StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've just finished an interesting article by Philip Sabin, entitled "The Face of Roman Battle" in JRS, 2000 and I want to discuss melee warfare in general.

There has been numerous depiction of melee warfare in media, be it Hollywood movies, documentaries, video games and reenactment societies. The biggest problem we have with such depiction is we are living in an era where we cannot experience first-hand what a massed melee battle would look like. To add to that, we do not have that many first-hand sources that describe to us what is it like to be in the thick of a massed melee. First-hand sources from the POV of an infantry man in the rank and file only became much common during the age of gunpowder.

I think it can be an interesting thought-exercise to debate and figure out the "face" of melee battles. Did the soldiers clash their shields at each other like what we see in the Total war games with hardly any space to swing their swords, or did they maintain some gaps between every soldier? How did flanking maneuvers cause so much devastation upon their enemies? What sort of problems the dust of the battle will cause? How long can a field battle realistically last? How did the armies replenish the exhausted men from the front lines?

The model Philip Sabin had constructed an interesting model to describe how mass melee warfare would have looked like during the Roman era. He argued that massed melee battles would be a series of standing off between the opposing armies, with sub-units advancing and withdrawing in a periodic manner. This ensures the reserve lines can actually relief the exhausted front-rankers after a period of fighting, while at the same time maintain the cohesion of the battle line.

So what do you think an massed melee battle would actually look like?

We do have contemporary paintings of battles, and accounts of battles from positions other than the front line, and the occasional contemporary hero myth. The general nature of ancient and medieval combat is fairly well understood: heavy infantry with interlocking shields engaged enemy heavy infantry with interlocking shields, while auxiliaries attempted to destabilize or flank the shieldwall, and elites attempted to punch through weak points. The specifics are probably lost to history (although careful recreation might uncover some of them, as it has with some previously lost martial arts), but the basics are well established by histories, paintings, stories, and manuals of warfare dating back two and a half thousand years and spanning three continents.

Also depends on which armies you're talking about. The Romans and Spartans were some of the most disciplined armies in history...they would march and fight in close formation using the "wall of shields" tactic. Many barbarian hordes would just charge at you and try to get you with sheer numbers and brute force. Either way, I think you should try to imagine going to Disneyland on a busy day, but instead of people jostling to get in line for a ride, they're screaming at the top of their lungs and half of them are trying to stab you in the face with something sharp.

Borgholio wrote:Also depends on which armies you're talking about. The Romans and Spartans were some of the most disciplined armies in history...they would march and fight in close formation using the "wall of shields" tactic.

Romans, yes. Spartans less so, for they are utterly overhyped.

And what wall of shields are you referring too?

Many barbarian hordes would just charge at you and try to get you with sheer numbers and brute force.

Depends on the barbarians, really. The only ones who ever did that were the celts and even among them we find highly disciplined forces. The Germans adapted very well to Roman tactics too.

Either way, I think you should try to imagine going to Disneyland on a busy day, but instead of people jostling to get in line for a ride, they're screaming at the top of their lungs and half of them are trying to stab you in the face with something sharp.

worst analogy ever.

Thanas wrote:
And what wall of shields are you referring too?

worst analogy ever.

Meh...sounded good in my mind.

Borgholio wrote:*snip pic*

I don't even know what this is supposed to be.

You do know that the romans fought in several formations, including several variations of the open formation with one or two man widths between each fighter and that they employed the locked shield formations only in a subset of battle, namely either sieges or the melee point of contact?

the shield wall only came into existence in the 2nd century and only gained prominence at the end of the 3rd century.

ray245 wrote:How did flanking maneuvers cause so much devastation upon their enemies?

Imagine you are on the battlefield, opposing someone who's only chance to survive is to stab, slash and club you to death. Left and right of you are others with just as little training as you have, and you all are tightly pressed together in order to share your defense and the safety of having someone next to you who doesn't want to kill you. Behind you, your brothers in arms push forward, trying to stab at the enemy while using you as human shield.

It's loud, clouds of dust obscure your view, you are exhausted and in sheer terror, all your senses are focused forward, trying to kill your enemy before he gets you.

Now, out of nowhere (because no one really watched out, and the few warning cries didn't register with you because you were busy with 'hack/stab/slash/duck'), someone/something hits your formation from the side, hard, and people around you start to fall with screams of pain.

Now you might know why flanking attacks were so effective. Most people turned and ran for their lives in that situation. Only really well trained troops would hold fast.

And well trained troops were oftentimes so jammed together that they coud not maneuver anyway and were cut down where they stood.

Feil wrote:We do have contemporary paintings of battles, and accounts of battles from positions other than the front line, and the occasional contemporary hero myth. The general nature of ancient and medieval combat is fairly well understood: heavy infantry with interlocking shields engaged enemy heavy infantry with interlocking shields, while auxiliaries attempted to destabilize or flank the shieldwall, and elites attempted to punch through weak points.

Either way, I think you should try to imagine going to Disneyland on a busy day, but instead of people jostling to get in line for a ride, they're screaming at the top of their lungs and half of them are trying to stab you in the face with something sharp.

Well, Philip Sabin disagreed with such a view, especially regarding the Roman armies during the Republican era. He argued that such a massed melee would have resulted in the front ranks being way too exhausted to actually last too long in a fight.

Well, that would kinda depend on what training they had, wouldn't it? What are his examples?

Wasn't that a key part of the Roman system - the ability to rotate the front rank?

Thanas wrote:Well, that would kinda depend on what training they had, wouldn't it? What are his examples?

