Common misconceptions

[Andreas Johansson]

@Anthony, Richard:

Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.

Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?

[Erpingham]

@Anthony, Richard:

Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.

Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?

It's slightly awkward.  One foot figure on its standard base represents a group 5 men wide, four men deep.  The ground scale for 25mm is 1 inch = 20 paces with each pace being 2.5 ft.   Unfortunately, base sizes are in millimetres.  Assuming 1 inch = 25mm, 1 mm is 2 ft.  Frontage of a close order figure is therefore 30 ft, divided by 5 gives 6ft per man.  A loose order figure has 40 ft divided by 5 which is 8ft per man.  I think the frontages are based on the number of figures yoou can get on a close order base, more than reality, though.

[DougM]

@Anthony, Richard:

Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.

Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?

It's slightly awkward.  One foot figure on its standard base represents a group 5 men wide, four men deep.  The ground scale for 25mm is 1 inch = 20 paces with each pace being 2.5 ft.   Unfortunately, base sizes are in millimetres.  Assuming 1 inch = 25mm, 1 mm is 2 ft.  Frontage of a close order figure is therefore 30 ft, divided by 5 gives 6ft per man.  A loose order figure has 40 ft divided by 8 which is 8ft per man.  I think the frontages are based on the number of figures yoou can get on a close order base, more than reality, though.

Why are you making it hard for yourself working in feet and inches?

[RichT]

(Cross posted - Anthony, in 25mm (figure scale) 1 inch is 10 paces, so your figures are double. Yes, mixing units like they do is bonkers)

I don't think they specify in so many words, but as you say the scales imply about 1 metre per man for HI, and about 1.3 for LHI. Incidentally looking at my copy of WRG 5th (for the first time in 30 odd years) is quite fun. The ground scale is given as one inch = ten paces, and the pace as 2.5 feet or 0.75 metres. A figure represents 20 men, 5 files wide by 4 ranks deep. HI bases are 15mm per figure (inches, mm, paces, make your minds up!), and LHI are 20mm ("The following frontages per figure or model must be rigidly kept to", the rules say, helpfully). So HI are 3 mm per man, and LHI are 4 mm per man (while LI are 6 mm per man). As 1 mm = 0.393701 paces = 0.29527575 metres, HI are on a 0.88582725 metre frontage, LHI on 1.181103 metres, and LI on 1.7716545. To be more precise.

These figures don't relate precisely to anything in the real world of course, and the intermediate LHI frontage is (AFAIK) completely imaginary (but can be taken perhaps to abstractly represent infantry who move between close and open order). The tacticians specify 2 cubits (approx 1 metre) close order and 4 cubits (approx 2 metres) open order (both for heavy infantry), and one cubit for 'locked shields'.

Following Polybius, Macedonians should be on 15 mm frontage and Romans on 30 mm, or if you subscribe to the theory of a standard one cubit interval for the phalanx, Macedonians should be on 7.5 mm (which would require a very skinny toy soldier) and Romans on 15 mm. Which just goes to show I think that it's best not to try to model these things too literally.

[Erpingham]

@Anthony, Richard:

Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.

Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?

It's slightly awkward.  One foot figure on its standard base represents a group 5 men wide, four men deep.  The ground scale for 25mm is 1 inch = 20 paces with each pace being 2.5 ft.   Unfortunately, base sizes are in millimetres.  Assuming 1 inch = 25mm, 1 mm is 2 ft.  Frontage of a close order figure is therefore 30 ft, divided by 5 gives 6ft per man.  A loose order figure has 40 ft divided by 8 which is 8ft per man.  I think the frontages are based on the number of figures yoou can get on a close order base, more than reality, though.

Why are you making it hard for yourself working in feet and inches?

I'm trying to work it back as it would have been done.  It does have a metric equivalent pace of 0.75 m, so 1 inch is 15m.  1 mm is therefore 3/5 m. 0.6 x 15 ÷5 = 1.8 m per man frontage.  Frankly, to me, that was a harder calculation and, given the rather more elegant way it turns out in ft., I suspect that's the way the original was done. 

[Erpingham]

(Cross posted - Anthony, in 25mm (figure scale) 1 inch is 10 paces, so your figures are double. Yes, mixing units like they do is bonkers)

Yes, I've used the 15mm ground scale and the 25mm base scale.  How embarassing 

[Justin Swanton]

Justin:

Historically I think everyone knew that lines didn't wheel and there's enough evidence that even if a column did wheel, it did so in 90-degree increments only.

