+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Praetorian Camp (/showthread.php?tid=20560)
Praetorian Camp - Longovicium - 03-26-2012
Can any here give me any idea what Ammianus Marcellinus means when he mentions the 'Praetorian Camp' formation at the battle of Argentoratum? He specifically describes a reserve legion - the Primani, I believe - as halting the sudden charge of the Allemani nobles who have broken through the front line of the Cornuti and Brachiati. This legion is deployed in what Ammianus describes as a 'castra praetoria' formation. Now given that the later legions were smaller (1,000 to 1,200 has been suggested), I wonder what this formation was and also how it fitted into a larger second or reserve line? I ask because I am writing a fictional battle in this period and am using this formation but want to know if anyone has any idea what it actually looked like in deployment. Any ideas would be appreciated! Thanks.
The relevant section is Ammianus Book XVI,12, 49.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Mark Hygate - 03-26-2012
Thinking logically and keeping it simple (that often being the most likely solution), I would like to suggest that this is nothing more complicated than the age-old (which is here appropriate) idea of the infantry 'forming square'.
The "castra praetoria" referred to would be interpreted as the 'camp around the praetorium' ie looking like a 'normal' Roman marching camp, probably of playing-card shape if the unit is organised and deployed as I think it was.
I believe the later Roman Field Army Legio's were simply the classic 'vexillatio' of the cohort-pairing commanded by a Tribune on detachment made formal and consisted of 6 maniple (pair of centuries as before) sub-units, or still perhaps 12 centuries anyway. Formed 8-deep to receive a massed cavalry charge, they would deploy with one maniple facing and two on each side, with the final one closing. Or, as an alternative, two facing with one on each side. It could be bigger, of course, if only 4-deep.
All that compares well with 4- & 8-deep formations that the Romans had practised for hundreds of years in legion formations and would appear as a defensive marching-camp, with defence all round, bristling with spear-points and throwing sharp-nasties at the cavalry, probably with more archers inside as is probable at that time (and definitely appeared later in Byzantine armies).
Hangers on and generals/staff would be nice and tucked up inside - occupying the 'praetoria' position. That's M2CW.
Edit - sorry, didn't answer your second part...
Roman armies classically deployed in 2 lines and a reserve from the Republican times; in this time period and from my own reading this would seem to be the same; with the Auxilia Palatia forming the 1st line (in line with earlier practice as well), often as 'shock troops' or the 'assault troops' in later Byzantine texts, with the Legio's Palatina/Comitatenses forming the 2nd line. Cavalry Vexillatios and possibly, if it was me, some additional Auxilia Palatina, would form the reserve.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Longovicium - 03-27-2012
Thanks for the reply there, Mark. I did wonder about the 'camp' terminology and how that perhaps related to military deployment. The problem I have with the 'square' hypothesis is in regard to two issues: namely - the defensive square while in marching order with the impedimenta, etc in the middle is known as the agmen quadratum and that may also allude to its deployment while static, there being practcially no difference - but more importantly, I can't see a second 'reserve' line legion (the Primani) in square while a main battle is raging against the front-line auxilia palatini. It just doesn't seem to make sense from a tactical point of view as there was no need for it. Julian knew where the Allemani were coming from and surely a second reserve line would be needed to plug instantly any gap that might apear in the front ranks - as indeed happened.
I wonder if instead it was a 'defensive' line around the headquarters staff itself? In other words, the Primani legion formed the centre (perhaps in a fortified line) with Julian's main general staff in the centre/rear? Perhaps the castra praetoria is not a square formation but a formation designated to defend the 'praetorium' as it were?
You are right about the legion structure (as far as we know) in this period. This also makes the idea of a single legion forming a square dangerously thin, I think. The rear rankers of the rear-facing section would also be very vulnerable to missile-fire (a feature of late Roman warfare Ammianus is often at pains to highlight!). If we posit a legion with 6 maniples/12 centuries - then you would be looking at only 2 maniples for the rear 'wall' of the campus. Perhaps no more than 400 theoretical rankers deployed either 4 or 8 deep. As the Primani legion would not be the only reserve unit in the second line, again I wonder if a 'square' formation is the best formation?
But I take your point about over-complicating things! I wonder if there is any other reference by Roman writers about this formation named by Ammianus?
