Fulcum formation

[Diocle]

Some questions about Fulcum, for you, Viri Clarissimi atque Artifices Supremi.
Some time ago, after being totally defeated by the Sassanids, in a battle that I consider the best and the most historicaly accurate I ever fought in the entire TW games, in which my poor Legio Palatina and Auxilia Palatina were reduced by missile fire to half their strength before coming into conctat with the enemy, I thought: There must be a way for the Romans to reach the enemy without suffering such heavy casualties by missile fire!?!
Now, reading an italian book about Roman Army with a good documentation (G.Cascarino-"L'Esercito Romano-armamento e organizzazione"- ed. il Cerchio), I found the answer: the Fulcum!
Until then, I considered the Fulcum like the Cuneus, a Roman version of the germanic Attack Column or Boar's Head formation (good description in S.MacDowall Osprey books).
The author, quoting Ammianus, Arrianus, Cassius Dione and the Strategikon, describe the Fulcum or Foulkon like an attack formation with a remarkable defensive quality.
In the Fulcum the first line advance with overlapped shields, like in the Shieldwall, the second line advance with the Shield high over head, protecting the heads of the milites in the front line and the rear ranks, which advance in closed formation but do not carry the shields overhead.
In practice only the first 2 lines perform a defensive role.
An useful formation which unite the defensive quality of the Shieldwall and the Testudo with the more offensive Cuneus/Boar's Head/Attack Column.
What do you think? Do you have better informations? I'm very interested in your opinions.
Second question: Is possible to transfer such a formation in game? Do we need a new animation, a mix between Shieldwall and Testudo? Can we use only Shieldwall maybe with a bonus against missile fire, more speed and little more spaced ranks?


Final note for wargamers, here is the link to the site of colonel Macdowall in which you can find "Comitatus" the best set of rules for wargaming Late Romans, Merovingians, Dark Ages, truly great rules, free PDF download:

http://legio-wargames.com/#/comitatus/4537030456

[Knonfoda]

Funny that they are called Comitatus, the 4th-5th century re-enactment group I was part of was called Comitatus. They practised that formation all the time, although to the best of my knowledge we did it in static formation, not entirely unlike the tortoise of earlier legionaries. I have also wondered too why IBSAI does not have that function for certain units, as it would certainly be accurate and offer more protection than the shield wall.

[Diocle]

A funny detail: I saw some policemen using that formation to attack demonstrants; the shields of the second line being almost vertical intercepted a lot of projectiles and I can assure: the unit was charging!!!

[julianus heraclius]

I have also wondered too why IBSAI does not have that function for certain units, as it would certainly be accurate and offer more protection than the shield wall.

Well, the fulcrum is available as a formation in RTW/BI though it is a pity that it's not. One possibility is to give legionaires the testudo but as far as I understand this was only really used during sieges and not on the battle field as a tactical movement.

If someone can create a fulcrum for BI that would be a wonderful thing indeed.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

The fulcrum would be impossible to accurately recreate due to the game mechanics alas. It is basically a defensive posture developed for battlefield use in a way that the testudo was used primarily for siegeworks. This 'hedgehog' formation of overlapping shields and projecting spears/lanceas was able to resist persistent attacks of infantry or cavalry. It was capable of marching in formation according to the 'Strategikon'. However, against the Sassanians, I would argue for a more Ammianus-inspired approach and move to contact at speed to negate the duration of exposure to missile fire.

[Chelchal]

In one of the Osprey books (they seem to have a controversial reputation in terms of their expertise, as a semi-informed LRE layman, I've always liked them) the Cuneus isn't exactly a triangular wedge, but a more of a tapered column of heavy troops. If an enemy line needed to be cracked, two columns might almost converge on nearly the same point of the line (I believe they would charge at the last moment, to maintain formation.) As they charged, the rearmost troops would hurl their pila to break up the enemy formation for the frontward troops. I can't remember if this is simply reasonable speculation on Osprey's part or if it was actually attested to. If it really happened, I wonder what was done to prevent the columns from getting flanked.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I discuss it in some depth in this thread here - it's a few posts in but you might find it interesting!

