Why were light troops inserted among heavies?

[Justin Swanton]

The discussion of shooting formation depth on the Longbow thread brought up (well, I brought it up) the topic of light troop formations in the hellenistic manuals.

Question: they talk about insertion of files of LI between files of HI. I can understand placing lights in front of, behind and on either side of a heavy infantry line, but why insert them within the heavies? My theory: it protected them from cavalry. Comments?

[Jim Webster]

I think it depends on what we mean about light troops within the heavies.
Are sparabara a formation of light archers protected from a harsh and uncaring world by a screen of heavy infantry?
Tyrtaeus speaks of light armed who might or might not be within a 'heavy infantry' formation

[Duncan Head]

Archers shooting from behind hoplite shields are common in Archaic art, and van Wees' theory on the evolution of the early hoplite phalanx suggests that light infantry were intermixed among the heavies until a relatively late date (he might even argue until the early 5th century). This is at a period when there isn't much of a cavalry threat in Greece. Perhaps it is because there is no effective control method for indirect shooting, so you need to put your archers in the front rank, protected by a hoplite's shield from return fire.

"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."

Despite the manuals, I'm  not convinced it was done much if at all in the Hellenistic period - I can't offhand think of any examples.

[aligern]

Lights are mixed in with dismounted knights and fyrd at Northallerton in the early 12th century. This is aimed at getting in shots at unarmoured Strathclyders who are charging the Anglo- Norman foot . This does indeed protect the archers, otherwise they wouldbe a weak unit in the battl line. Importantly it enables the Anglo Normans to sting the Scots as they advance .
At Jaffa, Richard I intermingles spears and crossbowmen tio keep an army of enemy horsebowmen at a distance.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Question: they talk about insertion of files of LI between files of HI. I can understand placing lights in front of, behind and on either side of a heavy infantry line, but why insert them within the heavies? My theory: it protected them from cavalry. Comments?

Answering a question with a question: is this deployment of light troops between files of heavies, or movement of light troops between files of heavies?  If one has light troops in front of one's lines and wishes to get them out of the way for the heavy infantry fight, slipping them through between the files of heavy infantry is the easy and logical way to extract them.

So is it rest or motion the manual is describing? (Not having a copy to hand.)

[Erpingham]

We should also remember recent discussions elsewhere of Burgundian armies mixing pikes and archers.  We have the training of ordonnance companies in 1473, which places pikemen in front of the archers and outside of them if drawn up in a circular anti-cavalry formation.  We also have Waurin's description of militia pikes in 1471

From each castellany [came] one or two men-at-arms to lead these pikemen, every ten of whom had a disenier whom they obeyed. These pikes make very convenient poles for placing a spike between two archers against the terrifying efforts Of cavalry trying to break their ranks, for there is no horse which, if struck with a pike in the chest, will not unfailingly die.

Note in passing the command structure - something we looked in vain for in our longbow discussions.

Finally, we can note the muster at Lausanne in May 1476, where the pikemen are in units with the crossbowmen and handgunners, rather than the archers.

In both Roy's and these examples, the intermixing is an anti-cavalry measure.  Whether this has any bearing on Hellenistic reasoning is unclear.

[Duncan Head]

Answering a question with a question: is this deployment of light troops between files of heavies, or movement of light troops between files of heavies?

Deployment:

The light infantry and targeteers will be stationed by the general as the situation demands, sometimes before the line of battle, sometimes behind it, and on other occasions now on the right flank and again on the left; the first is called van‑position (protaxis), the second rear-position (hypotaxis), and the third flank-position (prosentaxis). Sometimes they are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites;

from Asclepiodotus online at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/6*.html

[Justin Swanton]

Archers shooting from behind hoplite shields are common in Archaic art, and van Wees' theory on the evolution of the early hoplite phalanx suggests that light infantry were intermixed among the heavies until a relatively late date (he might even argue until the early 5th century). This is at a period when there isn't much of a cavalry threat in Greece. Perhaps it is because there is no effective control method for indirect shooting, so you need to put your archers in the front rank, protected by a hoplite's shield from return fire.

"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."

Despite the manuals, I'm  not convinced it was done much if at all in the Hellenistic period - I can't offhand think of any examples.

That poem appears to refer to a period when armies were in a much looser grouping, something like Papua-New Guinean tribal warfare (this is the only authentic video of skirmisher vs skirmisher combat I know of). But I imagine that if it was incorporated into regular phalanxes with ranks and files then we are talking about a later period as well.

