The column in battle

[Justin Swanton]

Appian has Antiochus III's phalangites forming a hollow square at Magnesia; these formations however were static (or at least seem to have remained static) and appear to have been a defence against cavalry.

Can anyone think of any others, anywhere within the SoA period?

Gabiene. After the rest of Eumenes' army had routed, the veteran Argyraspides, having smashed Antigonus's phalanx, formed a square. As this was a counter to cavalry it seems likely the square was hollow, able to present sarissas in all directions. In this formation they marched off the battlefield, keeping Antigonus's cavalry at bay.

One must add that these were Alexander's elite troops, possibly the best trained and most experienced infantry in Antiquity.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well spotted, Justin: a moving pike square.  In all likelihood this would be hollow, given that there were only 3,000 or at most 4,000 Argyraspides in existence.  Assuming 3,072 in total, i.e. 48 64-man subunits, each side of the square would have 12 such subunits and a frontage of 104 men (12x8 = 96 plus one subunit overlap at each corner) or 12 on two sides and 14 on the other two (frontage 96 and 'flankage' 112).  A hollow formation has the advantage that commanders can ride around inside and keep everything in hand.

This does mean we have to consider such formations for rules purposes.  As the drill when threatened was presumably to halt and present pikes in the direction of the threat, or to have the leading edge advance towards the threat, we can treat the entire formation as having no flank or rear; all attacks on it are considered frontal, but its speed is reduced, say by 25% for veteran troops, 50% for average and poor troops cannot move at all in this formation (not sure that average troops could; we may wish to restrict movement in square to veterans).  If charged from any direction except frontally it would stand and receive the charge; it could presumably charge/countercharge frontal opponents.

[Justin Taylor]

Is this not used by an entire army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_%28Xenophon%29

and of course Carrhae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

Really its just made up of lots of individual units moving in a common direction, with the troops on the flanks simply turning to face (90 degrees)when threatened. I am sure most rules would allow for it (although not WAB2 as most troops cannot turn 90 degrees).

[Mark G]

there is a question about whether you would class arsuf and carrhae as battles at that point.

the battle at arsuf happens near the end of the march, and features stages of deployment before the knights break and charge, while carrhae has the moving infantry formation as a retreat after the fixed battle has occurred.

neither of these formations are normal battle formations, and frankly, neither is game able on a tabletop, as they are formations used to cover long distance marches when under an expectation of harassing skirmishing from light mounted troops.

[Erpingham]

Really its just made up of lots of individual units moving in a common direction, with the troops on the flanks simply turning to face (90 degrees)when threatened. I am sure most rules would allow for it (although not WAB2 as most troops cannot turn 90 degrees).

Indeed so.  What we are looking at is an example of having to deal with columns (in my Arsuf example, this does appear to be what we are dealing with - I leave it to the better informed whether that is how it workd e.g. at carrhae) having to form lines for combat.  Not in an emergency but as part of a plan.  Now, I suspect that any serious attack, the column would halt and face it off, so we could fight our whole battle from that standpoint, but a Carrhae or Arsuf battle re-enactment, we'd probably want our army to be making progress across the field.  As to whether a column ever forms line by turning 90 degrees is surely one of the main themes of this thread.

[Justin Taylor]

I rather like Carrhae as a game so have done a scenario for it

http://www.3vwargames.co.uk/documents/carrhae_53bc.pdf

I think we are agreed that columns can turn to face to the sides, the mechanisms for it maybe unclear but the fact that it can done, is sufficient for me.

[Mark G]

well I only agree if you mean wheeling.

in which case, its not a column at any point.

[Justin Taylor]

What I am saying is it happens, mechanism not much of interest for me.

But I don't see wheeling a line to a flank being appropriate for the hollow square, a simple 90 degree turn of a column of troops would be a lot faster.

Others of course can make their own minds up.

[Patrick Waterson]

But I don't see wheeling a line to a flank being appropriate for the hollow square, a simple 90 degree turn of a column of troops would be a lot faster.

That makes sense.  It is interesting how the hollow squares start to pop up as soon as we begin looking for them.  We have units (pikes) in hollow square and armies in hollow square (Carrhae), the latter being essentially, as Justin points out, a number of units all going in the same direction and keeping station on one another.  The pikes at Gabiene are a number of subunits all going in the same direction and keeping station on one another.

Indeed so.  What we are looking at is an example of having to deal with columns (in my Arsuf example, this does appear to be what we are dealing with - I leave it to the better informed whether that is how it worked e.g. at Carrhae) having to form lines for combat.  Not in an emergency but as part of a plan.  Now, I suspect that any serious attack, the column would halt and face it off, so we could fight our whole battle from that standpoint, but a Carrhae or Arsuf battle re-enactment, we'd probably want our army to be making progress across the field.  As to whether a column ever forms line by turning 90 degrees is surely one of the main themes of this thread.