[Diocle]

Excuse me docti domini but I think the name of the formation isn't "Fulcrum" but "Fulcum" or "Foulkon" probably from the german "Volk"; I want to refer some quotes from the book I read: Strasbourg 357, Ammianus describes the Romans in the approaching phase, deployed in a closed formation with shields overlapped and held to protect their heads, describing the formation: "In modum testudinis" (XVI,12,44); and uses similar expressions in other situations : "Testudinis forma" (XXXIX,5,48) or "In testudinum forma" (XXXI,7,12); Cascarino underlines that Ammianus uses anachronistic definitions, better referred to the siege situations, in reality, to describe something very similar to the Fulcum, the later formation described in the Strategikon (XVI) in the VI century; this assumption may be confirmed by the fact that Ammianus uses the expressions "Modus" and "Forma testudinis" and not only "Testudo".
The italian author tells us that the Foulkon is similar to the formation described in the II cent. by Arrianus in the Ars Tactica and in the Ektaxis Kata Alanon, so we can observe a unic and slow evolution of the formation from the II to VI century.
After Arrianus and before Ammianus we can see statements of the use of a similar formation in the III cent.: Cassius Dione (IL,29,4) uses the words "Kelones tropon" (Like Ammianus "In modum testudinis") describing the approach of the army of Septimius Severus during the battle of Issus, with shields used to protect the front of the line and the heads of the troops.
Last, Zosimus in the contest of the campaign of Aurelianus against Palmyra in 272 a.D., uses the expression closed phalanx, when the Romans assault a hill with overlapped shields.
What do you think fratres, did exist this mix-formation between Testudo-Shieldwall and Cuneus?
For sure we know only that the Strategikon describes the Foulkon but earlier..., maybe we are speaking about some form of marching shieldwall,.... in the end they must approach the enemy line remaining alive!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Yes, you are right about the spelling! Either 'fulcun' or 'foulkon'! I think you might find this pdf interesting here

It goes into some good background detail on the formation.

[Knonfoda]

It's a shame it isn't doable in the game engine. It would be useful for use against mounted enemies against which a charge to minimise exposure to enemy fire would be useless.

There is some contention as to what the pig's head formation actually looked like. As far as I know, Osprey covers some of them. Tacitus merely states it is a 'dense cunei with their ranks closed on every side, secure on front, flanks and rear' used to break through a thin line. (Tacitus, Histories 4.30) Quite rightly, you mention that a formation such as the 'pigs head' (caput porcinum)which is narrower at the front and even possibly two columns converging in a single line could be easily flanked. Vegetius apparently is aware of this by saying a counter formation known as the forfex (forceps) which resembled a V could envelop the pig head. (Veg. Epit. 1.26, 3-17-19)

Of further interest is the crescent formation utilised by Julian in the Battle of Ctesiphon. Apparently his centre was pulled back, with each wing stretching forward like the crescent of a moon, like this ( This tactic he used to envelop the larger Persian army. Despite the risk associated with thinning one's own line in relation to a thicker enemy line, this was apparently a common enough and recommended tactic in Roman warfare. (Cowan, Osprey, 18-19) By doing this, Julian was able to envelop the denser enemy formation and successfully rout it. I don't have a source for this as it escapes my memory, but I do remember reading it in Ammianus' description of the eastern expedition if I recall correctly.

I also tested this in game in a custom battle and must say it worked, but it all depends on the quality of the legions you use. Otherwise, your line will rout in moments.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

We should test that out online!

[Diocle]

As always great find SBH, thanks!!!!
About the spelling of Fulcum, I didn't want to correct you Dominus atque Praeclarus Magister, I wanted only be sure that your greatness was not obscured by some small spelling carelessness (voulgar exemplum of "Captatio benevolentiae" ).
Now only a brief quote from your useful link: "Indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that the foulkon was the archetypal deployment of late roman infantry", and now? WE MUST PUT THE FULCUM IN GAME!!
Only another small observation: the author describe a "...slow and uniform progression under fire towards the enemy lines.." , like I said, recently I saw some policemen units, in exactly this formation, charging at full speed (Roma Sunday 16 a.D. 2011!), what I want to say is that the fulcum is a faster moving formation than the shieldwall!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Not at all! It was good that you pointed out the error!

It is a shame there is no real way to replicate such a formation other than the 'shieldwall' that we already have.

