Cohesion and the reality of battle.

[gary]

Cohesion in pre-Marius legions.

Ancient warfare was more a game of out maneuver and when a pitched battle was unavoidable they could last six seven hours as both sides would engage then disengage and try to intimate the other in to thinking there was no hope of a favorable outcome, tho it was bluff, as each army could be standing but a few meters from one another, each general making his opposite believe he had nothing to gain from coming to a pitched battle, as both, with out any real advantage, could only hope for a Pyrrhic victory, which suited neither side as trained men were just to hard to replace. The longer the battle went on the harder it became each time to persuade the line to close in once more. Officers played a vital role urging on their men to sustain this effort. In the Pre-Marius Polibian legions centurions were elected from those with for record for gallantry and the Romans took great care to praise and reward a soldier who displayed individual boldness.

Cohesion.... "Compulsion and fear of punishment also had a part to play in giving a unit stamina to stay close to the enemy, sometimes feet away. The men in the front rank, the ones who actually fought and were in the greatest danger had to stay there as long as those in the ranks behind stayed in position, since the latter's physical presence made escape impossible. A deeper formation gave a unit greater staying power in combat by making it hard for most of the men to flee. so did the presence of Optiones , the centurions' senior subordinates, behind the rear rank, physically pushing the men back in to place " unit cohesion". The longer a unit was close to the enemy the more it's formation and unit cohesion dissolved. Men increasingly followed there instincts, the bravest pushing to the front , the most timid trying to slip away to the rear, while the majority remained somewhere in the middle. At any time they might follow the example of the timid and the unit devolve in to a rout, and this possibility became greater the longer the unit did not advance or seem to be making progress.Most casualties on an ancient battlefield occurred when a unit fled from combat. the ones who died first were slowest in turning to flee, so the men in the center of the formation,able to see little of what was going on, were always on the verge of nervous panic."

Which brings me back to the point i was making, unit cohesion is complex and has so many variables, in which case we should not bang on to much about (unit cohesion) as it was just as difficult then, back in the day, as it is now, in what we see in game. I think vanilla have not done unit cohesion that well, but on the other hand, not every phalanx or century was able to keep cohesion on the fields of battle, human instinct can sometimes be unpredictable. Lutnics mod seems to have addressed a lot of the problems with battle and cohesion, we see the formation break up a little but at the same time still keep some kind of order, some times we see individual break rank whilst others stay the ground. any way i like debate so fire away.

[Gaelstrix]

I agree, expecting real life men, even the most highly trained, to roboticly always from geometrically perfect shapes is unrealistic.

Then again the massive moshpits I saw at the start weren't very good either. On the small (unit) scale I've seen videos of the mods and it looks to be sorted out. On the large (army) scale I think it's partly the fault of the AI not making a solid battle line - just sending units around and into you haphazadly. They end up with several groups of 3 units attacking three random units along my line and forming blobs that are easy to flank from both sides in a multi-Cannae like encircle.

I wish you could turn on a "realistic battles" option, like you could "arcade battles" in the previous games, that forced the AI into placing and moving the bulk of it's infantry into a flexible battle-line formation for people who try to play out their battles historically like me. That's why I originally got into the series in the first place, real-time simulations of battles (albeit on a smaller scale with quirks, it is a game).

[Doge Domenico]

The Romans blobbed on when the formation broke. No one expects a straight line, but there is no reason why a cohort should dissolve into a mosh pit of one on one fighting against barbarians. It's not hard to implement on an engine designed for melee combat , but of course, that's not what warscape is.

[Praetorian349]

The Romans blobbed on when the formation broke. No one expects a straight line, but there is no reason why a cohort should dissolve into a mosh pit of one on one fighting against barbarians. It's not hard to implement on an engine designed for melee combat , but of course, that's not what warscape is.

Rome 1 ed up unit cohesion far worse and it was using a melee combat-based engine...?

[gstephenopolous]

Cohesion in pre-Marius legions.

Ancient warfare was more a game of out maneuver and when a pitched battle was unavoidable they could last six seven hours as both sides would engage then disengage and try to intimate the other in to thinking there was no hope of a favorable outcome, tho it was bluff, as each army could be standing but a few meters from one another, each general making his opposite believe he had nothing to gain from coming to a pitched battle, as both, with out any real advantage, could only hope for a Pyrrhic victory, which suited neither side as trained men were just to hard to replace. The longer the battle went on the harder it became each time to persuade the line to close in once more. Officers played a vital role urging on their men to sustain this effort. In the Pre-Marius Polibian legions centurions were elected from those with for record for gallantry and the Romans took great care to praise and reward a soldier who displayed individual boldness.