Re: Praetorian Camp - Robert Vermaat - 03-27-2012
Quote:Can any here give me any idea what Ammianus Marcellinus means when he mentions the 'Praetorian Camp' formation at the battle of Argentoratum?The only thing I can think of is a deployment to the rear, not a specific formation. It might be the same thing as the probole formations, which we encounter around the same time - a massed group of infantry, usually a reserve or an 'anchor' used to rally the cavalry. Anyway, it's Ammianus, so look out for archaising terminology.
Btw Mark, as an aside, the infantry was not 8 men deep 'to receive a massed cavalry charge'. It was a standard formation against anything, massed enemy infantry mostly. Most cavalry did not charge btw.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Renatus - 03-27-2012
It may be helpful to consider how Ammianus describes this formation as operating. In the Penguin translation, this appears as follows:
"With their men behind them they burst upon our line and forced their way as far as the legion of the Primani, which was stationed at the centre of our position, in the formation which is known as 'praetorian camp'. Here our troops were drawn up in close formation and in several ranks. They stood as firm as towers and renewed the battle with increased spirit. Taking care to avoid being wounded and covering themselves like gladiators, they plunged their swords into the barbarians' sides, which their wild rage left exposed."
At first sight, the formation seemed to me to be, possibly, a phalanx. Then I thought that a phalanx was more likely to have been armed with spears, rather than swords. My second thought was that the description of the combat was reminiscent of the sort of formation that we tend to associate with the Republic or early Empire. Such a formation, no longer being standard in Ammianus' day, would justify having a specific title. I do not know whether a spatha could be wielded as readily as a gladius in that type of combat but, perhaps, this is where Vegetius' semi-spatha could come in.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Mark Hygate - 03-27-2012
Quote:.....
Btw Mark, as an aside, the infantry was not 8 men deep 'to receive a massed cavalry charge'. It was a standard formation against anything, massed enemy infantry mostly. Most cavalry did not charge btw.
Thanks Robert,
I was particularly thinking of Arrian's OOB when writing, I must admit, but troops can and did form up in any of those lovely multiples of 2. Most commonly I would expect a century to form up 4 deep, but that can be easily doubled to 8 either by bringing up a 'rear century', or doubling the files and moving one up alongside (the old manipular classic); the Byzantines then appearing to prefer 16, but that often seems because they seem to 'hark back to the ancients' a lot and seem to describe older Greek organisations and are thinking of longer spears, let alone believing themselves to have forgotten all about infantry organising along the way (their own statements cf Maurice).
As a note, I've found 'phalanx' a lot in my recent reading overall and believe it could be applied to almost any single, regularly formed, line of 'heavy' infantry formation, whether armed with spears or not.
And, whilst most cavalry initially skirmished throughout the period, once infantry have broken then the effect of cavalry riding amongst them hasn't changed in 3000 years, leaning down with javelins held firmly, or using the, often, longer cavalry sword, or even with longer spears, is when cavalry can cause the most damage. It's why my mind leaped to considering a form of 'square' or 'all round defence' immediately. From such a defensive formation, which could shelter other troops or commanders, then the fight could be renewed. The late 18th century Napoleonic armies certainly didn't invent the idea, but it remained perfectly effective.
All in all, and thinking logically about the apparent tactical situation, where the front line had already been pierced, a legion ('small' one in this case and deployed behind the pair of Auxilia Palatina that have just been "pierced") initially forms up defensively so that they don't suffer the same fate and then strikes back. Classic Roman stuff.
The defensive formation on the march was indeed similar, but had to allow movement - and in one direction. The essential nature of the 'square/oblong' is that it will have no gaps to exploit and would represent defence all-round. Hence my interpretation of the 'camp' similarity.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Robert Vermaat - 03-27-2012
Quote: At first sight, the formation seemed to me to be, possibly, a phalanx. Then I thought that a phalanx was more likely to have been armed with spears, rather than swords.The description is correct for a Late Roman shield wall or fulcum (nor the testudo-like version of the fulcum). The formations closed armed with the lances, it was recommended that the front rank threw the spears ‘like javelins’ and used the sword in close contact. The 2nd-4th ranks subsequently used the lances over the heads of their comrades in front, while those behind launched missiles overhead.
