Questionable legionary formation on History Channel

As a longstanding fan of HBO's Rome series, I thought I'd bring this up.

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

Watch from 4:25 onwards. The legionaries appear to be using a very strange formation involving the rotation of men from the front rank directly to the rear of the formation, the next man in line taking his place. I've read Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army and don't recall any mention whatsoever of such a formation in use at the time.
It would seem highly dangerous as the legionaries fighting in the front lines would turn their backs to the enemy, leaving them exposed and wide open to attack while they retreat through the ranks.

While I don't believe for even an instant that the Romans ever used this formation, at 4:46 in the video there is a ? History Channel excerpt showing this exact formation playing out as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this meant to be the History Channel?

IMO, graphics and presentation takes up 99% of the History Channel's budget, and historical research takes up only 1%. The accuracy of the show seems to reflect that kind of balance.

There was a sort of rotation with the triplex acies, where maniples could withdraw into the gaps, some distortion out of that is possible...
But formations were "fluid", injured soldiers retreated through it (this happened even in phalanxes), so it's not wholly implausible (ofc not with the legionaries giving the backs to the enemy, but stepping to the side between each row)...

Quote:

---

(ofc not with the legionaries giving the backs to the enemy, but stepping to the side between each row)

---

ah yes one of many flaws of most RTS games :D when your guys fall back they turn tail and run :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

IMO, graphics and presentation takes up 99% of the History Channel's budget, and historical research takes up only 1%. The accuracy of the show seems to reflect that kind of balance.

---

Hahaha outstanding TMS! I enjoyed this considerably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

IMO, graphics and presentation takes up 99% of the History Channel's budget, and historical research takes up only 1%. The accuracy of the show seems to reflect that kind of balance.

---

My thought exactly.

But fatigue would be quite common in the ancient armies wouldn't it? Especially since people fought for hours.

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

Hahaha outstanding TMS! I enjoyed this considerably.

---

Then you'll love this. From a program called Battles B.C., also on the History Channel.


Apparently Hannibal had the physique of a bodybuilder, went shirtless into battle and held his arms out and screamed like a crazy man after decapitating Romans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUX-WvWvvsE --- 0:08 - 0:17

and the funniest part

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ZG...eature=related --- 4:33 to 4:43

What? They even don't try to be realistic? :inquisitive:

You're kidding me. Something like that has been shown on a history channel?

This Is Cannae!!!!

"Actually Cannae represents the end of Hannibal's success in the Italian penninsula."

As a Carthaginian historian, I simply shook my head in sorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jormungand

Then you'll love this. From a program called Battles B.C., also on the History Channel.


Apparently Hannibal had the physique of a bodybuilder, went shirtless into battle and held his arms out and screamed like a crazy man after decapitating Romans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUX-WvWvvsE --- 0:08 - 0:17

and the funniest part

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ZG...eature=related --- 4:33 to 4:43

---

I have to revise my estimate. Maybe the History Channel is 99.9% graphics and presentation, and 0.1% historical research. Maybe they just get a low-paid admin worker to spend a day browsing Wikipedia or searching in Google.

Maybe they hired Mel Gibson do it! :rolleyes:

I have read this in a book, but I can't remember where.

It occurred during the Marian reforms down to the manipular level. We know that Romans did not always fight in a tight shield wall, but left about a body gap between soldiers to be able to swing their swords and to expand the line across the field of battle and take up space. How I read the action being portrayed was that the front line troops either were killed and the next guy in line stepped up to take his place, or he killed the enemy in front of him, sidestepped (not turned around) and then backed up to the rear of his formation. This allowed the troops to rotate through and maintain stamina and all gain experience after the battle.

It's a very reasonable exercise, but portrayed incorrectly by the history channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiberiusClaudiusMarcellus

How I read the action being portrayed was that the front line troops either were killed and the next guy in line stepped up to take his place, or he killed the enemy in front of him, sidestepped (not turned around) and then backed up to the rear of his formation.

---

I am afraid I don't buy that. Killing another person was never that easy. Not if that other person is shielded, facing you, and has had at least some training.

It's very probable that there was a rotation of warriors, otherwise the front ranks would be dead meat and the hind ranks would be dead weight. However, I doubt it was as mechanical as that. You can't ignore what the warrior opposing you is doing; nor should you assume he'll go down quickly and easily. More likely the rotation was fluid and occurred during lulls in the fighting.

Rigid formations and mechanical movement-patterns worked for Napoleonic armies; but that's a very different kind of fighting.

Perhaps the rotation occured with tired legionaries at the front holding position, and fresh legionaries advancing past them to become the new front line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Perhaps the rotation occured with tired legionaries at the front holding position, and fresh legionaries advancing past them to become the new front line?

---

thats just assuming your gaining ground wich when your facing crazy kelts that put all they´ve got in the charge is highly unlikely for the 1st 15 minutes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

thats just assuming your gaining ground wich when your facing crazy kelts that put all they´ve got in the charge is highly unlikely for the 1st 15 minutes

---

If they put everything they had into the charge, I'd say you would make a great deal of progress after the first few minutes ~;) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Perhaps the rotation occured with tired legionaries at the front holding position, and fresh legionaries advancing past them to become the new front line?

