How continuous was combat?

[aligern]

'But later, when their ardour increased, ......they. rushed together recklessly.  ' I do think that this deserves highlighting. If thes Romans are face a face , in contact, pushing on shields then how do they rush together? Isn't it more likely that they have a period of pushing and grappling,then greak off, recuperate anfpd then get worked up to charge in again?
Mind you, its Cassius Dio isn't it. He is the equivalent of taking Battle Picture Library as indicative of infantry tactics in WW2.  ' Watch out Sarge, get the Bren on that Hun!'
Roy

[RichT]

It's worth mentioning that "they rushed together recklessly", while a fair translation, can't be probed too deeply -
ὁμόσε τε ἀπερισκέπτως χωροῦντες - coming forward together thoughtlessly - is open to all sorts of interpretations.

Also that "For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword," is our old chum othismos - "There was much othismos and much xiphismos" - also that 'For a long time' isn't in the Greek - the translator presumably understands it from 'much'.

Othismos tends to come in quantities of 'much':

Herodotus 7.225 There was much othismos between the Persians and Lacedaemonians over Leonidas' body
Herodotus 7.78 Among the generals at Salamis there was much othismos of words
Herodotus 9.26 During the drawing up of battle formation there arose much othismos of words
Thucydides 4.96.2 But the rest closed, and there was much othismos of shields
Xenophon Anabasis 5.2.17: There was much othismos about the gates
Plutarch Agesilaus 18 The first impact, it is true, did not meet with much resistance, nor was there much othismos, but the Thebans speedily routed the Orchomenians
Plutarch Marcellus 26 Hannibal ordered his elephants to be stationed in the van, and to be driven against the ranks of the Romans. Much othismos and much confusion at once arose among their foremost lines
Cassius Dio 47.44 There was much othismos and much xiphismos
Procopius 1.7.27 But with much othismos upon it, the ramp suddenly fell in
Procopius 6.27.10 So a fierce battle took place with much othismos
Procopius 7.5.11 But since the barbarians defended themselves vigorously, much othismos took place
Procopius 7.22.5 When these two forces engaged in battle, much othismos ensued
Procopius 8.11.44 For at the tops of the ladders much othismos took place
Procopius 8.11.54 This proposal, however, was not accepted by them, and once more fierce fighting commenced, involving much othismos

Totally irrelevant, just fun facts. Hurrying on...

[Erpingham]

Running the risk of sidetracking us again ....

Also that "For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword," is our old chum othismos - "There was much othismos and much xiphismos" - also that 'For a long time' isn't in the Greek - the translator presumably understands it from 'much'.

Just curious, does the translator assume the words "shield against shield" from othismos?

[RichT]

He does, yes:
Literally: "They used much othismos and much xiphismos"
Translation (Loeb): "For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword"
Lessons: obvious.

[Erpingham]

Thanks.  I wonder if xiphismos is there because these are Romans and he is emphasising they are stuck in and going at it with swords, rather than pilum-skirmishing?  But perhaps, given the tone, he is just being emphatic, using two words for close melee rather than a boring single one.

[RichT]

Maybe - 'xiphismos' is an exceedingly rare word - just two occurrences so far as Perseus knows, this and a sword dance of some sort in Athenaeus. It sounds like a Roman version of 'othismos and doratismos' for Greeks - except as we have seen elsewhere, 'doratismos' is just as rare as 'xiphismos' (but broadly speaking I expect that is still the intention).

I believe it just means 'melee' without much in the way of technical implications, and in contrast with the grappling and wrestling once they get all emotional. Literary battle descriptions generally involve these sorts of shorthand descriptions. "There was a lively firefight before they were driven off at the point of the bayonet" - greater than zero informational content, but not a detailed account of tactics or the mechanics of combat either.

[Erpingham]

Fair enough.  Essentially "much close fighting" but in a more literary way.  Nice to know we can translate it as competitive sword dancing though

[Patrick Waterson]

Something for Richard:

"When they engaged, there was a great slaughter of the Romans, who were unable to keep their ranks. For they were forced back by the Tyrrhenians, who not only had the terrain as an ally, but were also helped by the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files. When the most prominent centurions had fallen, the rest of the Roman army gave way and fled to the camp; and the enemy pursued them, took away their standards, seized their wounded, and got possession of their dead."  - Dionysius of Halicarnassus IX.23.7

And now, courtesy of Livy, a yardstick for the title subject of the thread.

