rides the distances and places a man as marker for the centre of each legion and the officers then work from there. He could do it on foot, but it could take half an hour to walk the frontage and place markers.
I also suggest that there are gaps between the formations ( which I don't think the enemy will run down, but we have debated that) , so that there is a margin of error and room for manoeuvre.
Barbarian tribes are going to have to do something similar. I buy the idea that, if you have excess numbers, you increase depth, but tribal leaders must have some idea of numbers and do not end up trying to cram a quart of men into a pint pot of frontage, or with a large space to fill and a much reduced and thus vulnerable depth.  Interestingly Agathias tells us that , at Casilinum, the Heruls had not come up into formation when the line was formed and thus left a gap for them. That implies that he knows the numbers of the Heruls and how much space they will need and that the Herul leader knows to deploy into that space, i.e. he knows what the frontage derived from human distances that his troop takes up will be.
At both Cannae and Adrianople a cause of the Roman defeat was that men were crushed in too tightly to use their weapons and injured each other.  That does suggest that the deployment space has to allow everyone to operate , shield spear, throwing weapons...it has to be close enough for mutual protection and loose enough to avoid and deliver blows. Different fighting styles , defence against missiles, , attacking, defending would demand different depths. At Bibracte Caesar remarks upon the Helvetii having two or three shields pinned together by plia, thus a very tight formation, at Vesontio it looks as if Ariovistus' Germans are in a looser formation to attack, but adopt tighter density to defend when they fall back tired.  To me this all argues for natural  human based measurements with easy and easily understood movements for expansion and contraction.
Roy

Using the human body as a yardstick for close and intermediate formations (files 3 feet or 18 inches wide) make sense; one arm to the man on your right and you have three feet; shoulders not quite touching and you have 18 inches, more-or-less.

One thing though: the manuals talk about an open formation - 6 feet per file - as being a natural arrangement, so natural it doesn't have a special name. What is natural about 6-foot wide files and what is the yardstick by which they are set up?

[Jim Webster]

One thing though: the manuals talk about an open formation - 6 feet per file - as being a natural arrangement, so natural it doesn't have a special name. What is natural about 6-foot wide files and what is the yardstick by which they are set up?

Perhaps it's the sort of thing where if the officer could walk through without bumping into people, you know he was sober and the spacing was a 'natural' six foot 

[RichT]

Perhaps it's the sort of thing where if the officer could walk through without bumping into people, you know he was sober and the spacing was a 'natural' six foot 

There may be truth in that. Since (I shouldn't mention this, but needs must) Polybius says each man with his arms occupies 3 feet, then loosely speaking if people are standing close but not squashed right up, they are at 3 foot intervals. So 6 foot intervals would be leaving the same amount of space for another man to stand (or walk etc) in between. Maybe that's all there was to it.

Or to use a human measurement it would be outstretched arms (Vitruvian Man style - 'four cubits make a man'), but that runs into the problem of one arm having a massive great shield attached to it.

[Justin Swanton]

There may be truth in that. Since (I shouldn't mention this, but needs must) Polybius says each man with his arms occupies 3 feet, then loosely speaking if people are standing close but not squashed right up, they are at 3 foot intervals. So 6 foot intervals would be leaving the same amount of space for another man to stand (or walk etc) in between. Maybe that's all there was to it.

If the files in open order had a man in the front of each 'empty' file that would fix the spacing at 6 feet if the men in the front rank all lined up on an intermediate 3-feet order. Of course no primary source in Greek to back the idea up, no matter how carefully dissected.   

[Erpingham]

I think we can allow a bit of variation in how armies assembled themselves into good order.  I suspect Hellenistic drill was more precise than putting a medieval shieldwall together. 

Having had a look at some Byzantine drill in the course of reading round this thread (they also produced drill manuals, albeit influenced by the ancient tacticians) I was struck by the role of the experienced men who had an NCO function in each file.  There was a file leader, a half file leader  and a file closer at the back.  These would be the men who knew what the spacing should be and could be expected to get their file aligned with its neighbours.  Other armies wouldn't have had such formality but they may well have placed their veterans at the front and seasoned men at the back.

[RichT]

Reminds me of how the passage from William Barriff I quoted above opens:

"Now that our Souldiers have attained some small knowledge in the use of their Armes (me thinkes like some of our little-knowing souldiers of the trained Bands) they already begin to be ambitious of File-leaders places; therefore that their owne weakenesses may light them to reade their owne follies, we will see how they will behave themselves in exercise amongst the Companie. Wherein the first thing we are to instruct them in, is their distances."

So yes, file leaders (and half file leaders, and file closers) have probably always been the ones who needed some skill at setting intervals.

[aligern]

Loojs like a good topic for a short article if someone can pick it up?
R

[Erpingham]

Loojs like a good topic for a short article if someone can pick it up?
R

The great problem would be that you would have to tackle the hugely controversial Hellenistic material, which needs detailed language skills and wide reading in primary and secondary sources, which I don't have .  Really, this thread was to divert us from just looking at the intricacies of the Greek to examine parallel evidence which would otherwise get lost.

