The mechanism of Roman line relief

[Justin Taylor]

Spartans also probably fitter and tougher than other Greek hoplites, because of the practice.

Not a fan of the pause idea either.

[Mark G]

well if you can find chaps fitter than boxers, and get them to fight for an hour uninterupted, I'll buy into a continuous melee model.

but until then, its pauses and breaks offs for me.

[Justin Taylor]

No, because in the Roman model you replace them. In the model where you have individuals fighting the tired man drops back to be replaced by the fresh man.

Hoplites, shieldwall I have no idea how that was done but there would always be a way.

No supermen need be involved.

[Justin Swanton]

Vegetius again:

"We are informed by the writings of the ancients that, among their other exercises, they had that of the post. They gave their recruits round bucklers woven with willows, twice as heavy as those used on real service, and wooden swords double the weight of the common ones. They exercised them with these at the post both morning and afternoon.

This is an invention of the greatest use, not only to soldiers, but also to gladiators. No man of either profession ever distinguished himself in the circus or field of battle, who was not perfect in this kind of exercise. Every soldier, therefore, fixed a post firmly in the ground, about the height of six feet. Against this, as against a real enemy, the recruit was exercised with the above mentioned arms, as it were with the common shield and sword, sometimes aiming at the head or face, sometimes at the sides, at others endeavouring to strike at the thighs or legs. He was instructed in what manner to advance and retire, and in short how to take every advantage of his adversary; but was thus above all particularly cautioned not to lay himself open to his antagonist while aiming his stroke at him." - Epitomai Rei Militari I.10

This exercise developed both technique and stamina.   The latter gave the Romans a significant advantage in protracted battles, e.g. at Vercellae in 101 BC where Catulus' troops easily outfought their gasping Cimbri opponents without even raising a sweat.  Regular conditioning makes a big difference even with men who are basically fit: one could view the Roman legionaries as military athletes, in a manner of speaking.

It also means we do not really need to posit frequent and regular pauses in Roman battles: that would have favoured the less fit side and allowed it to recover.  I cannot see sensible officers on the fitter side letting that happen.  Keep up the pressure, lads: they're weakening!

Patrick

True. This would certainly give the Roman the ability to fight for more protracted periods in an infantry melee, but I still suspect there would be certain local lulls in the fighting as opposed to an actual breaking off. Since the Roman infantry were fitter than most of their opponents, they could have used those lulls as a moment to execute line relief (or even done it in the heat of battle). There again, since they could fight for longer than their opponents, the lulls would have been the opportunity for them to push their opponents' morale over the edge, as you describe.

The human body is capable of only fairly short bursts of intense energy, such as sword-fighting. It just seems impossible for me to envisage a Roman soldier swinging away for two hours non-stop against an opponent, in a life-and-death struggle, pumped full of adrenaline.

[Patrick Waterson]

We tend to think of melee as a kind of olympic sport, a sort of intense and concentrated fencing, whereas much of it would be fought at a pace the modern boxer or fencer would regard as slow motion.

Trained soldiers will use short and economical movements, having had it drummed into them that you only need to lift the shield six inches to stop a hit, and an 18" thrust against an opponent 12" away is as good as a 3' lunge against an opponent 2' 6" away but uses only a quarter of the energy.  They will also have gone through extended training sessions involving being kept at the 'posts' all afternoon, developing in the process a rhythmic set of motions like a long-distance runner.  Also, being accustomed to double-weight weapons and shields in training, legionaries will find their actual shields and weapons to be featherweights in battle (the Knights of St John used a similar system to train their men, and I suggest getting hold of an account of the Siege of Malta in 1565 to see just how well fully-armoured men could fight for extended periods in hot conditions if they had been trained for it).

The untrained human is indeed only capable of intensive exertions for short periods.  The trained human is another matter entirely.  He can become exhausted (anyone can), but better training and acclimatisation create situations where, as at Pharsalus, Pompey has exhausted all three of his lines while Caesar had not yet needed to commit his fresh third line.  We are not given timing for this battle, but it seems to have been decided in the space of around two hours (my estimate based on available time, distance moved from Caesar's - and to Pompey's - camp, likely timing for Pompey's and Caesar's outflanking manoeuvres and their results and the distance a mounted Pompey managed to cover before nightfall).

