A stray comment got me thinking.
I was trying to put together some 'pick up' ancient rules for the club, because most people will play ancients (or anything else) but they want ancient rules they have never read but can still play once every couple of months.
Ancients without the headache.
People commented on the fact I didn't let troops turn 90 degrees (but let them wheel slowly with the risk of problems doing something complicated)
The problem is that Fredrick the Great raised his head at this point and everybody assumes that what he achieved was industry standard a thousand years before.
Somebody raised the sensible point, you just need an NCO at each corner of the unit.
Now the game was Roman Republic v Carthage. So I had to point out that a lot of the units were 'freshly raised' and I tried to explain about file leaders and a shortage of 'professional NCOs'
Now for a 'Hellenistic' army I can see how, with the experienced (or wealthy) men at the front because they've got the best kit anyway, and a reliable man at the back as a file closer, you have in the file a useful subunit. You could put younger men in each file (in case they had to charge out to get the enemy skirmishers) or tuck your green troops in the middle where they'll get to experience combat without necessarily being in the front and just dying because they don't know the ropes.
But what about a Roman century of the 2nd century BC. Six men deep? Ranks of 10 men.
The contubernium seems to have been a subunit of eight men but was it present in the 3rd century?
Was it earlier a subunit of six who would have formed a file?
So what was the subunit? The file? The Rank? Do we even know?
Frederick inherited an army with strict drill and training, and cadence marching (in step),
Not true in ancients at any time.
Before that, no one did what his chaps did, so the question is mute., and your sensible somebody is not sensible at all
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2023, 07:59:01 PMBut what about a Roman century of the 2nd century BC. Six men deep? Ranks of 10 men.
The contubernium seems to have been a subunit of eight men but was it present in the 3rd century?
Was it earlier a subunit of six who would have formed a file?
So what was the subunit? The file? The Rank? Do we even know?
Probably not the
contubernium, since apparently we know of
contubernales who served in different centuries or even different regiments (https://www.academia.edu/37177764/The_Roman_Army_in_Detail_The_Contubernium_tent_party_or_barrack_room) - implying, surprisingly, that the
contubernium was not a "sub-unit" at all.
Otherwise, don't know.
Quote from: Mark G on August 20, 2023, 08:03:59 PM...so the question is mute, and your sensible somebody is not sensible at all
Does this suggest the question should not have been uttered at all?
I am always taken by Paddy Griffiths' explanation of the Viking Art of War. Essentially, you had one keen guy at the front, generally known to us as a berserk or similar and often depicted as gnawing his shield rim. He went wherever he wanted and everybody else followed in a loose mob. No need for bawling NCOs, etc. Keep it simple.
8)
Follow the chap eating his shield.....sensible warcraft the world over :P
Hmmm, I think PG was on more solid ground on tactics in the 19th and 20th centuries :) However, trying to work out how leadership in early medieval warfare worked is difficult. Essentially, a man of some status in the community (social, reputational, family) is acknowledged as leader. Beneath that, there will be experienced men, perhaps related, or in service or perhaps drawn to the leader's reputation. And the bulk of band will follow their lead.
Now, it seems to me that regular armies are different particularly in having a more formal method of establishing authority and a pattern by which small units inter-relate in a larger whole. But to view them through a lens of European linear warfare structures is, as already said, a mistake. A Roman century would certainly be deficient in command by these standards and probably relied much more on its internal social hierarchy in the same way as our imagined Vikings did. IIRC, Caesar's centurions were expected to be respected as warrior-heroes by their men, not just because they carried a vine stick.
Follow the guy in front is not enough to perform the sort of complex marching that a 90 degree wheel requires, especially in a combat situation.
Mute was auto correct from moot.
It's totally foolish to compare the 18th c drill with ancients- it's like arguing that because the Greeks knew about using steam to power toys, they should have had railways
One big problem with "modern" (ie Frederick onwards) drill is that it functions best when one has someone out in front giving the commands. He is able to see where the formation will be able to fit, does it have the room to carry out the manoeuvre, and is the manoeuvre going wrong. The larger (and especially the wider) the formation is, the more difficult it becomes. In such circumstances, wheeling a line is actually far more challenging than getting everyone to turn left, right or about on the spot. It is why columns are easy to manoeuvre on the march, as they have a rather narrow frontage. So the question becomes when is it practical on the ancient battlefield for someone to give commands stood out at least several paces in front? Not in close proximity to the enemy, for a start.
