PDA

View Full Version : Disiplined Retreating



Stormer
05-01-2003, 15:33
well i been reading alot on the roman army and how it all worked and was organised but i rember about how the Romans made disiplined retrated we all know about the hasti, triari, & i cant rember the last but it spoke of if the lines we broken they would run to the last line of defense the Hasti i think they were and join their ranks and if it got so bad they formed circles.

so i was thinking what about organised retreat not they STW or MTW way of your genral dies and they run round like headless chikens, of corse when they are in a really really bad way they make their headless chiken runs to the ends of the maps. but it would be nice to see some disiplin plus it would make the game more accrate.

Stormer

DthB4Dishonor
05-01-2003, 16:58
Actually this is one of the biggest improvements CA has made from STW to MTW. In STW all players armies will rout in direction of where there army initially came out through or were deployed at.

So it was pretty stupid for scared routing units to run straight to a fresh full enemy army because it happens to be between them and there depolyment zone. This was pretty suicidal.

Now the battle requires more discipline and concentration. Enemy units can rout in every direction and you have to decide keep pursuing and stop them from rallying or pull this unit back into the main fray to help allies.

Now what I would like and what you kind of lead towards is a pullback move. So that a unit can pullback slowly without exposing there rear to enemy army. That would be a great added feature.

RTKPaul

ELITEofGAZOZ
05-01-2003, 17:10
Quote[/b] ]Now what I would like and what you kind of lead towards is a pullback move. So that a unit can pullback slowly without exposing there rear to enemy army. That would be a great added feature.

THIS IS A MUST

Shahed
05-01-2003, 17:26
KOOL

Stormer
05-01-2003, 18:40
yea and maybe joning ranks up.

Obex
05-01-2003, 19:05
Quote[/b] (ELITEofGAZOZ @ May 01 2003,11:10)]Now what I would like and what you kind of lead towards is a pullback move. So that a unit can pullback slowly without exposing there rear to enemy army. That would be a great added feature.
I agree. I was just thinking of starting a thread on this topic actually.

I hate during bridge battles when my men are doing a smashing job defending and in the process slowly creep onto the bridge and to about the 1/2 way point. hold position doesnt seem to help (maybe because i issued an attack order?) suddenly, their archers can really get into the picture, and the death toll starts to equilize. my options are to press on, or sacrifice a unit to cover the retreat of my main force. a nice fighting withdrawal would be perfect here.

Stormer
05-01-2003, 20:07
yea i agree...

Hakonarson
05-01-2003, 22:34
I'm going to disagree http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Retreating in the face of the enemy is possibly THE hardest manouvre to carry out, and easily converted into a rout. It was rarely done successfully - right up until modern times - eg the retreat of Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991 began in ana orderly fashion but was soon turned to a rout.

You CAN do it in MTW already if conditions are right -the enemy is also tired, and you pay attention and keep control of your troops, and IMO that's how it should be - a difficult exercise that you can justly be proud of having achieved.

To make it a "button" that you push that gives you the best of all worlds would be an injustice IMO.

rory_20_uk
05-01-2003, 22:55
Yeah, I agree that it is stupid that the entire unit has to turn their backs to the opposition to reform, even if the desired effect is merely to walk slightly backward. Although I can see that this would be difficult to do in practice, as at the moment the central man is the one that all othe march in relation to it would mean that if one desires to pull units back without them getting slaughtered, this would be more possible.

DthB4Dishonor
05-01-2003, 23:16
Hail Harkonason,

I am not necessarily speaking about dissengaging a unit and having it pullback. I do realize this as being potentially very hazardous for a unit. What I am speaking about is plain movement while unengaged.

I.E. I am shooting out vs enemy but he gets his arbs in range of my order foot. My order foot units turn around and expose there unarmoured rear and take on more casualties than by everyone in that unit stepping back 5-10 feet.

IMHO a disciplined army unit should be able to perform this manuever without getting such penalties as lossing there armour defense and get higher missile casualties. Also there is a morale penalty if you turn your rear to enemy units, on top of that it is a longer moving cycle.

RTKPaul

Hakonarson
05-01-2003, 23:53
Ah....I see.

Rearward movement while facing forwards isn't something I've ever heard of as actually existing.

AFAIK it is not part of any standard military drill today - perhaps by specialised drill teams - butif that's the case it should tell you the sort of level of training required to do it competently without actually being under fire.

And even the best trained ancients almost certainly were NOT as well drilled as any decent modern soldier is in basic training these days.

If you read the manuals you'll find that complicated drills include turning to face flanks and rear - but the standards always move to the new front of the unit. Doubling and halving ranks were apparently always by forward movement.

Trying to shuffle backwards without seeing where you're going, with men behind you in close order strikes me as somethign that'd be very difficul;t to control.

And why would you only go 5-10 feet anyway? Archery ranges in the game may be absolute, but the concept that you can be shot at "here", but not 10 feet further away doesn't exist in "real life" - and archer can always try to pull his bow a bit further - or one of the stronger archers or better made crossbows or lighter projectiles will shoot a bit further than the others.

So I'd still disagree that it should be in the game - both because I don't think anythign like it ever happened, and because it caters for a slightly unrealistic game mechanic of a cut-off range for shooting.

Aelwyn
05-02-2003, 04:58
Something similar existed in STW though. Your unit could walk sideways, not turning and exposing themselves, as long as the place they were moving wasn't very far. If they could move sideways, they should be able to move backwards. It would make sense that the men wouldn't stay together as closely as they are just standing, but it should still be possible. Someone might trip and fall, but thats just something that happens anyways.

Hakonarson
05-02-2003, 05:49
Moving sideways is practiced in modern drill - IIRC I used to sidestep up to 5 paces as a set move.

