The mechanism of Roman line relief

[Mark G]

looks like we both have some interesting stuff to get into with the next slingshot then.

[aligern]

Roy, the battle in 509 BC saw each side's right defeat the other side's left while the action as a whole was indecisive.  I have not seen this in a non-hoplite infantry battle, which makes this particular fight look very hoplite-ish.

Patrick, would you accept Sentinum as an example of One wing being defeated  whilst the other is held.... and not a hoplite in sight?
If the Romans tend to a two legion, two consul command structure then varying outcomes by wing make sense.

Even if this is unified command and sounds like a Greek hoplite 5th century BC battle it only becomes proof if the thought is already there in our heads. I accept , f course, that the thought that I start with is that Italian systems are probably not clones of Greek ones.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I would not, Roy, because Sentinum a) was not a case of each side's right defeating the other's left (although the Roman left was hard pressed) and b) the overall battle was not indecisive, but a clear Roman victory.

In any event, in 509 BC the Republican Romans were facing a similar army (Tarquin's) not a coalition of two opponents with different fighting styles (*whistles as he looks back at WMWW*).  Even if two consuls were fighting independent battles I do not think Tarquin was.

Actually you should have quoted First Philippi (42 BC) - that was a clear case of each-side's-right-defeats-opponent's-left in a legionary battle.  Even better, it was indecisive.  The one quibble I would have is that neither army was using Servius Tullius' system. 

Anthony - yes, a brief explanation was fine and I am glad you did so.

Patrick

[Justin Swanton]

The battle against the Hernici in 486 BC illustrates the system of piecemeal reinforcement that appears to have prevailed between the short-lived hoplite system (obit pre-503 BC) and the recognisable 'Livian' legion of Livy VIII.8 (394-314 BC).

"Then there was a glorious struggle as both armies fought stubbornly; and for a long time they stood firm, neither side yielding to the other the ground where they were posted. At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engage in war. 3 Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress." (Dionysius VIII.65.2-3)

I'd be curious to know how this piecemeal reinforcement could take place without sections of the line getting its flanks exposed, i.e. a 30-metre-wide portion of the line pulls back, leaving a hole which the enemy will fill before the relief troops can; or the 30-metre-wide portion filters back through the relieving troops files, also leaving a gap which can be exploited.

The only mechanism which I see working is that the relieving troops advance into the file gaps of the front line troops, who then retire back through the relieving troops' own files and out of danger. This manoeuvre would present a continuous front to the enemy at all times.

I would add that this would have been the original method of line relief which, due to the disruption of the front line troops' file formations, would have presented some difficulties in execution, hence explaining the Hernicians' renewed attack. They knew all about piecemeal line relief since they did it themselves, and so they knew that that portion of the army was vulnerable whilst the relief operation was underway (rather than imagining the Romans were beginning to flee as the account states - which could (!) be a mistake by the original writer). This would explain the Romans switching to a more effective method of general line relief proposed at the beginning of this thread.

Just a theory to back a theory... 

[aligern]

Ooooh Justin, does this mean that you also believe that the Romans always carried out relief and that it developed over time to more effective methods?

S there wouldn't really be a 'hoplite period' because the Etruscans and the Romans (after all the Romans are a form of Etruscan) all use Italianate systems which , in their case had some of the troops as spearmen a la Certosa Situla  and others with javelins from the beginning?
And that Greek kit models are adopted  by the better off whereas the poorer men keep Italian kit such as the cardiophylax??  But that the kit is being used in an Italian , non Greek , way?


Roy

[Mark G]

Justin,

Start with slingshot 176 through back order.

It has Sabins first paper covering the mechanics of manipular line relief reproduced there.

Goldsworthy in Complete Roman army is also worth getting as well.

both go into more detail in other places, but thats a good place to start.

Key concepts to get your head around.

1.  both sides retained gaps between the various brigades in the front line, and no one had a compeltely unified single front line. (Patrick is just missing the point to refute this because he cannot find an example in the original sources, it makes manoever impossible otherwise)

2. Those brigades would make charges, but then mutually separate by onsent as the front lines became exhausted.

once you get that in your head, and think about what it means to be too tired to keep fighting, it becomes a lot easier to understand.

[Justin Swanton]

Ooooh Justin, does this mean that you also believe that the Romans always carried out relief and that it developed over time to more effective methods?

S there wouldn't really be a 'hoplite period' because the Etruscans and the Romans (after all the Romans are a form of Etruscan) all use Italianate systems which , in their case had some of the troops as spearmen a la Certosa Situla  and others with javelins from the beginning?
And that Greek kit models are adopted  by the better off whereas the poorer men keep Italian kit such as the cardiophylax??  But that the kit is being used in an Italian , non Greek , way?


