08-03-2004, 07:02 PM
Hi all<br>
In the old question of the gaps, we should think, why those gaps?<br>
1) To allow units to march and deploy without getting intermingked and disorganized<br>
2) To allow units in the front line (skirmishers, and routed units) to retreat through those gaps without disorganizing the units in the second line<br>
Those functions are clearly showed in other armies and times, nothing particular to the Roman army. the thing particular to it is the supposed big size of those gaps. I think that size equal to the manipulus is a misunderstanding. As we know that the units in the second line at some point could replace those in the first line, then the gaps should be wide enough to allow the manipulus in the second line to pass. However, it is clear from other armies and periods that units can pass thorugh other units in open order, with small disruption. So, IMO there were gaps, yes, but they were much smaller, functional gaps to serve 1 and 2 <p></p><i></i>
In the old question of the gaps, we should think, why those gaps?<br>
1) To allow units to march and deploy without getting intermingked and disorganized<br>
2) To allow units in the front line (skirmishers, and routed units) to retreat through those gaps without disorganizing the units in the second line<br>
Those functions are clearly showed in other armies and times, nothing particular to the Roman army. the thing particular to it is the supposed big size of those gaps. I think that size equal to the manipulus is a misunderstanding. As we know that the units in the second line at some point could replace those in the first line, then the gaps should be wide enough to allow the manipulus in the second line to pass. However, it is clear from other armies and periods that units can pass thorugh other units in open order, with small disruption. So, IMO there were gaps, yes, but they were much smaller, functional gaps to serve 1 and 2 <p></p><i></i>