A hoplite commander stood in the front rank of a phalanx is particularly poorly served, which is one reason why I am sceptical of some of the claims made for even the Spartans carrying out complex manoeuvres, unless like Xenophon they are cutting about on a horse. I can envision Hannibal possibly having his Libyans in columns on the flanks of the Gauls and Iberians at Cannae, and simply having them turn left or right into line to flank the Romans as they pushed into the "net", if that is what happened.
The more I think about it, most of the complex manoeuvres mentioned in ancient times are either before the battle, or conducted with thoroughly unengaged troops. The potentially most difficult manoeuvre routinely carried out (and one we do not understand) is the Roman "relief in place" practised with the quincunx / triplex acies formation.
Checking through some of my reference books I found the following:
Adrian Goldsworthy on p80 of "The Complete Roman Army" specifically mentions that men were taught to march in step.
Chris McNab on p152 of "The Roman Army" also mentions marching in time along with other training exercises.
Michael Simkins on p9 of "The Roman Army - Caesar to Trajan" mentions square bashing and different marching paces for Roman legionaries.
Peter Connolly on p44 of "The Roman Army" mentions that recruits drill twice a day and thence once a day.
Phil Barker on p17 of "The Airfix Guide to Ancient Wargaming" states that ancient armies had higher levels of drill than anything up to the 18th century.
It strikes me that all of these authors can't be wrong, surely? And if you think of the formations and fighting styles then a high degree of at least "keeping in line" was necessary if they were to be effective. Would the files of a phalanx advance at different rates? Or would men in a file have different gaps between those to the front and rear than others in their rank?
Going back to Jim's original question: I always thought the century was the basic (smallest) battlefield unit of a Roman army and have assumed that all manoeuvres were performed at this level, including turns, wheels and forms. In my youth as a member of the Boys' Brigade, I and other teenage lads used to do marching drill and became quite competent at carrying out quite complex stuff and we practised for just 30mins each week. So, near-full-time soldiers doing it more regularly shouldn't have any problems.
Agreed that performing them when actually engaged in melee is probably quite a challenge, but the authors listed earlier all refer to getting men to react to the blasts of trumpets and their standards, so some limited "drills" (e.g. swap lines, fall back) must have been anticipated.
I think we are in danger of mixing up ideas of what "drill" is here. I don't there can be any argument that Romans practised their actions. But their weekly drill may not have been about complex evolutions. It may have nailed the basics that allowed the unit to function effectively, which would still have put it streets ahead of irregular opposition, who may have had weapons practice but not tried moving en masse before being on a battlefield.
Two questions..
1. subunits
2. cadence
1. Roman sub units:
Roman military practice was a development of Greek, Hellenic, Macedonian practice. All (from the limited written sources) based around the file. Roman sources add the 'tent' as a an alternative to this. It's essentialy the same thing and, much later, imperial decriptions of contubernium being geographically split is from a much more beaurocratic system (very similar to modern practice with detached service etc). Archaeology (virtually all Imperial) shows brracks blocks for squads of 8, later 6, some with additional NCO accomodation). I'm inclined to agree with Phil Barker's thoughts (from our mutual distant past) that files of eight or ten led by the file leader was the operational basis for late republican cohorts, with the cohort as the operational unit.
2. Cadence and drill.
There is a trope that marching in step is 'modern' (variously set as 16th/17th/18thC). This is belied by numerous ancient references from multiple culturs describing it's use, even to the extent of Macedonian, Archaemede, and Early Han troops performing displays of marching and manouver to overawe opponents.
There are repeated refernces in sourced to generals taking over troops, toughening them up with route marches, having them practice manouvers et...
Regards,
Tom..
FFS guys.