Cohesion.... "Compulsion and fear of punishment also had a part to play in giving a unit stamina to stay close to the enemy, sometimes feet away. The men in the front rank, the ones who actually fought and were in the greatest danger had to stay there as long as those in the ranks behind stayed in position, since the latter's physical presence made escape impossible. A deeper formation gave a unit greater staying power in combat by making it hard for most of the men to flee. so did the presence of Optiones , the centurions' senior subordinates, behind the rear rank, physically pushing the men back in to place " unit cohesion". The longer a unit was close to the enemy the more it's formation and unit cohesion dissolved. Men increasingly followed there instincts, the bravest pushing to the front , the most timid trying to slip away to the rear, while the majority remained somewhere in the middle. At any time they might follow the example of the timid and the unit devolve in to a rout, and this possibility became greater the longer the unit did not advance or seem to be making progress.Most casualties on an ancient battlefield occurred when a unit fled from combat. the ones who died first were slowest in turning to flee, so the men in the center of the formation,able to see little of what was going on, were always on the verge of nervous panic."

Which brings me back to the point i was making, unit cohesion is complex and has so many variables, in which case we should not bang on to much about (unit cohesion) as it was just as difficult then, back in the day, as it is now, in what we see in game. I think vanilla have not done unit cohesion that well, but on the other hand, not every phalanx or century was able to keep cohesion on the fields of battle, human instinct can sometimes be unpredictable. Lutnics mod seems to have addressed a lot of the problems with battle and cohesion, we see the formation break up a little but at the same time still keep some kind of order, some times we see individual break rank whilst others stay the ground. any way i like debate so fire away.

I'm assuming this is from a book? I'd like to read it.

[Steedward]

I'm assuming this is from a book? I'd like to read it.

Same here, that was an interesting passage. I'd certainly be floating the middle... front rank would hold unimaginable terror.

[Legio X Gemina]

I'm assuming this is from a book? I'd like to read it.

Probably not ... there's a few misspellings which wouldn't (shouldn't) have been made if in a published book.

[Humble Warrior]

No one is expecting the AI to keep Romans in a solid formation, no matter what. We, or at least, I hope most of us know this. We just know that Romans kept good, disciplined formations and din`t fall apart into a blob in battle unless order and moral was decaying. I strongly believe from reading of history, that units in disciplined formation kept it far better than most of us realise as long as they were winning or stalemate in the battle. The Romans certainly made sure that as, a Roman, you would very raely fall out of line as long as the other men didn`t. Punishments were severe to make sure you stuck it out as long as possible.

[Voodo chile]

I've heard something along the lines of this before.
It was that some of the best officers or higher ranking soldiers were in their positions because of the fact they could keep a battle line standing and get the soldiers to actually fight or hold a line in the presence of the enemy.

Anyone know where we can find more information on how combat actually worked? Ideally with excerpts from original sources. Or even a video or animation
It does sound more realistic than the banzai charges we often get in games and film. I wonder if there are any sports or real life scenario's which place people in a similar position.

Any notable gang warfare? Riots?

[CatoTheYounger]

Yeah thats what CA was intending. to make it a nervous blobby mess of men. See they were trying to add deep realism! lmao.

[camper-futter]

Yeah thats what CA was intending. to make it a nervous blobby mess of men. See they were trying to add deep realism! lmao.

Thousands of men running into eache other, crashing together, hewing and stebbing, fighting for their lives. People believe that this men would care about a clinical neat and tidy and square formation ? with this funny little alleys between the units like in Rome I ?

(Guess they were there to have a piss. or maybe...they where there for taking a stroll... just step aside ,catch some fresh air and join your mates again. Recovered and highly motivated. Brilliant !)

This is utter bull****. The first ranks were a bloody slaughterhouse ! ( or moshpit when you want )

That proper arrangement and cohesion that people have in mind did exist ! But only in the following 2nd,3rd,...thus not engaged battle-lines

Now in Rome II you pretty much always only have that one FIRST line ! The one which is messy.
But in case you have a second Line and you keep ordering it to ATTACK by rightclick spam ... the units will do what they are told. They try to reach the enemy. But to do so they must shove and push through the first line...There you go ! YOU created a blobb. Not CA.

In my opinion CA portrayed melee combat very well. only left some issues with hoplite formation ( buggy ?) and pike formation movement.

[SteelHeart]

So you think that the men in this era were some suicidal maniacs that would charge the enemy in killing frenzy? I don't know about you but I think that the first priority for these men was to stay alive. Not to win just to survive. And any sane man now and then wouldn't want to be in a battle where he might get hurt. And running to the enemy wasn't the best thing to do in order to stay alive. When forced to fight I bet that the men would cluster around each other forming groups for support. I mean you wouldn't want to be out there fighting alone. And about the slaughter house. Imagine you're in the front rank or even in the 2nd or 3rd of a unit that is losing and you see in front of you or beside you the men dying. How many do you think before you say " it, I'm out of here!". A unit would probably break with less than 5% casualties.
I agree that they probably left space between the lines. And even leaving the reasons that Mangalor used I doubt that men would want to be that close to an enemy that might gut them with a sword or spear or whatever. They would want to keep their distance. And when they attack they will probably pull back if the enemy doesn't route quickly. Repeat that till one of the units routs or one of the armies retreats.