I would have a look in my copy of Vegetius tonigth to see if he mentions side & rear movement, but I'm shifting house & my books are packed away for a couple or 3 weeks (yaaay I hear everyone cry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif), but there's probably an online copy of Vegetius in English somewhere if someone wants to look it up......

ELITEofGAZOZ
05-02-2003, 07:08
@Hokanorson:

Your points could solved easily:

- A unit which is retreating but still facing enemy gets a temporarily moral penalty, so it could turn into a route.....

- A unit just retreats while still facing enemy only if the new position is just ca. 10 yards away and the player used alt + left mouse klick.

Sometimes u have ur Spearunit too near behind ur own pavises and they are in shoot range, so u want to step back few yards, no reason to turn the whole unit around: In MTW the unit, which has to move back just 1 yard, turns around and turns back the whole unit, thats simply bullshit.

Stormer
05-02-2003, 07:23
Remeber its only a game not a full down to every little scale historical game.

Hakonarson
05-02-2003, 09:38
I just reckon there's no reason to introduce fantasy where it's not neded - there's no reason to have a morale hit if retreating - you get that if you turn yuor unit around anyway.

There is a mechanism there to do it - turn the unit and march it to where you want it - any losses you take are your fault for putting the unit in the wrong place - just like any other mistake you make - why should this be different?

Do you want a button to move your archers 200 yards to the side if they're getting charged by cavalry too??

Catiline
05-02-2003, 10:37
I'm inclined to agree with Hakarnason on htis one. Fighting retreats are operational manoeuvers not tactical ones. Ancient armies used deep formations in part to prevent any creep back, they were designed to go forward and win hte battle. Edging out of missile range simply wasn't feasible, the units weren't designed to behave in that way, especially when you have a unit like the phalanx that relies on its integrity.

Realistically the ranged units simply move forward anyway. The bridge battles you're talking about are the most contrived feature of hte TW games, and i suspect we'll see a different approch to them with hte changes to the campaign and battle maps. Bridge battles are the only time the feature you want would be significantly useful, and frankly if your units are in missile range you shouldn't have let them get there, if they've managed to get there themselves in the course of fighting, that's one of the more realistic features.

Stormer
05-02-2003, 15:31
Intresting...

DthB4Dishonor
05-02-2003, 17:43
Hail,

I've read Vegetius and he makes no remarks as to army manuevers. His comments are made concerning formations for the most part and general attacking strategies.

His only comments on drilling in formation is broken down to marchs which condition soldiers and training units to form single ranks to double ranks to double again into 4 ranks deep. He also speaks about forming wedge formations and a counter wedge formation in V like shape.

You are correct he doesnt state that the Roman Army used an ordered pullback manuever while still facing the enemy. However he doesnt state that Romans even state that romans anywhere put straight forward. He only referrs to forward advances.

Vegetius also concedes that he doesnt know much of the ancient techniques of "the ancient" and better Roman Army. He Concedes that much of this knowledge has already been lost.

The Military Mark
"...After their examination, the recruits should then receive the military mark, and be taught the use of their arms by constant and daily exercise. But this essential custom has been abolished by the relaxation introduced by a long peace. We cannot now expect a man to teach what he never learned himself. The only method, therefore, that remains of recovering the ancient customs is by books, and by consulting the old historians. But they are little service to us in this respect, as they only relate the exploits and events of wars, and take no notice of the objects of our present enquiries, which they considered as universally known."

Vegetius is making a call back to old customs and training and decipline standards of Ancient Rome. During his times the Roman Empire is already considerably declined in stature and power. Vegetius can not be a source of the actual techniques, manuevers and drills that the actuall Ancient Roman army used and therefore cannot be used to refute that the Romans did not use an organized pullback.

However if you do wish to use him as a historical account of the Ancient Roman Army then he does make a vague reference to the Wheel manuever on the Shield or Left side of army. He uses this wheel manuever on left to avoid engaging while the right "sword side" with the most elite infantry and cavalry flank and rear the right wing and win the day. This wheel manuever does use an organized pullback strategy to avoid engaging against enemy units and to trap impetious enemy units and soldiers.

I am happy to see that a fellow historical enthusiast is in this forum and appreciate any insight or clarification you might bring to this subject.


RTKPaul

rory_20_uk
05-03-2003, 00:27
If asked I have to say that I would have assumed that units were able to moe away from the enemy, although in no case have I read anything to back up this assumption. I guess it was a matter of thinking that if a unit can walk forward it can go backwards. It just shows that one should always challenge even things that seem elementary to ensure that one is not building a house of cards.
To say that all ancient soldiers were less well trained than modern ones seems to me to be unlikely: Forming a phalanx (greek)or indeed a testudo (Roman) would require s great deal of effort, as one needs to have the level of confidence to trust the soldiers around him to protect his life - together they are stronger, but one slip up and they are as good as dead.
BUT I imagine that I am not the only one who has had a unit that has decided for reasons that are best known to itself to walk from its set position (I'm not talking impetuous units here, I am mainly talking about a unit that does not like where the trees are, or something like that). Getting these units back into a position of safety is a pain in the arse, especially as the unit needs to reform by going further down the hill before ascending the hill - a fix to get round a problem.

Lehesu
05-03-2003, 05:03
I'm not quite sure about the whole unit moving backwards, but surely a rear guard is feasible? The first two ranks hold the line while the others pull back. Than, once that position is secured, the rear guard slowly moves backwards into the original unit. One of my favorite tactics for relieving tired line units is to have a reserve force go through there ranks to engage the enemy, and then have the tired force pull back as the fresh force engages. This is very similar to a rear guard action, except what I am proposing would occur in a single unit, rather than two units in tandem. Might not be feasible for game play, but I am sure there was at least a few instances where such a tactic was used in the Ancient Roman times.