[Patrick Waterson]

Deployment:

The light infantry and targeteers will be stationed by the general as the situation demands, sometimes before the line of battle, sometimes behind it, and on other occasions now on the right flank and again on the left; the first is called van‑position (protaxis), the second rear-position (hypotaxis), and the third flank-position (prosentaxis). Sometimes they are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites;

from Asclepiodotus online at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/6*.html

Thanks, Duncan.

[Patrick Waterson]

We should also remember recent discussions elsewhere of Burgundian armies mixing pikes and archers.  We have the training of ordonnance companies in 1473, which places pikemen in front of the archers and outside of them if drawn up in a circular anti-cavalry formation.  We also have Waurin's description of militia pikes in 1471

From each castellany [came] one or two men-at-arms to lead these pikemen, every ten of whom had a disenier whom they obeyed. These pikes make very convenient poles for placing a spike between two archers against the terrifying efforts Of cavalry trying to break their ranks, for there is no horse which, if struck with a pike in the chest, will not unfailingly die.

Note in passing the command structure - something we looked in vain for in our longbow discussions.

Interesting; thanks, Anthony.

[PMBardunias]

"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."

That poem appears to refer to a period when armies were in a much looser grouping, something like Papua-New Guinean tribal warfare (this is the only authentic video of skirmisher vs skirmisher combat I know of). But I imagine that if it was incorporated into regular phalanxes with ranks and files then we are talking about a later period as well.

I think this analogy is a mistake.  There is a big difference between the tactics we would expect from unarmed and shield-less men like those in the video and men with large shields and extensive armor.  Once you have a big shield and armor it makes much more sense to stand behind your shield under a missile barriage, as Persian Sparrabarra do, than to scamper around and rely on nimbleness to avoid missiles.  An outgrowth of this is that men with shields and armor will want to stand beside other men with armor in order to cut down the possible angles of incoming missiles. Sticking archers literally between men puts men without shields in the front line, leaving them defenseless because they cannot scamper around and opens avenues of attack on the two adjacent shield-bearers.  The logical next step is for an archer to stand behind a man with a shield and shoot over him.  This  is pedantic I know, but you would be surprised how many do not get it.  If we give our army of heavies and lights this simple rule, we spontaneously get a shield-wall with archers stationed behind and shooting over top.  This is what I believe Tyrtaeus is describing above and also the way I would describe later Saxon shield walls.  Archaic hoplites would have been a mix of heavy and light, but not Van Wees "motley crowd". This also shows why the lights later get shoved to the wings.  Deeper ranks make it harder to shoot over and the tactic of charging through missile range negates a role of missile shooting over top.

As for missile troops between files, I could imagine a phalanx of sarissaphoroi attempting to ward off enemy lights by moving archers up between files- but don't try it with slingers! As Alexander's proposed mixed phalanx showed, you cannot shoot arrows over more than a few ranks of sarissa.

[Justin Swanton]

"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."

That poem appears to refer to a period when armies were in a much looser grouping, something like Papua-New Guinean tribal warfare (this is the only authentic video of skirmisher vs skirmisher combat I know of). But I imagine that if it was incorporated into regular phalanxes with ranks and files then we are talking about a later period as well.

I think this analogy is a mistake.  There is a big difference between the tactics we would expect from unarmed and shield-less men like those in the video and men with large shields and extensive armor.  Once you have a big shield and armor it makes much more sense to stand behind your shield under a missile barriage, as Persian Sparrabarra do, than to scamper around and rely on nimbleness to avoid missiles.  An outgrowth of this is that men with shields and armor will want to stand beside other men with armor in order to cut down the possible angles of incoming missiles. Sticking archers literally between men puts men without shields in the front line, leaving them defenseless because they cannot scamper around and opens avenues of attack on the two adjacent shield-bearers.  The logical next step is for an archer to stand behind a man with a shield and shoot over him.  This  is pedantic I know, but you would be surprised how many do not get it.  If we give our army of heavies and lights this simple rule, we spontaneously get a shield-wall with archers stationed behind and shooting over top.  This is what I believe Tyrtaeus is describing above and also the way I would describe later Saxon shield walls.  Archaic hoplites would have been a mix of heavy and light, but not Van Wees "motley crowd". This also shows why the lights later get shoved to the wings.  Deeper ranks make it harder to shoot over and the tactic of charging through missile range negates a role of missile shooting over top.

As for missile troops between files, I could imagine a phalanx of sarissaphoroi attempting to ward off enemy lights by moving archers up between files- but don't try it with slingers! As Alexander's proposed mixed phalanx showed, you cannot shoot arrows over more than a few ranks of sarissa.