Just marching in step is not enough to perform the complicated drill that Freerick had his troops perform.
10 year old kids who have an outdoor assembly once a week can be taught to march in step in a couple of classes, but they can never perform the detailed drill evolutions that the Prussians could.
if you don't stop this undergraduate level whataboutery, i will start recommending books - and be forewarned, books on horse and musket era drill are incredibly dull. I've read them so you don't have to.
The other major question is what perceived benefit ancient peoples and cultures might have thought modern drill would bring them. It is questionable what actual battlefield benefits drill gave to Frederick's troops, other than utterly slavish and mechanical obedience, which is a product of parade ground beastings rather than complex drill per se.
Might I direct your attention to leuthen.
Tell me an ancient army could have marched into that position.
Quote from: Mark G on August 23, 2023, 05:38:33 PMMight I direct your attention to leuthen.
Tell me an ancient army could have marched into that position.
You misunderstand, I agree entirely with you about the irrelevance of 18th century drill to the ancient period and the improbability that anyone could have matched it (or as I think, would have wanted to match it). But I doubt whether any ancient general would have wanted to fight a battle like Leuthen. And even then, whilst I am not an expert on Leuthen, my impression has always been that the deciding issue was Frederick's manoeuvres
before most of his army came into close contact with the enemy. In that regard, arguably no more impressive than some of Hannibal's battles, and also not affected by
tactical drill to a huge degree, other than perhaps speed.
I see.
Yes, could the ancients have marched like fredericks army?
Sure - 2 legs, sense of rhythm, professional soldiers you can make do seemingly pointless repetitive movements.
Did they ?
No, why would they- excluding ambushes, the typical battle was by pre formed battle lines moving into each other, why waste time on things they are not useful.
But you should also put that slavish obedience stuff out of your mind, that comes after. Fred had his recruits out through close benevolent mentoring until they had the drill down cold. Beatings were only for men who knew how to do it and weren't.
We will leave discussions of sub formation articulation for later
One can debate the degree to which Frederick used carrot or stick, but a) there is more to the history of modern drill than he alone, and b) whilst some might balk at "slavish" for all proponents of the art since him, I cannot think of anyone who would quibble with "mechanical" as a desired response. Even today, that is one of the goals of British Army drill training, especially in the Brigade of Guards.
Otherwise, you actually seem to be agreeing with my arguments.
A couple of points in this debate.
It makes a big difference to marching/ staying in step, if the unit concerned has musicians or chants. I believe that Landsknechts chanted 'Look out Here I Come ' in German and this would keep the ranks together. This is reminiscent of Plutarch's description of the Cimbri advancing, chanting and leaping into the air. Again this would keep the unit together. It might work for a 1000 man frontage ten deep, but fairly obviously not for managing or turns.
I found the descriptions of ad hoc small groups following a leader less than convincing . Men fought in teams and yes its very likely that the leader was at the front, but there were social relationships within the teams. Probably the leader would choose good fighters to be either side of him , have his servant behind him with javelins, have a calm fellow with good skills at the back, put an experienced warrior with the new boys to keep them calm. I suggest that weapon differences and specialism also interacted with position within the unit. If we think of Hastings, the English have not only javelins, but lignis imposita saxa ( stones tied to a wooden handle) flying overhead. These are like the heavy clubs thrown from the rear by the Goths at Adrianople . Such weapons dictate their positioning in the rear ranks. At Northallerton the Northern English placed archers in the second rank to shoot at the unarmoured Strathclyde Scots.
Its opinion. but I suggest that Vikings had an advantage in that being organised as boat crews gave them a structure for creating units with a high degree of internal structure and relationship. This would be much more practised and interdependent than groups with a more agricultural relationship.
Roy
The armies of the Ancient world are not a cohesive whole. They varied from Roman Imperial armies (some units of) which were as professional and well-trained as any today to close order mobs with less training than OAPs (like myself) just drafted into the LDV in the early days of WW2.
Not only that but when it comes to wheeling of formations, what size of battle are you recreating? Is it one with battlelines 2 miles long and comprising 10s of thousands of men? Not much wheeling went on there, I warrant.
