Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

ROMAN ARMY - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "CLOSE FORMATION"?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 6th October 2011

  Hi All
  
  I assume that there are a number of people of military understanding on this board.
  
  I am researching Boudica's Final Battle and was wondering about the description of the Battle site as given by Tacitus.
  
  He states that the Romans were in close formation and were in valley with a wood behind them. It has been been stated that there were around 10,000 Roman troops.
  
  Is close formation 3foot for each soldier?
  
  
  If the numbers of legionaries were 7,000 (5,000 fron the Fourteenth and 2,000 from the Twentieth), there were 2,000 Auxilliaries, 1000 Cavalry and a few archers and if there were standard battle lines how wide would the valley be to accommodate them?
  
  Also in your opinion would a man of Seutonius Paulinus extensive experience placed his army in a valley where he could be trapped?
  
  Kind Regards - TA

  Link to this forum: ROMAN ARMY - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "CLOSE FORMATION"?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 6th October 2011

  Good question, I am not a military chap and don't know how 'close' close order is, Roman style, but they must have formed very closely, ie shoulder-to-shoulder- in a wedge shape along the lines- so as to not allow any penetration by attacking Celts. So presumably this might be so close - like at Hastings later- where the besieged English shieldwall dead "could not fall"?
  
  I have never been happy totally with this- why did Boudica, with such huge numbers (even allowing for Roman over-estimation), could she not have sen several thousand warriors- always great at ambush via woodlands, etc- around the back and sides of the heavily outnumbered Roman position through the woods to outflank Paulinus? At least try?

  Link to this forum: ROMAN ARMY - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "CLOSE FORMATION"?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 6th October 2011

  A battle like this would be very much about "pushing power" instead of firepower: The physical collision between blocks of men, with each side hoping to break and scatter the other, making isolated soldiers far more vulnerable than they are in formation. Or, alternatively, compress the other formation hard enough that the men would be crushed together so much that they literally could not breathe.
  
  Paulinus must have had numerous deployment options even within the standard Roman three-row checkerboard pattern. Besides the spacing of the men in a centuria, there were the depth and width of the centuria, the size of the gaps in between them, the distance between the lines, and the space allocated to auxiliaries in front and on the wings. Presumably he adapted his formation to the width of the chosen battlefield. His goal in selecting it would be to avoid being outflanked by a more numerous enemy.
  
  With his flanks protected by the terrain, his concern must then have been that his lines would be pushed back or even broken through. Thus "close formation" may also have been a deep formation, with rows of men in the back providing physical mass to resist a charge, and relieving the tired men in the front.
  
  He must have held back some reserve to deal with enemies infiltrating through the woods, but he probably would not have worried too much about them. While such infiltrators could take a certain toll of casualties, they would not have the momentum to succesfully charge his rear; and slings and bows are unwieldy weapons in a dense forest.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: ROMAN ARMY - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "CLOSE FORMATION"?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 6th October 2011

  It's not so much the actual firepower from the woods behind the Romans (or lack of), but the sheer psychological effect upon the opposing force's ability to function/focus when suddenly presented with the enemy to the rear, even if tactically it is not threatening?
  
  Examples I'm thinking of were;
  
  Hastings- the effect upon the Normans when the word spread that 'William had fallen'?
  
  Agincourt- the effect of emergency upon the English when word of their baggage train in the rear was being raided by the French? It actually wasn't in huge numbers, but the effect galvanised the English, fearful of a battle on two fronts?

  Link to this forum: ROMAN ARMY - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "CLOSE FORMATION"?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 7th October 2011

  ta
  
  try the aa board - good thread on this battle

  Link to this forum: ROMAN ARMY - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "CLOSE FORMATION"?

  Report message5

Back to top