Hakonarson
05-03-2003, 07:42
Yes I know Vegetius is harking back to "the good ol' days" - a feeling which probably isn't justified, but he's still one of the best sources we have for ancient drills.

As for rear guards - no I can't see that happening either. Ancient units generally fought as files, with the commanding officer of the file at the front, and the 2nd in command at the rear. Deep fprmations sometimes had half-file leaders and closers - eg in Macedonian-style phalanxes.

There's nothing I've ever heard of that would allow such a formation to leave a couple of ranks up front

Fighting side-by-side doesn't require drill at all - most ancient troops were not drilled in any sense - they were ad-hoc "tribal" warriors or the equivalent, who fought to their family/clan/tribe standard practice - whether that was a lunatic charge or on horseback.

Forming testudo or a phalanx is actually fairly elementary drill - modern parade ground formatoins are essentially phalanxes, while Testudo was formed at soem distance from the enemy to protect against missile fire.

Nowake
05-03-2003, 10:01
Hakonarson, the roman army was very familiar with pulling back. The whole system was based on that. When the velites were endangered, they were retreating behing the principes and hastati; if those two were overwhelmed, they were performing a slow retreat and the triarii engaged. The first two lines regrouped behind them and launched counter-attacks - this kind of maneuvres were executed even before 300 B.C. Remeber the roman expresion: "It has come to triarii" meaning that the situation was desperate.

As for a mind-blowing retreating maneuvre, read the accounts on the battle of Zamma; Scipio engaged his principes and hastatii, who penetrated two far into the enemy lines; concerned about the fact that Hannibal's vets didn't yet engaged, he ordered his men to pull back, thing that they did admirably.

Stormer
05-03-2003, 13:31
yea nice piece of info there PR fire

Hakonarson
05-03-2003, 23:13
Yes they fell back - they did it AFAIK the smae way you'd do it in MTW - they turned around and marched back to new positions when they were not engaged with the enemy.

That's something quite different from what has been proposed here.

DthB4Dishonor
05-04-2003, 01:58
Once again I just want to express that I'm not talking about pulling back an engaged unit. I am speaking about the ability to pullback a unit that is not engaged but who maybe fairly close to enemy and you would not want to give them your rear.

RTKPaul

Nowake
05-05-2003, 06:49
But I think that even an engaged unit should be able to slowly retreat ... it would be pretty fair.

Hakonarson
05-05-2003, 08:02
"Fair" in what sense?

It's not something that ever happened......"fair" in that it gives you an easy out from a sticky situation? You won't be able to retire faster then the enemy can advance anyway but I suspect the main use for it would be to retire from attack as a form aof delay - which would be an abuse of the move and patently "unfair"

Lehesu
05-07-2003, 02:58
Look. You should be able to instruct your troops to at least cease chasing after forces and letting them draw you out. Reasonable, yes? Then, why is it such a huge deal for you to instruct troops to make a fighting withdrawal? Say "Engage the person you are currently fighting and, if no other target openly engages you, slowly pull back, supporting other retreating forces." Tell me that an elite unit of Phalanx or Praetorians can't, at least, handle that Also, individual soldiers that are fighting other individual soldiers could retreat slowly, giving up ground while parrying attacks. There are many ways that an effective withdrawal can be made reasonably. Assuming that the unit has the morale and discipline neccessary, I don't see why they would not be able to simply pull back while fighting. Just my two cents. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

Hakonarson
05-07-2003, 05:04
OK - elite units of phalanxes and praetorians can't do that.

Satisfied now? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Nowake
05-07-2003, 10:53
I agree with Lehesu ... and why do you say it was never done? we talked about Zamma ... the principes were still engaged when they received the order to retreat ...

I mean, you stop engaging, you retreat facing the enemy if this is an expresion with which you are more familiar.

Catiline
05-07-2003, 11:20
At Zama the hastati broke the first Carthaginian line. THey were countercharged by the second Carthaginian line and started to be forced back, this wasn't dropping back, it was fighting in which the Carthaginians had momentum and kept going forwards. The Romans didn't want to go backwards. The centurions of the principes spotted the situation and advanced in support of the hastati, which is what Hannibal's second line should have done when they saw the first line being defeated, but that's a seperate argument. The secondline broke and fled with the assault of the principes. as yet we've had no controoled retreating or falling back on orders. With the second Carthaginian line defeated the Hastati paused and regrouped, they were recalled from their pursuit of the routing carthaginian lines by bugle, but that's something that's already possible in TW, it's simply a case of stopping a pursuing unit. The principes and triarii deployed to the wings and mopped up hannibals phalanx of veterans.

What you guys want is simply not historical. Armies in ancient and medieval battlesthat go backwards are defeated. They don't do it out of choice.

shingenmitch2
05-07-2003, 18:03
Hark,

Perhaps you could shed some light on this...

Now as Pr says, the Romans definitely would pull back lines through reserve lines when tired or a charge had lost effectiveness... now Goldsworthy suggests that natural lulls occured when this would happen. But I find it most odd that enemy troops would ever give their opponent an opportunity to turn his unit around... No matter how tired I am as a Barbarian (who I assume would see this maneuver as some sign of weakness or fleeing) wouldn't I charge to attack? Why would a well commanded army (Hannible) allow this to happen?

Besides which his lull theory I find odd---barbarians would suddenly stop fighting cause their tired? Wouldn't their buddies who have been at the back of the mob resting, just push to the fore as tired men melted back (similar to a rock concert with people pushing to the front of the stage, while other slip back)? What barbarian is going to "pull back" from a Roman who shows signs of tiring? how would this lull even start or occur along a wall of engaged troops who supposedly have degeneraged to little more than an undulating, ill defined mob of a line?

