Disciplined Retreating- a new guys thoughts

[bigdunc805]

Since I can't yet post on The Guild, Colosseum portion of these boards, I wanted to post my reply to the Disciplined Retreating thread... and maybe someone would be so kind as to copy it over for me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

This is a reply I posted on another website's forum, which I had hoped to post here, but couldn't find the link to the thread again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

**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

[khurjan]

can you check out monastary potion if you can i have written a thread called historical thread it contains what you say and more read it if you can

and hewwoo
and welcome to totalwar.org forums

may the sharpness of your spear points stay sharp hehehehe

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

[bigdunc805]

Found your thread... looks awesome Not the quickest reader so I'll drop you a post when I'm done. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

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

[bigdunc805]

Though I plan to read the rest, your 1st and more so your 2nd post really cover the Disciplined Retreating topic, so I'll reply to that now.

I'm curious about the number of ranks the Macedonian phalanx had at Pydna. From reading various sources, 16 seems to be the most common answer throughout the time period.

My second thought is, prior to any Marius Reforms, how many ranks did a maniple have? Here I think the answer is 12.

Hoplite battles have been described as a rugby scrum with one side winning a shoving match over his opponent to help get the ball. Though no longer hoplite vs hoplite, a battle between phalanx and legion would have contained a good amount of pushing, more so on the phalanx end to break and disorganize the enemy line. The legion though would of had to counter this, hence the 12 ranks. I doubt a Roman on his heels was a very effective weapon. But why not 16 vs 16 or more? I assume some advance, all be it slow, would have been accepted by the Romans. It would put into full effect any rough terrain, dead bodies, and their pilum, thus disorganizing the phalanx.

You quoted Polybius saying the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engage the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy's reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx .... Whether it was the common tactic or not, this describes noteably space between maniples.

Though I can't remember where specifically, I do recall the notion that some Velites (or skirmishers in general) remained between the maniple gaps after the front lines had joined. This makes perfect sense. Continue to harass the enemy while they can't advance without exposing themselves. Lets just hope the lightly armed buggers got out before the principes moved in. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif The flexibility of the legion is such that the choice could be made to advance the principes thus making a solid line, or (though I've never read of this being done) use the principes to form a 24 rank deep maniple thus hoping to actually force the phalanx back at points. This could help to create gaps in the shield wall of the phalanx.

Most definitely, with such tactics and formations, could a Roman army conduct discipline retreats for specific units. It's flexibility is awesome.

Something perhaps overlooked is the possibility that not all of the principes line might advance into the maniple gaps at the same time. The Romans were trained such that local commanders could no doubt have decided to advance one or two maniples into a gap to exploit an advantage or reinforce a weakness.

I've really enjoyed your posts thus far. The Roman army adapted so well and fought so many campaigns that the possibilities are endless. And what works in one battle, may not work in the next battle. So much to learn. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Thanks

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

[khurjan]

The Phalanx

Three variations on the phalanx are shown below. On the left is a Hoplite-type phalanx (red), in the center (green) is a mixed phalanx with spears and pikes, and on the right is a sarissa-type phalanx.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/3-phalanxes.jpg



The Hoplite-type phalanx is a classic phalanx used by the Greeks and many other ancient armies. In it the soldiers are arranged in close ranks and files and are armed with a stabbing spear and shield. The figure at the left shows some of the characteristics of this soldier. The spear is 6''8 long and is held at about shoulder height. The shield represented here is round with a slight curvature.

The earliest Roman armies and the armies of the Italian tribes probably armed themselves and fought in the Hoplite fashion.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/hoplite.jpg





A typical depth for the phalanx was 8 ranks, though they actually appeared in a great variety of depths. The drawing at the left shows 8 ranks of the phalanx (top) arrayed against the more open Roman (bottom) battle order.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/romans-greeks-mid-detail.jpg




http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/roman-greek-detail.jpg

The drawing on the left is a close up of the one above to give an idea of the different weapons and tactics that would have been involved when the Roman soldier encountered the phalanx; sword against spear, mass against mobility.

The Phalanx

As the phalanx evolved longer spears and pikes came to be used. The key ingredient is the use of a long pike, or sarissa.


http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/2-grips.jpg

The two figures at the left show the different grips necessary when weilding the sarissa. A close inspection of the hands is necessary to see the difference; the image below makes the detail clearer.


http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/2-grips-detail.jpg



The front rank, depicted on the top, could hold the sarissa low, with his right elbow above the pike. His right hand grasps the sarissa palm down; his left, palm up. On both hands his thumbs are forward. This is a powerful hold, one that allows considerable leverage to be applied to the shaft.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/phalanx-soldiers.jpg

The bottom figure is holding the sarissa at shoulder level. His right elbow is below the sarissa; on both hands the little finger is forward. This is the grip that would be necessary for all ranks behind the first rank since the sarissa would have to be held high to clear the heads and shoulders of those in front. This would be an effective stabbing hold but would not provide the power or leverage of the lower grip.