Not sure if you mean "In the past, everyone knew..", or "Everyone knows that, in the past..." but either way I would have to strenuously disagree, and I believe (without, of course, actual statistical evidence) that you are in a minority of one in believing this.

Fair enough. I have this idea in the back of my head that the earliest source evidence for a line wheeling was Wellington's infantry but can't confirm it. There isn't anything in the sources that affirms lines didn't wheel; it just seems painfully obviously to me that they couldn't, certainly not undrilled types like tribal warriors. The manuals affirm that wheeling was done by a subunit - the square-shaped syntagma - and that it was done in increments of 90 degrees. I'm not aware of any example of a line as a whole ever executing a wheel and certainly not a 22 or 37 degree wheel. Opposing armies formed up parallel to each other and interacted as if they were tied to a square grid, going for front, flanks and rear. In cases where their shapes were more fluid, e.g. an ambush of a column, there was no question of wheeling or performing any other formation manoeuvre - just groups of men fighting each other.

This is different from men forming a line in the first place, where one man would establish the corner position and the rest of the men would fall into line next to him. My own take (for what it is or isn't worth) is that they used the enemy to orientate themselves, i.e. decide the angle of the line. It might be slightly out of true but that would matter once battle was joined.

"Minority of one" - it would be interesting to see how many believe all infantry in line could wheel in battlefield conditions, only drilled infantry in line could wheel, or nobody could wheel.

Regarding intervals of files - for most of the 4000-odd-year period covered by 'Ancients' we have no idea what, if any, file interval was used. The only definite figures are Hellenistic manuals - which are both applied willy nilly to all sorts of inappropriate forces, and at the same time largely ignored in what they actually say* - the Indian data, and 5th C (AD) Roman. Everything else - Greek hoplites, Roman legions, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, 'warbands', shieldwalls - is just a guess (a perfectly plausible guess, no doubt, but a guess all the same).

* Hellenistic manuals clearly say that there was no one fixed interval - different intervals were adopted for different purposes.

The manuals are the only sources we have for file intervals, and they affirm there were three of them: open order with 2 yards (4 cubits) per file, intermediate order with 1 yard (2 cubits) and close order with 1/2 a yard (1 cubit). These intervals correspond to something real: the first allows for file insertion/interjection, the second gives an infantryman maximum fighting space without exposing his flanks, and the third puts pikemen together as closely as possible whilst still giving them enough leeway to fight - as pikemen. Obviously the intervals are going to vary a bit from one unit to another, but not by much.

Greek hoplites formed up with shield edges touching, which means an average of about 3 feet per file = intermediate order. They contracted when advancing so shields overlapped. This contraction had a natural limit of about 2 feet as shields could not overlap any further than that. Legionaries needed a little space between shields as their fighting style required stabbing their sword past the side of the shield as well as over and under it, so about 3 feet = intermediate order. Persians - depends on the width of their shields as they formed a continuous wall with them, so OK, no idea (how wide were their shields?). Assyrians and Egyptians ditto. We know the width of a Saxon or Viking shield so I imagine we can calculate the width of a file in shieldwall formation pretty closely. Hastings has further clues - the men were jammed together so closely the dead could not fall. That looks pretty much like close formation to me.

[Erpingham]

The manuals affirm that wheeling was done by a subunit - the square-shaped syntagma - and that it was done in increments of 90 degrees. I'm not aware of any example of a line as a whole ever executing a wheel

I'm sure we've been here before but isn't this a straw man argument?  When large forces wheeled they did so by smaller sub units, so saying they didn't wheel because they only wheeled by sub-units doesn't make much sense to me .  Perhaps it does to others?

On angles, a unit that can wheel through 90 degrees can wheel through 45 or anything else its officers decide.  Wheeling a line by sub-units (companies. squadrons, whatever) is quicker if you don't have to pretend you are on a grid, because you can cut corners.  Your officers do need to know where they are aiming to end up though - doing it grid like might be better for inexperienced forces or troops trying to align with another troop type - don't know.