How can an entire unit give it's back to the enemy in a retrograd movement that HAS TO BE occuring within fairly close (10 yards?) proximity to that enemy?

It would seem there had to be a reason that the enemy simply wouldn't charge at them while they were in the process of turn or had fully given their back.

My guess is that the Romans had some form of planned/established movement inconjunction with advancing reserve lines that prevented this enemy charge and permitted the exchange of lines -- and that this could be done in near proximity to contact or possibly even from contact.

Lehesu
05-07-2003, 22:42
Nonetheless, I think that the only options offered by the Total War engine at this time, rout or turn a 180 and march(which imposes a morale penalty when you turn your back on an opponent) are too limited. I am sure that retreating armies did not either run away or turn completely around in the middle of combat and march off. What I envision is something of a melee skirmish mode. Melee fighting would ensue, and then the defending unit would pull back and try to get out of the range of the enemy or pull them along after them. The term "skirmish" is somewhat around the lines of this, featuring small fights with tactical retreats followed by more fights. I just think that the current engine options are far too severe.

Hakonarson
05-07-2003, 23:12
Shingen the answer to your question is deeply rooted in human psychology - both of individual and groups.

For starters the view of barbarians as eager to kill everyone is simply not true.

Barbarians were as keen to stay alive as anyone else, and as moderns we have little idea how terrifying it is to be at point blank range with someone trying to stab yuo in teh guts with a sword or spear.

Greek writings speak of the stench of urine and faesces as hoplites literally lose control of their bowels and bladder through fear.

Much group psych (as I understand it) involves masses working themselves up to a point wher ethey are prepared to charge into possible death - often following nutters who really don't care (one reason why berserkers weer dangerous - they provided a focus upon which less brave followers could be brave enough to charge).

Armies that retreated either fled or left rear guards - the rear guards were usually annihilated, but weer few and far between because such retreats usually came after a drawn battle when one side or other lost its nerve and tried to retreat during the night.

The idea that Romans could retreat while fighting the enemy is another one that has entered popular mythology but cannot be proved to have ever happened. There is not a single account of them ever having done so - Zama is often quoted but as Catiline pointed out nothing of the sort actually happened there.

Indeed at Zama the Romans had ample opportunity to withdraw their tired hastati because the enemy had routed away - they were no longer close, but they did not even try to do so.

And despite the theory that defeated lines of Romans could retire through those to their rear there's no accounts of that ever happening either.

As you say - it would definitely require the enemy to decide to sit still while ignoring a potential advantage (ie attacking troops who are retiring).

Almost 200 years ago (1806) at the battle of Maida in Italy between the French and English an English battalion took a few minutes to discard their packs. The front rank turned around to help the 2nd rank remove theirs, and the opposing French battalion thought they weer retreatign and surged forward - to be met by a volley and stopped cold but the point here is that much better disciplined troops than ancients could be encouraged by the sight of enemy turning their backs.

So in answer to yuor question - it seems likely to me that some of the manouvres carried out by the Romans that are cherished by many modern gamers are myths that never happened.

And retreating in battle is right up there as one of the biggies.

Lehesu
05-08-2003, 01:42
I think that the opposing view points in this matter are so entrenched that there is no chance of either side caving in. As such, I believe that this may lead to a flame war and, well, I think I shall exit out of this thread now.

Hakonarson
05-08-2003, 03:37
Actually I don't see much conflict betwen the two sides at all - the arguments actually go quite seperate directions.

One side wants it because they think it would improve game play.

the other side says it isn't historical.

Those 2 points of view do not conflict untill yuo come to decide whether or not yuo want it in place, and then they aer kind of irrelevant - I can imagine ppl who think it would be good for gameplay accepting that it isn't historical and so nt pushing for it, while some who think it's not historical wouldn't mind it if it was there for game play.

It's not actually important enough to have a flame war over - it's jsut a game of chance after all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Nowake
05-08-2003, 06:42
Yes, why make a flame war of it? It's just a polemic ...

Anyway, another example:

at Cannae, Hannibal moved his center a bit forward ... they were ordered to slowly retreat while fighting the enemy, in order to permit flanking to the infantry from the wings ...

Say it ain't so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Catiline
05-08-2003, 08:58
It ain't so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

At Cannae Hannibal's centre fell back because of the weight of the Roman formation, who, possibly due to low morale and low experience formed up in much deeper formations than normal. that gave them a forward momentum that forced backthe Carthaginian centre, but allowed them to be flanked very easily when their cavalry were defeated.

Nowake
05-08-2003, 09:07
My God, it was Hannibal's maneuvre that let the romans to advance. He deliberatly moved his centre forward before the battle, in order for his men to slowly retreat, while the other infantry flanked the romans ... When the numidians led by Maharbal and the hispano-gaulic cavalry led by Hasdrubal finished with the roman cavalry detachments, they completed the encirclement by hiting the rear of the roman forces ...

That's all there is to it.

CBR
05-08-2003, 11:33
Dont think Hannibal's center slowly retreated. Alhough we have different numbers of casualties depending on source they all agree on big losses for Hannibal's center. And big losses always happens in retreat/rout.

The front men who wants to retreat cant just step back or they would move into the second rank. Trying to coordinate 100's of men with rear ranks moving first would be near impossible..and routs normally started with rear men running as the first.

Skirmishers can retreat a lot easier as they are not on close ranks but move individually or in small groups and much of the skirmishing was missile fights.

The theory of making well ordered retreating is nice but not realistic at all..doing it with close ordered troops is impossible. Its a lot easier with a signal of retreat and all turns and starts running. But other units could see that as a rout and start running too and could encourage the enemy to keep on pushing so it would be impossible to reform and then we have a general rout.