Most battles of the period seem to have been decided in the space of an afternoon, with time left over for a pursuit.  Assume 2-3 hours of fighting as standard once the action gets going.  Each Roman line would be active for perhaps an hour: maybe less if the fighting was particularly intense, maybe more if the opponents were charging in, bouncing off, flowing back, regrouping and trying again.  At Argentoratum the fighting seems to have lasted about half an August afternoon, the Romans for the most part holding their ground against waves of Alemanni struggling upslope through a shower of missiles.  The Primani legion sustained the strongest Alemanni attack, and exhibit the difference between trained veterans and untrained enthusiasts:

"Taking care to avoid being wounded and covering themselves like gladiators, they plunged their swords into the barbarians' sides, which their wild rage left exposed.  The enemy, who were ready to squander their lives for victory, tried repeatedly to find weak spots in the fabric of our line.  As they perished one after another and the confidence of the Romans who were striking them down increased, fresh hosts took the place of the slain, till the incessant cries of the dying stupefied them with fear.  Then at last they gave way under the stress of the disaster and put all their energy into attempts at flight." - Ammianus XVI.12

Ammianus notes that the Priamani when thus attacked 'renewed the battle with increased spirit', which suggests a) they had already been fighting and b) there was a brief lull while the elite Alemanni formation pushed forward to engage.  Thereafter the fighting was continuous until the Germans broke.

We should not assess the Roman soldier's fitness by the limitations of the barbarian enthusiast or the modern desk-bound individual.  Rather, we should regard the Roman soldier as a superbly-conditioned athlete, optimised for protracted exertion.

Mark G's comment about boxers reminds me that before the Queensbury Rules came in, boxing matches could go on all afternoon with no breaks.  A fight between a pugilist who knew what he was doing and a 'bruiser' who did not would, however, often be over very quickly.  Two pugilists or two bruisers would tend to last quite a while.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

We should not assess the Roman soldier's fitness by the limitations of the barbarian enthusiast or the modern desk-bound individual.  Rather, we should regard the Roman soldier as a superbly-conditioned athlete, optimised for protracted exertion.

Patrick

I think we should be careful not to idealise the noble Roman too much.  Filled with clean living, hardened by days at the post, spending his leisure time watching men and animals die horribly in the arena, what could compare ?  Most Roman infantrymen spent time doing mindless make work, tried to wangle themselves postings to cushy numbers and got smashed in the vicus given half the chance (oh, and writing letters home saying send more woolly undies).  OK, equally extreme counter argument.  That continuous combat for hours took place is fair enough but that this combat was all high intensity, life or death struggle?  The model of combat of bursts of intensity, with a background level of dodging missiles, shouting abuse and carrying out acts of bravado to become more noticeable (centurions, those steady professionals were prone to this) seems equally, if not more, plausible.  If even heavy combat did not feature continuous engagement, then line replacement might be considered easier to carry out without the imminent threat of a sword in your vitals.

Mark's point above, that centuries were relieving each other in combat, does beg the question of how this was co-ordinated enough to do line replacement.  I doubt if individual centuries did this of their own initiative but could it have been done by legion?   

[Justin Taylor]

The human body is capable of only fairly short bursts of intense energy, such as sword-fighting. It just seems impossible for me to envisage a Roman soldier swinging away for two hours non-stop against an opponent, in a life-and-death struggle, pumped full of adrenaline.

I seem to remember reading that the expected time in combat was 15 minutes. It might have been in Goldsworthy?

[Patrick Waterson]

Mark's point above, that centuries were relieving each other in combat, does beg the question of how this was co-ordinated enough to do line replacement.  I doubt if individual centuries did this of their own initiative but could it have been done by legion?   

