Ranks or files

[Chris]

As a bystander or outlier even, find it interesting that no one has brought up next year's Battle Day and the Roman movements as a result of their new deployment.

Granted, a single instance, but what does it say about Roman training and drill? What does it say about the evolution of such training? To what extent were Roman methods copied and improved upon?

Then again, one could simply paint ancient warfare with a very broad brush . . . a variation of "arriving first or fastest with the mostest."

An engaging discussion, though on a very niche topic 

[simonw]

Chris,
I agree with your sentiments and 'getting there fastest with the mostest' was still an applicable tactic in the 19th century (and is still today in appropriate circumstances).
Simon

[Mark G]

No Simon,

Refer to the reading list, and study.

Simply arguing that you think they could is stupid.

Look at the specific evidence and diagrams of what was meant by the comparison- there is 100% of nothing matching it in the ancient era.

[simonw]

Mark,
I'm not that interested really.
I think I'll leave it at that.
It's a pointless pursuit to compare differing eras in this fashion; particularly when the available records of one era just aren't there.
Context is everything.
My money would be on Genghis Khan.
Sorry
Simon

[Mark G]

Something I suggested two pages ago.

[simonw]

Well we can agree on that at least!
 
I am primarily interested in the ancient world, it's societies, art, cultures, philosophies, technologies and military manifestations thereof.

I enjoy wargames yes but military history in general is not necessarily my primary interest.

Hence my relative lack of interest in the details of 'Prussian Drill'.

My parting shot would simply be that 4000 years of practical experience of organising men into formations designed (e.g. the Phalanx) for hand to hand combat cannot be readily dismissed. Such formations I would suggest have to be particularly precise on internal coherence and accuracy of spacings etc., (whilst in motion) in a way that those intended primarily for shooting may not be, whether with bows or muskets.

Frederick's emphasis on speed of marching and speed of shooting do not necessarily therefore, represent the prime requisites of many of the infantry formations in the ancient world.

So, coming full circle, comparison of different eras is pointless because context is everything .
Cheers
Simon

[Erpingham]

comparison of different eras is pointless because context is everything

I'd agree with the second part about context but not the first.  I think I'd go with "comparison of different eras and places can be useful but context is everything".  But the use and misuse of analogy is another subject 

[simonw]

Anthony,

I agree that the use and misuse of analogy is problematical. Context is everything.

In the Horse and Musket 'era', infantrymen were often equipped in a similar fashion; namely with a musket. Their main method of fighting was therefore, in the main, shooting.

In the ancient era, there was much more emphasis on hand to hand combat. Fighting styles varied enormously. Hoplites had heavy, large, round shields and a single-handed long spear, phalangites a small, light round shield with a long two-handed pike, Persian Sparabara with 'pavise', other Persian troops with light, square/oblong shields and shorter spear, Romans with a large, heavy, elongate body shield, short sword and throwing weapon, etc. etc. etc.

Now, just the shield size, weight and shape radically affected fighting styles and therefore drills before the actual weapons themselves are even considered. For instance an Aspis can be rotated with altering the protection configuration whereas an oblong or oval shield cannot.

These simple facts themselves dictate that the 2 eras (ancient and musket) cannot be readily compared in a meaningful and conclusive manner when it comes to 'drills' even before we consider the fragmentary knowledge that we have regarding what actually went on in the ancient world in general.

I agree wholeheartedly, context is everything.

Rank and file structures in the ancient world are not therefore just about enabling manoeuvre but also had direct relevance to combat itself.

To CONCLUDE therefore, as far as I am concerned, grandiose assertions regarding the 'unmatched' drill and training of Frederick the Great's Prussians compared with ANY/ALL troops in the ancient world cannot be sustained. It's like comparing apples and pears and moreover, we simply don't have the same level of detail of documentary evidence available for the ancient era. And as I mentioned previously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Simon

[Mark G]

if that was what was being compared, i might agree.

but it wasn't.

To make a comparison between two specific things, when you only have knowledge of one of them is not a good place to start from.

[dwkay57]

Have you tried putting out some figures on the table to follow the instructions Jim?

The first translation sounds like a convoluted or corrupted description of a form.
The variations on the countermarching options are intriguing and also confusing (in places).

[Jim Webster]

Have you tried putting out some figures on the table to follow the instructions Jim?

The first translation sounds like a convoluted or corrupted description of a form.
The variations on the countermarching options are intriguing and also confusing (in places).

The way I see the left wheel working is that you want a comb with ten teeth (for a formation with ten files)
Each of the ten teeth is a file leader.
From each tooth hands a cord with eight knots. Each knot is one man in the file.
When the unit wheels the left end of the comb stays fixed and you move the far end. As the comb moves, so do the cords, and ideally the cords don't get too mixed up
At the bottom of the cord, the last knot is the file closer who also has a clue how things should work. As the file leaders stop moving because they're in place, starting from the rightmost file closer, he swears at his file until they shuffle across and are in the right place.
As he does that, the other file closers are also doing it. Finally the left file which hasn't moved at all, move into place and everybody marvels at how they managed to do it at all 

[dwkay57]

That sounds like a simple wheel which makes me wonder why the original author took so long in describing it. Perhaps he got mixed up with something from his Thursday morning line dancing (beginners) class?

The problem with a wheel his that the front rank has to maintain a line and the longer this gets the harder it is to maintain and the guy at the rim end starts to get centrifugal forces applying and visions of Keystone Cop movies spring to mind (very old black and white silent films for those too young). So whilst simpler for the largely untrained, a form where files move independently may be more effective for troops that are better trained.

I'll try the options with figures later this month and post some photos.

[Jim Webster]

That sounds like a simple wheel which makes me wonder why the original author took so long in describing it. Perhaps he got mixed up with something from his Thursday morning line dancing (beginners) class?

The problem with a wheel his that the front rank has to maintain a line and the longer this gets the harder it is to maintain and the guy at the rim end starts to get centrifugal forces applying and visions of Keystone Cop movies spring to mind (very old black and white silent films for those too young). So whilst simpler for the largely untrained, a form where files move independently may be more effective for troops that are better trained.

I'll try the options with figures later this month and post some photos.

The problem with figures is that they don't do lateral movement very well when they're moving forward.
Counter march is comparatively easy, because men just follow their leader.
Wheeling is far more complicated because the men cannot just follow the leader, they have to put in lateral movement at the same time

[Erpingham]

The problem with the pivot wheel is that, with more than one rank, it becomes a mess which needs to be fudged, as opposed to a neat, crisp manoeuver. I think it remains plausible that the description is not based on observation and it was done in a more orderly fashion.

[Jim Webster]

The problem with the pivot wheel is that, with more than one rank, it becomes a mess which needs to be fudged, as opposed to a neat, crisp manoeuver. I think it remains plausible that the description is not based on observation and it was done in a more orderly fashion.

The problem is that we have no description of this 'more orderly fashion'. I suspect because there isn't one. You would need a great deal of drill

Looking at the 18th century drill books is no real help because with three or four ranks deep, whilst there is the problem of the long front, there is no real problem of lateral movement that you get if you're eight ranks deep