[RichT]

Loojs like a good topic for a short article if someone can pick it up?
R

The great problem would be that you would have to tackle the hugely controversial Hellenistic material, which needs detailed language skills and wide reading in primary and secondary sources, which I don't have .  Really, this thread was to divert us from just looking at the intricacies of the Greek to examine parallel evidence which would otherwise get lost.

Though if Roy's suggestion is that that is what would make a good topic for an article - ie a comparison of heavy infantry frontages across (and outside) our period - I agree that would be very interesting - though I'd rather read it than write it myself, not having any knowledge  of the later stuff.  The same goes for pike formations specifically. I don't think the Hellenistic material is hugely controversial though, it's just a topic that for some reason attracts a small number of, err... people with alternative theories. The Classical Greek material (or lack of) is more controversial (and intractable).

[Erpingham]

I'd also prefer to read it than write it I'm sure someone could come up with some ergonomics or biomechanics on the limitations around fighting and the minimum space required then compare to historical examples, or some such.

[Erpingham]

A little more digging around later pike drill provided this from Pallas Armata by Thomas Kellie (a Scottish drill book of 1627) on the subject of judging distances in the formation

Now the measure of those Distances cannot be taken justlie by the eye; but the Souldier to learne them must acompt the distance of sixe foote to, bee betwixt file and file, when the Souldiers streatching out their airmes, toucheth one anothers hands: and betwixt Rankes, when the endes of their Pickes come well neare to the heelles of them that march before ... And the measure of the 3. foote betwixt the files, is when their Elbowes toucheth one another, betwixt Rankes, when they come up to touch one anothers Swords; The measure of a foote and an halfe betwixt files, is when they joyne shoulder to shoulder.


Here we see the body used as measuring stick.  I think you could do the order and close order with a pike at the" advance" (straight up, held at hip level with right hand and leaning into your shoulder) but not the open order, where you need both hands.  The ancestor of this drill position may have been in use in the later 15th century but not I think earlier.

[PMBardunias]

Below is how we double from open order (a bit less than 2m) to close order (about 72cm). For 1m intervals, the aspis itself is a yardstick, for opened order you simply hold out your aspis, which extends a bit further than your hand, but not another 1m because of the central porpax placement- some of the apsis is behind your own back in this position. You could of course lean a bit to get the full 2m spacing if so trained.

Contrary to what you might read, hoplites cannot form up at 45cm with 1m aspides with the shield faces in a line towards the enemy. Even if you could fight in this tight a spacing, you have an arm in the porpax that gets in the way. Mathews spacing was mentioned earlier, but he never shows hoplites in 45cm (18") spacing.  See my measurement of his figure using one of the shield diameters for scale.  The only way you can form at 45cm with an aspis is to angle it behind the man to your left, obliquely across your front- much like the sarissaphoroi did. The 45cm spacing has to be for Sarissaphoroi.

[PMBardunias]

I'd also prefer to read it than write it I'm sure someone could come up with some ergonomics or biomechanics on the limitations around fighting and the minimum space required then compare to historical examples, or some such.

To some extent I already have, but it is very dependent on shield diameter, grip placement, and the way you hold your weapon. Once your shields get close enough to overlap all of your strikes will be over the top, spears in overhand (high underhand is commonly seen, but weak and opens your armpit to counterstrike), and sword slashes delivered fore hand or back hand (the so-called Harmodios blow seen on vases) from above shoulder height, or sword stabs plunging from above. A hoplite does not need much more room than from his left shoulder to his right elbow extended to the right (60-72cm) for spear or sword. I doubt a Roman needed more than 3 feet of frontage to stab along the right edge of his scutum or over the top, a Saxon maybe more. Once you get so close you cannot swing your elbow forward, it gets hard to strike. You can still do it, but you definitely feel constrained. I will attach an image of commonly seen Greek sword strikes on vases compared with Meyer's cuts for longsword. Only the high line cuts would work in a shield-wall.

[Justin Swanton]

I'd also prefer to read it than write it I'm sure someone could come up with some ergonomics or biomechanics on the limitations around fighting and the minimum space required then compare to historical examples, or some such.

To some extent I already have, but it is very dependent on shield diameter, grip placement, and the way you hold your weapon. Once your shields get close enough to overlap all of your strikes will be over the top, spears in overhand (high underhand is commonly seen, but weak and opens your armpit to counterstrike), and sword slashes delivered fore hand or back hand (the so-called Harmodios blow seen on vases) from above shoulder height, or sword stabs plunging from above. A hoplite does not need much more room than from his left shoulder to his right elbow extended to the right (60-72cm) for spear or sword. I doubt a Roman needed more than 3 feet of frontage to stab along the right edge of his scutum or over the top, a Saxon maybe more. Once you get so close you cannot swing your elbow forward, it gets hard to strike. You can still do it, but you definitely feel constrained. I will attach an image of commonly seen Greek sword strikes on vases compared with Meyer's cuts for longsword. Only the high line cuts would work in a shield-wall.

All these examples seem to be by hoplites not in a phalanx, either individual fighters in the heroic mode or pursuers. Anything that shows how hoplites in a formed phalanx wielded their swords?