---

That's certainly possible; although again it probably wasn't a drill-yard manoeuvre. I believe that close-combat, even for articulated infantry, was a lot more messy and fluid than pike & shot battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

That's certainly possible; although again it probably wasn't a drill-yard manoeuvre. I believe that close-combat, even for articulated infantry, was a lot more messy and fluid than pike & shot battles.

---

This was well represented in the battle of Gaugamela in the Hollywood rendition of Alexander, the movie had many issues with it, but the way the phalanx engaged, fell apart and tried to maintain cohesion in that battle was well done.

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the HBO series Rome (although I am not a fan of its depiction of the Gauls).

Has anyone ever seen the depictions of Germans in "The Fall of the Roman Empire"? Or for that matter Picts in "The Eagle"?

I have to say the Hannibal documentary that Jormugand linked is painful to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

It's very probable that there was a rotation of warriors, otherwise the front ranks would be dead meat and the hind ranks would be dead weight. However, I doubt it was as mechanical as that. You can't ignore what the warrior opposing you is doing; nor should you assume he'll go down quickly and easily. More likely the rotation was fluid and occurred during lulls in the fighting.

Rigid formations and mechanical movement-patterns worked for Napoleonic armies; but that's a very different kind of fighting.

---

Not necessarily. It seems that some sort of troop rotation was used by the Romans enough that it was worthy to be picked out. Dudes could fight for a long time back in the day as evidenced in hoplite and phalanx fights where men had to stay in line for a very long time. Same with medieval warfare which is not that different from classical warfare.

They probably pulled units back during lulls in combat. However, many of the notable battles in Roman history involved continuous fighting with independently maneuvering units. Thus, it is unlikely that it was the inter-unit rotation like back when they had multiple lines of battle as depicted in the polybian era which even then wasn't so much rotation as a wave system. So likely it was something kinda like what was on HBO Rome where guys rotated lines when they could.

Just don't be too fanciful the more complex the maneuver, the more likely it is going to go horribly wrong especially in combat. So you're looking for a very simple and quick at most 3 step solution (any tactic with more than 3 components will usually be unreliable and fail).

As for spacing, its done because a bucket gripped tower shield gives you more than 270 degree of coverage of the user. So the fighting style and equipment are designed to be used somewhat fluidly so you need some room to move around. You also want the ability to accept shock or deflect a charge. This is done wither with a really tight formation or a loose formation. You don't want a gigantic celtic bowling ball knocking over all your pins. So you spread out, accept the shock, and sort back into lines (as 2 units colliding tends to get mixed up, this is probably where a big shield with big coverage and short sword work best).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiberiusClaudiusMarcellus

I have read this in a book, but I can't remember where.

It occurred during the Marian reforms down to the manipular level. We know that Romans did not always fight in a tight shield wall, but left about a body gap between soldiers to be able to swing their swords and to expand the line across the field of battle and take up space. How I read the action being portrayed was that the front line troops either were killed and the next guy in line stepped up to take his place, or he killed the enemy in front of him, sidestepped (not turned around) and then backed up to the rear of his formation. This allowed the troops to rotate through and maintain stamina and all gain experience after the battle.

It's a very reasonable exercise, but portrayed incorrectly by the history channel.

---

Accounts I have read from 1st century BC depict Roman soldiers fighting in very close/tight formation. At Pharsalus, for example, the front of Caesar's elite 10th legion is described as a "shield line" in Dando-Collins' book 'Caesar's Legion'.

There is an account of an encounter between Germanic tribes and Caesar's 4th (?) legion where a Cohort was surrounded, their officers killed, and the men bunch up, Caesar arrives with a relief party and orders the sourronded men to push forward and spread the line. Some could interpret these account as a call to spread the distance between individual men into a loose formation. My interpretation of that account is that Caesar is ordering the men to spread the line. Note that it takes a lot of guts to be the man holding the very edge of the line... So, once the officers were killed, no one wanted to be left to hold the edge of tthe line, and the whole Cohort collapsed into a blob. Caesar's orders must be understood in that context.

Some people have put forth the notion that Romans fought in a loose formation during the period represented in EB. There may have been particular events, under exceptional circumstances... Frankly, I would like to see the source material and check the particular context in which these events occured.

Surviving frescos suggest men from the second line would help men from the first line. One such artwork shows a legonaire from then second rank using his shield to strike over the shoulder of hid buddy on the first rank. ...it seems that the first two ranks worked closely together. But, surviving accounts describe officers walking very close to the frontline, just behind the men doing the actual battle and from there addresed the rest of the men.

It seems to me (hipothesis) that officers (e.g. centurions, signifiers, optios...) stood and moved along this passage behind the first two ranks (which were fighting) and the remaining ranks (which were on reserve). As the officers walked up and down this corridor, they could observe what was going on along the front, and, give instructions both to the men doing the fighting, and to the men on reserve. When a soldier was wounded or was too tired, officers could put together a small team of men to make a localized push in a small sector and relief those in need. ...and, move down the line to repeat this process wherever needed.

Accepted theory suggest that centurions lead their century from the far right, or far left of their unit. This may work well during a march, while throwing pila, or even during a charge. ...but I just wonder whether a centurion could continue to lead his unit from the far edge of the line during a prolonged encounter. It just does not add up in my mind.