the importance of flanking

[O'brien the Protector]

I was always wondering what is the importance of flanking?
I can see 9kinda) what its importance would me modern day, tacticly to get around the cover of the enemy, and strategicly to perform a kesselclacht ( encirclement). But what would flakings importance be before the 19th century, like during the age of muscketteers ( when frontal charges still worked) or during the roman era?. The way I see it for example; your 150 romans are fighitng 150 guals. YOu attack on thier front adn thier flank,the only thing that cahnged is how many oeple are fighitng at one time ( as in frontal battle lets say only 30 of the 150 are fighitng, and with a flank lets say 80 on each side are fighitng, bvut thats the only diffrence I can think up of. SO why woul dflanking be importnat in the enciant era, musket era, and if im wring today?

[Boudicca]

Well, the success of flanking will depend on unit discipline / formation etc. If you flank an unexperienced unit, it will hardly be able to build up a new formation towards the other direction. Thus, if the one flanking is able to keep his charge / formation, your unit will rout fast. Furthermore, a unit being charged on more than one side, will always face a strong psychological impact (So many enemies at once...that is not common). I'll also get tired faster.

[Ardeur]

The enemy can't guard all sides. If an enemy infantry unit is tied up in battle with an allied infantry unit, then sneaking another unit around to either the side or preferably the back of the enemy gives this new unit a higher advantage (ie. having the enemy's back to them).

[DEMETRIOUS II]

I am not sure that I understand your question fully but will attempt to answer. Flanking is demoralizing and psychologically devastating. You mentioned that if you had 150 Gauls figting 150 Romans the only thing that would change is how many people are fighting on the different fronts. Now if you split for example the Gauls to 2 groups of 75 men and perform a frontal charge with one and a flank with the other. You have to remember that flanking success relies mostly on the element of surprise. When 150 Romans are facing 75 Gauls in a frontal charge their formation is intact and they expect to hold it. Then they get flanked by an additional 75, they have to turn and face them thus braking their formation. Now they don't even know what they are up against as the flankers came up from nowhere to disrupt their formation and are hacking at their behinds.

[GodNeptune]

Flanking forces the flanked army to alter its formation as men are pulled from the front lines to attack the flanking units. The sudden number of causalities suffered from a flank assault will also lower the morale of the flanked army. Flanking is how a small army can defeat a much larger one, and was a favorite tactic of Alexander. If you've ever played MTW, you should know all about the importance of flanking. It is not as an effective tactic in RTW for some reason, perhaps because of the bugged cav charge bonus.

[c00lizz]

Flanking is much more than simply "having more people fighting". By flanking an enemy formation you efectivly stop it's forward push and once there is no forward momentum your army will be on the back foot, incapable of pushing forward. A good example of this would be Cannae. The encirclement by Hannibal of the Roman army completly shut down it's movement, if the Roman soldiers would still have been able to focus on pushing forward they would ripped through Hannibals front lines through sheer mass.

Now you mention Alexander but he is not really the best example since he had a lot of other factors going for him. There is tons of other examples throughout history where an inferior army defeated a superior one through a succesful flanking manuveor. Alexander can not be considered one of them.

[O'brien the Protector]

That makes good sense ecept for the idea that it suprises them. i dont see hoe a flanking force would be able to suprise the enemy unless it was hiding behind a tree or hill, thus giving the enemy the time ti reorganize their formation. But what im wondering is then would it be best to just have a square formaiton that constantly moves ahead, making and flanking attack not worth while becuase there would not have to be any direciton or formaiton change?

[antaeus]

^^they overcomplicate things.

you charge into the enemies side, they are facing the other way. its that simple.

try hitting someone on the arm when they arent ready for it compaired to doing it when they are tensed and ready.

or even more straight foward... which way are the spears facing in a phalanx - not sideways.

yes it is more complicated than that but i like to simplify things.

[c00lizz]

Because by having a square formation(IE: Having equal ammount of soldiers covering the back, flanks and front) and turning to defend those when attacked means that you'll give up 3/4ths of your ability to push forward and allow the enemy to not only encircle you unchallenged but he can also chose where to strike. If just one of your fronts fall the soldiers inside will be forced to turn around and fight once again opening up to a complete encirclement.

[Pompeius Minus]

But what im wondering is then would it be best to just have a square formaiton that constantly moves ahead, making and flanking attack not worth while becuase there would not have to be any direciton or formaiton change?

Ancient and medieval infantry formation were deep for precisely this reason. If two units are of equal size, then the unit that attempts to flank would have to thin its ranks which makes it vulnerable to the deeper formation.

When you add missiles, and especially firearms, all this changes. A unit of musketeers formed up in four, later reduced to three and then two, ranks compared to 8-16 for a heavy infantry formation (pikemen, legionaries, phalangites, whatever). This is of course because when a unit fights at a distance, it needs more men up front so they can use their weapons. In a deep formation most of the men will not use their weapons. Instead they are there for support, both physical and moral. Musketeers still formed into columns for assault though, both because they are easier to move and because of the "mass effect".