So, you 'pays your money' and takes your pick.
Cheers
Simon
Quote from: simonw on August 25, 2023, 01:02:51 PMNot only that but when it comes to wheeling of formations, what size of battle are you recreating? Is it one with battlelines 2 miles long and comprising 10s of thousands of men? Not much wheeling went on there, I warrant.
This is a reasonable question and, IMO, it relates to mark's point about smaller unit articulation. Look at the manuals from 19th century and you will see if a larger unit wished to wheel, it did so using it's component smaller elements, not in monolithic long lines. It is plausible that the well-articulated regulars of the ancient world did the same. However, if you had a large body made up of massed irregularly organised and sized groupings, your chances of doing any wheeling (or manoeuvering) would be slim.
If there was one thing that the ancient world was expert in, it was organising large bodies of men, in armies, building projects, whatever. Just because their 'manuals' haven't come down to us does not mean that anything done by anybody in the horse and musket period could have been matched in the ancient world. Alexander the Great's army was pretty good. The Romans were highly professional (at times) and there are others.
Don't ever underestimate the ancients! Who built the pyramids!
no simon,
you are confusing could have with did.
none of the ancient armies had the drill and training to perform the same movements that later infantry did - because they never needed to.
could they have learnt it? yes.
did they? no, no and again no.
please stop enabling this silly comparison. I know you know better than that
QuoteDon't ever underestimate the ancients! Who built the pyramids!
The Mayans. If pyramid building = ability to do 18th century drill, then Mayan armies must be made up of drilled regulars. :) I don't think anyone denies the ability of the ancients to organise large scale projects (because the remains of said projects are around us), nor that our documentary evidence shows that some ancients could organise and deploy large forces but we are in danger of interpreting the past through a lens of later development if we say, without evidence, that e.g. the Romans were organised like early modern European ones.
But if - as discussed on another thread that I can't find now - we've accepted that the Romans swapped ranks and that skirmishers passed through ranks of hoplites, how did they do that without any "drill"?
Based on what I keep reading in my reference books and seen on various (serious) programmes, my view is that square-bashing type drill (that probably incorporated or extended into weapons training) would have been a regular activity in some armies where the soldiers were full-time or near-full-time.
QuoteBut if - as discussed on another thread that I can't find now - we've accepted that the Romans swapped ranks and that skirmishers passed through ranks of hoplites, how did they do that without any "drill"?
Do either of these take more drill than opening and closing ranks? We know that Hellenistic armies could do this and we know Byzantines could, so I doubt the Romans lost the ability. But, again, there is a difference between standard practised ways of doing things (drills) and precision, cadence regulated, square bashing (drill). AFAIK, we lack detail of how Roman tactics were delivered on the ground, especially at small scale, and we risk overstating ability by reference to later models.
you were warned.
required reading for further participation in this thread.
Nafziger - Imperial Bayonets
Duffy - Military Experience in the Age of Reason
Nosworthy - Anatomy of victory
Quimby - Background of the Napoleonic wars
Duffy - The Army of Frederick the Great
Duffy - Russia's Military way to the West
Lynn - Bayonets of the Republic
Griffith - Art of War in Revolutionary France
Muir - Tactis and Experience of Battle
Nosworthy - Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies
Zmodikov - Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars (both parts)
at least 4 must be read and understood.
but as a short cut,
if anyone can identify anything in any ancient army - even a medieval one - where a basic formation was subdivided into 8 (or 6 to 10) identical components, each officered and sub officered and drilled individually and collectively on a daily basis and ONLY on marching in step correctly until it was able to be included in multi unit groupings for further drill, then I will happily listen to their further contributions.
the rest of you - please just stop.
go and do some of the above reading, and then reconsider whether any of what you have learned, or any of the highly detailed diagrams used to explain how these evolutions were performed actually has a parallel in your understanding ofancient military movements.
because it doesn't.
A basic batallion in Fredericks army was subdivided into 8 platoons, each of which had a 3 lieutenants and 6 NCOs all tasked with maitaining correct formation and step.
