Battle Studies

êlée employed by the ancients was many times stronger than the idea

ursuit it was possible to plunge into the midst of the fugitives, but in combat every one had too much need for the next man, for his neighbor,

n conquered. Their shallow ranks, penetrated by the enemy, would have had to fight two agains

hat mutual weariness which brings about, with tacit accord, falling back

be possible

other? Can you conceive two mixed masses of men or groups, where every one occupied in front can be struck with impunity from the side or from behin

have seen on both sides demonstra

ng; the imagination of painters'

what h

or fencing and mutual aid. Quite often, the moral impulse, that resolution to go to the end, manifested it

sured themselves of the position of their supports, their neighbors in the same line, their comrades in the second, and collected themselves together in order to be more the masters of their movements to strike and parry. There was a contact of man with man; each took the adversary in front of him and attacked him, because by penetrating into the ranks before having struck him down, he risked being wounded in the side by lo

irst encounter was rarely decisive, and the fen

brought his big iron sword swooping down with fury upon the top of the Roman shield, split it and went after the man. The Romans, already hesitating before the moral impulse of the Gauls, their ferocious yells, their nudeness, an indication of a contempt for wounds, fell then in

nearly tenfold by the possible relay of eight ranks of the maniple. The maniples were self-renewing. Whereas with the Gauls the duration of the combat was limited to the

able to do so only by making the foe fall back before his blows, by killing or wounding. He has thereby raised his courage and that of his neighbor. He knows, he sees where he is marching; whilst the adversary overtaken as a consequence of the retreat or the fall of the troops that were flanking him, is surprised. He sees himself exposed on the flank. He falls back on a line with the rank in rear in

light spreads from the last ranks to the first. The first, closely engaged, has been held to the fight in th

eturn to

about their support. The fight took place along the line of contact of the first ranks of the army, a straight line, broken, curved, and bent in different directions according to the various chances of the action at such or such a point, but always

al or soldier, the effort of each one was to keep up the continuity of support all

there was, if the combat was serious, penetration of one mass into the other,

cause it was the one in which the individual valor and dexterity of the combatant h

re pikes and

Openings in the phalanx might be occasioned by marching, by the terrain, by the thousand accidents of struggle, by the individual assault of brave men, by the wounded on the ground creeping under the high held pikes and cutting at the legs of the front rank. Men in the phalanx could scarcely see and even the first two lines hardly had a free position for striking. The

n itself and breaks to escape danger. If, then, the enemy fled before the phalanx there was no mêlée. If he gave way tactically before it and availing h

r a long time, if the one did not take the other in flank or in rear by a detached body of troops. In all ancient combat,

ancient conflicts, demoralization

e was decisive in ancient combat. The light infantry of both sides took to flight,

zations, neither of which breaks before such reciprocal action. Such action was seen on the Tecinus and at Cannae, engagements cited merely b

. And if ever they met, the encounter was so weakened by the hands of the men, the rearing of the horses, the swinging of heads, that it was a face to face stop. Some blows were exchanged with the sword or the lance, but the equilibrium was too unstable, mutual support too uncertain for real sword play. Man felt himself too isolated. The moral pressure was too strong. Althoug

ry. The cavalry harassed with its arrows, with the lanc

using the horse, pursuant to his natural inclination and sane reasoning, could do as much damage as possible while risking the least possible. To riders without stirrups or saddle, for whom the throwing of the javelin was a difficult matter (Xenophon), combat was but

ed down. When two ancient cavalry forces wanted really to fight, were forced to it, they fought on foot (Note the Tecinus, Cannae, examples of Livy). I find but little real fighting on horseback in all antiquity like that of Alexand

hat they were invulnerable: it was not sufficient to throw them down; it was necessary to kill when once they were on the ground. They knew, however, that their fighting

he vanquished was taken, he was not massacred, because chivalry had established a fraternity

on horseback, on the bridge of a vessel, at the moment of danger, the same man is always found. An