It would have to be done by army, given that the line to be relieved seems to have backed through the line doing the relieving.  Having one legion decide to pull back its first line while its neighbour keeps them engaged is going to give somebody flanking problems.  It is also a lot easier to have one trumpet signal for everyone rather than a different one for each legion.

I find it hard to envisage centuries doing their own thing: Mark, is this a WMWW leg-pull? 

[Justin Swanton]

Protracted meleeing if done with economical, trained movements does make sense, more so if one includes the acclimatisation of rigorous training. There is that anecdote of the dozen Crusader knights who covered a breach in the castle wall for an entire day against an Arab army.

[Justin Swanton]

Which all leads I suppose to the conclusion that a line relief was done whilst the front line was locked in combat with the enemy. If there was a lull, the fitter Romans would have used it as an opportunity to press and demoralise their opponents (replacing the lines just then would take time and give the enemy the breather they needed).

[Erpingham]

It would have to be done by army, given that the line to be relieved seems to have backed through the line doing the relieving.  Having one legion decide to pull back its first line while its neighbour keeps them engaged is going to give somebody flanking problems.  It is also a lot easier to have one trumpet signal for everyone rather than a different one for each legion.
[\quote]

Then we get to the question, how was it co-ordinated.  My recollection of earlier debates is there is a shortage of evidence for any kind of line-based sub command.  If the general made this decision, on what basis?  I would suggest that the legion is the obvious structure through which to co-ordinate.  I'd also suggest it took more than one trumpet signal - at least a preparatory order to bring up the second line in advance of the opportunity to do the relief itself.

I find it hard to envisage centuries doing their own thing: Mark, is this a WMWW leg-pull? 

I think Mark is referencing Sabin "The Face of Roman Battle".  Certainly, that would be my first port of call for this non-continuous combat model.  However, Mark is much more knowledgeable and well-read on this period and may have other more recent sources too

[Erpingham]

Which all leads I suppose to the conclusion that a line relief was done whilst the front line was locked in combat with the enemy. If there was a lull, the fitter Romans would have used it as an opportunity to press and demoralise their opponents (replacing the lines just then would take time and give the enemy the breather they needed).

If the Romans were that bright eyed and bushy tailed, they wouldn't be calling for line relief.  Line relief was actually a tactical withdrawal.  Yes, it could lead to a renewed attack but if the first line were expected to do it, they were spent. 

I'll repeat my comment of before - don't paint the Romans as supermen.  Early legions were not long service professionals, they were citizen levies chosen by lot.  Admittedly, some people served year on year and would develop experience and everyone would have at least basic training.   But their opposition could quite easily be better and more experienced fighters man-for-man.  Their big advantages were tactical (the Roman army had a lot in it's tactical toolkit, including line relief) aided by great articulation.  Its low level leadership through the centurionate should not be underestimated - experienced and aggressive fighters.

[Mark G]

no leg pull at all, and I am studiously trying to not hijack this thread onto an exposition of an alternative model - plenty of time for that in the second half of 2013, I assure you.

I'm simply trying to get those who favour this to look at some of the difficulties with the single line of combat model which this diagram is based upon.


the thing is, the diagram of all those files pushing past each other looks Greek not Roman to me.

It's all precision and mathematically correct fancy drill.

A Roman way would be to send them off where the rest of the army could see them in action - demonstrating their prowess.  This file based approach as much more in tune with the anonymity of the phalanx.

When we look at the use of deeper formations, there are also some lessons we can see from elsewhere in history.

If they guys in the middle and back cannot see what is going on, then at the first sign of something other than a steady forward march, they are quite prone to wavering and running.

routs always start at the back,

and when men can see an opportunity to get out of a fight with honour, they will take it (helping a wounded comrade being case in pont).

So if you have a formation drill which allows the men in middle and back to take a simple sidestep and avoid becoming the front line - by joining the retreating column - that's a positive encouragement to them to pull out of the fight.

The Greeks / Macedonians countered this with file closers to keep them in place.

But the Romans put their best men in the front as leaders for others to follow.

Further, the Romans introduced more anonymity to their uniforms as the Republic progress, but did not change model of combat drill - which encourages further the potential for men to simply sidestep their turn at the front line.