The point though is that Asklepiodotus is quite clear that insertion of lights among heavies is done by file, not by rank. And Tyrtaeus (at least following the English translation and I always mistrust translations) is equally clear that the men with shields are on either side of the skirmisher, not in front of him. The tacticians also are clear that skirmisher foot would line up in front of the heavy foot with as many files but half as many ranks - without the benefit of shield-protection by the heavies. The implication is that each skirmisher had a space about 3 feet wide and 6 feet deep. No room for running around at all. When they skirmished with enemy lights, they gave it and took it without being able to evade incoming missiles. Despite this skirmishing could go on for a long time with relatively few casualties. What are we missing?

[Patrick Waterson]

Just to clear the goalposts, what is under discussion is presumably Asklepiodotus VI.1:

The light infantry [psiloi] and targeteers [peltasts] will be stationed by the general as the situation demands, sometimes before the line of battle, sometimes behind it, and on other occasions now on the right flank and again on the left; the first is called van‑position (protaxis), the second rear-position (hypotaxis), and the third flank-position (prosentaxis). Sometimes they are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites; but the incorporation of like arms, such as hoplites beside hoplites or light infantry beside light infantry — the reason for this will be discussed later — is not called insert-position, but rather interjection (parembole).

and X.17:

The term doubling is used in two ways: either of the place occupied by the phalanx, while the number of the men remains the same, or of the number of the men; and each of these may be by file or by rank, also called by depth or by length. Doubling of men, then, takes place by length when we interject or insert between the original files other files of equal strength, maintaining all the while the length of the phalanx, so that a compact order arises only from the doubling of the men; doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth. The difference between insertion and interjection has been explained before.

The 'interjection' of Asklepiodotus is simply doubling up files* to halve individual frontage and give a denser formation (cf. Calisthenes' description of Alexander's approahc to Issus in Polybius XII.19.6).  The 'insertion' of files of light troops between heavies remains tactically puzzling.  Is this something doen by hard-pressed generals to bulk out their phalanxes when outnumbered by opposing heavy infantry (and if so, why does not Antiochus III do it at Raphia?) or is it an intermediate condition awaiting the commitment of said light infantry in a skirmishing role and then their subsequent withdrawal through the phaalnx, which then 'denses up' after the light infantry's withdrawal?

[*In X.17 he also has doubling of ranks, i.e. depth, on the same frontage, but not for different arms of service.]

My understanding is that what would happen would be a three-stage process.

Stage 1 (probably the approach): the light infantry files are placed alternately with the phalanx files, and march with them as part of the same formation.

Stage 2 (skirmish time): the light infantry files run forwards and line up in front of the heavy foot, forming with half the depth of the latter.  They then skirmish as per the book until the powers that be decide to get on with the main action.

Stage 3 (changeover): the light infantry retire, filing back between the files of heavy infantry; the heavy infantry then closes up into its battle formation while the lights reassemble behind.

Subsequently, the light infantry can a) spectate b) try to shoot over the heavies or c) be redeployed out to the wings.

Does this fit the various bits together?

Anyone wishing to look through Asklepiodotus can see him at Lacus Curtius here.

[Justin Swanton]

Stage 1 (probably the approach): the light infantry files are placed alternately with the phalanx files, and march with them as part of the same formation.

Stage 2 (skirmish time): the light infantry files run forwards and line up in front of the heavy foot, forming with half the depth of the latter.  They then skirmish as per the book until the powers that be decide to get on with the main action.

Stage 3 (changeover): the light infantry retire, filing back between the files of heavy infantry; the heavy infantry then closes up into its battle formation while the lights reassemble behind.

Subsequently, the light infantry can a) spectate b) try to shoot over the heavies or c) be redeployed out to the wings.

That makes sense. I see another possible reason for inserting lights among the heavies. It would be effective against an enemy formation that does not have lights of its own, permitting the lights mixed with their own heavies to keep shooting the advancing enemy until the last possible moment before retiring and allowing their heavies to double files.

[Jim Webster]

I must admit I cannot see a lot of reason for stage 1.
You could advance on the same frontage and have the files of light troops outside the files of pike men. When they went forward to skirmish then it might take them slightly longer to deploy. Falling back they could fall back through the files before the pikemen doubled their files and closed up.
But I see no reason for them being intermingled on the march. If anything the lights would be in the way if the force was suddenly surprised, and with the lights on the outside, it means that you've got lighter troops on the flanks of the formation when you advance if the terrain is at all dubious.

Jim