"Contenebra held out for a few days, but the continuous fighting, without respite either day or night, overcame them. [10] The Roman army had been divided into six corps [partes divisus], of which each in its turn went into battle for six hours [senis horis = six hours each]; while the townsmen were so few that the same men were exposed to an attack that was constantly renewed [semper = always, continuous, perpetual], until at last they gave way and afforded the Romans an opening to enter the City." - Livy VI.4.9-10

Since this was the first time the Romans had used this technique to take a city, their deciding upon six hours as the active period for each contingent (as opposed to, say, twenty minutes or two hours) must have come from some other aspect of warfare, as they were not given to plucking numbers from thin air and hoping for the best.

Ergo, this is an indication that Romans as of 388 BC had a rule of thumb that a force could engage in combat - without intermission, as any gap would rather destroy the whole point of swarming an opponent until he collapsed - for six hours before starting to become ineffectual.

This gives us a working answer for close combat duration where Roman armies are concerned: up to six hours.  This could be expected to include at least one line relief if operating according to standard procedure, but what is interesting is that the defenders of Contenebra were able to sustain combat - apparently close combat rather than just an exchange of missiles - for a period well in excess of six hours.


On the subject of who did what at the man-to-man level, we have this, from Rome against the Volsci in 385 BC:

"The hostile multitude, relying on numbers only and measuring both armies with their eyes, recklessly began the fight and as recklessly gave it up; [2] their boldness went no further than the battle-cry, the discharge of missiles, and the first fury of the onset; the play of swords, when foot met foot, and the glance of the foeman that darted out the fire of his spirit, they could not abide. [3] Their front was first driven in and communicated its disorder to the supports; the horsemen, too, inspired a terror of their own; next the ranks were broken at many points, and all was in commotion, and the line resembled a surging wave. Then, as soon as each began to see that with the fall of those in front his own turn to be killed would soon be coming, they turned and fled. [4] The Romans pressed on after them, and as long as they retained their arms and withdrew in masses, it was the infantry's task to pursue them; but when the enemy were seen to be throwing away their weapons on every hand and their army to be dispersed in flight over the fields; then the cavalry squadrons were let loose, with orders not to stop to kill single fugitives and afford meanwhile an opportunity to the main body of escaping; [5] it was sufficient if by darting missiles at them to alarm them, and by riding across their path, they should hold the column in check, till the infantry could overtake the enemy and utterly destroy them. [6] Flight and pursuit continued until nightfall." - Livy VI.13.1-6

This passage (apart from showing the Volsci as something less than Italy's best) appears to confirm that it was the done thing to let the man in front of you fall and then take up combat yourself, as opposed to attempting relief of the man ahead if he got into difficulties.


In 343 BC, the Romans met the Samnites in battle for the first time.  This was practically an all-day fight: the consul hung out the signal for battle, formed his army harangued his troops and from then on it was combat all the way.

"The battle had now lasted a considerable time; there was dreadful slaughter about the standards of the Samnites, but as yet no retreating anywhere, so determined were they to be overcome by naught but death. [14] And so the Romans, who saw that their strength was fast ebbing away in weariness and that little daylight yet remained, were filled with rage, and hurled themselves against the enemy. [15] Then for the first time were there signs of giving way and the beginning of a rout; then were the Samnites captured or slain; nor would many have survived, if night had not ended what was now a victory rather than a battle. [16] The Romans admitted that never had they fought with a more stubborn adversary." - Livy VII.33.13-16

While 'a considerable time' is not quantified, it is from perhaps mid-morning until close enough to nightfall that the Samnite collapse does not turn into a full rout and pursuit before night stops play.  That the Romans found their strength to be 'fast ebbing away in weariness' suggests they had gone over their own approved six-hour limit.  'Perhaps mid-morning' as a starting-point is because the consul tried his cavalry first: when the Samnites proved to be unimpressed, he joined the legions, exhorted them to strike down every man they encountered, and ...

"No sooner had he said these words, than the horsemen, by the consul's order, drew off towards the wings and left the legions room to attack the centre. [12] The consul was the very foremost in the charge, and slew the man he chanced to meet with. Kindled by this sight, the Romans on the right and on the left pushed forward, every man of them, and fought a memorable combat; the Samnites stood manfully at bay, but they took more strokes than they delivered." - idem 33.11-12

So this was a genuine close-quarters engagement as opposed to some kind of drawn-out missile skirmish.

We thus have a working figure for Roman engagements: six hours as a recommended maximum.  Longer than this is possible, but unusual (and the troops feel it); shorter is quite possible, especially if the foe lacks staying-power.  We can now check the six-hour rule as a working maximum against other Roman battles.