That was really the strength of the Roman system of multiple lines. To be able to plug any holes created in the front line and have a steady reserve for retreating/routed units to reform near by.

CBR

Catiline
05-08-2003, 15:37
I'm not denying Hannibal knew exactly what he was doing in deploying with a weaker centre. They advanced into contact, but they were forced back by the weight of the legions deployment. It wasn't an order to fall back. The legions drove the Celtic troops in hannibals centre back then were flanked by the pike that Hannibal had redeployed to his flanks.

CBR
05-08-2003, 15:54
Yes I think Hannibal pretty much knew what he was doing and also that he was forces to come up with something clever.

If he used all his foot in one normal line he would most likely have lost all his infantry and then his cavalry alone (even if they won on the flanks) wouldnt have been enough to insure victory.

His African spears on the flanks were most likely in a column formation so from a distance they didnt look as much. By sending the Gaul and spanish foot to attack the Roman center he knew the Romans would focus on that and with a litte disorder might turn the Roman army into a big mess charging forward. When the Romans realised the threat from the flanks it was too late.

Thats why Im much more interested in "features" like limited vision/radar that enables a player to mass troops while the enemy will have difficulties spotting it. Its the limitations that gives us tactics and options not more control although it feels nice..but I better stop before I make another rant.

CBR

BlackWatch McKenna
05-08-2003, 16:51
The Romans did pull back during battle.

Both the Republican Romans and Marius' Mules had systems for reinforcing the First Line with elements of the Second line (they did not pull back - so much as allow the reinforcements to come up). It made for a narrower Roman army - but as long as the flanks held, they would invariabley punch through the middle of the enemy. As for barbarians, if they did not overun the Romies on the first charge, then they would get ground down, also.

Hannibal's Celts and Iberians at Cannae: He knew they would not be able to hold - so set them up Convexly. He stationed himself there to ensure they would not break as they were pushed back (this, plus the well known trick of setting up them up: Celts / Iberians / Celts / Iberians / etc.) to further booste their Elan (("can't let those wimpy [celts / iberians] see us route - fight on")).

Hannibal contemplated losing ground at Cannae - the Roman way of war contemplates reinforcing the front lien while pulling tired troops out. If the Hastati (first line) and Princeps (second lien) could not do it after the Velites had softened them up (javelines) then the Triari would come up and hold the line as the rest withdrew.

A fighting withdrawal a few feet to your rear is not that tough. We've all done it exiting our favorite pub.

~BW

Hakonarson
05-08-2003, 22:24
Well make up your mind Blackie ol' boy - did they or didn't they?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

there are examples of whole legions being moved around battle fields that must've required them to move rearward, but there's no evidence that they did this facing the enemy - invariabvly those legions have been victorious or defeated/recoiled and the enemy has not followed up for some reason.

Again there's no requirement to do anything to simulate this beyond turning and marching away.

Troops were well known to recoil from the enemy pushing forwards - the Romans vs pike phalanxes at Pydna and Cynocephalae (on the Roman left) recoiled some considerable distances apparently, while the example of the Gauls and Spanish in the Carthaginian army at Cannae has been noted already.

But MTW already covers this too of course.

BlackWatch McKenna
05-08-2003, 23:17
haha http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You know what I mean, you rogue http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

DthB4Dishonor
05-09-2003, 15:00
Hail Everyone,

I disagree with Lehesu. I havent seen any flaming in this thread. I see alot of differing well thought out thoughts using historical references. I'm sure all who have posted here respect the thoughts and knowledge of the others as I surely do.

RTKPaul

DthB4Dishonor
05-09-2003, 15:08
Also forgot to say that Harkarson brings up a very good point. I also think that the mini-map gives to much info. It would be nice if you could hide some men on the downslope of a Hill. It would also make scouting and use of light cav more important. As it is now one can see the enemy movements on minimap so easily and only makes forest ambushes at all possible.

RTKPaul

Nowake
05-09-2003, 17:29
Well, indeed, maybe Hannibal simply sacrificed his centre. I can't argue on that as I don't have clear sources on that point. I just thought that he relyed much more on the discipline of the center. My bad ...

Anyway, I must mention that I respect all of you (I don't even know you personally, so how could I dispite any of you? Your posts were civilized and pertinent, nevertheless) and it wasn't my intention to start a flame war ... I don't even know why have you brought up this ideea ...

Cheers ...

Hakonarson
05-09-2003, 23:33
Hannibal had tried the Cannae trick at Trebia in a previous battle, but the Romans had actually broken through the Gauls & Spanish there.

Many ancient generals were quite cavalier about the lives of their troops -I recall a tale in Herodotus about the fall of Babylon to the Persians. The Persian king was having trouble taking the city, so one of his close advisers offered to be a double agent. He had a story put about that he'd fallen out with the king (slept with his daughter or somesuch), had his nose slit, his ears cut off and various other disfigurements done, then escaped INTO the city.

He persuaded the Babylonians that he knew enough of the Kings plans to deliver them victory. To prove this he led raids on isolated detatchments of Persian troops & massacred them - by pre-arrangement with the king According to Herodotus we're talking 2-3000 Persians each time

When he had hte trust of the Babylonians he opened the gaes & let the Persians into the city

Similarly Hannibal pretty much regarded Gauls in particular as expendible - they were always numerous & he never had any trouble recruiting more of them.

Nowake
05-10-2003, 13:41
So be it ... let them die http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

King James I
08-12-2003, 10:08
I remember reading that there was an example of Roman legionaries slowly retreating, until eventually the units lost cohesion and collapsed, because of the enemies furiousity. I believe it was a battle between the Triumvers or between Antony and Octavian against Brutus and co. I haven't got the book with me right now so does anyone know what battle I'm talking about?