[Chelchal]

I think SBH describes the "caput porcinum" rather well in his battle strategy and tactics link:

Recently, however, discussion has shown that the ‘wedge’ isn’t a wedge as such and does not charge as a solid mass into a defensive line like an armoured arrow head. In fact, Vegetius is very clear as to the purpose and shape of the ‘caput porcinum’: it’s main aim was to concentrate a dense column of troops wider at the rear than at the front so that an immense volume of missile weapons could be concentrated onto a narrow frontage of the enemy line, thus weakening it so that when the formation made contact it could penetrate it easily.

When you think about it, it's an even more effective way of breaching a solid battle line than a cavalry charge. Horses can be deterred by a wall of spears. But not determined men. This was true even in the age of stirrups. At Hastings, William was unable to break the Saxon line by mounted shock attack. At Tinchebray a generation later, his son Henry had his knights dismount and break up their enemy's formation by a foot charge.

It is a shame that the foulkon can't be replicated but there's only so much that can be done with the game mechanics, fine as they are.

[Diocle]

I move back but do not give up! Would be possible, mantaining the shieldwall as the only possible way to depict the Fulcum, with the actual limited game mechanics, try only to add to the formation more movement speed?
In this way we could also solve the infamous problem of the low movement rate of the shieldwall. It is a pain move great formations of unit activating and de-activating the shieldwall formation because of its too slow movement speed!

[Merula]

In terms of movement speed, it depends on the quality of unit (in my experience it has been so...) so a comitatenses unit (being classified as 'heavy inf') moves very slow when asked to march to a certain area. On the other hand, a unit of medium or light infantry (limes for example) move at the normal speed when marching.

And you can always set all units (whether they have shield wall turned on or not) to run and they all move the same speed, although the SW is a bit buggy when it comes to positioning after the run.

Oh and i thought i would add, if it were possible i think this would be a pretty cool defensive feature:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't know if it is very historically accurate (being the cover of a war gaming box ) but it still looks kinda cool, an immovable extension of the shield wall i guess it is? Any ideas?

[Diocle]

Dear BLIP99, that image is exactly what we are talking about, but like SBH said we cannot have that new animation in game with second and maybe third ranks whith shield high ovehead, is impossible!

One day I will learn how to animate, one day I will build an entire new range of animations for RTW-BI, one day I'll found a new company, the DEA (Diocle Electronics Arts), and we will have the Roman history not rapresented by 3 mafia family, Julianus Heraclius will be the Chief Game Designer, SBH will lead the Historical Departement and you all good people of TWC will find your role in this new great company, in that day we will have new Rome, new Medieval with medieval knights charging home at full speed not stopping in front of the enemy, in that glorious day we will see a new game for XVII c. with pikes and muskets in all their glory, we will see also XVIII soldiers in XVIII uniforms (yes is incredible!), we will see Napoleonic armies in Napoleonic historically accurate uniforms, in that day......., but it is not today!
( Sorry I was in one of the typical psychotic form of delirium in which I fall when I think too much in depth what CA/SEGA might have done better for us,....OK,OK their games are all great but.....)

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Lol - nothing wrong with ambition and excitement!

[Knonfoda]

Hahaha... Rome Total War II would have great potential if they did it right. I also think of so many things when I think of what could have been done better in RTW... think of the sieges, the siege embankments, unique cities and locations, actual properly researched ballista and onagers... sappers and so forth.

[Diocle]

Yes SBH and fratres, but in my new company there also will be some things rigorously and strictliy forbidden, mainly two (attention: I will have electronic ears evrywhere, bathrooms included, locations well suited for traitors and conspiracy):
1) It will be cause of immediate dismissal for the worker questioning about the existence or worse the effectivness of the roman plate armour called Lorica Segmentata!
2) The main way to lose your job will be only speaking about Carthage, also spelling the words Punics, Cartago, Hannibal, Trasimeno, Trebbia or the worst (I cannot write extensively the name) C....e,etc. etc. will be cause for the worker of istantneus dismissal! (This obviously because I fought hundreds, thousands of battles against the Carthaginians, 300-400 turn of game to annihilate them, wonderful mods destroied only by the presence of Carthaginians, I hate them more than Sassanids, they must be forbidden, they can cause istantaneus depression maybe suicide in persons of fragile psychological constitution) every game about Rome will obviously obbligatory start from 146 a.C.!!!
3) The last: the assertions that, for the Romans, III century was easier age compared to the previous or worse that in the III century the Romans had less enemies or did not happen nothing or the campaign in the III c. would be easier than before, all these stupid things will cause not only immediate dismissal but some form of corporal punishment!