Indeed.  It does seem to take 'regular' discipline to have such a reaction take place, given the general lack of accounts of tribal armies turning 90 degrees to face a threat, although this might simply be the result of a lack of tribal historians.   The general principle that each subunit turns to face the foe seems sound, and a well-planned order of march will mean this can be done without developing any gaps.

Arsuf and Carrhae (and for that matter the Seleucid pikes at Magnesia) were cases of armies under harassment by missile-armed cavalry which had total initiative.  This does not mean we declassify them as battles.

One more army square: the Cimbri at Vercellae.

"As for the Cimbri, their foot-soldiers advanced slowly from their defences, with a depth equal to their front, for each side of their formation had an extent of thirty furlongs [stadious triakonta]." - Plutarch, Life of Marius 25.6

[Paul Innes]

Patrick says:

It does seem to take 'regular' discipline to have such a reaction take place, given the general lack of accounts of tribal armies turning 90 degrees to face a threat, although this might simply be the result of a lack of tribal historians.


I can think of one such instance adopted by tribal warriors, Telamon, with warriors fighting back to back, preumably with each facing group comprising more than one line - a 180 degree turn, not just 90 degrees.  However, this could be explained as a deployment rather than a mid-battle decision, since the Gauls adopted the formation well before their infantry became engaged.

Paul

[Mark G]

the point about Arsuf and Carrhae  Pat, is that the bit you are discussing is not the battle, but the day long march to (or retreat from) the battle.

and that is not a battle, it is an harassed march/retreat.

so you are using examples from something entirely not a battle in order to justify rules for a battle.

[Patrick Waterson]

the point about Arsuf and Carrhae  Pat, is that the bit you are discussing is not the battle, but the day long march to (or retreat from) the battle.

and that is not a battle, it is an harassed march/retreat.

so you are using examples from something entirely not a battle in order to justify rules for a battle.

They are essentially day-long battles with an extended skirmishing phase.  My criterion for the start of a battle is when the missiles begin flying rather than the inception of the first charge.  If the missiles fly for a long time and everyone involved keeps moving, fine.  At the end of the day (and indeed throughout) the army on the receiving end still has to move with an active opponent breathing down its neck and able to push home an attack at any time whether or not we call this condition a battle.  Hence we need rules to cover it for those occasions when it happens on the tabletop.

I can think of one such instance adopted by tribal warriors, Telamon, with warriors fighting back to back, presumably with each facing group comprising more than one line - a 180 degree turn, not just 90 degrees.  However, this could be explained as a deployment rather than a mid-battle decision, since the Gauls adopted the formation well before their infantry became engaged.

Inclined to agree, as the Gauls set up with these dispositions and awaited the Roman armies rather than trying to, say, move out with this arrangement and take the battle to one of them.  The Cimbri at Vercellae did attack in a moving (and from its size presumably hollow) square, but as Marius' troops on the wings managed to march straight past it (a stark indication of the limitations of battlefield visibility on a hot and dusty day) the ability of the flanks of the Cimbri square to face out seems not to have been tested (or recorded).

[Justin Taylor]

so you are using examples from something entirely not a battle in order to justify rules for a battle.

Yes it goes like this, they can do it, so they can do it in different situations. They don't forget how do it.

[Mark G]

The thing is Justin.

They don't do it when under threat of engagement in melee.

And if you have rules which allow it because it might be possible, guess what the players will all do when they find it has a real advantage.

you are normalising a strategic march formation into a tactical rule set.  bad idea.

[Patrick Waterson]

Mark, I trust you do appreciate that this is not what Justin is doing.

A 'strategic march formation' involves troops moving at march spacing of 6' per man with shields and weapons slung, helmets off, unready for combat and passing the time singing or otherwise taking their minds off the sheer crushing boredom of it all.

A tactical column on the battlefield has troops armed and armoured ready for combat, moving in subunits at combat spacing (3' per man), following their subunit standards and the orders of their officers.  The entire formation is alert and vibrant (or d__d well should be), covering distance from tactical point A to tactical point B where they will swiftly revert to a line of battle by each subunit making a 90-degree turn.

Even so, no sensible general moves a tactical column if there are any uncommitted enemy forces able to intercept it: he ties them down first.  This is not because the tactical column is hugely vulnerable (although fighting in this formation is not recommended), but rather because he wants it going where he needs it to go on a very tight timescale and any interference will wreck his battleplan.