Empire: Total War Heaven

3 feet isn't that much. Bring them closer and they would be pissing off the man next to them. You need space to use your gladius and shield, though not as much as a long sword would need.

At the battle of the river Sambre against the Belgic tribes at some point Caesar describes how the units were to closely packed to fight effectively. He ordered them to move forward and losen up the lines.

Testudo formation being an exception of course.

Seconded that 3ft isn't that much. Could probably feel like even less when one considers how the shield might've been held...

The other option is that this is a reminder that we really have no clue what was really happening, and we're just kind of guessing from imprecise descriptions and very stylized artwork.

Remember: at Cannae the Romans were pushed together so tightly they couldn't use their shields or weapons. Space, when swinging a weapon for your life, is necessary.

Yeah. If you think about it, 3 ft of space probably was not all that much room to a Roman Legionnaire. He probably wanted more room. And I bet that 3 ft is probably how far apart they lined up and marched. When fighting, I would guess it varied a lot.

[q="Punic Hoplite"]Remember: at Cannae the Romans were pushed together so tightly they couldn't use their shields or weapons. Space, when swinging a weapon for your life, is necessary.That might actually be a support for a smaller amount of space. Roman weaponry emphasized stabbing as opposed to hack and slash, so a tight space would have been preferable...

Latinium, who is the author of the article/what are the sources and evidence? I don't think any of the authors gave anything like a measurement (they barely described the way the system worked, much less give specifics), and I can't imagine how archaeological evidence could be used to demonstrate it. If they somehow have a way to do it, that would be quite interesting.

Hadn't thought about that. Where did you get this information from, Latinium? Your time-traveling experiences?

Roman weaponry emphasized stabbing as opposed to hack and slash, so a tight space would have been preferable...

Quite true, but that does not mean they only stabbed. I can say with reasonable certainty that there were moments when they did in fact slash and hack instead of stab

Most human arms are between two and two and a half feet long. Put a twenty-five inch blade at the end of it and you will quickly see that three feet between men is more than reasonable to give the soldier enough room to stab- but not slash- without hitting his own buddy. It also gives the enemy a bit of space to come inside- and be stabbed down by the man to his right...

The article was called "The centuria in battle" and was by Ross Cowan. In Ancient Warfares special issue of 2010 (yes I know bit late to be bringing this up)

In the article he has a quote from Polybius 18.30.6-10 saying "In the case of the Romans each soilder with his arms also occupies a space of three feat [i.e. the same as a Macedonian phalangite]...each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next to him in the same rank and those in front and behind him"

I just thought that since they were known to have fought in close formation that they would be shoulder to shoulder with just enough room for an arm between each shield rim.

And as for the time travelling a magicain never reveals his secrets

They do fight in close formation, that is close compared to less disciplined units and units wielding larger weapons like axes and long swords that need space to be used effectively. But they are not a phalanx or shield wall. Shoulder to shoulder would be destructive to legionary combat. The size of their shields makes it almost impossible too. If you fight shield to shield you can only stab above and under your shield, which is hard if you know the size of a roman rectangular scutum.

Well the Greek checks out. Polybius does literally say 3 feet, which does get us to a pretty good ball park in terms of space around (note this is for the earlier Roman style of fighting - who knows if they changed it with the imperial legion).

It would be interesting to see what measurement of foot Polybius used. I know a Roman foot is actually just short of a modern day foot, but I think a Greek one is just longer? Correct me if I'm wrong though, that's just me using vague memories of Caesar and Xenophon commentaries...

If anything this is all a reminder of how little we actually know about the practicalities of ancient fighting...

It also needs to be borne in mind that Roman legionaries, both in the Republic and the Principate, also carried pila. Though not needing to be in loose skirmishing order, they still would have to have had a little clearance to both the sides and behind in order to throw them properly.

As Vasta noted, the style of fighting Polybius is describing was not the legion of the empire, but the mid-2nd century BC. In fact, the Roman legion of the period is often called 'the Polybian legion' because our understanding of it is largely based on his description.

They do fight in close formation, that is close compared to less disciplined units and units wielding larger weapons like axes and long swords that need space to be used effectively. But they are not a phalanx or shield wall. Shoulder to shoulder would be destructive to legionary combat. The size of their shields makes it almost impossible too. If you fight shield to shield you can only stab above and under your shield, which is hard if you know the size of a roman rectangular scutum.

Both Polybius and Livy describe the fighting style of legionaries at the time as including slashing as well as thrusting, which requires a looser formation. The sword used, the Gladius Hispaniensis ("the Spanish sword") was also a little longer than in the late Republic/early Principate (say about 10cm, but still only making it 60-70 cm, or about two feet. Wikipedia gives the details of a few types of swords that have been discovered.). The later Principate adopted the spatha, which is a longer sword than either. I'm inclined to think, that with the shorter gladius and slightly smaller shield, the legions of the late Republic and early Principate might have been more closely formed, but if so not by much.

Polybius, XVIII.30:


The shields used at the time were oval in shape and were also slightly larger and presumably heavier than those used in the late Republic/early Principate (the later Principate eventually returned to using oval shields). It's not entirely clear when the rectangular shield was adopted, but conventionally it's ascribed to the time of Gaius Marius (c. 110-100 BC; it's thought they still had oval shields c. 120 BC).

