Lack of uniforms

[Danest]

So, if these soliders aren't wearing uniforms in the modern sense, how do they keep from accidentally killing each other when the lines break and things get chaotic and close up? Would, for instance, two companies of cretan archers in real life have something to tell each other apart?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They would have a two-part watchword, such as "Zues and Victory." There might also be something the whole army wore, such as a strip of red cloth around one arm, so tell friend from enemy.

[cmacq]

birds of a feather...

[Palasta]

shield emblems...

[fatsweets]

In battle nothing is sacred or certain, as in killing a fellow countrymen or soldier. You go into battle and you could be killed by friendly fire or sword for that matter! Sad but true.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

You probably knew your buddies and their kin so don't kill your buds. Also Standards and musicians. Hey that guy runs to country, kill the bastard. Distinctive armor and plumage were used up until the 1700-1800's really. Redcoats anyone?

[The General]

Distinctive armor and plumage were used up until the 1700-1800's really.

Roman legions?

8D

[antisocialmunky]

Kill everyone that doesn't speak your language.. unless you're Greek.

[Moosemanmoo]

Kill everyone that doesn't speak your language.. unless you're Greek.

yeah you're really spoilt for choice there

[Megalos]

Do a google on "blue on blue"....these things are sadly still prevelant in this day and age, must have been even worse back then I am guessing.

[Dyabedes of Aphrodisias]

Do a google on "blue on blue"....these things are sadly still prevelant in this day and age, must have been even worse back then I am guessing.

Did the google...not gettin' anything...

[AntiochusIII]

Did the google...not gettin' anything...

Hint: Iraqi friendly fire incidents.

[Sakkura]

You probably knew your buddies and their kin so don't kill your buds. Also Standards and musicians. Hey that guy runs to country, kill the bastard. Distinctive armor and plumage were used up until the 1700-1800's really. Redcoats anyone?

I'd say until world war one got messy, really. But the problem is that in this much earlier period, some of the troops might be wearing very little military equipment. They might just show up in their everyday clothes with a couple of javelins. If the enemy have the same kind of troops, they're going to be hard to tell apart, especially at javelin range.

Methinks friendly missile fire was probably fairly common in EB times. Once you get into melee, it might be a little easier to tell. Language differences or minor ethnic differences would be easier to pick up on. In melee you would be fighting alongside guys you probably knew, so as long as the commanders actually steered your unit into melee with enemy units, things would probably have been fine.
But the thought of the heroic charge of the light brig... Err, light ala straight into the back of their own infantry is kind of fun.

[Danest]

Maybe this sort of confusion only made being flanked all the more confusing and frightening.

[Bellum]

I imagine the best way to tell is facing. You didn't run around like an idiot, you stayed with your buddies. The enemy would be facing you. It's not like you'd run into the ranks of the enemy. That'd be suicide.

[konny]

shield emblems...

Size, shape and signes of/on shields would have been the most common and best way to distinguish "us'" from "them". Everything else, save for the helmet, is hidden by the shield anyways. The most popular examples are from the Middle Ages with all those indiviual heraldic symbols painted on shields (even though it must have been a pain to learn these by heart for every knight of your side and recall it in the heat of battle).

Examples from the Ancient times would be the Greeks useing regional signs on their shield, or Constantine the Great useing the Christ symbol in the battle of the Milvian Bridge. I would assume that signs like that were also in use in former civil war battles or in battles in which soldiers with the same equippement (and the same shields) clashed.

Other methods of distinguishing became important and a habbit when the soldiers stopped useing shields in the early Modern Age. Uniforms were used widespread sinze c. 1700, but even these did not always help because only blue and white/grey were used, with very few expections (eg. red for British and green for the Russians). For example, at Waterloo Dutch and Prussian soldiers often fired at each other because both were wearing blue like the French.

[antisocialmunky]

I imagine the best way to tell is facing. You didn't run around like an idiot, you stayed with your buddies. The enemy would be facing you. It's not like you'd run into the ranks of the enemy. That'd be suicide.

Unless you're the HBO Titus Pullo.

[Mi Fhein]

many soldiers wore simple coloured cloths round their chest, neck or arm. during the time of the Spanish, French and English naval wars soldiers wore coloured caps so people in the rigging with the rifles would be able to tell friend from foe.

[cmacq]

Right, Titus Pullo.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xODx3UJ7W7I

[russia almighty]

There is something badass about the British redcoats .

[CirdanDharix]

Beyond watchwords, there's the language barrier. If you're supposed to be helping the Romans kill Gauls, odds are the people yelling in what seems to be Latin are on your side, and the guys yelling in some Gallic language are on the other side. Problems start to arise if you're a "friendly" Gaul, of course, since the Romans will have trouble telling you apart from the foe. Of course, that's an old problem--during the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians had trouble distinguishing their Dorian allies from their Dorian enemies, because they both sung their battle hymns in Dorian.