And there are no file closers at the back to keep an eye on who is joining in, nor to stop the pull back becoming over hasty and precipitating a rout of both formations. 
Interpenetration has always been associated with mutual routing.  Line relief in the horse and musket period was based upon repeated formation changes to enable the formations to pass each other without interpenetrating for that reason (and was considered highly dangerous then too).

And the best way to replace a line was to have it hold its central forward position, have the ends fall in behind that solid centre, and then have the replaceing formation mast PAST it, and then form out, allowing the damanged line to pull back behind their friends as cover.

Ultimately, what is described in the diagram just does not look Roman to me.

Much more Roman would be to keep the men in identifiable groups where each man recognises his comrade well enough to call him out for shirking, and have them take turns at having a go, where everyone can see them, and then pulling back afterwards for the next guys turn.

i.e. the gaps are maintained, and they attack as maniples not as a line.

So for this notion of files pushing past each other to work – look again at the 4th-6th diagrams in particular for the problem area - remembering that they are 'volunteers' not professionals when this drill was developed, I think a fair bit more detail on how the men are kept in place is required to get it onto any sort of stable footing.

(Oh, and perhaps some sort of indication in the sources that there was a fully continuous battle line would not go amiss)

p.s. Those boxing all day matches were not toe to toe from start to finish.  They spent, like boxers still do now, a long time hugging each other and leaning off each other, and standing just out of reach getting their breath back.  The dullness of this was one of the reasons why Queensbury set up the rules in the first place, to try to make them fight for 3 and rest for 3 and not save things until the end because there was a finite end point coming.

[Patrick Waterson]

I'll repeat my comment of before - don't paint the Romans as supermen.  Early legions were not long service professionals, they were citizen levies chosen by lot.  Admittedly, some people served year on year and would develop experience and everyone would have at least basic training.   But their opposition could quite easily be better and more experienced fighters man-for-man.  Their big advantages were tactical (the Roman army had a lot in it's tactical toolkit, including line relief) aided by great articulation.  Its low level leadership through the centurionate should not be underestimated - experienced and aggressive fighters.

We can certainly distinguish between the citizen soldiers of the Republic and the professional soldiers of the Empire, but although the Romans may not have been supermen they certainly appeared as such to many contemporaries (including Josephus, from whom we get our quote about battles being bloody drills and drill being bloodless battles).

Josephus' observation is one of a smattering of allusions across classical sources that cause me to regard the modern model of conflictus interruptus with some scepticism. 

[aligern]

If we could take modern football and rugby games as an example of human exertion and hopefully in rugby near combat then we would see that
1) Effort is punctuated. Look at an international  group of rugby forwards. These are superbly fit men who are paid to train and yet if they get involved in repeated scrums they do get and look exhausted. So the players modulate the intense effort needed to win tactically, with short rests, often by mutual consent.
2)   The better team wins at the end. rarely does one team just walk away with the game from the beginning, but by the end the loser is exhausted and just that bit more ragged with their passing and slower in running.
I think that the Romans understand well that most of their opponents replace only by having men from the back of a block step through to replace casualties filtering back.  That brings on fresh men, but  not a fresh unit.  What the Romans do is
a) prepare with pile, this gives a tactical advantage to their first assault.
b) Go in hot and hard. They are deliberately trying to exhaust themselves and the opponent.
c) Repeat until both sides are well tired. During this period they could replace centuries locally, but the line within which that century stands will only be replaced on a legion wide trumpet signal. Of course when tired the Roman centuries  and their opponents break off and rest a bit, but the Romans can give more, knowing that they can be replaced.
d) Replace lines by the Hastati falling back through the Principes. The opponent will be too exhausted to follow up.
e) Restart combat with the fresh Principes who cycle through lia throwing and assault with the sword again, but against a fully tired opponent.

The model above allows for  replacement on a minor tactical level and grand replacement of a whole line. It plays to what we can see about combative human effort in that the Romans deliberately  render the opponent exhausted and then face him with fresh units.



Roy