Polybius, VI.23:


In short, three feet isn't much. Huddled together in close formation the legionary's movement and effectiveness would be quite restricted. In addition to the example from Caesar's Commentaries above, where he instructs the legionaries to open up in order to fight more effectively, it's also implicit in the brief description in Polybius of Roman legionaries being pushed back into a huddle at Cannae and then being killed where they stood.

Real combat was probably a lot more tentative than that depicted in the standard film (though, obviously, we can't know for certain). Casualties in actual combat were comparatively light; it was usually only when once side fled that the butchering took place.

[This message has been edited by Pitt (edited 11-17-2011 @ 05:50 AM).]

It would be interesting to see what measurement of foot Polybius used. I know a Roman foot is actually just short of a modern day foot, but I think a Greek one is just longer? Correct me if I'm wrong though, that's just me using vague memories of Caesar and Xenophon commentaries...

My understanding was that a foot was the same for the Greeks and the Romans, and was just a tad under the modern length.

It seems not to be so simple:

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Greek measures of length were based on the relative lengths of parts of the body such as the foot and finger segment. The specific values assigned to these units varied according to location and epoch (e.g., in Aegina a foot or pous was approximately 13 inches or 333 mm, whereas in Athens (Attica) it was about 11.6 inches or 296 mm).[1] The relative proportions, however, were generally the same throughout the Greek world.

[This message has been edited by Pitt (edited 11-17-2011 @ 06:03 AM).]

I see now that 3 foot isnt really that much room. It was just my definition of close that made me confused.


I thought they fought in more of a shield wall formation.

Thanks guys

In short, three feet isn't much. Huddled together in close formation the legionary's movement and effectiveness would be quite restricted.

Of course adding more space also gives more room for your enemy to get in between you and get around an individuals defenses or even destroy the formation. It will also decrease the impetus of the formation colliding with the enemy. So it is about balance and when fighting defensively they would likely move closer than attacking.

I thought they fought in more of a shield wall formation.

Early on they did fight in a typical phanlanx, but their greatest successes came after abandoningit in favour of the flexible legion. Though, yes, a shield wall would likely be closer than that, as each individual needs to be covered by the shield of the person to his right (must have sucked to be in the right-most file) each shield needing to cover an individual and a gap. They also tended to rely more on the force of a charge to break the enemy or to be used defensively. You can also see why it works best with spears as they work for thrusting much more than slashing.

I don't think that the Romans would have left enough room for the enemy to really begin to do that. Because the guy behind him would really do that. Yeah, it probably happened, but it was usually when the front rank was breached, and either the guy died, or some of his buddies surged forward to help. I don't think Caesar would have advocated his troops to leave more space if it would have increased the chance of the enemy breaking the line.

As for the shield wall, you are right, they definitely relied on charging to break the enemy more than moving forward to engage. However spears wouldn't have been a great weapon for warriors fighting in the shield wall, because it was standard practice for the formations to crash together and shove each other with their shields. In fact, they would have used a short sword much like the gladius in such situations. I believe the Scandinavians, or at least the Saxons, referred to it as a saxe. The saxe was used during the Dark Ages, and was basically a stabbing weapon used in the shield wall because there was no room for a longer weapon.

The Saxons used the sax, or seax, as their main weapon. They were even named for it, much like the Franks were named for the francisca.

The Scandinavians at the time were into spears, axes, and bows. Later they got into swords- long swords, but metallurgy had to advance before long blades were worth the effort it took to produce them.

FYI

[This message has been edited by Terikel Grayhair (edited 11-19-2011 @ 03:00 AM).]

Well, I was talking about the Dark Ages. But, that does make sense.

I don't think that the Romans would have left enough room for the enemy to really begin to do that.

Of course not. That is kind of the point. Although getting more space may have been beneficial to individuals attacking, larger gaps would create a vulnerability. It is abount balance.

However spears wouldn't have been a great weapon for warriors fighting in the shield wall, because it was standard practice for the formations to crash together and shove each other with their shields. In fact, they would have used a short sword much like the gladius in such situations.

Well, the Greeks sure seem to disagree with that sentiment (the Phalanx was a shield wall). Thye were also the most common weapon of the Norse and English fyrds utilising shield walls.

It is less about spear vs sword as stabbing vs slashing. A short stabbing sword would work well and was used, but a spear also allows the second rank to fight or to potentially penetrate the enemies second or third rank (and such shoving matches were often one by breaking the back ofthe formation rather thanthe wall).

A phalanx is fundamentally different from a shield wall because the troops you have are going to be better trained. And the Greeks always had swords with them. Keep in mind that spear points, especially before iron became popular, tended to bend against armor. Although spears were used a lot in the later Macedonian phalanx, they had iron tips, and the phalanxes rarely got locked in a shoving match, due to the smaller shields required to use the sarissa, and they kept getting smaller. Yes, shield walls and phalanxes were similar, but they were not the same.

Shield walls were too disorganized to use spears after the initial engagement. There wasn't enough room to use them effectively. The biggest reason why the saxe remained popular after the advent of longswords was because of the shield wall. There isn't enough room to use anything longer than two and a half feet, so they didn't use them in a shield wall.