[Cyclops]

... Of course, that's an old problem--during the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians had trouble distinguishing their Dorian allies from their Dorian enemies, because they both sung their battle hymns in Dorian.

Good get, I was thinking of the same episode: Dorian Allies of Athens outside Syracuse IIRC, singing the paean.

Generally soldiers knew on another as part of a polis, kinship group, tribe whatever.

They definitely rallied around standards and known leaders.

As mentioned flankig scenarios (and I suppose night battles) were quite terrifying affairs with every shape looming out of the mist a potential foe.

There's an hilarious scene in Asterix the Legionary where Caesar and Sciopio's men mill around in battle. By the time of the civil wars it would'vebeen a real problem in melees, but the romans were pros and no doubt they came up with badging or colour solutions.

Friendly fire was a massive problem down to today. At Shiloh the New Orleans arty unit wore resplendent French-style blue uniforms but they had to turn them inside out to show the white lining so their grey and dun reb pals would stop gunning for them. Lemon Lips Jackson bought a friendly ball in the leg at Chancellorsville.

The C18 UK had green uniforms (light inf), bluejobs, rainbow coloured cavalry. The French were the whole dice and box, so were the Russians. There were some regular rank and file colours (eg prussian Blue for Prussian line inf) but the cav in particular were flamboyant/variable in the extreme. There was a Napoleonic French cav tactic to ride up along the enemy line through the smoke of battle in column as though they were friendly; ordinary inf would think they were just another fancy-dress cav unit, and they weren't attacking so they must be friendly. They'd slip in behind the line and wallop. Don't know if it ever worked though.

[Sakkura]

Friendly fire was a massive problem down to today. At Shiloh the New Orleans arty unit wore resplendent French-style blue uniforms but they had to turn them inside out to show the white lining so their grey and dun reb pals would stop gunning for them. Lemon Lips Jackson bought a friendly ball in the leg at Chancellorsville.

Was? It still is. Not too long ago a few Danish soldiers died in Afghanistan from what turned out to be British fire.

[Chris1959]

A sobering thought on friendly fire. In WW1 it's estimated 10% of British/ Commonwealth casualties were caused by there own side. Working that out means 95,000 KIA and 300,000 WIA by there own side, and carry that to other armies of the time, ouch!

[Bovarius]

A sobering thought on friendly fire. In WW1 it's estimated 10% of British/ Commonwealth casualties were caused by there own side. Working that out means 95,000 KIA and 300,000 WIA by there own side, and carry that to other armies of the time, ouch!

Is indeed an impressive number. But don't forget that the British had an other way of using their artillery then the Germans and French. The British believed more in an all-out bombardment with overwhelming numbers of artillery, while the French and Germans believed more in precision-strikes. So i think that their numbers of friendly fire casualties could be lower.

And the way of attacking of the British: The infantry had to follow the barrage close to prevent the germans from leaving their bunkers to soon. Did the infantry follow to close-> casualties, did they stay away to much, the germans got enough time to prepare the defences -> slaughter .
The French and Germans used the radio to ask for artillery-support when they needed it.

British still fought in lines, while the rest smaller groups who had more tactical flexibility. The commenwealt had much more manpower then the Germans so they would win the war whatever the costs, just ask Douglas Haig

[antisocialmunky]

A sobering thought on friendly fire. In WW1 it's estimated 10% of British/ Commonwealth casualties were caused by there own side. Working that out means 95,000 KIA and 300,000 WIA by there own side, and carry that to other armies of the time, ouch!

Disease probably still killed more during the war.

[Chris1959]

WW1 was the first war in which battlefield fatalities exceeded those by disease etc.
As an aside in Lynne MacDnald's book about British medical services it is estimated that had the French had services on an par with British and American they would have suffered 200,000 fewer deaths from their 1.2 million war dead.

[Maeran]

Disease probably still killed more during the war.

It did, worldwide. But that was the chinese flu epidemic of 1918-1919, which had little to do with the fighting, except maybe as a way for people to travel a bit and communicate the disease.

[Bovarius]

It did, worldwide. But that was the Chinese flu epidemic of 1918-1919, which had little to do with the fighting, except maybe as a way for people to travel a bit and communicate the disease.

Wasn't it the Spanish flu?
Because Spain was the first country where they reported about is, the rest was to busy killing each other.
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

[Ludens]

Wasn't it the Spanish flu?
Because Spain was the first country where they reported about is, the rest was to busy killing each other.

It was the Spanish flu, although it's being argued that the first known victim, who brought the flu to Spain, was an American.