8 of those 2 a batallion, 2 of those to a regiment in the field, 2 regiments to a brigade, etc.
they trained and deployed in these formations permanently because it was so much more complicated than you think it was.
a lot more complicated than any of the whataboutery thrown in here already.
the comparison is just rediculous once you look into it.
Mark, Anthony (no pun intended), I do not contend that ancient armies were drilled like those of Frederick the Great but I would contend that many were drilled in accordance with their preferred mode of fighting. Romans throwing Pila for instance. Roman Line Relief protocols. Spartan Phalanx drills(countermarch) etc. are just a couple of examples; albeit we don't actually have hard-copy historical records of the drills written down.
So all I would contend is that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence when it comes to the ancients capabilities in manoeuvring large bodies of formed troops on the battlefield. They were not inferior just because they were about a long time ago. The pyramids are material evidence of the Egyptians' capabilities to mobilise and organise large labour forces and support them with all the associated logistics and training.
Do not underestimate the ancients! They were people like us and just as sophisticated in their own ways. It was only the technologies that were different not their personal and societal competencies in management and organisation.
The Ermine Street Guard (Imperial Roman re-enactors) march 'in step' (sinister-dexter, sinister-dexter).
Alexander the Great's army campaigned 5,000km from home. They were pretty competent at marching, I'd guess.
An interesting link on Roman marching camps; http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arch/Roman-army-campaigning.htm
Cheers
Simon
QuoteSo all I would contend is that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence when it comes to the ancients capabilities in manoeuvring large bodies of formed troops on the battlefield. They were not inferior just because they were about a long time ago.
Firstly, I think noting difference is objective, assigning inferiority is subjective. I'm pointing out difference. In the absence of evidence it is a judgement call what you think the evidence would be were you to find it. Perhaps, I just take a more cautious view than some.
QuoteIt was only the technologies that were different not their personal and societal competencies in management and organisation.
Their social organisations were often very different to ours, as were their economies. Military organisation often differed and what we recognise as regular professional militaries were rare.
Anthony,
The moment I posted my last comment I knew that I hadn't mentioned social and religious organisation and beliefs but these don't materially alter my main contention; namely that the ancients were people just as mentally capable as we are today (AI excluded)and so were perfectly capable of extremely sophisticated management protocols; probably better than we are today in purely man-management capabilities on a grand scale (they had so much more practice in the absence of machines).
Their military drill capabilities were therefore as likely to have been as sophisticated as anything known at later dates. Genghis Khan's campaigns were influential in developing Blitzkrieg theory and practice. The 'arrow riders' were designed and trained and organised to facilitate rapid communications throughout the Mongol Empire and so the importance of rapid communications was well recognised and understood; even if they didn't have radio or telegraph.
Philosophically, there's not much than hasn't been thought of already by someone in the ancient world and personally, given the nature of ancient warfare and it's fundamental reliance on hand to hand combat between massed formations of men with a variety of weapons and fighting styles, I am extremely dubious of any contention that unit drills were not as sophisticated (at times and in some armies) as any of a later date.
The ancients should not be underestimated. They managed to do things that we can't do today because the knowledge of the ancient technologies has been lost (e.g. rope technology for trireme hypozōmata). The Olympias reconstruction had to resort to steel cable!
Cheers
Simon
"Regular professional militaries were rare." Not that rare. Maybe more limited in scale; yes, but many 'Empires' had a core of military professionals. How can you expect an amateur to be competent as an Assyrian charioteer without there being a professional underpinning for the technology, operational training, and animal husbandry, I'm not sure.
QuoteThe ancients should not be underestimated.
I don't think I have but I don't think this line of argument will lead us to further enlightenment. If anyone has a different angle which may prove fruitful, now's your time. :)
Quote from: simonw on August 28, 2023, 03:43:36 PM"Regular professional militaries were rare." Not that rare. Maybe more limited in scale; yes, but many 'Empires' had a core of military professionals. How can you expect an amateur to be competent as an Assyrian charioteer without there being a professional underpinning for the technology, operational training, and animal husbandry, I'm not sure.