Roy

I think it a given that there was an earlier, non-relief hoplite system of fighting used by the Romans, who progressively switched to line relief later on. As for the weapons systems, I'm just the pupil here. The discussion is very interesting - feel free to go off topic whenever you want.

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually, Mark, those would seem to be key concepts to avoid.

1. Gaps between formations tend to be lethal to those formations, as demonstrated at Delium (424 BC) and First Mantinea (418 BC).

Delium http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=209.msg753#msg753 - observe what happens to the Thespians.

First Mantinea http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=255.msg1058;topicseen#msg1058 - see what happened to the Sciritae and Brasideans.

2. If you cannot relieve lines without a hiatus in the fighting then you do not have a line relief system, only a line exchange one, which anyone with two lines and a trace of discipline could do.

The uniqueness of the Roman system indicates there was rather more to it than that.

[Justin Swanton]

Justin,

Start with slingshot 176 through back order.

It has Sabins first paper covering the mechanics of manipular line relief reproduced there.

Goldsworthy in Complete Roman army is also worth getting as well.

both go into more detail in other places, but thats a good place to start.

Key concepts to get your head around.

1.  both sides retained gaps between the various brigades in the front line, and no one had a compeltely unified single front line. (Patrick is just missing the point to refute this because he cannot find an example in the original sources, it makes manoever impossible otherwise)

2. Those brigades would make charges, but then mutually separate by onsent as the front lines became exhausted.

once you get that in your head, and think about what it means to be too tired to keep fighting, it becomes a lot easier to understand.

Ta. I will try to get hold of the sources you recommend.

I have a problem with gaps in the front line. it obliges each man on the corners to fight two to his front and side, which means certain death. I just can't see troops adopting that kind of formation willingly. "Right chaps, let's draw straws for the corner boys!"

The point of this thread is that line relief is possible with the troops engaged in fighting forming a continuous line, and in a way that fits in with the sources. One is not obliged to have the forward line broken up by regular intervals, at least not once it has closed with the enemy.

[Erpingham]

2. If you cannot relieve lines without a hiatus in the fighting then you do not have a line relief system, only a line exchange one, which anyone with two lines and a trace of discipline could do.

An interesting shift.  There are clearly many who think that the Roman system was simply one of line exchange and what we are searching for is the way this was done without descent into chaos.

BTW, who are the other armies recorded as operating a planned system of line exchange? 

[Patrick Waterson]

2. If you cannot relieve lines without a hiatus in the fighting then you do not have a line relief system, only a line exchange one, which anyone with two lines and a trace of discipline could do.

An interesting shift.  There are clearly many who think that the Roman system was simply one of line exchange and what we are searching for is the way this was done without descent into chaos.

BTW, who are the other armies recorded as operating a planned system of line exchange?

Most armies of the period began action with their skirmishers and then withdrew these through the heavy troops, a 'line exchange' system which involved at least a trace of discipline, not to mention signalling, and was perforce 'planned'. 

My point is really that line exchange per se is nothing special.  Practically everyone did it to get their skirmishers out of the way.  Conversely, line relief enables a fresh line to take over from a tired one in combat.  If one waited for a lull in the battle to do line substitution then a) one might as well just leave the leading line in place on the basis that it would refresh at the same rate as an enemy who would presumably be using the lull to do the same and b) one is never going to be able to get the line out of trouble when it really needs replacing.  Hence, apart from pulling skirmishers back through heavy infantry mere line exchange is pointless - to get troops clear of trouble you need line relief, i.e. the ability to get a weakening line out and replaced by a fresh one while it is in combat.

If the Romans really needed to wait for a lull and could only then exchange lines, I would expect to see many more cases of the hastati being overwhelmed before they could be relieved.  There should also be at least some hint in the sources of waiting for a lull in order to perform line substitution.

[Erpingham]

If the Romans really needed to wait for a lull and could only then exchange lines, I would expect to see many more cases of the hastati being overwhelmed before they could be relieved.  There should also be at least some hint in the sources of waiting for a lull in order to perform line substitution.

I think we have got to a fundamental difference in the way we think of these things.  To start with your final comment, if we had sufficient information on how the Roman's did it, we wouldn't be having the discussion.  We don't have sufficient source info as far as I can tell (based not on my own knowledge but the combined knowledge of those who actually know something about Roman warfare and have shared that) to know when the Roman's did perform line relief.    Personally, I think it fits in lulls in the action which my vision of ancient combat suggests existed.  During those lulls, both armies will be seeking to reorganise, rest, withdraw their casualties, maybe bring new men forward.   The Roman army's ability to make the change and put whole new fresh units into the line and do it quickly would enable them to catch the enemy on the back foot - a huge tactical advantage.