So basically there are three reasons why deep formations were used:

1. Easier to control because they have a smaller frontage. This is a HUGE issue when your only means of communicating is shouting.

2. Easier to move, for the same reason as above.

3. Very deep formations, like squares, are the best for all-around defense since they have no flanks or rear.

[Perkele]

Artillery pretty much ended the days of deep fromations. One cannoball could tear down a whole row, not to mention the devastating effect of grapeshot. Also deep formations are much harder to make change direction.

A good example is Breitenfeld where Gustavus II Adolphus forces defeated the Imperials, who were still using the 'spanish tercios' tactic.

[hannibal89]

You want to know the importance of flanking?

One word: Cannae
That is the pincer tactic, but its basically surrounding the enemy with less men and winning.
Flanking is obviously useful because as ppl have said in this forum you cant guard your back in a fight.

[Pompeius Minus]

Artillery pretty much ended the days of deep fromations. One cannoball could tear down a whole row, not to mention the devastating effect of grapeshot.

Nope, it did not. Infantry in the Napoleonic wars, when artillery was the biggest killer on the battlefield, still formed in nine-deep battalion colums to assault. Black powder smoke and limited communications meant that deep formations were still useful until the end of the 1800s.

What finally killed the deep formation, in both the literal and the metaphorical sense, was the increased effectiveness of firearms from around 1840 onwards. Rifled muskets, rifled artillery, and finally (at the end of the 1800s) magazine rifles, machine guns, and smokeless powder made deep and dense formations impossible but that was 400 years after the introduction of handheld firearms.

Also deep formations are much harder to make change direction.

Nope, in fact precisely the opposite is true. Line formations (the thinnest formation) is the one where it takes the longest to change direction. Deep formations are much easier to manuever because they have a smaller frontage (see above).

[conon394]

Pompeius Minus

While I would certainly agree with your points 1 and 2, that deep formations (particularly the Greek or Hellenistic era ones) were primarily aimed at improving maneuverability.

But I think your 3rd point (second point 2) is not as solid. The deep solid formation adopted by the Romans at Cannae did not prove able to deal with being flanked, and subsequently surrounded. Less dramatic, but perhaps more notable, the Thebans at the battle of Nemea intended to use their deep formation to allow a quick oblique advance and flanking attack but refused to be deployed on the left flank. Xenophon suggests they were scared to face the Spartans (maybe), but it is also true that on the left, they would be forced to expose their unshielded shied to the enemy as the maneuvered. In this case the deep formation still had two exposed sides (admittedly 1 less than a line).

What finally killed the deep formation, in both the literal and the metaphorical sense, was the increased effectiveness of firearms from around 1840 onwards. Rifled muskets, rifled artillery, and finally (at the end of the 1800s) magazine rifles, machine guns, and smokeless powder made deep and dense formations impossible but that was 400 years after the introduction of handheld firearms.

Deep formations also were less useful with the musket becoming the primary infantry weapon. Deep formations like the Spanish tercios were comparatively inefficient means of concreting firepower compared to thinner linear formations (as deployed by Maurice of Nassau or Gustavus Adolphus for example).

[Perkele]

Nope, it did not. Infantry in the Napoleonic wars, when artillery was the biggest killer on the battlefield, still formed in nine-deep battalion colums to assault. Black powder smoke and limited communications meant that deep formations were still useful until the end of the 1800s.

Exactly, to assault. Deep formation could hardly have been used for anything else. Majority of the fighting was done in line, which were 2-4 men deep.

Nope, in fact precisely the opposite is true. Line formations (the thinnest formation) is the one where it takes the longest to change direction. Deep formations are much easier to manuever because they have a smaller frontage (see above).

Yeah, I got my 'facts' wrong, been some time since I've read about this era. However, if I do recall correctly, deep formations had to operate as one. This ment that the few thousand men in tercios were effectively all facing one direction.

As again seen in Breitenfeld, Gustav could create a new flank from nothing, with tercios that would have been next to impossible.

[Trax]

Concerning the cannonballs.
Flanking fire was feared because one cannonball could kill many (20 or more men)

[Rutilius Rufus]

Flanking is simple, Say you are fighting someone one-on-one, now all of a sudden another person comes around and attacks you on the side. Would you still be able to fight the man in front of you as effectivly? No, you would have to worry about the other guy as well, and therefore you would not be able to watch-for or exploit any weaknesses in either one as easily as you would with just one.

[Mehmed II]

Flanking is basically the strategy that put Turks and mongols on history...

[Søren]

thus giving the enemy the time ti reorganize their formation. But what im wondering is then would it be best to just have a square formaiton that constantly moves ahead, making and flanking attack not worth while becuase there would not have to be any direciton or formaiton change?

Yes that is all very well, but if the formation is penetrated they would have to fight individually on two fronts which is, for obvious, reasons not very good.

[Søren]

Sorry for sending two posts but I've just noticed another one.

[but it is also true that on the left, they would be forced to expose their unshielded shied to the enemy as the maneuvered.

?? surely the men on the left would be shielded, as follows

Back ranks: | Front Ranks: ^ |
(@| @|

( or ^ = Shield
@ = Person
| = Spear