Nowake
08-12-2003, 10:56
You probably talk about the Philippi. But the retreat was due the presure of the enemy, not because of a planed maneuvre. They were just pushed back.

DrHaphazard
08-13-2003, 04:07
Wow this post really had a resurection 2 months after it was closed. I'm glad it did however since ive found it a fascinating read and have been plesantly surpised by how knowledgable yall are about military history.

First off i'd like to state that I had been taught in college that hopilites, when no decision could be reached, would slowly back away from the enemy. This was certainly a difficult manuever, since it required the other side not to charge.

Logically, however, it seems that this would be a near impossibility. First off, how would you communicate down the line that you wish to withdraw, since obviously the last man of the unit needs to back up first. Also it seems unlikely that a simultaneous withdraw by both opponents would ever occur. The physical difficulty of fighting backwards is also a problem, because if you are moving backwards how will you be able to put weight into a blow, or keep your opponent from using your backwards momentum against you, lets not even talk about tripping because you can't look where you are going?

Gah I'm trying to logically approach the problem and it seems that it would be a very unlikely manouver when engaged with the enemy.

But then how do I explain Cannae? Well i would like to believe that Hannibal would not sacrifice his men knowing they would be pushed back anyway, but instead would have ordered a fighting retreat...

Ya know what, i dont even know why i'm writing this. All the arguments have been made already. Hmm i'm going to have to find out why my old prof thought hopilites would go backwards...

Nowake
08-13-2003, 09:05
In the case of hoplites, the explanation may be easier. The long lance was able of keeping the enemy at distance, so avoiding close-combat. Of course, once the battle is engaged and swords are pulled out, only the discipline can make this kind of maneuvre happen.


There could be another option: the first line of soldiers fights, then retreats behind the second, thus leting this one take the damage. The second, after the first reorganized its ranks again, does the same thing. So, in not a very long time, your men have pulled back in order. This is of course just my theory. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Oaty
08-14-2003, 05:37
Hoplites did do this maneuver of withdrawing from the face of the enemy while facing them and the enemy close. The withdraw was slow but the whole idea is that they kept there formation and the eager enemy charged furiously ony to be out of ranks or in loose order from the charge. When the enemy charged they fell quicker than if they had kept formation and attacked.

Now let me look in my bookmarks and ill give a link to it where this was used in battles hopefully i still have it bookmarked

Oaty
08-14-2003, 05:59
found it

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~sparta/topics/alamo.htm

[/QUOTE]Leonidas committed his units in relays, one relieving another, so his hoplites stayed fresh. The Spartans used one of their stock maneuvers, a feigned retreat, with great success against this unsuspecting enemy, turning as one man on the disorganized pursuers and cutting them to bits[QUOTE]

nanananana all you naysayers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

You can read the whole page if you'd like but if you are looking just for that quote it is just slightly above the middle of the page and the paragraph starts with the sentence (The heavy bronze armor-crested helmet, cuirass, greaves covering the lower)

CBR
08-14-2003, 12:39
Feigned retreat?

Thats more like walking close up to the enemy and then suddenly turn around and start running...enemy thinks its a rout and starts pursuing. Nothing slow there really.

CBR

Catiline
08-14-2003, 16:06
THe Spartans may have done this, but you're preaching to the converted Oaty, we agree it's possible to feign a retreat. Spartan discipline made it possible, but it's not a manuevouer you can carry out when you're engaged, the last thing you want to do then of course is turn your back on the enemy. Your example doesn't match what you claim happened in the post before.

Kraxis
08-14-2003, 16:59
I think he made a reference to the troops fighting in relays. Not the feigned retreats. Or am I in the dark here?

But, despite I believe the hoplites DID perform pullbacks (read the Anabasis by Xenophon, it mentions something that can be understood as inbattle disciplined retreating), that reference could be understood as Leonidas would cycle his troops when the Persians fell back to let their own new units attack, in a lull in the fighting.

Oaty
08-14-2003, 22:06
Quote[/b] ]I think he made a reference to the troops fighting in relays. Not the feigned retreats. Or am I in the dark here?


If you read that whole paragraph that I pointed out it says the Persians were torn to threads as they started attacking troops in a feigned withdraw and were even more loosely formed from the charge making it easier for them to take them out.

My whole point in posting that was to prove that it was done and never done as some people are saying.

I did not say they did this when they were engaged but when the enemy was close, of course I do not know what distance the enemy had to be at before they performed this manuever, my guess is (and my guess is as good as yours) that they did this when the enemy was about 50 feet away from them to provoke a charge. Remember you only have to retreat enough to provoke the enemy into a charge. The whole idea was baiting the enemy. Once baited and I have no idea the hoplites could have halted or to keep falling back to break up there ranks even more.

What I said in my first post is what I was recalling from memory on that page. However I did give a link to the proper information and considering the knowledge from that battle is about 2500 years old who knows how accurate that is.

The page goes into detail of the battle and not the spartans tactics so it is vague but does give reference to this topic




Quote[/b] ]The heavy bronze armor-crested helmet, cuirass, greaves covering the lower leg, and large round shield-and longer thrusting spears of the Greeks gave them all the advantages in this melee. The imperial infantry were equipped for mobility and rapidity, neither of which was useful here. In their loose formations, with shorter weapons, flimsy shields, and no room to concentrate missile fire, they were methodically bowled over and slaughtered by the impenetrable phalanx. Leonidas committed his units in relays, one relieving another, so his hoplites stayed fresh. The Spartans used one of their stock maneuvers, a feigned retreat, with great success against this unsuspecting enemy, turning as one man on the disorganized pursuers and cutting them to bits. At length, the shattered Persian divisions withdrew, to be replaced by the army's elite, the crack Immortals. Serving as the royal guard and primary shock troops, the Immortals numbered 10,000 footsoldiers and were so named because losses were always made up so that the corps never fell below its authorized strength. They are on parade still, in silent bas-relief on the ruined palaces of Persepolis and Susa, holding their spears and rigidly posed in their brightly colored robes. But here in the scrum of the Hot Gates they met their match. Herodotus claims that Xerxes, who watched the entertaining spectacle from a throne set up on a hilltop, lept to his feet three times that day in fear for his army.


