08-23-2019, 04:24 PM
Nathan wrote:
Advancing over any distance in full battlefield formation (the acies quadratum) would be very difficult, then.
Are you certain they did advance “in full battlefield formation?” If I take a number of small blocks, I can make many and varying geometrical shapes. I find when I change my outlook, the world looks different.
This line is interesting “so that the dressed line runs with level front, or it be desired to sunder the battle into two several parts, so that the army's right may hold the left and its left the right.” When describing Scipio’s manoeuvres at Ilipa, Polybius (11 22-24) seems to be saying the same thing: “For the cavalry and velites on the right wing came into line on the right and tried to outflank the enemy, while the heavy infantry came into line on the left; but on the left wing the heavy infantry came into line by the right, the cavalry and velites by the left. The result of this movement was that, as far as the cavalry and light infantry were concerned, their right became their left.”
Nathan wrote:
In most cases it would quite obvious to any commander which direction the enemy was attacking from, taking into consideration possibilities of outflanking. No need, surely, to assume a formation facing in all four directions - that way, three quarters of your fighting strength would be rendered useless against the main attack?
Polybius does not say that. A Roman army on the march has to be able to respond to an attack from any direction, whether it is either the right flank, left flank, van and rear. All I have seen interpreted by modern historians is an attack threatening the right flank, while the Roman army is marching in three columns, with the hastati on the right, the princeps in the centre and the triarii on the left of the princeps. When the right flank is attacked, the army is in triple acies with the hastati the first line. Investigating all four directions of attack should be a given by any historian. It opens up new avenues.
Advancing over any distance in full battlefield formation (the acies quadratum) would be very difficult, then.
Are you certain they did advance “in full battlefield formation?” If I take a number of small blocks, I can make many and varying geometrical shapes. I find when I change my outlook, the world looks different.
This line is interesting “so that the dressed line runs with level front, or it be desired to sunder the battle into two several parts, so that the army's right may hold the left and its left the right.” When describing Scipio’s manoeuvres at Ilipa, Polybius (11 22-24) seems to be saying the same thing: “For the cavalry and velites on the right wing came into line on the right and tried to outflank the enemy, while the heavy infantry came into line on the left; but on the left wing the heavy infantry came into line by the right, the cavalry and velites by the left. The result of this movement was that, as far as the cavalry and light infantry were concerned, their right became their left.”
Nathan wrote:
In most cases it would quite obvious to any commander which direction the enemy was attacking from, taking into consideration possibilities of outflanking. No need, surely, to assume a formation facing in all four directions - that way, three quarters of your fighting strength would be rendered useless against the main attack?
Polybius does not say that. A Roman army on the march has to be able to respond to an attack from any direction, whether it is either the right flank, left flank, van and rear. All I have seen interpreted by modern historians is an attack threatening the right flank, while the Roman army is marching in three columns, with the hastati on the right, the princeps in the centre and the triarii on the left of the princeps. When the right flank is attacked, the army is in triple acies with the hastati the first line. Investigating all four directions of attack should be a given by any historian. It opens up new avenues.