I'm afraid I don't know enough about Assyrians, though I believed that most of the troops were raised from the countryside as needed, rather than an embodied professional force. A professional core I will grant you - the Egyptians also had a permanent chariot corps at times. But can you not see the strain on the argument? A permanent core = regular army = capable of complex drill like 18th century linear warfare armies? As I said, I tend towards caution in making these leaps. And again, I think I'm repeating myself, so I open it up to new approaches to the problem.
So pikemen in Tercios were better drilled than Macedonian pikemen under Alexander the Great?
Quote from: simonw on August 28, 2023, 05:32:40 PMSo pikemen in Tercios were better drilled than Macedonian pikemen under Alexander the Great?
Not sure who has suggested this but my own view is probably not. The amount of drill required was probably similar. But I will caveat this. Although I've studied quite a bit about 16th century tactics, I have mainly been interested in other nationalities' armies and not the Spanish.
I thought that I ought to do was do what I should have done from the start, dig out my copy of Asclepiodotus
He was probably a theoretician rather than somebody who led armies but given he was 1st Century and may have at the very least studied at Rhodes, he may have been an ephebe in his day and there were plenty of people about who knew 'drill'
Section 12 is the drill commands plus a description of the military evolution to go with
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/12*.html
I'm more confused, the LacusCurtius translation isn't the same as the Loeb
Evolutions can have up to four quarter turns to the right (or the left)
Anybody have a crack at the Greek?
But according to https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/10*.html#4
It is a quarter-turn, when we close up the entire battalion by file and rank in the compact formation�43 and move it like the body of one man in such a manner that the entire force swings on the first file-leader as on a pivot, if to the right on the right file-leader, and if to the left on the left file-leader, and at the same time takes a position in advance and faces 'by spear' if pivoting right and 'by shield' if pivoting left.
As I read it, it seems to mean that to turn 90 degrees the file leader on that flank stood still and the other file leaders pivoted around him, keeping in line, but with their files following them.
There again I have been wrong before
I remember going through this with Justin. It looks clear but actually is confusing. If you just pivot round the front corner, everybody has to go forwards and shuffle sideways. Yet that does appear to be what it says.
Later drill manuals would use an external pivot for this, but this advances the unit and moves it in the direction of the wheel, whereas the tactician seems to suggest no movement to the flank.
So no compare that to an 18th century manual for a single batallion.
It's like comparing a hay cart with an articulated lorry.
Different requirements, different outcomes.
No ancient general would conceive of a movement like Leuthen, so they had no need to create the drill to perform it.
They would be baffled by the advantage that hours of marching drill brought, just as a Prussian would be baffled by the hours of weapons training at the posts brought.
Neither is better implicitly, so let us ignore Simons pointless straw man of denegrating the ancients. And just look back at the simple question.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 28, 2023, 07:40:58 PMI remember going through this with Justin. It looks clear but actually is confusing. If you just pivot round the front corner, everybody has to go forwards and shuffle sideways. Yet that does appear to be what it says.
Later drill manuals would use an external pivot for this, but this advances the unit and moves it in the direction of the wheel, whereas the tactician seems to suggest no movement to the flank.
As I read it, your unit would end up no more to the flank, but would now be in front of its original position?
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 29, 2023, 07:12:47 AMAs I read it, your unit would end up no more to the flank, but would now be in front of its original position?
That's how I would read it - like pivoting a wargame element. The original line of the front would be the flank and the outer flank would be one unit's width further forward (for a single quarter turn).
In real life, though, it's hard to do with multiple ranks. Caution in interpretation is called for.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 29, 2023, 09:22:34 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on August 29, 2023, 07:12:47 AMAs I read it, your unit would end up no more to the flank, but would now be in front of its original position?
That's how I would read it - like pivoting a wargame element. The original line of the front would be the flank and the outer flank would be one unit's width further forward (for a single quarter turn).
In real life, though, it's hard to do with multiple ranks. Caution in interpretation is called for.
Trying to visualise it, it might be easier to do it this way if your unit has a neighbour on, for example, the right flank but wants to face left.
