11-11-2008, 01:15 AM
I feel they are as relevant as your own observations, and perhaps much, much more relevant.
The two instances in Livy are separate combats, not one. The same battle yes, but one describes action on the left, which Decius commanded, and one on the right, which Manlius commanded.
The distance between the echelons in the Roman army is also an issue but I don't feel we have any concrete data to say exactly how far the pricipes were behind the hastatii, and the triarii behind the princepes. What we can be pretty sure about though is that if the first and second echelons were formed up mutually supporting, as in a checkerboard formation, there simply is no way that the Latins could see the third line from ground level.
In order for it to have been determined that the ascensi who were coming forward (being mistaken for triarii), such identification would have had to have been from a height advantage or position elsewhere than in front, and then identification distances become quite important.
With regard to battle accounts of this period, I tend to have the same view as Delbruck and his comments on the 4th century, "All of the battle of the fourth century are accounts of pure fantasy, without any validity in their details". They must all be taken with a good shot of one's favorite libation, and a heavy dose of good old common sense.
If you wish to feel that the acensci were equipped exactly like the triarii, go right ahead. You cannot prove that they were, and quite frankly, no one can say with certainty that they were not.
But again, to dismiss sighting as irrelevant to the discussion would be to ignore the very foundation of what you are taking as fact.
My opinion - they were light infantry.
The two instances in Livy are separate combats, not one. The same battle yes, but one describes action on the left, which Decius commanded, and one on the right, which Manlius commanded.
Quote:They moved forward to battle in the formation I have already described, Manlius in command of the right division, Decius of the left.
The distance between the echelons in the Roman army is also an issue but I don't feel we have any concrete data to say exactly how far the pricipes were behind the hastatii, and the triarii behind the princepes. What we can be pretty sure about though is that if the first and second echelons were formed up mutually supporting, as in a checkerboard formation, there simply is no way that the Latins could see the third line from ground level.
In order for it to have been determined that the ascensi who were coming forward (being mistaken for triarii), such identification would have had to have been from a height advantage or position elsewhere than in front, and then identification distances become quite important.
With regard to battle accounts of this period, I tend to have the same view as Delbruck and his comments on the 4th century, "All of the battle of the fourth century are accounts of pure fantasy, without any validity in their details". They must all be taken with a good shot of one's favorite libation, and a heavy dose of good old common sense.
If you wish to feel that the acensci were equipped exactly like the triarii, go right ahead. You cannot prove that they were, and quite frankly, no one can say with certainty that they were not.
But again, to dismiss sighting as irrelevant to the discussion would be to ignore the very foundation of what you are taking as fact.
My opinion - they were light infantry.
Gregory
****************************
I love the name of honor, more than I fear death.
****************************
I love the name of honor, more than I fear death.
