The column in battle

[Erpingham]

And can a Theban column kink when it wheels? Does it do better in difficult terrain, etc. etc.? Even for wargamers it behaves like a line.

You are assuming that the only form of column is a narrow march column.  Therefore, as march columns are kept away from the fighting, you're supposition that they weren't used in battle is, by definition, correct.  I merely point out that other rules call very deep units columns or blocks, not just lines.  These tend to assume some advantage of depth in combat - we can debate exactly what that might represent - not just manoeuver advantage.

[Justin Swanton]

A Theban column is not a manoeuvre formation. It looks and behaves exactly like a very deep line. By 'column' I mean a manoeuvre formation which is flexible and meant to get a body of troops quickly to a point that is not straight ahead (some time we must do a thread on large-formation wheels - something else beloved of wargamers that did not exist historically). One should call the Theban column something else to avoid confusion, perhaps the 'Theban ram'.

Patrick pointed out that there were two kinds of column - the loose march column and the more compact battle column, the latter meant to form into line at very short notice. Neither were fighting formations, and never used as such by the very few historical commanders who actually employed them. This implies they were extremely vulnerable if attacked. I would tend to up that -2 modifier to a -3 or even -4.

[Erpingham]

One should call the Theban column something else to avoid confusion, perhaps the 'Theban ram'.

One could but not everyone does   However, moving on, should we assume that assault columns did not exist in this period?

[Justin Swanton]

One should call the Theban column something else to avoid confusion, perhaps the 'Theban ram'.

One could but not everyone does   However, moving on, should we assume that assault columns did not exist in this period?

I think that's been said elsewhere. The Napoleonic column had no equivalent in Antiquity.

[Patrick Waterson]

Glad to see we are over the case of semantics.    Actually part of the problem is that organisation in the classical period depended on the file, which is a kind of miniature column in itself, and formations were ultimately made up of a greater or lesser number of files.  Semantically speaking, we could say that all attacks during the classical period were made in column ... however to all intents and purposes we can treat these formations as lines made up of large numbers of small subunits (as the commanders did).

The one instance of actual columns being used in the attack during the classical period is when a fortification was being assaulted.  The Romans typically got into testudo and arrived at a point which had been breached or which they could readily excavate a way through - and then poured in.  Other cultures did much the same thing when escalading a wall and/or storming a breach.

Latin sources make occasional references to an 'agmen' being used to attack an enemy line (e.g. Second battle of Bedriacum).  This is often translated as 'column', though its general sense is a large number collected for a purpose and we can almost certainly treat it as a deep line.

Theban 25-deep and 50-deep formations were definitely intended for head-on combat rather than exciting movement.  In essence they were very deep lines, and I would prefer to keep the designation 'column' for march and tactical manoeuvre formations in the classical period.  In theory, anyone can turn a line sideways and obtain an instant column for manoeuvre.  In practice very few seem to have done so, perhaps because they usually started off with their troops where they wanted them in the first place (unlike many wargamers ...).

[Justin Taylor]

Any column should kink when they wheel, thats how wheels work.

I see the Theban extra deep phalanx as really giving it staying power, rather like blocks of Persians or Germans. Probably would move a bit faster than a normal phalanx (the longer the line the more difficult it is to move). So for those reasons I go with Patricks idea of a deep line rather than a column.

Question, did ancient armies used cadenced step for formed units? Spartans, perhaps. It is supposed to make formations move faster.

[Mark G]

well, I would draw you to Polybios on Cannae, which seems pretty clear to me that there was no march there, but rather the romans were sucked into a trap by the convex becoming concave retreat of the Spanish and celts - so as I said, Caannae is as debatable an example as Zama for a column used tactically to redeploy on the field itself.

and I would strongly suggest that cynocephalae was just the triarii wheeling a couple of maniples and charging, rather than engaging in some dramatic march and redeployment.

which would be quite different from a column move, I am afraid.

[Erpingham]

Question, did ancient armies used cadenced step for formed units? Spartans, perhaps. It is supposed to make formations move faster.

They certainly used music and, one would suspect, this gave a rhythm and a pace.  I'm not sure whether we actually know for certain about cadence.  In more modern times, cadence is thought to have been invented (or reinvented) by the Swiss in the sixteenth century.

[Justin Taylor]

well, I would draw you to Polybios on Cannae, which seems pretty clear to me that there was no march there, but rather the romans were sucked into a trap by the convex becoming concave retreat of the Spanish and celts

I consider that rather passive way to fight and personally I take the the view that the veterans would have moved to maximise the effect. Just because that seems a better way to do it rather than just waiting for them to fall into a trap. But views differ.

