this scene isnt that accurate at all really
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
firstly romans nearly always charged; for them to stay stationary when receiving an attack was almost unheard of
secondly that rotation system simply didnt exist; no reference whatsoever to it in primary sources
>>70161374
>secondly that rotation system simply didnt exist; no reference whatsoever to it in primary sources
Polybius mentions it, actually, but you're correct in that after the institution of the Marian system it's not mentioned again in any source we have.
Also the Gauls' costumes are like something out of a bad fantasy show, they look like Thracians
>>70161744
>>70161846
>my phalanx when
>>70161374
Were you there? No. Then there is no fucking way you can possibly know that dipshit.
>>70161744
im not aware of any such statement but i may be mistaken
>"It has been suggested that, during a long combat, fresh men from the rear ranks of a Roman formation gradually advanced through the intervals between the men in front and replaced the tired soldiers fighting the enemy in the front rank...It is difficult to see how this replacement could have been accomplished whilst in physical contact with the enemy. None of our ancient sources refer to any process of this nature."
>>70161917
>Were you there? No. Then there is no fucking way you can possibly know that dipshit.
>no documentation exists and if it did it would not be relevant
>>70161374
>firstly romans nearly always charged; for them to stay stationary when receiving an attack was almost unheard of
That's not even true. In Gallic War by Caesar they receive the attack stationary plenty of times.
>secondly that rotation system simply didnt exist; no reference whatsoever to it in primary sources
I watched a documentary once on Boudica, and it said Romans employed rotation in the Battle of Watling Street. Can't find any sources for that tho.
>>70161374
>firstly romans nearly always charged; for them to stay stationary when receiving an attack was almost unheard of
This was at the battle of Alesia. The Romans had enclosed the city with a line of fortifications which was then besieged by another group of Gauls outside the lines. The final battle as depicted in the show was merely the Romans standing their ground and holding the line. It would have been unlikely to have been an ordinary battle scenario, the Romans had nothing to gain by aggressively attacking the Gallic relief force and everything to gain by continuing to hold the siege. After the relief force was repelled Vercingetorix came out of the city and surrendered since he knew no help would come and he would be starved into submission. The show should have definitely showed them lobbing pila though. Its primary purpose was to introduce you to Vorenus and Pullo and their respective personalities, i.e. strict and severe as opposed to slightly crazed, bloodlust and insubordinate. It's definitely one of the better depictions of an ancient battle in TV all the same.
>secondly that rotation system simply didnt exist; no reference whatsoever to it in primary sources
Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Shit like that was presumably so par the course that it doesn't even warrant mention by our primary sources, concerned as they were wider geopolitical concerns. Only a few sources even talk in depth about battle like Caesar, Ammianus Marcellinus and Arrian and even then it isn't in enough depth for shit like that to come up. The low amount of Romans casualties in big battles like this suggest that there must have been a way to withdraw tired frontline soldiers and replace them with fresh troops. These battles would go on for many hours.
>>70161969
Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence.
>>70162073
not exactly, you see the romans were always offensive, that was part of their strategy
so even in defensive situations, they would virtually always commence battle with a charge; for to receive a charge stationary was considered extremely risky in terms of morale
the battles were not continuous; theyd last hours with numerous lulls and breaks in the fighting. its during these lulls that troops would be rotated, not in the middle of melee combat in complicated close manouevers when the situation was at its most chaotic
>>70161889
PULLO!!
>>70162206
>not exactly, you see the romans were always offensive, that was part of their strategy
That's been greatly exaggerated. It's why their equipment quickly began changing from the 1st century AD towards oval scutum, longer spatha swords instead of the gladius, more elaborate helmets etc.
>they would virtually always commence battle with a charge
Sure, but not exclusively.
>>70161374
>firstly romans nearly always charged
They are at the base of the hill, why the fuck would they run up to meet them? Especially since the Gauls were plenty willing to come to them in the scene.
>secondly that rotation system simply didnt exist; no reference whatsoever to it in primary sources
We know that ideally the legions didn't dissolve into uncoordinated melees. And that the Romans stressed formations, and routine as much as possible. Even at their peril. The best way to do this is to keep your troops fresh and keep them fighting. You do this by keeping them uninjured and their exposure limited, as well as giving recovery. The guy at the front could go to the back and take a drink of Posca before having to shore up the wings or whatever.
It just seems stupendously logical, and we don't have a lot of information we'd like to have. Just because shit that we'd obviously like to have written down doesn't mean that they would have written it down. Further, it could have but due to the subsequent passage of time we've lost the archives.
>>70162115
George pls
>>70161917
jesus wept, anon really
>>70162392
He isn't wrong though. The Gaelic Wars never describes shit like whether or not latrines were dug, and if they were how and where. This is vital to US, not to THEM.
>>70162489
>Gaelic Wars
>>70162489
>>70162525
>Gaelic wars
>>70162297
wasnt referring to later period
>Sure, but not exclusively.
then were in agreement
>>70162310
>the hill
come on now
>the Gauls were plenty willing to come to them in the scene
more the reason to charge
in ancient warfare, as said before, receiving a charge whilst your men were stationary was thought of as extremely dangerous. very easy for the troops to break. much less so when theyre in the act of charging on mass
>You do this by keeping them uninjured and their exposure limited, as well as giving recovery
again as said previously; during the lulls in combat, not whilst directly engaged
>>70162648
>come on now
They are clearly coming down from a hill to attack them in the scene. Multiples shots show this.
>more the reason to charge
Wrong. You don't charge up a hill unless you absolutely must (to dislodge someone else). In this case it just appears to be disorganized fighters coming to meet the legion. They aren't being pelted at by arrows, or having stones thrown at them by sling. Thus, they have no reason to take the hill.
>again as said previously; during the lulls in combat, not whilst directly engaged
Nobody is arguing this with you. We're just saying that rotational combat was certainly in use, just not precisely as how it was displayed in that scene.
>>70162316
Who?
>>70161846
>they look like Thracians
Them's fightin' words.
