Heavy infantry fighting density

[Imperial Dave]

it does show that loose formed infantry will squeeze and contract away from contact and also shows that the 3rd person onwards cannot see what is happening but is pushed back in a ripple effect

its not perfect but it is interesting to show large body motion!

[Patrick Waterson]

Remember police horses are not taught to charge home at the gallop, nor are they trained as a warhorse.  They are usually trained to push their way into a crowd, not run over them. So it doesn't give us much insight into charging cavalry.

True.  As Dave said, it shows us not so much the process of a cavalry charge as the reaction of untrained infantry to being charged.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting to note with the Russian football hooligans the initial forming up into a deep formation, use of war cries, slow mutual advance to contact, rear rank missile fire, extension to cover flanks after contact, skirmishing on the flanks, distortion of the batle line under pressure and the eventual rout and pursuit.

That video changed my thinking about archaic hoplites. I think Tyrtaeus could easily have described that scene.

It does suggest a sort of basic pattern for elementary infantry.  The combatants could have engaged in mutual skirmishing but did not; instead, they adopted a formation and tactics which would have been at home pretty much anywhere in the 7th century BC.  Unless there is a textbook in Russia for football hooliganism this could be a more widely applicable prototype or archetype of infantry close combat, or at least a starting pattern to check for in surviving period art.

Sounds like you had an interesting weekend then , Pat.

It had its moments, certainly.

[PMBardunias]

It does suggest a sort of basic pattern for elementary infantry.  The combatants could have engaged in mutual skirmishing but did not; instead, they adopted a formation and tactics which would have been at home pretty much anywhere in the 7th century BC.  Unless there is a textbook in Russia for football hooliganism this could be a more widely applicable prototype or archetype of infantry close combat, or at least a starting pattern to check for in surviving period art.

You joke, but I have been attempting for years to find some contact with these hooligans to tell me if and how much they actually practice getting into these groups.  It looks like very little.  Often they can be seen linking arms to maintain formation as they advance, which is the tactile equivalent of overlapping aspides or touching shield rims. I wish I could set up an experiment like this, but I doubt I will get it past the ethics board.  If someone could translate this for me into Russian, we would just need a good camera: "Hey Spartak, you dudes fight like my little sister!  If you were real men you would meet us in the park at noon!" and "Yo Zenit, you guys suck, meet us in the park at high noon!"

I agree that this represents a minimal, perhaps natural, grouping, where everything is spontaneous, anyone can form beside any other. This makes for a simple and very fluid mass that is much more organized in the sense of looking like a battle-line than many realize. The problem is that it is too fluid. Men with freedom to move an reform, are free to move to the back and flee. Tyrtaeus addresses this problem when calls out men for leaving the ranks.

The first step in modifying the natural state is to have men form up behind/beside specific individuals. All we need to make a classical phalanx is for a hoplite to know which man they stand behind and for promachoi to know who to stand beside. You did this in the marching column long before deploying into line. You are no longer anonymous and far less likely to try to sneak away, but Xenophon tells us of the fragility of this system in that you cannot form up with men you do not know.

To correct this we have true drill, where all men know their place in rank and file. In the Spartan system you know if you are a file leader, a half file leader, or a rear ranker. Even if the men between did not have a specific assignment (i.e.: does it matter if I am an 9th or 10th ranker?) this subdivision ensured that a formation could fall together quickly. Subunits of 6 men would quickly reform behind pempadarchs and then form either behind or beside those of enomotarchs. There is a lot of overlap between the organizational types, because in practice, you surely knew who your were standing behind in the initial deployment into marching column even if you knew rank and file drill. Compares to the natural state you still lose fluidity and resilience (think of the way a school of fish makes room for a shark to pass through and then reforms behind it), but you gain rigidity and force men to stay in their places. This all goes to hell in a rout, which in many ways looks like the advance of men in a natural swarm, and we are back to a mass of individuals. Were these men organized like animals, rallying would be easy (like the fish coming together after the shark) but the imposed drill, and the expectation of not just forming up beside anyone, means that cohesion is hopelessly lost unless the their is time and space to shake out into files.

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, the file forms an excellent basis for unit cohesion, turning swarms into strings as the basis for bigger building blocks with strong cohesion, notably a phalanx.  As you observe, if one can limit or eliminate back-and-forth shifting within one's proto-unit, it adds greatly to its strength and cohesion, particularly under pressure.

Adding 'true drill' creates cross-cooperation and a much more solid and unyielding matrix; I would suggest it does not entirely disallow fluidity, given (for example) the ability of disciplined classical infantry formations to open up and allow chariots through, albeit such fluidity as it possesses will be less spontaneous and will presumably require orders to carry out.

Skirmish-type formations do seem to follow the 'animal' pattern, fleeing when disadvantaged but rapidly reforming, apparently none the worse for wear, once the pressure is off.  Iphicrates' peltasts at Lechaeum might be an example here.

By the way, great to have you here, Paul.

The best way into the Russian football hooligan scene might be to get to know Zenit on Facebook.  Being a St Petersburg club, they are much less xenophobic than Spartak and have fans worldwide.  Someone is bound to talk!