[Mark G]

using music to keep a unit cohesive is not the same as cadence and the drill that can be used as a consequence.

the best guide we have is probably escplodolplous (or whatever his name is) but he is @ 400 years after the punic wars, and there were quite a lot of changes in between.

short answer is, they had music in the renaissance, bands, drums, etc, but no cadence, and  they didn't manage the drill in the same way as was done in the 18th century with cadence marching.

it really does make a difference, which is why it was emphasised so much for such a long time after it was developed.

[Patrick Waterson]

For what it is worth, Spartan armies definitely marched in step and are so depicted in contemporary art.

Marching in step is depicted on Egyptian monuments so the practice was known to and available for civilised peoples to adopt.  There are definite advantages to moving in step when carrying out any form of battlefield movement (except skirmishing or rout) and it is hard to see non-tribal infantry avoiding doing so.  It would be particularly difficult to maintain the cohesion of a pike phalanx unless the participants marched in step.

Asclepiodotus is probably a reasonable guide for Hellenistic organisation and practices more or less from the organisation of the first pike-armed phalanx, though as Mark points out a couple of centuries intervened and one difference that emerges from Polybius is the greater popularity of a 16-deep phalanx in the later period as opposed to the original 8-deep.  That apart, the basic unit organisation looks very similar, although Philip and Alexander may have used a 1,536-strong phalanx taxis rather than Asclepiodotus' 2,048-man formation.

well, I would draw you to Polybios on Cannae, which seems pretty clear to me that there was no march there, but rather the romans were sucked into a trap by the convex becoming concave retreat of the Spanish and celts

I consider that rather passive way to fight and personally I take the the view that the veterans would have moved to maximise the effect. Just because that seems a better way to do it rather than just waiting for them to fall into a trap. But views differ.

I am with Justin on this: having the veterans just stand there carries two serious risks, namely 1) that the Gauls and Spaniards will be beaten before the Romans have pushed on sufficiently far to walk into the trap and 2) that Roman commanders will notice they are slowly being drawn into an unpromising situation and start taking countermeasures.  Hannibal needed to spring the trap while the Romans were unaware of its nature and before they could react - that means speed, and speed means movement.

Mark seems to have a view of Hannibal as a rather passive general who uses a wasps-to-jam-pot approach, hoping the enemy will somehow drown himself.  This does not fit with my understanding of him, particularly at the Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae and Herdonea, or for that matter when he escaped Fabius' little trap at the Eribianus pass (Polybius III.92-3), in all of which cases he moved actively and rapidly to take advantage of a foe's induced or self-inflicted disadvantage.

and I would strongly suggest that cynocephalae was just the triarii wheeling a couple of maniples and charging, rather than engaging in some dramatic march and redeployment.

Our sources are pretty clear that the movement of one legion's principes and triarii (i.e. 10 maniples of each) was ordered and executed by a tribune.  A 'couple of maniples of triarii' would anyway not have had the weight to take down Philip's phalanx quickly nor the spread to catch most of the formation in the rear.

[Mark G]

not at all Pat,
I do not see Hannibal as a passive general,
but nor do I require him to be executing high risk battlefield makeovers at ever occasion.

I simple believe Polybios on these two battles.

3.115

For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly; but; presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent.

The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the centre and the point of danger.

For the two wings did not come into action at the same time as the centre: but the centre was first engaged, because the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the crescent being towards the enemy.

The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the centre and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far, that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks.

Those on the right, facing to the left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left, charged their right flank,1 the exigency of the moment suggesting to them what they ought to do.

Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans—thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts.

it seems pretty clear to me - the crescent sharp gravitates the Romans toward the centre, which gives way, the Romans advance - as they always do - until they are caught.

What I do not see there is any suggestion that the veterans marched forward, past the Romans, and then turned to face before attacking.

[Mark G]

I might yield to you on cynocephalae though.

care to have another look at Polybios 18.25

Perseus has "they were still in column of march," which would be good to see your magic run over to see what sort of implications that has in the original.

he also has "keeping the elephants in front he led the maniples of his right against the enemy" - which is probably a bit more than a couple, but less than one legion's principes and triarii (i.e. 10 maniples of each)

and the elephants seem to be overlooked by all.

[Justin Swanton]

Even if only some of the maniples shifted over to attack the advancing phalanx, the only way they could have got there without dissolving into a mob would have been by column. To anticipate a possible separate thread, they could not have got there by wheeling in line: wheeling would have been limited to relatively small formations, it could not be managed by a significant part of a legion's second and third lines. Someone pointed out that large-scale wheeling in battle had to wait until the Napoleonic era, where it could be done only by the very best veterans (Wellington's lot, wasn't it?)

Besides Cynoscephalae, Trebia and Cannae I can't think of any other example from our era in which the column was employed during a battle. Any suggestions?

[Mark G]

are you not assuming that the entire line wheeled as one?

its just as conceivable that each maniple wheeled and they attacked in an echelon.

and let us not forget those elephants, and the shape of the phalanx.