There's none of the 'entangling' you get with unit bases when you try to wheel, as the unit as it manoeuvres only takes up it's original frontage. Until the very end when everybody shuffles into place
If the unit is wider than it is deep, say 10 ranks and 8 files, then it won't interfere with troops to its flank anyway.
Mark,
"and cadence marching (in step),
Not true in ancients at any time."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm afraid that I don't believe this assertion.
Simon
Mark,
"none of the ancient armies had the drill and training to perform the same movements that later infantry did - because they never needed to."
I don't believe this assertion either (except of course for loading muskets).
Simon
Mark,
"No ancient general would conceive of a movement like Leuthen, so they had no need to create the drill to perform it."
I bow to your much superior knowledge of the Prussian military but to assert that ancient 'equivalents' definitely never existed is perhaps going too far, in my humble opinion.
It seems to me that Genghis Khan used similar tactics on a grand scale but with Mongol cavalry (e.g. feigned withdrawals, speed of manoeuvre, lateral outflanking manoeuvres etc.).
also, what did the Triarii do at Cynocephalae? What did Alexander the Great do with the Companions at Gaugemela? These latter two instances seem (off the top of my head) to have involved lateral movements in the face of the enemy.
They are not facsimiles of the Leuthen manoeuvre I agree but there are similarities in some of the elements (lateral movements of elite/well-trained troops) and also the thought processes behind them.
If you are proposing a uniqueness specifically for the combination of the unit drill and command structure of Frederick's troops in detail which then specifically enabled them to perform the manoeuvre at Leuthen as envisaged by Frederick in advance (he attempted it twice before I believe) then you are correct and I agree that there may well be no precise ancient equivalent in the detail. (i.e. dedicated training troops to in advance to perform a specific lateral movement on a grand tactical scale).
But if you are asserting that no ancient army ever had adequate drill/training to perform an equivalent deception using a rapid, hidden lateral movement after a withdrawal behind terrain, in order to outflank an opposition deployment, then I cannot agree that such a tactical capability was beyond all ancient armies in terms of plan conception nor actual physical enactment.
Sorry
Simon
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 ;)
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
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.
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
Something I suggested two pages ago.
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
Quote from: simonw on August 30, 2023, 09:41:17 AMcomparison 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 :)
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
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.
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).
Quote from: dwkay57 on September 04, 2023, 05:46:46 PMHave 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 8)
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.
Quote from: dwkay57 on September 05, 2023, 08:33:31 AMThat 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
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 05, 2023, 10:32:42 AMThe 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
Back in the day, pitching in Greeks against Persians and the pike phalanx in action, fellow wargamers helped to 're-enact' a battle like Arbela, with soldiers heaving forward in tight packed masses and occasionally losing their spears as they impaled their opponents.
What happened when a soldier lost his pike?
In our test, the easiest thing to do was reach back to the soldier behind you and take his spear, so the pikes are being passed forward to the front like a conveyor belt. Otherwise you start to get gaps. What do you think? Is that really possible when the troops are crushing forward?
I think we might ask whether it was that important that every man in the front rank had a spear at this point (no pun intended). When you've got to the breaking spears stage, you are probably so close, you can use your sword and rely for cover from the guy behind you who hasn't broken his spear. We might also consider whether it would be practical to be swapping weapons actually while fighting. Neither of these objections would apply in a pause in the fighting, if you allow such in your thoughts about ancient melees, though.
Simon, can I just pick up upon a point that you made about Frederick the Great. Its not strictly true that shooting was the main tactic for Frederick's infantry.He certainly did improve rates of fire initially, biput his thought did develop. Later in his wars he prepared targets with his 12 pounder artillery and then advanced his grenadiers with muskets shouldered. Tge enemy would break on ir before the bayonet charge. What Frederick was understanding was that opponents could be broken not just through casualties inflicted by fire, but by the impetus imparted to their minds by preparation and by the rapid advance of a disciplined ordered body of determined men. Fire in this period was not good enough in the period that such a charge was in range to stop the charge. Ancients is different because the psychology of the opponent is different, he is expecting the impact and hand to hand contact.
Roy