As to frontages outside classical period there are quite few hints for infantry.  A Byzantine infantry unit in normal order touched shield edges.  Closed up in defence, they overlapped shields to the boss.  Northern European shieldwalls seem to have been similar - touching shields to move, overlapped shields in defence.  This suggests similar spacing to hoplites (not through any deliberate study but just the similarity in sizes of humans and hence shields). 

[RichT]

We have been here before (on wheeling and intervals) with the same result.

Concerning intervals - my point is that the only actual evidence we have is what I listed (unless anyone is able to add more) - Hellenistic tacticians, Vegetius, that Indian example. The Hellenistic tacticians are evidence for the intervals of the Hellenistic phalanx (and perhaps contemporary lighter infantry), only. We can make intelligent guesses about others (eg based on shield sizes in Byzantine case). We have no data whatever for Greek hoplites, just guesses based on size of shield, but no evidence for how close together shields needed to be - touching is another guess - a correct guess very likely, but a guess is not evidence.

Concerning wheeling - previous long thread said it all, I think. But the proof of a theory is in its ability to convince others. If others are convinced by the 90 degrees only theory, then it may have some merit.

I think it only muddies the waters to talk about drilled and undrilled units - we are obviously thinking primarily of drilled in this context.

[Imperial Dave]

I am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general

Perhaps we need a new topic "10 things I hate about rules" as these don't seem to be misconceptions per se.  Unless we say that ZoC is an abstraction of a misconception about how units behaved in close proximity to the enemy?

that's what I meant Anthony sorry. ZOC's to me give artificial 'control' over other units with an invisible but tangible force emanating from each unit

[Justin Swanton]

The manuals affirm that wheeling was done by a subunit - the square-shaped syntagma - and that it was done in increments of 90 degrees. I'm not aware of any example of a line as a whole ever executing a wheel

I'm sure we've been here before but isn't this a straw man argument?  When large forces wheeled they did so by smaller sub units, so saying they didn't wheel because they only wheeled by sub-units doesn't make much sense to me .  Perhaps it does to others?

I've been wondering if infantry in line ever wheeled by subunits at all. The evidence for infantry changing facing during a battle - Cynoscephalae, Cannae, Ilipa, etc., all makes sense as infantry in line turning into column (all subunits wheel right or left simultaneously) and then the column marching to a new position before turning back into line again. Is there any clear evidence anywhere of a line wheeling as a line, even by subunit?

On angles, a unit that can wheel through 90 degrees can wheel through 45 or anything else its officers decide.  Wheeling a line by sub-units (companies. squadrons, whatever) is quicker if you don't have to pretend you are on a grid, because you can cut corners.  Your officers do need to know where they are aiming to end up though - doing it grid like might be better for inexperienced forces or troops trying to align with another troop type - don't know.

I think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.

BTW do I need to defend the proposition that tribal warriors, who had no drill experience whatsoever, could not wheel to angles of 33 degrees, 57 degrees, etc., especially if in line?

As to frontages outside classical period there are quite few hints for infantry.  A Byzantine infantry unit in normal order touched shield edges.  Closed up in defence, they overlapped shields to the boss.  Northern European shieldwalls seem to have been similar - touching shields to move, overlapped shields in defence.  This suggests similar spacing to hoplites (not through any deliberate study but just the similarity in sizes of humans and hence shields).

Touching shields is a natural way of establishing a file interval that is practical. Nearly shoulder to shoulder is another natural spacing. Open order is, according to Asklepiodotus, another natural spacing (he doesn't give it a name). I have evidence that a group of people naturally tend to keep the equivalent of about 2 cubits apart. I'll dig it up if anyone's interested.

[DougM]

I think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.

Sorry - this is just so removed from real life it's hilarious. The world is not a grid, the enemy may be approaching you from any angle. The idea of only wheeling in 90 degree segments is nonsense.

Secondly, I've taught small formations to wheel properly by changing pace, it took about an hour before they could do it reliably. In larger formations, I would use a marker and have the line reform by sub units wheeling. I've done that with companies in a battalion.

To suggest that ancient troops would be unable to wheel strikes me as incredibly arrogant. It's a pretty basic component of forming a line or advancing. Now whether there are easier ways to change facing would depend on the troops, their familiarity with each other, the length of line etc. And that is worth debating, but blanket saying they didn't or couldn't is leading us down a whole set of blind alley assumptions for which we have no evidence.   