[Mark G]

First rule of hooligan club.

You don't talk about hooligan club.

Second rule.

Fight in the forrests, so you are not disturbed by the law.

[PMBardunias]

quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=3257.msg41013#msg41013 date=1523523302]
Adding 'true drill' creates cross-cooperation and a much more solid and unyielding matrix; I would suggest it does not entirely disallow fluidity, given (for example) the ability of disciplined classical infantry formations to open up and allow chariots through, albeit such fluidity as it possesses will be less spontaneous and will presumably require orders to carry out. [/quote]

I can't escape my branch of scientific training, so I rarely see broad jumps in military advancement. For me I need to understand these things as an evolutionary process.  Where we do see sudden changes, it is usually through borrowing from other cultures wherein a gradual evolution took place.  One thing about drill is that the more advanced types do not replace the primitive, but overlay upon them.  It is a bit like your brain. You can walk with just a brain stem, but the higher brain above allows you to modify and control walking. The interesting thing about this analogy is that for most of the time you are essentially running on autopilot without the input of higher brain function.  I think armies defaulted to the mechanics of more primitive types of drill often as well.

You could train your men to move laterally in an orderly manner and filter into the files beside them, but the fluidity in drill during something surprising is most likely a reversion to the natural movement of men. The challenge then is that the men do not get so far into the swarm behavior that they loose the ability to get back into rank and file. This is important, because the biggest reason that armies break is the perception that something is going counter to expectations. Thus, Roman maniples can give way before a sarissa phalanx in a manner that does not cause them to break, but hoplites would be more likely to perceive falling back as losing.

quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=3257.msg41013#msg41013 date=1523523302]
Skirmish-type formations do seem to follow the 'animal' pattern, fleeing when disadvantaged but rapidly reforming, apparently none the worse for wear, once the pressure is off.  Iphicrates' peltasts at Lechaeum might be an example here. [/quote]

Yes, skirmishers represent the most primitive form of organization. This is the most flexible and robust, meaning least fragile in terms of losing order, since they can change heading and spacing easily as part of their normal tactics. Compared to a phalanx, they are easy to scatter, but they more easily reform.

quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=3257.msg41013#msg41013 date=1523523302]
By the way, great to have you here, Paul.
The best way into the Russian football hooligan scene might be to get to know Zenit on Facebook.  Being a St Petersburg club, they are much less xenophobic than Spartak and have fans worldwide.  Someone is bound to talk!
[/quote]

It is great to be here with you.  I just joined the Zenit fan club, thanks! 

[Patrick Waterson]

I can't escape my branch of scientific training, so I rarely see broad jumps in military advancement. For me I need to understand these things as an evolutionary process.  Where we do see sudden changes, it is usually through borrowing from other cultures wherein a gradual evolution took place.  One thing about drill is that the more advanced types do not replace the primitive, but overlay upon them.  It is a bit like your brain. You can walk with just a brain stem, but the higher brain above allows you to modify and control walking. The interesting thing about this analogy is that for most of the time you are essentially running on autopilot without the input of higher brain function.  I think armies defaulted to the mechanics of more primitive types of drill often as well.

That is interesting, because veteran units in any era tend to show this kind of automatic response, doing the right thing in a particular situation without orders (e.g. at Pharsalus, where Caesar's men stopped their charge on their own initiative when it was apparent their opponents were not countercharging, then restarted closer to enemy lines).

You could train your men to move laterally in an orderly manner and filter into the files beside them, but the fluidity in drill during something surprising is most likely a reversion to the natural movement of men. The challenge then is that the men do not get so far into the swarm behavior that they loose the ability to get back into rank and file. This is important, because the biggest reason that armies break is the perception that something is going counter to expectations. Thus, Roman maniples can give way before a sarissa phalanx in a manner that does not cause them to break, but hoplites would be more likely to perceive falling back as losing.

Good observation; from what I have been able to determine (from Livy VIII.8 and Polybius II.33) Roman legionaries carried out their line relief by having the forward line move backwards through the relieving line, so being forced back would not worry them until the triarii were worsted.  Conversely, a hoplite formation going backwards would have felt it had already lost, or was close to doing so, because they would know that in hoplite fighting losers are pushed back and winners push forward and that recovery is pretty unlikely.  Confidence erodes and cooperation with it.  The group crumbles into a colection of individuals as that group spirit and connection are lost.

Yes, skirmishers represent the most primitive form of organization. This is the most flexible and robust, meaning least fragile in terms of losing order, since they can change heading and spacing easily as part of their normal tactics. Compared to a phalanx, they are easy to scatter, but they more easily reform.

I suspect that when caught (e.g. by cavalry or high-speed Spartans) they also break more readily.  Your point about what breaks troops being the unexpected or unprovided for is a good one (and the Spartans, who tried to cover all the bases in warfare, taught their troops to react effectively to the unexpected).

It is great to be here with you.  I just joined the Zenit fan club, thanks! 

Good hunting!