Okay, I know what Echelon formation is but I don't understand exactly why it's successful or why it's used. Especially in ancient warfare. I'm sure some people here understand it and I would be grateful of they explained to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation
use google.
Quote from: gnikiV on March 13, 2009, 04:52:03 AM
use google.
:yes:
Using youtube gives less useful results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEXAsgUqrCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEXAsgUqrCc)
Ya see. I used wikipedia but I still don't really understand. That's why I asked here.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2009, 05:17:22 AM
Ya see. I used wikipedia but I still don't really understand. That's why I asked here.
"An echelon formation is a military formation in which members are arranged diagonally"
Refer back to original post. If you don't know, don't post anything here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F89%2FBattle_of_Leuctra%252C_371_BC_-_Decisive_action.gif&hash=f4768ac8628521f6be424956029a4f0d20ddae8c)
See how each of the hoplite squares to the right is is slightly behind. This is an example of an echelon.
He's asking why/how its useful, not what it is.
Man I thought I was dumb.
The use of the formation may assist in the avoidanace of being flanked, I guess.
try it in RTW ;)
Btw, what answers do you expect? It all depended on tactical situation, battlefield characteristics, personnel employed, etc.
I guess there were many battles when it wasn't scuccessful at all.
The echelon can be used to move the center of mass, as at Leuctra, so that one part of the battle line will engage (with greater force) while refusing the rest of the line. When met with a conventially aligned force, this allows the attacker to bring superior numbers to the point of contact.
It can also be used to perform a series of attacks either in a small area or along the line, with the initial attacks forcing (hopefully) the defender to commit reserves, and the latter attacks meeting less resistance. Apparantly, Lee's plan of attack on the 2nd day of Gettyburgh was an echelon from Right to Left.
To elaborate on the wiki info, one use for it was to heavily weight one flank to crush an enemy flank, while other formations were in echelon behind the main push, to refuse battle but keep enemy units occupied along the line. The wiki gave the example of that Thebes vs Sparta battle posted here. I was wondering why it would be used too, but that gives what I'd think is a good reason for the formation.
In modern warfare one use is for units providing covering fields of fire to each other, perhaps easier by being in echelon rather than in a straight line, in order to cover other unit's flanks and rear. That's what I understood from the wiki, and it makes sense.
Raz, the echelon was used to overwhelm a portion of the enemy' line with the strongest part of your army, while leaving the weakest part of your army to engage last, thus limiting the time your weakers troops had to hold off the enemy. Ideally, the stong portion of your army overwhelms the enemy at one end of the line, and strarts to roll the enemy up with flank attacks, before the weaker part of your army is itself overwhelmed and the enemy does the same to you.
Because you have troops facing all of the enemy's troops, the enemy cannot weaken his line to reinforce where your strong usits are (your troops would attack any gaps) and so you get to emphasize your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses.
This tactic was only useful in linear warfare (ancients, musteman era, and the like) because if the enemy's troops are maneuverable, reserves will be posted and they can reinforce the line where you are attacking in strength.
In the time of linear battles, there was a tendency for the center to draw in flanking forces - basically, think of the center as having some "gravity" that tends, as the engagement progresses, to draw units in as it compacts.
An echelon formation is an effort to both
A) Counter the tendency for your own formation to contract towards the center, and
B) Take advantage of the contraction towards the center of the enemies units, by creating a temporal spacing of your own engagement.
Ideally, as your left (for example) engages the enemy right, the enemies left will tend to fall to the right, and as they contract, your own left slams into the line against a now compromised formation.
Basically, it is an effort to maintain your own cohesion through time by controlling the commitment of your own forces. Battles in this time are often largely uncontrolled once units engage - therefore, a plan that can be executed without continued input from commanders is desirable. The echelon attack is implementable, since it does not rely on any particular instruction once the engagement starts, yet still tries to maintain some cohesion a bit longer through measured commitment.
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
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
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
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.
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.
I would like to point out that my entire first post was mostly pulled straight out of my ass.
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2009, 08:53:39 AM
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.
Quote from: gnikiV on March 13, 2009, 05:48:20 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F89%2FBattle_of_Leuctra%252C_371_BC_-_Decisive_action.gif&hash=f4768ac8628521f6be424956029a4f0d20ddae8c)
Sparta. :'(
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2009, 09:15:33 AM
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).
Quote from: Syt on March 13, 2009, 09:12:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 09:23:02 AM
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).
QuoteAnother 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.
Quote from: gnikiV on March 13, 2009, 04:52:03 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation
use google.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Echelon+formation
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2009, 09:33:12 AM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 09:51:54 AM
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?
Depots, forage, and, of course, herds of animals brought along for slaughter to reduce the grain requirements.
Bringing sufficient wine/beer was often the most difficult of the supply issues! :D
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 09:51:54 AM
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?
Depots, forage, and, of course, herds of animals brought along for slaughter to reduce the grain requirements.
Bringing sufficient wine/beer was often the most difficult of the supply issues! :D
Well, depots and herds certainly; but both methods were pretty limited. Depots only worked where you already had control of the territory and herds have to graze or they will die - that and forage require scattering, at least to an extent.
I also read that a conquering army could, if the commander was clever, arrange for those anxious about losing to sell or provide supplies - Alexander certainly did that.
Another thing I read was that wine/beer wasn't just a luxury, but a necessity - mixing some with the water decreased the chances of disease. Dunno if that is actually true or not, but certainly disease was always a big factor with premodern armies.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 10:35:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2009, 09:51:54 AM
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?
Depots, forage, and, of course, herds of animals brought along for slaughter to reduce the grain requirements.
Bringing sufficient wine/beer was often the most difficult of the supply issues! :D
Well, depots and herds certainly; but both methods were pretty limited. Depots only worked where you already had control of the territory and herds have to graze or they will die - that and forage require scattering, at least to an extent.
I also read that a conquering army could, if the commander was clever, arrange for those anxious about losing to sell or provide supplies - Alexander certainly did that.
Another thing I read was that wine/beer wasn't just a luxury, but a necessity - mixing some with the water decreased the chances of disease. Dunno if that is actually true or not, but certainly disease was always a big factor with premodern armies.
It is true that "contributions" (to use the French Revolutionary phrase) were certainly imposed on losing cities and whatnot.
What isn't true is that armies in the ancient and medieval period would disperse to forage, like the French did in the revWar and early Napoleonic periods. If one did that, odds are that the troops could never again be re-assembled. The command and control wasn't good enough for that.
And, yes, it was known that driniking alcohol was healthier than drinking water, though no one knew why. Disease was such a big issue that sieges, for instance, often boiled down to which army was being devasted by disease the least. The Romans were one of the few premodern armies that had the concept of camp sanitation, and even they suffered horribly from disease.
See, I knew that some people here were smart enough to answer! Thanks.