Theres the whole paragraph that explains it from the website as I only chopped out a small line in the paragraph so you can get a full understanding

Catiline
08-15-2003, 13:36
If you want the source it's Herodotus 7.211 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=7.211.1). Relatively reliable as ancient sources go...

Stormer
08-15-2003, 13:51
Actully the spartans never retreated they had a code which told them too stay and they stuck to that code.

at one of the battles with the macadonians the spartans, atehens, and smaller greek states lined the army up for 8 days. the greeks supply route was cut and the small greek states armys started to retreat to the town and because they were the center of the greek line with the spartans on the right ( the most honourerd postion on the battlefield) and the athens on the left ( the second most honoured postion) they were in some heavy s***. the athens then retreated and the spartans stayed there and spread out the line, the macadonian army knew it if they took out the spartans the other greek would be useless and so the macadonians asttked the spartans. but they held firm under arrow fire while the other greeks marched back up to the line but the spartans already attacked, and we atully winning the battle and then the other greeks took to their flanks and after seeing the elite troops named the 'immortanls' of the macadonian army perish before the spartans the whole macadonian army fled, the greeks which then chased them into the macadonian camp and slaughterd the all.

Language, this is kids tv folks - Cat

Catiline
08-15-2003, 14:40
I htink you need to substitute Persians for Macedonians in that Stormer, so far as I can tell you're trying to describe the battle of Plataea. The main reason for the delay in the Spartans attacking was the fact that they were waiting for Pausanias their king to declare the omens favourable. When the Tegeans stationed with the Spartans attacked the Prsians anyway he seems to have decided to stop messing about and the omen miraculously appeared good at just the right time. Convenient that.

THe Spartans could withdraw , indeed part of the reason Plataea was fought was because the Spartan king Pausanias ordered his right wing to retreat and one of his regimental commanders decided that he'd hold his position from the enemy because he wasn't consulted.

Kraxis
08-15-2003, 15:01
Yes the entire army was supposed to pull back, but the minor states pulled along the wrong road and ended up where the Athenians should have been. The Athenians then had to double back to the Spartans (which they did rather slowly).
The Spartans never streched out as their army was fairly well protected at the spot they had retreated to (the locharg had his bluff called and soon followed the rest of the army back when they 'abandoned' him).

The 'Immortals' in this battles was in fact the Theban Sacred Band who did admirably dying to a man killing their equal number of Spartans, if not more.

Stormer
08-15-2003, 19:04
Thank Kraxis and Cataline for pointing out how wrong i got it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

i suppose least i got the spartans being there right, you gotta gimmie that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Nowake
08-16-2003, 14:10
uhmm, I think oaty pushed things a bit too far with the feigned retreat, which is a very different thing from what we disscused untill now. If you read my above post, you'll see that I'm talking about a slow retreat, while fighting, the lines covering eachother.

Hakonarson
08-17-2003, 12:39
The Thebans didn't have a Sacred band at teh time of Plataea, and when they did have one it was wiped out vs the Macedonians at hte battle of Chaerona (IIRC), where Phillip II commanded and Alex (to become "the great") commanded one wing of the Macedonian army.

However "medizing" Greeks (ie Greeks fighting for the Persians) were generally considered a tought fight hand-to-hand than Persian infantry, who were mostly archers.

CBR
08-17-2003, 12:53
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Aug. 14 2003,17:59)]But, despite I believe the hoplites DID perform pullbacks (read the Anabasis by Xenophon, it mentions something that can be understood as inbattle disciplined retreating)...
Cant you just quote it or be more specific where it is mentioned...Im lazy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

CBR

CBR
08-17-2003, 13:18
Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ Aug. 16 2003,15:10)]If you read my above post, you'll see that I'm talking about a slow retreat, while fighting, the lines covering eachother.
This one?


Quote[/b] ]The long lance was able of keeping the enemy at distance, so avoiding close-combat. Of course, once the battle is engaged and swords are pulled out, only the discipline can make this kind of maneuvre happen


Standard Hoplite tactic would be to charge and having a 7-8 foot spear is not that long a weapon really.

The few incidents of one side not charging but preparing to recieve a charge (first rank kneeling, spear butts in ground etc) even made some Spartans have second thoughts and stop an attack. The custom was to charge..and sometimes do it even when standing in a good uphill position.

The Spartans might have discipline..but the "standard" hoplite phalanx would consist of a group of militia units with no real training as a group..and not much individual training either.



Quote[/b] ]There could be another option: the first line of soldiers fights, then retreats behind the second, thus leting this one take the damage. The second, after the first reorganized its ranks again, does the same thing. So, in not a very long time, your men have pulled back in order

The combination of the charge and lots of pushing from the rear ranks would make that nearly impossible. I know there is some debate about the pushing thing. But deliberate or not, we see examples through history about how units got compressed as the rear ranks moved into the front rank.

Hoplite warfare really feels like a all or nothing deal: One charge to quickly decide who is the winner. Later on the warfare became more advanced (with more cavalry and skirmishers) but it didnt really change the role of the Hoplite.

CBR

Catiline
08-17-2003, 13:37
Connolly in Greece and Rome at war mentions a sacred band and p
Plataea. Herodotus however in 9.67 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=9.67.1) says 'As a result of this, three hundred of their first and best were killed there by the Athenians.'