[Heinz Guderian]

So you think that the men in this era were some suicidal maniacs that would charge the enemy in killing frenzy?

historically the "Germanians" did do this as mentioned by Livy et al

I don't know about you but I think that the first priority for these men was to stay alive. Not to win just to survive. And any sane man now and then wouldn't want to be in a battle where he might get hurt.

the Carthaginians relied on mercs, the Romans on conscription. they managed to mobilise 1 million men in the Punic Wars

And running to the enemy wasn't the best thing to do in order to stay alive.

The Athenians did this in the Battle of Marathon to avoid excessive missile fire. Also the charge had massive effects on the morale of the charged

When forced to fight I bet that the men would cluster around each other forming groups for support. I mean you wouldn't want to be out there fighting alone. And about the slaughter house. Imagine you're in the front rank or even in the 2nd or 3rd of a unit that is losing and you see in front of you or beside you the men dying. How many do you think before you say " it, I'm out of here!". A unit would probably break with less than 5% casualties.

to some extent true. Greek polis fights would often have less than 5% casualties, however thats how the hoplite evolved. men fighting together. Men would move up to fill the ranks, with Rome the punishment for breaking and running were often very severe (e.g. Crassus and decimation)

I agree that they probably left space between the lines. And even leaving the reasons that Mangalor used I doubt that men would want to be that close to an enemy that might gut them with a sword or spear or whatever. They would want to keep their distance. And when they attack they will probably pull back if the enemy doesn't route quickly. Repeat that till one of the units routs or one of the armies retreats.

Romans wanted to get in close to use the Scutari and Gladius whereas Phallangites wanted to poke.

[SteelHeart]

And running to the enemy wasn't the best thing to do in order to stay alive.


The Athenians did this in the Battle of Marathon to avoid excessive missile fire. Also the charge had massive effects on the morale of the charged

I guess that I didn't express myself right. I meant running at the enemy full tilt with no thought of whether the rest of the men are with you. There will be very different effect if the men run as a unit and clash with the enemy as a single entity or if they clash one man at a time.

[camper-futter]

So you think that the men in this era were some suicidal maniacs that would charge the enemy in killing frenzy? I don't know about you but I think that the first priority for these men was to stay alive. Not to win just to survive. And any sane man now and then wouldn't want to be in a battle where he might get hurt. And running to the enemy wasn't the best thing to do in order to stay alive. When forced to fight I bet that the men would cluster around each other forming groups for support. I mean you wouldn't want to be out there fighting alone. And about the slaughter house. Imagine you're in the front rank or even in the 2nd or 3rd of a unit that is losing and you see in front of you or beside you the men dying. How many do you think before you say " it, I'm out of here!". A unit would probably break with less than 5% casualties.

Our grand and great-grandfathers weren´t suicidal manicas. Still they ran into machine gun fire and minefields when ordered. Good example of how following generations pull their own realness over different ones
(but one thing i can promise you. Madness is always only a snap away)

Anyway. i was refering to the people who wish for the clinical combat of Rome I.

[gary]

@ gstephenopolous
Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy

[Wolar]

@ gstephenopolous
Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy

His biography on Caesar is also excellent.

[Octavius Vatco]

His biography on Caesar is also excellent.

I second that.

[gstephenopolous]

@ gstephenopolous
Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy

Thanks! I've seen his new How Rome Fell, but I haven't picked it up yet. May get both.

[Kaunitz]

I still consider Ardent du Pique's battlestudies an interesting read: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7294 . I can't agree with all of it, but in some points, du Pique certainly helps to say goodbye to the overly technicist approach, so popular in total war games (rock-paper-scissors-"system"), and also to images of "epic" battles or rather wild chaotic hand-to-hand combat or Lord of the Rings-like cavalry charges. Plus you can read it for free.

Other than that, I don't think that we can come up with a 100% realistic picure of premodern battles. We lack the sources. Even battles of the 18th century, for which we got more sources and first-hand-accounts, are hard to grasp. Of course there are some books touching on battle-related topics (e.g. Christopher Matthews, A Storm of Spears - too technicist in my opinion; Gregory Daly, Cannae - suffers from the lack of sources imo), but these also (have to) fail to come up with a sufficiently tight narration on the micro level imho. For cavalry, I found Marcus Junkelmann, Die Reiter Roms (vol. 2) quite interesting - I don't know if there are any english translations.

Indeed I've also been watching riot police videos and hooligan-battles, trying to get a feeling for the pace and psychology of melee combat. You might also want to take a look at the Imperia Antiquitatis mod in the mod-forum. That being said, the Warscape engine offers almost no means to portray cohesion. The game-engine is designed for the strange and technicist "rock-paper-scissors"-approach... Individual men in the unit behave like fish in fish-swarms, units turn and manoever too easily (even once you've reduced their movement speed to a plausible level...), and the level of "dispersion" of a unit has no effect whatsoever on morale. Also terrain doesn't really matter. The effect of cavalry can only be modeled into the game via lots of improvisation, and even then isn't really satisfying.