Why the Echelon? Part # of a on going series of stuff Raz doesn't get

[Slargos]

While rare, threads like these certainly show that Languish is not only good for "Poll: ZOMG, when was the last time U shaved ur ballz!"  ;D

Thumbs up, gentlemen.

[Malthus]

The real genius of premodern warfare was the ability to concoct plans in advance which would enable your army to achieve superiority at the critical point of the battle, without you the general personally directing matters once the battle begins (because you won't be able to, much).

I get the impression that simply getting all of your men in the right place to have a battle and all facing in more or less the right direction was so difficult that only the very best generals were able to concieve of any more complex tactical plans.

[Berkut]

The real genius of premodern warfare was the ability to concoct plans in advance which would enable your army to achieve superiority at the critical point of the battle, without you the general personally directing matters once the battle begins (because you won't be able to, much).

I get the impression that simply getting all of your men in the right place to have a battle and all facing in more or less the right direction was so difficult that only the very best generals were able to concieve of any more complex tactical plans.

No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy. -- Nelson

[grumbler]

It should be noted, though, that the echelon attack was more often used when outnumbered, in cases where a normal battle would result in the smaller force being outflanked (because a larger army would line up in a larger formation) and thus surely lose.  Only Frederick, that I am aware of, used it as a preferred tactic.  It was risky, because if the enemy could hold off the strong portion of one's line long enough, the rest of one's force would surely be beaten and the biter would be bitten.

There were cases in the Greeks wars where both sides would attack in echelon and the entire battle swing like a gate, though.  IIRC, there was also an ECW battle (or was it War of the Roses?) that went like that - the two armies ended the battle facing in exactly the oposite direction fom where they started.

[Syt]

I get the impression that simply getting all of your men in the right place to have a battle and all facing in more or less the right direction was so difficult

In ye olden days it might take days or even longer till everyone was at the right place. Funnelling your troops along the few available roads at a near constant pace without traffic jams was a major undertaking in and off itself (and continued to be so till modern times - see Schlieffen Plan) and is something that is often neglected in wargaming.

[Malthus]

One of the things I found interesting about Marlborogh's battles is the ways he was able to manipulate the enemy into temporarily concentrating his forces, carefully husband his own reserves, and achieve a local superiority where the enemy was weakest.

The problem with all such plans, of course, is that they all tend to demand that some part of your army potentially face a greatly superior enemy at least for a time. It seems that the secret of the echelon attack is that the "greatly superior enemy" is only going to face your weaker troops if your leading "punch" fails to knock the enemy out (that is, cause an infectious rout).

The case of Marlborough at Blenheim was exactly the opposite - Marlborough used inferior numbers to tempt the French into over-stregthening the fortified villages on the flanks, and saved the knockout blow until the enemy had committed its reserves.

[Berkut]

I would like to point out that my entire first post was mostly pulled straight out of my ass.

[KRonn]

It should be noted, though, that the echelon attack was more often used when outnumbered, in cases where a normal battle would result in the smaller force being outflanked (because a larger army would line up in a larger formation) and thus surely lose.  Only Frederick, that I am aware of, used it as a preferred tactic.  It was risky, because if the enemy could hold off the strong portion of one's line long enough, the rest of one's force would surely be beaten and the biter would be bitten.

There were cases in the Greeks wars where both sides would attack in echelon and the entire battle swing like a gate, though.  IIRC, there was also an ECW battle (or was it War of the Roses?) that went like that - the two armies ended the battle facing in exactly the oposite direction fom where they started.

Good point. Moving thousands of troops, equipment, supplies. All strung out along roads, paths, or even worse if no good trails/roads available. That all is heavy duty itself, just trying to get troops to the battle in time, supplied and equipped. Moving modern units with the many tons of vehicles, supplies, fuel, equipment is maybe even a worse chore in logistics to get done properly.

[Ed Anger]

Sparta.  :'(

[Syt]

I would like to point out that my entire first post was mostly pulled straight out of my ass.

I like to do that when people ask me stuff about history (as they sometimes do at work).

[Malthus]

I get the impression that simply getting all of your men in the right place to have a battle and all facing in more or less the right direction was so difficult

In ye olden days it might take days or even longer till everyone was at the right place. Funnelling your troops along the few available roads at a near constant pace without traffic jams was a major undertaking in and off itself (and continued to be so till modern times - see Schlieffen Plan) and is something that is often neglected in wargaming.

Very true - also, only some places were "suitable" for large-scale battles. I read somewhere that in ancient times at least in some cases battles were fought more or less by pre-arrangement.

Another thing that is usually not modelled all that well is the fact that armies generally could only stay concentrated for a short time unless they were supplied by boats or by friendly relations with the locals - otherwise, they needed to scatter to forage. There was simply no way to carry large amounts of food over land without well-built roads, like the Roman roads - except of course for steppe nomads, whose food and mounts could be one and the same; and even they needed grazing.

[grumbler]

Very true - also, only some places were "suitable" for large-scale battles. I read somewhere that in ancient times at least in some cases battles were fought more or less by pre-arrangement. 

True, but this was most often the case when armies were fighting thir "civilized" foes 9ie foes from their same culture).

Another thing that is usually not modelled all that well is the fact that armies generally could only stay concentrated for a short time unless they were supplied by boats or by friendly relations with the locals - otherwise, they needed to scatter to forage. There was simply no way to carry large amounts of food over land without well-built roads, like the Roman roads - except of course for steppe nomads, whose food and mounts could be one and the same; and even they needed grazing.

Many ancient armies were quite capable of arranging a supply train; Persian armies didn't live off the land, nor did Romans or Chinese.  But you are corect that most armies of the ancient and medieval period were formed for short periods, to fight a specific battle rather than a campaign.  The men were expected to bring X number of days worth of food with them to the muster, and the battle would be fought before that time ran out, or the army would disperse to gather food.

It was something of a surprise to the ancien regime armies when the French Revolutionary armies reverted to this tactic, and the fact that they had to do so forced many French offensives, because the french could not afford to keep their armies on French soil, eating food stolen from french farmers.  The justification the French used for plundering their foes (and neutrals) was that they needed to "make war pay for war" as they couldn't do it themselves.

[Octavian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation

use google.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Echelon+formation

[Malthus]

Many ancient armies were quite capable of arranging a supply train; Persian armies didn't live off the land, nor did Romans or Chinese.  But you are corect that most armies of the ancient and medieval period were formed for short periods, to fight a specific battle rather than a campaign.  The men were expected to bring X number of days worth of food with them to the muster, and the battle would be fought before that time ran out, or the army would disperse to gather food.

It was something of a surprise to the ancien regime armies when the French Revolutionary armies reverted to this tactic, and the fact that they had to do so forced many French offensives, because the french could not afford to keep their armies on French soil, eating food stolen from french farmers.  The justification the French used for plundering their foes (and neutrals) was that they needed to "make war pay for war" as they couldn't do it themselves.

Well, the Romans of course built their excellent roads for that purpose; but how did a premodern supply train "work" off-road, when draught animals tended to eat their own loads in ten days or so?

[Neil]

The real genius of premodern warfare was the ability to concoct plans in advance which would enable your army to achieve superiority at the critical point of the battle, without you the general personally directing matters once the battle begins (because you won't be able to, much).

I get the impression that simply getting all of your men in the right place to have a battle and all facing in more or less the right direction was so difficult that only the very best generals were able to concieve of any more complex tactical plans.

Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.