Delbruck argues that not all of the sarissa's used by the phalanx were of the same length. In his view the first rank fought with a spear in the Hoplite manner. The following ranks weilded progressively longer sarissas so that all points came to about the same plane in front of the first ranks. The sarissas of the first 6 ranks are shown below.


To the far leftt is the 6th rank. Since the sarissas from this rank would not project beyone the first rank they are held pointed up at an almost vertical angel. The sarissa for the 6th rank is shown foreshortened.

The sarissas of the first 5 ranks all project to about the same distance. They are 21', 18', 15' and 12' in lenth. The spears in the first rank are 9' long.



The drawing below shows how the formation would have looked. Each rank is colored to make them easier to distinguish.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/legion-sarissa.jpg

The hedge of 5 pike points per file would certainly have presented a formidable front.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/24-ft-sarissa.jpg

Each rank is slightly staggered so that the sarissa can project over the shoulder of the ranks in front. This works on paper but in practice the lines could not have been kept so neatly. Since the phalanx is always described as tightly compressed it would seem that the sarissas would have to have been pointed above the heads of the ranks in front. Were this the case they would not be particularly effective against the charging Romans who could easily slip under them.


http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/legion-macedonians.jpg



The more traditional view is that all of the sarissas were the same length. In the drawing below this configuration is shown. The sarissas of the first 5 ranks project beyond the fist rank but not to the same plane. Again, as above, each rank is given a different color to make it easier to distinguish them.

The length of the sarissa, according to Delbruck, may have been up to 24' long or as short as 14'. The drawing below shows a 24' sarissa, held about 5' from the butt, and a 16' sarissa, held about 3' from the butt. The longer sarissa projects 15'6 in front, the shorter projects 11'. Some claim that the longer sarissas were weighted at the butt for balance, others say not. The sarissas represented here are not weighted.



The same concern expressed above about the sarissas clearing the heads of the ranks in front would apply here.

A major difference with this formation is that the first line of sarissa points occurs not 4' from the first rank, as aboe, but as much as 10' to 16', thus keeping the Romans well out of effective sword range. In the drawing to the left the sarissas of the first rank project 11'.

However they were held, the length of the sarissa would have made them difficult to manuever. The butts projected behind, the shafts were either between the heads of the ranks in front or over their heads. Any large movement of the sarissa would have resulted in a colission either behind or in front.


http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/phalanx-alternative-alignment.jpg

John Warry, in Warfare in theAncient World, shows the phalanx in a more open position in which the pikes of each rank have a clear field to the front. This formation is shown below. The difficulty with this solution is that the phalanx is always described as a tight formation, with only 1'6 to the file. This formation has as much as 4' between files.

[Lord_PH]

hmm...very good analysis and descriptions of the phalanx formations...i would imagine that the romans would have a elite-class of these phalanxes as the ultimate conventional defense unit.

i wondered how the romans conquered the greeks anyway. the greeks seemed very powerful with this formation...

perhaps becoming surrounded? flanking? may suggest that the greeks where one-dimensional...quite an irony considering the greek philosophers... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

i imagined that the romans used catapults and ballistas extensively to break this formation (large holes in the formations http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) . calvary and missle would have little effect on the well-armoured greek phalanxes.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Lord_PH @ Aug. 21 2003,12:03)]may suggest that the greeks where one-dimensional...quite an irony considering the greek philosophers... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
It wasnt really the greek but the macedonians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

A short answer on how romans won: Cavalry. They always managed to have the best cavalry in the few but important battles facing a sarissa armed phalanx. (battle of Pydna and Magnesia)

But there is always more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

If any bigger holes appeared in the macedonain line the romans could exploit it with their more agile foot units and at the battle of Cynoscephalae a part of the Macedonain line was pushed back before it could deploy (romans had some elephants too) and reserves could move into the flank/rear of the other part of the line.

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/cynocephalae-197bc-2.htm

Hm that felt like another short answer..

CBR

[Nowake]

I don't think that in normal conditions, a roman turmae could defeat an equal number of macedonian hetair squadron.

[CBR]

Most likely not. But they had lots of allied cavalry in these battles.

CBR

[khurjan]

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ Aug. 21 2003,07:46)]I don't think that in normal conditions, a roman turmae could defeat an equal number of macedonian hetair squadron.
most likely not if the macedonians were same unit as under philip or alexandar...but you got to remember these phalanx were products of tinkering with by his successors who did not grasp the concept that p and a were utilising