+- 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: Functionality of the triplex acies (/showthread.php?tid=18607)
Pages:
1
2
Functionality of the triplex acies - louisxyz - 03-27-2011
Hi i was just wondering whether the triplex acies, quincunx formation of pre-Marian legions, (i.e where there were gaps between the maniples allowing the lines to retreat through each other) was actually used in close order fighting. I might be being really stupid here, but surely the gaps in the line would be ineffective in combat and the enemy could exploit them, But then again if they weren't used, how could the hastati and princepes retreat behind each other?? I would appreciate some enlightenment on the pre marian- combat formations in general!
gratias ago
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Forty-One - 03-27-2011
It seems likely that the gaps were in fact part of the battle line when in contact with the enemy. It might be of interest to you to first read through this thread. Especially pay attention to the post near the bottom that mentions "Military treatise".
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - M. Demetrius - 03-27-2011
Penetrating between two maniples in the front ranks would make your own flanks vulnerable to the men in the second, third, fourth row of the maniples...much like a hammer and anvil, it would be unwise to go too far down that corridor, lest the men turn and you find yourself fighting from at least two directions.
The spacing is not the same thing as breaking a line altogether. And there were two other ranks in a triple acies formation, so you couldn't wander around with impunity. Maniples were mobile and could be moved independantly, which is why they could defeat phalanx-type formations.
Of course this answer presumes I understand your question....
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Sean Manning - 03-27-2011
The two main problems are that Greco-Roman sources don't describe battle mechanics in much detail, and the late Republican/early Imperial Roman way of fighting was so unusual that there are few parallels (the main killing weapon was a sword instead of a spear!) So its perilous to accept or reject theories based on practicality (Polybius would be outraged that we are even trying, since we have no practical experience!).
If there were gaps between maniples, enemies would have to break their own line to exploit them. And one of the maniples behind (either from the same acies or the next one back) could counterattack an enemy moving forward into the gap. The evidence suggests that once in close combat most ancient troops were usually pretty cautious, because being aggressive could get them killed in a second.
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Matthew Amt - 03-27-2011
Are we really seeing these formations properly? People keep talking about the maniples in this checkerboard formation as if they are solid blocks, nearly equal in length and width. That figures if you're talking about a century that is 10 files wide by 8 ranks deep, but do we know they actually deployed that deep? Actually, since Republican centuries were more like 60 men (not counting velites) rather than 80, you're down to 6 men deep. But wouldn't a 4 man depth be more likely, or even 3? Particularly if that's only the first of 3 battle lines.
About these "killing pockets", if the enemy enters the gap between units, doesn't the whole Roman line have to come to a halt to engage them? The legionaries on the flanks of the lead units would have to face left or right and could no longer continue forwards. Plus they are no longer fighting the enemy to their front. It sounds like this is the perfect way to get all your front line units outflanked! Sure, you can move the second line units up to plug the gaps, but why risk all the men in the flanks of your front line units to do that? Why not just have a solid line from the start?
In a solid line, a man's main concern is the man to his front. Sure, danger can come from any angle, but all your opponents also have to worry about the men in front of them! With a checkerboard, every man at a corner suddenly has to worry about several other opponents, facing an empty gap with no other targets in range. So he'll get 3 or 4 or 5 spears or javelins or swords coming after him, possibly on his unshielded side. Will the second-line units close in soon enough to save him? Or will all the corners be nibbled off as enemies ooze around?
There were certainly times when formations were used that focused attention on one point in a line, or multiple separated points. But the idea of actually engaging in a checkerboard just bothers me.
Valete,
Matthew
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Sardaukar - 04-05-2011
Hard to say. I think they were used more as gaps allowing units to move more swiftly over uneven ground and that gaps in line closed when they engaged.
Getting your formation to bunch up too much when advancing will throw the formation into disarray and can even make it combat-ineffective. So quincunx formation might have actually been just a tool to move unit effectively and quickly into combat.
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - rrgg - 04-05-2011
I seem to recall it claimed somewhere that charging deep into enemy formation such as through the gaps in the Roman quincunx would have made it too difficult for troops to break off as they became tired, meaning that in most instances the enemy would have been too hesitant to exploit the gap in the first place.
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - frozenlamp - 04-06-2011
I side with Demetrius in that a small pocket of men, if they did choose to push in between the gaps, (keep in mind the gaps were not enormous gaping holes,) would essentially be surrounded and cut down relatively quickly. Where I could see the gaps being an issue, would be with less disciplined troops who would be prone to giving way under pressure from the sides, and this could end up splitting a maniple from the line and ultimately isolating it. This scenario does seem quite unlikely however, given the sheer discipline of the manipular, almost exclusively Italian, legions.
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Matthew Amt - 04-06-2011
Surrounded by whom? Only by men from the units on either side, who would have to turn their sides or backs to enemies already to their front in order to attack men at their sides. And why couldn't it be the troops pushing into those gaps shredding the Romans between them? It is very clear that Republican armies were NOT always highly disciplined!