Quote: My second thought was that the description of the combat was reminiscent of the sort of formation that we tend to associate with the Republic or early Empire. Such a formation, no longer being standard in Ammianus' day, would justify have a specific title. I do not know whether a spatha could be wielded as readily as a gladius in that type of combat but, perhaps, this is where Vegetius' semi-spatha could come in.I doubt that the formation would be anything like the ones of the Principate. The use of the spatha would be like that of the gladius, but the formations would be much more dense to use it that way.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Robert Vermaat - 03-27-2012
Hi Mark,
[quote] [quote="Robert Vermaat" post=309743].....
Btw Mark, as an aside, the infantry was not 8 men deep 'to receive a massed cavalry charge'. It was a standard formation against anything, massed enemy infantry mostly. Most cavalry did not charge btw.[/quote]
I was particularly thinking of Arrian's OOB when writing, I must admit, but troops can and did form up in any of those lovely multiples of 2. Most commonly I would expect a century to form up 4 deep, but that can be easily doubled to 8 either by bringing up a 'rear century', or doubling the files and moving one up alongside (the old manipular classic);[/quote] Indeed. The system of 4-8-16 was completely standard and was used throughout Roman military history (as described by Wheeler). I would expect 8 deep to be the norm, from which you can halve the depth to double to line or increase the density.
[quote] the Byzantines then appearing to prefer 16, but that often seems because they seem to 'hark back to the ancients' a lot and seem to describe older Greek organisations and are thinking of longer spears, let alone believing themselves to have forgotten all about infantry organising along the way (their own statements cf Maurice).[/quote/] I don’t agree with that. Maurikios does not ‘hark back to the ancients’, that Vegetius. The army of the 6th c. is a direct development/continuation of the army of the 4th/5th c. No descriptions of ancient Greek formations there, they describe and use tactics that are straight from the handbooks of the Roman army.
[quote="Mark Hygate" post=309765]As a note, I've found 'phalanx' a lot in my recent reading overall and believe it could be applied to almost any single, regularly formed, line of 'heavy' infantry formation, whether armed with spears or not.[/quote/] Indeed. It’s a generic term that can also mean shield wall, testudo or anything in a single continued line with a lot of spears.
[quote="Mark Hygate" post=309765] All in all, and thinking logically about the apparent tactical situation, where the front line had already been pierced, a legion ('small' one in this case and deployed behind the pair of Auxilia Palatina that have just been "pierced") initially forms up defensively so that they don't suffer the same fate and then strikes back. Classic Roman stuff.[/quote] The Roman army had two lines, the second one being the reserve. Single reserve units exited, but further back (at Argentorate they repulse the German cavalry on the right flank). I don’t think that the Primani were deployed in some ‘block’ formation, but inside the second line, together with other units to their left and right.
[quote] The defensive formation on the march was indeed similar, but had to allow movement - and in one direction. The essential nature of the 'square/oblong' is that it will have no gaps to exploit and would represent defence all-round. Hence my interpretation of the 'camp' similarity.[/quote]I can see what you were thinking. But the (late) Roman army marched 4 to 8 abreast (contubernium) and moved from the marching column into a frontline in a flowing movement, unit after unit I think. This was what they were doing at Adrianople when the cavalry attacked out of turn, was repulsed and driven back into the still-forming infantry. I suspect that the reserve line had not formed even at this point.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Longovicium - 03-27-2012
Thanks for all the replies so far. Am I right in thinking then that there is no other reference to this 'formation' other than the one written by Ammianus? It is a tantalising reference as clearly Ammianus states that it is known in his own time and refers to a specific formation distinct from others.
Re: Praetorian Camp - Renatus - 03-27-2012
Quote:The description is correct for a Late Roman shield wall or fulcum (nor the testudo-like version of the fulcum). The formations closed armed with the lances, it was recommended that the front rank threw the spears ‘like javelins’ and used the sword in close contact. The 2nd-4th ranks subsequently used the lances over the heads of their comrades in front, while those behind launched missiles overhead.Authority?
Quote:I doubt that the formation would be anything like the ones of the Principate. The use of the spatha would be like that of the gladius, but the formations would be much more dense to use it that way.I don't see the logic of this. If there was space enough for the swords to protrude between the shields, the tactic would be effective.