Roman Battle Formation

[Ionut Alex]

Hello guys

First of all congrats on the work you are doing

I have limited experience in modding but i am curious if in EB2 we can see one of the roman battle formations something like this (better shown at the end of the video the last minute)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndh3b9wC-A0&feature=related

good luck in your work :smash:

[Ludens]

This rotation principle has come up several times before, but there is no evidence that it actually worked like this. Personally, I doubt it would have occurred in such an ordered and predictable manner: in close combat, moving in predictable pattern is a good way of ending up dead. You notice that the video doesn't show actual combat during the moment of rotation, presumably because the rotating soldiers would have been squeezed together and unable to fight back.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Great video.
Thank you Alex and welcome to our.~:cheers:

[antisocialmunky]

Man those old 60s movies where they actually used ridiculus amounts of extras were so much more epic...

Also for the whole Leroy Jenkins stunt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUafShwNKls&feature=related

But yeah, what Ludens said. It probably wouldn't be so easy during combat conditions depending on how hard you're being hit and casualties.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Great movie... fantastic tactics
Roma victoria

[Ardri]

Very nice video, and I agree that the older movies are much more epic than the computer generated movies they create now (with a few exceptions). It would be very interesting to see how well the Romans actually were able to rotate soldiers from front to back of the cohort during combat. It seems that it would lead to a natural giving of ground. I say this because logically it appear to be easier for the front unit to move back off the front and allow the second rank to assume the front of the formation from their current position as opposed to moving all the ranks behind moving up to fill the space of the now vacant front rank, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Would seem easier to coordinate 1 direction of movement as opposed to 2 directions while in combat nonetheless.

[Celtic_Punk]

I think that a whole rotation of a rank in close combat like that would require a lot of coordination, perhaps it was done in several parts, first call is a cautionary the 2nd rank prepares to take over, 2nd call the formation pushes forward and the 1st rank then falls back between the shields. I've seen riot officers do something like this with gas grenades. firing, then while he reloads the 2 officers flanking him (keep in mind there are about 10 shooters) have shields and then they move forward to protecthim. then they spread apart the shields a bit. he fires, repeat.

same techniques. This could be done i'm sure. it would take alot of drilling though.

[antisocialmunky]

But this would be in melee. IMHO, the biggest problem is pulling back with that huge shield and not having it get caught on anything or having to hold it in such a way that makes you unable to defend yourself. More realistically you would also have to take into consideration that it probably wasn't just the first row but the first one or two rows that were actively engaged(enemy units penetrating or being compressed). TW is a little too neat sometimes in its depiction of formation fighting.

Realistically it probably happened during lulls in battle since many types of enemies would attack in waves. So the rotation would take place between waves if the idea was to absorb each charge with fresh men while the enemy slowly wore down.

[geala]

I'm just waiting for a hint to a source for this idea of combat. Afaik it is an idea of a Italian reenactment group and strongly opposed by many others, isn't it? I think it's unlikely that it could succeed in battle. It's far better imho to reinforce with whole units. But who knows?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I found this interesting treaty studying what are the parameters that influence a battle.
Here we mention the effects of rotation, the number of ranks and morale.
says that many ranks are not better than a few (see Cannae).
Also said that veterans and bravest are back in the ranks because they know better to resist anxiety.
:surprised::surprised::surprised:

http://utenti.lycos.it/campagneparallele/Du-Picq-etude-sur-combat.pdf

(this is an italian version)

The pages of interest are: p. 9, 10, 11 but there is also many interesting parts.

Unfortunately i think M2TW engine can only do formations static and fixed property (such as Greek or barbarian) when the second rank begin battle only when the first rank are died or completely exaust.

[gostisa]

The sorta of rank rotation depicted in the movie is BS, it is simply imposible as ranks would compres under presure. Maybe it would work during the battle pulse but that only happens after several minutes of intese combat when man on both sides are already exousted after a "pushing mach" even the man behind the front ranks would suffer this.
Second thing that is a bit disturbing too me, if this would happen during a "push", is that after giving a front, most likely the whole unit would colapse as it gives the oppositon a small but not neglectible "charging space".
Third, sichronization would have too be beyond modern day and only soldier with years of traning would be able too perform it without having holes and gapes in front line(not a good idea during a HtH combat).

So most likely front soldier would fall back from front ranks only after he lost his weapon or shield and how that worked in a heat of battle is more or less a mistery, but surly it was way more chaotic than depicted.



PS: ACS could u possibly put that source up in english or german my italian sucks as it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe this concept originates with Tacitus (less than reliable on military matters, he says auxilleries used longer swords for ex.).

However, Tacitus records a rolling advance, which makes some sense, as the ranks move through each other the first two rotate to reduce fatigue and so that the enemy is constantly presented with an attacker.

In retreat it would work in reverse, so that the enemy was always presented with a static, solid, front.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

PS: ACS could u possibly put that source up in english or german my italian sucks as it is.

Sure, my friend.:thumbsup:

When you are in this page, click on plain_text to download:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=7294

PS: my Lusitani cry vengeance ... :stars:

[gostisa]

I read the englisch version and too some extend that is plossible.

What the base for rotation troops, is essentialy a battle pulse that occurse becouse of fear, if u r able too confront the first charge u'll get a battle pullse that will allow u too rotate troops, still its very very risky in my opinion and nothing like depicted in the movie.

Later it talks abut deeper ranks not giving any advantage and its so so. The principle for deper ranks is only when full army is commited into the push, and yes this type is very easy too disrupt if flanked or completly stoped, thats why romans stoped using it too a ceartian extend. Deeper ranks only help u if u have a steady push with good flak support, nothing new.

[antisocialmunky]

I believe this concept originates with Tacitus (less than reliable on military matters, he says auxilleries used longer swords for ex.).

However, Tacitus records a rolling advance, which makes some sense, as the ranks move through each other the first two rotate to reduce fatigue and so that the enemy is constantly presented with an attacker.

In retreat it would work in reverse, so that the enemy was always presented with a static, solid, front.

This is how I've always imagined it working - a sort of leap frogging advance. Do you have the exact source so we can have more debate fodder?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is how I've always imagined it working - a sort of leap frogging advance. Do you have the exact source so we can have more debate fodder?

It's in the Agricola, I don't have the Latin here, I'll look it up.