[Justin Swanton]

I think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.

Sorry - this is just so removed from real life it's hilarious. The world is not a grid, the enemy may be approaching you from any angle. The idea of only wheeling in 90 degree segments is nonsense.

Secondly, I've taught small formations to wheel properly by changing pace, it took about an hour before they could do it reliably. In larger formations, I would use a marker and have the line reform by sub units wheeling. I've done that with companies in a battalion.

To suggest that ancient troops would be unable to wheel strikes me as incredibly arrogant. It's a pretty basic component of forming a line or advancing. Now whether there are easier ways to change facing would depend on the troops, their familiarity with each other, the length of line etc. And that is worth debating, but blanket saying they didn't or couldn't is leading us down a whole set of blind alley assumptions for which we have no evidence.   

Have you ever wheeled a line of infantry 1 - 1,5km long under battlefield conditions? We need to keep in mind that real life in this instance wasn't a parade ground. How wide is a battalion in line? My position is that infantry could and did wheel by subunit into and out of column on the battlefield as that was quick and easy and a column had little trouble marching to a different position and wheeling to a new orientation as well. I'd be interested in understanding what is incredibly arrogant about that.

Re the 90 degree thing, I would like to see some evidence that enemy lines didn't form up parallel to each other, i.e. that one line was at an angle to the other. One instance will suffice. I would also like to see evidence that attacking an enemy line at an angle did anything else except disorder your own line. Again, once instance will suffice.

[DougM]

I think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.

Sorry - this is just so removed from real life it's hilarious. The world is not a grid, the enemy may be approaching you from any angle. The idea of only wheeling in 90 degree segments is nonsense.

Secondly, I've taught small formations to wheel properly by changing pace, it took about an hour before they could do it reliably. In larger formations, I would use a marker and have the line reform by sub units wheeling. I've done that with companies in a battalion.

To suggest that ancient troops would be unable to wheel strikes me as incredibly arrogant. It's a pretty basic component of forming a line or advancing. Now whether there are easier ways to change facing would depend on the troops, their familiarity with each other, the length of line etc. And that is worth debating, but blanket saying they didn't or couldn't is leading us down a whole set of blind alley assumptions for which we have no evidence.   

Have you ever wheeled a line of infantry 1 - 1,5km long under battlefield conditions? We need to keep in mind that real life in this instance wasn't a parade ground. How wide is a battalion in line? My position is that infantry could and did wheel by subunit into and out of column on the battlefield as that was quick and easy and a column had little trouble marching to a different position and wheeling to a new orientation as well. I'd be interested in understanding what is incredibly arrogant about that.

Re the 90 degree thing, I would like to see some evidence that enemy lines didn't form up parallel to each other, i.e. that one line was at an angle to the other. One instance will suffice. I would also like to see evidence that attacking an enemy line at an angle did anything else except disorder your own line. Again, once instance will suffice.

If you have troops who arrive on your flank - or late arrivals to a battle, the odds on them being exactly 90 degrees or 180 or 270 to your orientation is vanishingly small. At what angle do you think the Prussians arrived in Plancenoit? Or the Persians at Thermopylae? Even Marathon is supposed to have the successful wings wheeling onto the flanks.

And I don't think I have ever suggested wheeling a whole battle line was practical other than by unit markers and reforming on a new line. In the ancients rules I prefer, you can't wheel a longer line. 

I just don't think using absolutes, like 'never' or 'always' is particularly helpful

[Nick Harbud]

I recognise many things in that list as hang-overs from WRG and other "tables and tests" rules of that era, where playability wasn't actually a main criterion.

Interestingly, following John Curry's Conference talk, I tried to implement some of his findings in a set of ancient wargame rules to see how they played out.  I found this exercise much easier for bottom up rules like the classic WRG than the more modern top down ones.  For example, adjusting movement rates in WRG to reflect quantity of armour is easy when the troop types are based precisely upon that definition.  However, when confronted with the DBM(M) definition of Blades that can encompass everything from Viking warriors with minimum armour to European men-at-arms in full plate, it becomes a bit more tricky.  Yeah I know, DBx has subtypes, such as Fast (which would probably become Slow) and Superior (which might just become Fast) to the confusion of all.

Any suggestions for alternate modification strategies are welcome.