I'm also a little dubious about the whole idea of the gaps making it easier to maneuver over rough ground. In my experience, marching shoulder-to-shoulder makes it pretty simple to keep the ranks decent, even if the line as a whole gets some curves to it. But it is much harder to maintain a regular gap between units, especially when the gap is as large as a whole unit. As units advance they will tend to drift left and right, making some gaps too small for the rear units to move into, and others too large for them to cover. Confusion!
Why is it that so many tactics seem to be focused on breaking a gap in an enemy line, yet we are so convinced that the Romans used a line with ready-made gaps all along it?
Matthew
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Sean Manning - 04-06-2011
Quote: Why is it that so many tactics seem to be focused on breaking a gap in an enemy line, yet we are so convinced that the Romans used a line with ready-made gaps all along it?I know this is a rhetorical question, but I can't resist.
Matthew
Its been a while since I've read the ancient sources, but I think you have to twist them to make any of the 'continuous line' theories work. A line with 20 yards of legionaries, 20 yards open, 20 years of legionaries (one maniple in ten files), and so on does seem less practical (and harder to find parallels to), but that's a dangerous argument. After all, actual loricae segmentatae were usually impractically thin by our standards; the Greeks resisted word spacings and punctuation for a long time; and many Greek commanders made decisions they knew were unwise because their diviners told them so. Blindly following the texts without practical experience has its own risks, but they still are the best evidence we have.
One theory I've seen is that maniples started out at two cubits per file with a gap between maniples, but expanded to four cubits per file as they approached the enemy, and that this filled the gap. But you would still get the problem of individual maniples slipping towards a neighbour as the line advanced.
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Matthew Amt - 04-06-2011
Oh, believe me, I'm usually among the first to try to give ancient literature as much credit as possible! And I always warn people that we may know a lot less than we think about what actually went on, man to man, on an ancient battlefield. So if the Romans insist that they did it that way, okay, but I'm just completely not getting what possible advantage they gain!
Okay, so assuming a checkerboard of maniples that manages to make it in some semblance of order up to the enemy line: if the enemy is in a disciplined linear formation (such as a phalanx), and they hold that formation as the lines collide, half of them will be fighting the front-line maniples while the rest stare into the gaps. And the Romans in the second-line maniples stare back at them. Is anyone even close enough to chuck a javelin? Or do they just wave? If the enemy is an undisciplined force (I'm not assuming howling barbarian mob, just not trained professionals!), wouldn't they tend to fill in the gaps? Some folks call this a "killing pocket", but as I already said, that might work both ways. In the end, I think all you have accomplished is the Roman line effectively becomes continuous, just in a squarish zig-zag, with the enemy line exactly matching it. At that point it's much harder for either side to advance or pull back to rest.
I'm hardly an expert on combat formations or crowd dynamics, and I realize that there are many different possible scenarios for any formation. But these gaps just bother me!
Matthew
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - M. Demetrius - 04-07-2011
The triplex acies, well documented as to its use, but not necessarily the details of where each person was placed, must have had "functionality" or they would not have used it for all those centuries of time. How they managed it, and how it was moved around, as Matt and others have said, is simply not known.
If only they hadn't kept the last remaining copy of the Drill Manual on wax tablets in Herculaneum that summer in 79. Sigh.:?
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Matthew Amt - 04-07-2011
But triplex acies does not necessarily imply the quincunx, does it? You can have three battle lines without gaps, I mean.
Matthew
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - Macedon II - 04-07-2011
Hi, people.. For some reason I cannot log in with my normal account (Macedon) and when I ask for a new password no mail is sent to my mail, so I would appreciate it if an admin fixed this (pretty, pretty please???
)Regarding the triple acies system, I have to side with Matthew. I have not seen proof, nay even evidence, in the ancient sources that the Romans FOUGHT in such an order. The existence of small gaps in the line WHILE fighting, much smaller and way less than these presumed in the checkerboard formation are well documented in the Byzantine military manuals, where the infantry line can have 1-2 or 3 such small gaps which are covered by ranks of lighter troops and their existence facilitates the passing of troops (cavalry, skirmishers, menavlatoi...). They can in no way serve as an analogy to what the proponents of the checkerboard formation propose. On the contrary we have many descriptions of the Roman battleline WHILE FIGHTING, which talk about an uninterrupted line and none (apart from marching order) that has the Roman fight in this rather too peculiar way.
I do not have time now to expand or give examples, but I will do so later on, hopefully from my normal account.
Re: Functionality of the triplex acies - rrgg - 04-07-2011
As long as they are guarded by the rear ranks it doesn't seem like gaps would be a disadvantage. At the very worst the two lines would mirror each other wouldn't they?
I suppose a slightly more pessimistic possibility is that the 'checkerboard' has no real advantage compared to the line formation however the first Roman general to try it won his battle and erroneously concluded that it did.