Now I think Connolly, who isn't as great a historian as he's made out to be, and in writing accessible texts is often quoted too uncritically on the internet, has fallen before temptation. We have three hundred Boeotians fighting to the death at Plataea, and it's easy to draw a parallel to Chaeronea> But remember that 300 was a favourite number for ancient authors, especially when it came to ancient authors, witness the Spartans at Thermopylae and the Fabii fighting against Veii (IIRC) in Roman history/myth.

Kraxis
08-17-2003, 19:41
Well, it is mainly Connoly I draw the info from, but since the Sacred Band was supposed to have originated in a chariot unit, I can hardly believe it isn't as old as he claims. There were no Greek warchariots after the Mycenean times.

At the very least they were present at Leuctra on the left, forming the core of the 'Spartansmashers'.

Hakonarson
08-18-2003, 01:00
The Sacred band was formed as a city guard originally, according to Plutarch's Life of Pelopidas (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sacredband.html) - but Gorgidos - a contemporary or immediate predecessor of Empaminondas or Leuctra fame, and so date from after teh Peloponesian war - about 100 years after Plataea.

I have no doubt that Thebes did lose many of it's leading men at Plataea, but I think writers are jumping to conclusions to say that these were the Sacred Band.

Nowake
08-18-2003, 09:36
Yes CBR, that was the one. The discusion remains open in my opinion, as you can't say that it would be impossible.

CBR
08-19-2003, 01:25
Well maybe I cant say its impossible but I would like to hear what makes you think it is possible. The few reasons you gave are not that good at all, ther must be something more.

You said it was a theory and what do you base it on..articles, books, sources.. what?

CBR

Australianus
08-19-2003, 09:56
Slight deviation - when you launch an attack that you do not propose to proceed with, as cover for another attack, and your general accrues a reputation as a good runner or retreats often, I find that a bit disappointing. On to the main topic, I suspect that troops could not move backwards very far when under attack and keep discipline.

Catiline
08-21-2003, 12:29
Posted for Armakoir


Quote[/b] ]**For those not interested in historical accuracy, the following may not interest you. But for those who are, here's the question, can an ancient infantry unit actually conduct a fighting withdrawal?

The people saying "No" point out the difficulty of fighting and walking (presumably at a faster pace than the enemy advancing on you) backwards to disengage and the fact that such a manuever would be felt as victory by the enemy thus encouraging them to advance more impetuously. Leaving the only options (as they are in the TW series now) victory or rout.

The people saying "Yes" site descriptions, by Livy and other ancient historians, that include that exact tactic. All examples that I know of describe the Roman army using such tactics. Livy says "When an army had been drawn up in this order, the hastati were the first to open the battle. If they failed to dispatch the enemy, they slowly withdrew and were recieved thru the gaps between the principes. Then the fighting was taken up by the princepes, with the hastati behind them..."

I believe "yes" but only under the right conditions. And I think that condition is the legion vs a phalanx. I think the space between maniples in the legion makes all the difference and allows for a unit to disengage an enemy. When the principes engage using the space between the hastati maniples, this would allow the hastati to disengage against a phalanx (slightly different than what Livy describes). The phalanx relies on cohesion, therefore it would not pursue the withdrawing Romans. Here are two excerpts to back up this idea of non-pursuit:
Thucydides speaks of a hoplite formation "It is true of all armies that, when they are moving into action, the right wing tends to get unduly extended and each side overlaps the enemy's with its own right. This is because fear makes every man want to do his best to find protection for his unarmed side in the shield of the man next to him on the right, thinking the more closely the shields are locked together, the safer he will be." He speaks of hoplites, but no doubt, the same would have been true for a phalanx with even more cumbersome weapons. Plutarch describes the battle of Pydna, 168 BC: "The ground was uneven, and the line of battle so long that shields could not be kept continuously locked together, and Aemilius therefore saw that the Macedonian phalanx was getting many clefts and intervals in it, as is natural when armies are large and the efforts of the combatants are diversified; portions of it were hard pressed, and other portions were pressing forward. Thereupon he came up swiftly, and dividing up his cohorts, ordered them to plunge quickly in to the interstices and empty spaces in the enemy's line..."
I hope you see what I see, cause I have to get to work and can't elaborate any more atm. Let me know what you think.
As for Hannibal "withdrawing" at Cannae, I don't think that's the case. The normal deployment was an army's strongest and most elite in the center with the weaker and cavalry on the flanks. He knew the Romans would deploy as such and did just the opposite, expecting the Gauls and Spanish in his center to be driven back by the weight of the Romans, therefore allowing his strong African infantry to attack the Roman flank.**

Armakoir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Hakonarson
08-22-2003, 08:27
Livy says that's what was supposed to happen, but there isn't a single instance of it ever actually happening that way.

Indeed the examples you give do not show a "non-follow-up" - they show that hte phalanx DID follow up - even at hte expense of disordering itself - they couldn't help it

However of course the Roman "manipular" tactics were actuyally formed against Italian enemies, not Macedonian phalanxes, and those italians often fought in relatively lose formations that would have poured through any gaps between maniples in hte front line.

IMO it is nonsense to suggest that the manipular legion fought with gaps between it;s maniples - rather it filled the gaps with the posterir maniples.

But back to examples - we have the perfect opportunity for manipular tactics at Zama - a well drilled Roman army.

The first line beats the enemy and needs to be reinforced. Does it withdraw?? NO - it doesn't It actually contracts towards the centre, and the 2nd line and Triarii form up on its flanks.

If the Hastati did ever fall back then it could only have been in a lull in hte fighting - IMO there were many such lulls in most battles - fighting hand-to hand is very hard work