And, to tackle the earlier point about skirmish lines, it is a fair one but surely the Roman situation was of a different order - they are not just pulling back a load of loosely order infantry who could probably infilitrate back through the formation gaps (be they between files or between units) but making a wholesale change of close-formation infantry units and having those fresh units ready to renew combat in short order.

[Patrick Waterson]

Quite so; the Romans are not just pulling back a skirmish line, they are substituting a fresh line of battle for an engaged one, or at least one that has been engaged.  This is what makes their system unique.

Interestingly, Livy does not view the change as conferring a huge tactical advantage by catching weary enemies on the wrong foot, but rather writes as if it were a pedestrian change of shift in the middle of a day's work:

"When the army was marshalled according to this arrangement, the hastati first commenced the fight. If the hastati were unable to repulse [profligare = overcome] the enemy, they retreated leisurely [pede presso], and were received by the principes into the intervals of the ranks [in intervalla ordinum]. The fight then devolved on the principes; the hastati followed." - Livy VIII.8.9-10

"If the principes also did not make sufficient impression in the fight, they retreated slowly [sensim] from the front to the Triarii." - idem, 11

In each case he gives the impression that the fighting line retreats while still engaged.  They retreat 'leisurely' or 'slowly' which is consistent with an engaged line fighting to its front but not with the smart rapidity necessary to catch an unengaged enemy in mid-breather.  They are received through the ranks of a stationary rear line, whereas a quick exchange is best accomplished by moving the rear line rapidly forwards through the first line.  In short, they do the opposite of what one would expect of a line swap during a pause in the fighting.

Patrick

[aligern]

Patrick, against the idea of the 'retreat fighting' as you describe it is the logic that says that soldiers can only fight with intensity for at most 20 minutes. If that is enough to exhaust both sides, but fighting is continuous, then the battle will be over very quickly because each line will only have a 20 minute 'life'. 
It does seem much more likely that there are assaults and retirements by the first line until it is exhausted. At that point it retires from the equally degraded enemy , but instead of halting, and recuperating as it has before , the line retires upon a signal and goes back through the gaps in the line of the Principes which has closed up to create gaps and now opens up to fight.
I find the above description fits the ancient sources and the logic of human energy and endurance.

Justin, I am surprised that an initial Roman fighting style as a hoplites phalanx is a 'given'. I would have thought that the logic that the fighting style of early Italians appears to be to use javelins or to have spears and long shields says that whatever the Roman start point is, it is unlikely to be hoplite.

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Patrick, against the idea of the 'retreat fighting' as you describe it is the logic that says that soldiers can only fight with intensity for at most 20 minutes. If that is enough to exhaust both sides, but fighting is continuous, then the battle will be over very quickly because each line will only have a 20 minute 'life'. 
It does seem much more likely that there are assaults and retirements by the first line until it is exhausted. At that point it retires from the equally degraded enemy , but instead of halting, and recuperating as it has before , the line retires upon a signal and goes back through the gaps in the line of the Principes which has closed up to create gaps and now opens up to fight.
I find the above description fits the ancient sources and the logic of human energy and endurance.

I've always wondered about the 'retirements' of an exhausted line. Look at it like this: the front rank of an eight-rank-deep line is the one that does the actual fighting, and they are the chaps who get tired. The seven ranks behind them are just standing there, perhaps pushing forward a bit as well. After 20 minutes they are still fresh. So the only troops with any incentive to pull back are the 1/8 up front. Will the other 7/8 respect their fatigue and step back a few paces? Or will they rather tell the 1/8 to keep at 'em? The front rankers have no choice but to maintain a kind of desultory sparring with their equally exhausted opponents, both sides panting whilst looking at each other over their shields from two feet away.

I can imagine troops of an exhausted front rank preferring rather to slip back between the files and let the second rank take over who, when exhausted, gives way for the third rank, and so on. By the time you get back to the first rank again it is fresh and ready to recommence the cycle of fighting.

In either scenario there is no imperative for the lines to pull apart. Fighting is continuous. Recoiling, which did happen frequently, must have resulted from a tug-o-war in reverse. One side pushing harder than the other and forcing the other to stagger back. Literally a shoving match. At no time can I see a desire by an embattled front rank soldier to give way before the enemy being accommodated by the ranks behind him. Keeping him in position was the purpose of the rear ranks in the first place.

Justin, I am surprised that an initial Roman fighting style as a hoplites phalanx is a 'given'. I would have thought that the logic that the fighting style of early Italians appears to be to use javelins or to have spears and long shields says that whatever the Roman start point is, it is unlikely to be hoplite.

Roy

I'm not the expert. Keep talking!