Questionable legionary formation on History Channel

[Ludens]

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.

[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?

[moonburn]

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

[Ludens]

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 .

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.

[Tanit]

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.

[Brennus]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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).