He used the battles of Herda and Pharsalus as example where the Romans relief their front ranks. He also cited Livy who argued for the advantages of relieving the tired men at the front ranks. He also argued that such battles would produce far too much causalities when you are comparing it to the losses recorded.

thejester wrote:Wasn't that a key part of the Roman system - the ability to rotate the front rank?

Indeed it was, but this system could only work in a formation that was not really jammed in like the later 3rd century shield wall.

ray245 wrote: He used the battles of Herda and Pharsalus as example where the Romans relief their front ranks. He also cited Livy who argued for the advantages of relieving the tired men at the front ranks. He also argued that such battles would produce far too much causalities when you are comparing it to the losses recorded.

The latter argument seems a bit curious at face value considering how the battle went, but I'll give the article a look.

The one thing that always tends to be ignored by Hollywood is the morale factor. Unless intoxicated or indoctrinated it's unlikely that soldiers will charge headlong into walls of spears or guys with swords. Formations worked partly because of the sheer intimidation factor.

Which is also why for some armies, the rear ranks were experienced troopers who made sure the guys in front didn't run away and pressed home an attack. Similarly, it was important to make sure that the rear ranks weren't pushing forward so hard that they were already trampling their frontline troops (which apparently happened in a number of battles were the side with superior numbers ended up losing spectacularly)

This is also why there also tends to be a fair bit of ranged combat during what should be "melee" battles. Roman Legionnaires for instance were usually also equipped with javelins, which they hurled at their enemies to cause casualties and inflict loss of cohesion before actual contact.

Take a bit of riot control training, it will give you a pretty good idea on standing in a shield formation.

This is also why there also tends to be a fair bit of ranged combat during what should be "melee" battles. Roman Legionnaires for instance were usually also equipped with javelins, which they hurled at their enemies to cause casualties and inflict loss of cohesion before actual contact.

From what I recall, specifically, they would throw their pilum at relatively close range during the charge.

Zwinmar wrote:Take a bit of riot control training, it will give you a pretty good idea on standing in a shield formation.

Difference is, we have not clear idea whether people will react differently if the riot police are carrying swords instead of clubs. Riot control aims to injure people at most, not to kill them.

Even if you accept soldiers couldn't exert themselves for very long before becoming exhausted, that might just suggest that the tempo of combat was not as high as we imagine. Maybe soldiers learned uselessly clanging their weapons on the other guys shield was a waste of energy. Maybe not all soldiers in combat fought at the same rate, or beyond the immediate needs of defending themselves.

chitoryu12 wrote:

This is also why there also tends to be a fair bit of ranged combat during what should be "melee" battles. Roman Legionnaires for instance were usually also equipped with javelins, which they hurled at their enemies to cause casualties and inflict loss of cohesion before actual contact.

From what I recall, specifically, they would throw their pilum at relatively close range during the charge.

That varied from situation and pilum type.

Thanas wrote:That varied from situation and pilum type.

I think there were also some instances when they used pilums as melee weapons. The Romans was a very stabby army (literally, they emphasized stabbing as opposed to slashing); and my point about the Javelins was to show that even they knew that it was also handy to have a ranged option despite the melee focus.

Also, Thanas, question: Can you confirm this - did the Romans really use siege artillery regularly to soften up enemy formations before battle?

Zinegata wrote:

Thanas wrote:That varied from situation and pilum type.

I think there were also some instances when they used pilums as melee weapons. The Romans was a very stabby army (literally, they emphasized stabbing as opposed to slashing); and my point about the Javelins was to show that even they knew that it was also handy to have a ranged option despite the melee focus.

Yeah, that is correct. The pilum can be used as a melee weapon, it is just not a very good one. Only use I can remember is vs cavalry and when the enemy bullrushed the Roman line.

Also, Thanas, question: Can you confirm this - did the Romans really use siege artillery regularly to soften up enemy formations before battle?

That depends on the time period. Generally, they would do so in the Imperial period.

But Siege artillery is a bit of a misnomer. The really huge siege engines would not come into play (I can maybe see a use for them against really massed enemies, but otherwise huge stone boulders are not that good) but the ballistae or scorpions would come into play. So far, we got archeological evidence of them being the main weapons used there.

A huge problem we run into is that the latin terms do not distinguish between the size of the forces used. Thus, Onager may mean anything from the small 2-3 men weapon to the huge 12 men siege weapon.

Ah, so they had lighter "tactical" engines that required only a few men to operate for battles (which may have been lost in translation since latin does not distinguish between big or small siege engines). Thanks, that clears it up nicely.

If you are interested in how the Romans fought, there is a rather good visual representation in the "Conquest" series. With a bit of salt, it is a tv show, after all - but (to me) it comes really close. Battle would be at ~18 minute mark

LaCroix wrote:If you are interested in how the Romans fought, there is a rather good visual representation in the "Conquest" series. With a bit of salt, it is a tv show, after all - but (to me) it comes really close. Battle would be at ~18 minute mark

I find that series to be grossly unhistorical. Take note of their episode regarding the late Roman army.

Moreover, there is nothing in that clip that could help us understand how a real melee battle would have worked. Not only is there a lack of enough actors to depict such battles, there is also a lack of killing intent among both parties.

How will people react when you asked them to charge at a wall of spears? Even the bravest of men will not charge a wall of spears without some element of caution.

Run out of edit time.


There are people that argue in favour of the depiction we see in HBO's Rome. There are numerous problems with this depiction of course, such as the whole concept of changing ranks while fighting was never really mentioned in any of our source.




The whole issue with most depiction is while it might look nice and sensible to many of us who never experience what it is like to be a melee battle, it might not be realistic at all to the people who fought in such battles.

It's the same issue with Hollywood depicting gun fights. Such depiction is meant to look nice, not showing us how realistic iti s.