Discussion on refreshing front lines...

[mikehmike]

I've been really into this type of warfare now for the past 6months or so and I'm leaving the end of this month for boot camp so I've been reading/watching everything I can. Anyways I was wondering what the opinions of people on this forum where on the topic.

For the sake of possible argument I say let's stick to Roman warfare but really the Greek phalanx is on the same topic. I'll post a few videos to show an example (rome tv series) of how it possibly happened...with a whistle/trumpet/call or some sort to have the front line move to the back and the other lines moving up 1.

Video 1 (battle of philippi, doesn't really show the switching so much more of battle):



Video 2:




I mean I think this is a solid idea how they changed the front lines...but personally I think it wasn't so much "timed" as it was more replacement of injured/fatigued soliders but I can see this being "similar" to how they did it. Ideas?

[hellheaven1987]

Well generally, pitched battle, when fought in head-on-head, were decided by soldiers of first two lines. Of course, most casualty were suffered by first two lines.

[mikehmike]

Well I can see that def...I'm sure that roughly 30% of the soldiers did the main portion of the killing. But two lines in battles that lasted 1hour...2hours...days didn't just stay in the front two lines. I guess what I'm asking is when the first line gets tired...injured...dead what happens. More the first as if a soldier dies or loses a hand he has to be replaced by the second line.

Did soldiers fight on the front until exhaustion,death,injury or was there a "timed" system...

[hellheaven1987]

Well I can see that def...I'm sure that roughly 30% of the soldiers did the main portion of the killing. But two lines in battles that lasted 1hour...2hours...days didn't just stay in the front two lines. I guess what I'm asking is when the first line gets tired...injured...dead what happens. More the first as if a soldier dies or loses a hand he has to be replaced by the second line.

Did soldiers fight on the front until exhaustion,death,injury or was there a "timed" system...

Depends. Roman had a system for replacement, and each line would fight a maximum of 45 minutes before pulled back and sent the next line. However, that is more on theory, and I never too convince that Roman could actually pulled back successfully when the front were engaged. Still, theory support that, so who knows??

For other armies, it probably more like engaged, disengaged, then engaged again. Interesting enough, there was a Latin poem in Carolingian time decribed such battle and after match, which the poet himself was among the first line and the only survivor in first two lines after the battle.

[mikehmike]

Interesting...I can def see the problems with having the entire front line pull back while the second moves up. But then again if you truly think about it (if you have ever been into any contact sport...) how hard would it be to stand there for (assuming you don't die) 45min battling against 1man or let's say you kill the first x amount of fresh men after that.

I personally think there had to be some sort of system...that's why I'm trying to find evidence as you have posted of the poem to support or go against the idea of some replacement system of the lines.

edit: This is my thought...what is the point of that type of combat if you don't replace the front line. Pretend you are there...let's say you manage to kill within 5min the first man in front of you. So then the 2nd line man moves up...fresh...your tired. Basically being on the front line would equal death or luck in living. That just doesn't seem to be a solid thought from a society (rome) that took over so much of the world with war.

[hellheaven1987]

Interesting...I can def see the problems with having the entire front line pull back while the second moves up. But then again if you truly think about it (if you have ever been into any contact sport...) how hard would it be to stand there for (assuming you don't die) 45min battling against 1man or let's say you kill the first x amount of fresh men after that.

I personally think there had to be some sort of system...that's why I'm trying to find evidence as you have posted of the poem to support or go against the idea of some replacement system of the lines.

edit: This is my thought...what is the point of that type of combat if you don't replace the front line. Pretend you are there...let's say you manage to kill within 5min the first man in front of you. So then the 2nd line man moves up...fresh...your tired. Basically being on the front line would equal death or luck in living. That just doesn't seem to be a solid thought from a society (rome) that took over so much of the world with war.

Yes, I try to understand how this Roman replacement system works. However, there is no guarantee that enemies would not try to pin down your frontline, and worse, what if enemies chose to force a breakthrough during the replacement?? Both situation would only lead to a disastrous situation. Another thing is that some tight formation, such as phalanx, does not really have space for replacement at all. It was sure that Carolingian infantries could not have replacement simply because they fought in phalanx, and same thing probably applied on Greeks too.

[mikehmike]

Very good point with the Phalanx...as they would tighten up prior to clashing with the enemy. I'm sure as the battle progressed soldiers most likely got more and more tight (as to get closer to their "friends" shield...more so with phalanx and moving right but even with Roman tactics this had to be true) but I just can't see the front lines staying in the front till death.

That just doesn't seem like a sound battle tactic...to allow 1 man to control the fate of the entire line behind him.

[hellheaven1987]

I personally believe that there should be a space between first two lines (or four for Macedon phalanx) and the rest of troops, so the first two line could disengage and even replace tired individuals from the back when necessary, without breaking the frontline. Still, it was largely rely on the mercy of enemies.

[Tiberius Tosi]

I have always thought that the reshuffling of front troops took place when the two combat lines broke off, which occured every fifteen minutes or so generally speaking (according to Adrian Goldsworthy). This would be when the front troops would be swapped out. The Roman system may have worked in theory and training, but in the actual heat of combat hearing the whistle alone would be a challenge, and sending troops from the front to the back through the ranks while fighting is risky, as men falling could spell disaster for a section of the line.

Certainly the lines moved at each other in a blob, the front line did not move forward past the second line, as that would encourage the front line to break up. Also much of ancient fighting was a shoving match, so having 4 men literally behind you holding each up with their shield was beneficial and very common.

[mikehmike]

I'm interested in "Adrian Goldsworthy" speaking of the 15min idea...what is that from?

[Tiberius Tosi]

I'm interested in "Adrian Goldsworthy" speaking of the 15min idea...what is that from?

If you ever read "The Fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldworthy it has an exceptional section about both the Roman Army (polybian army, not the later professional one) and about warfare in ancient Rome in the introductory material. To quote it exactly, he says "Hand-tohand fighting with the sword and spear was hard physical effort combined with massive emotional stress. Such combats could not last for long before the participants in the opposing front ranks were physically exhausted and unable to continue. It is extremely unlikely that such combats ever lasted for more than fifteen minutes, and most were probably far shorter. Many such conflicts, perhaps the vast majority, did not end with one side fighting its way into the enemy formation and routing them, but were indecisive. In these cases the two sides seem to have separated, a gap of a few yards opening up between the lines, one or both units taking a few paces back. There was then a lull as the rival fighting lines faced each other, recovering their strength and confidence, perhaps yelling or throwing any remaining missiles at the foe. Eventually one or the other side was able to surge forward again in a fresh charge and renew combat."

In my opinion, it was during this time that the lines would be reshuffled, meaning men who had just fought would withdraw to the back if they were too exhausted (which they almost certainly were after a good fifteen minutes).

[mikehmike]

great post, helps me personally =)