07-16-2014, 10:27 AM
Quote:.........................
Let me provide another source:
"Each company is a platoon"
Sir David Dundas, The Principles of Military Movements, 1788, which became the manual for British infantry drill................
I cannot easily find that quote - but I can find this quote from the same source:
"Each company or division forms 2 platoons" - p57 (just after the section break)
I'd also note that it's difficult to perform 'platoon fire' if you don't have any - let alone it seems sensible to query the drawing detail of platoon fire given that intermediate platoon details could make a lot more possible sense. And I note that it seems I'm not allowed to provide a additional source in support of what I understood to be the case.......
As you interestingly pointed out, Polybius doesn't mention centuries, only centurions within maniples. So, you are similarly arguing that century's didn't exist?
As to the rest of your personal attack - I can be wrong, happily wrong - it's part of learning. But taking a point of view is not wrong, or right, it's just a point of view and I am entitled, indeed I should be expected to, to defend it. Or are you suggesting that you are right and there is no discussion? That's the worst form of intolerance.
Anachronism:
"In historical writing, the most common type of anachronism is the adoption of the political, social or cultural concerns and assumptions of one era to interpret or evaluate the events and actions of another."
Certainly, from my seemingly so limited (such I believe I should infer), point of view - I haven't touched upon 'political', 'social' or 'cultural' concerns or assumptions once ever in my querying of certain beliefs expressed in the basic tactical and drill movements likely on the battlefield - they've only come up in side discussions.
Universal education over the last century has changed the dynamic for most 'soldiers', but I think you'll find that thinking of soldiers (and farmer militia) as essentially the same type of 'man' for the entire period of military history up until the end of the 19th century is far more likely than any imagined 'difference(s)'. Absolutely when talking about basic military movements and drills.
As to what promoted this in the first place - I suggested (and yes, of course I tried to justify that suggestion) that a centurion might not have spent all his time in the front rank. I 'suggested' a possibility - and get vilified for it? Is that acceptable here?
I don't think any view expressed here should be treated so. Is it any wonder I might feel defensive about that. If, however, I have sometimes replied in a way that may seem intemperate, then I certainly apologize for that. But I have a right to defend against an attack.
