10-07-2011, 11:27 PM
Macedon wrote:
JC deployed 4 deep against Pompey, Pompey deployed 10 deep.
"Caesar, observing his former custom, had placed the tenth legion on the right, the ninth on the left, although it was very much weakened by the battles at Dyrrachium. He placed the eighth legion so close to the ninth, as to almost make one of the two, and ordered them to support one another. He drew up on the field eighty cohorts, making a total of twenty-two thousand men. He left two cohorts to guard the camp. He gave the command of the left wing to Antonius, of the right to P. Sulla, and of the center to Cn. Domitius: he himself took his post opposite Pompey. At the same time, fearing, from the disposition of the enemy which we have previously mentioned, lest his right wing might be surrounded by their numerous cavalry, he rapidly drafted a single cohort from each of the legions composing the third line, formed of them a fourth line, and opposed them to Pompey's cavalry, and, acquainting them with his wishes, admonished them that the success of that day depended on their courage. At the same time he ordered the third line, and the entire army not to charge without his command: that he would give the signal whenever he wished them to do so." De Bello Civili, 3:89
This is the extent that mentions how he formed at Pharsalus against Pompeius Magnus. So exactly where did you read Caesar was had only four ranks?
(Edit)
I just read the Frontinus source and see where you're coming from. Never heard about him before and will do some research but it still sounds fishy. Here's why:
Each unit/century/cohort/legion would have had different strengths. Some had been hit harder by fighting/disease/desertions over time than others. I don't see how they could have done it with an even 4 man deep solid formation. As evidence Caesar (or Hirtius) says this:
"He placed the eighth legion so close to the ninth, as to almost make one of the two,
and ordered them to support one another." De Bello Civili, 3:89
The 9th Legion was hit hard at Dyrrachium so Caesar had them reinforced not by pulling men from other units to beef them up but by putting them CLOSER to a legion with better strength (8th)
So maybe they couldn't muster many ranks. But others would have been able to.
BTW, This line also heavily implies that there was normally an interval/gap separating legions or at least their cohorts.
Thus proving that units weren't in one continuous line. And that Frontinius simplified it in his description. (Isn't he known for questionable sourcing?)
Macedon wrote:
Polybius and every other Greek writer never described the first line of the Romans as anything else than a continuous, virtually uninterrupted line.
"In front he placed the hastati with certain intervals between the maniples and behind them the principes, not placing their maniples, as is the usual Roman custom, opposite to the intervals separating those of the first line, but directly behind these latter at a certain distance owing to the large number of the enemy's elephants. 8 Last of all he placed the triarii. On his left wing he posted Gaius Laelius with the Italian horse, and on the right wing Massanissa with the whole of his Numidians. 9 The intervals of the first maniples he filled up with the cohorts of velites, ordering them to open the action, 10 and if they were forced back by the charge of the elephants to retire, those who had time to do so by the straight passages as far as the rear of the whole army, and those who were overtaken to right or left along the intervals between the lines." Polybius, 6:9,7-9, describing Zama
"He stationed the Roman cavalry close to the river on the right wing and the foot next to them in the same line, placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front." Polybius, 3:113, describing Cannae
I could keep going on, Polybius and Livy both make EXPLICIT references to gaps/intervals between units of each line but I am too exhausted search anymore. You need to actually read Polybius.
Macedon wrote:
The fact that the army now was subdivided in cohorts instead of maniples played little role in the battle itself.
"In the mean time, being informed that Thermus the praetor was in possession of Iguvium, with five cohorts, and was fortifying the town, but that the affections of all the inhabitants were very well inclined toward himself, he detached Curio with three cohorts, which he had at Ariminum and Pisaurus. Upon notice of his approach, Thermus, distrusting the affections of the townsmen, drew his cohorts out of it and made his escape; his soldiers deserted him on the road, and returned home. Curio recovered Iguvium, with the cheerful concurrence of all the inhabitants. Caesar, having received an account of this, and relying on the affections of the municipal towns, drafted all the cohorts of the thirteenth legion from the garrison, and set out for Auximum, a town into which Attius had brought his cohorts, and of which he had taken possession, and from which he had sent senators round about the country of Picenum, to raise new levies."
De Bello Civili, 1:12
Again I could keep listing them over and over again how Caesar gave orders for attacks to cohorts, meaning they are now the tactical instrument, but again I am tired. It seems to me legions were not administrative units similar to how division are in the US Army. So here is a link to an electronic copy of Caesar's commentaries.
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/pub...eComm.html
Go to this link, open one of the books, hit Control + F (find) and type "cohort'. Do the same for "line" and "century" Prepare to have your entire argument destroyed.
Macedon wrote:
Where did you come up with these numbers again? I do not doubt you but where does Plutarch describe a German army 500,000 men strong on the battlefield?
"For no sooner had word been brought to the people of the capture of Jugurtha than the reports about the Teutones and Cimbri fell upon their ears. What these reports said about the numbers and strength of the invading hosts was disbelieved at first, but afterwards it was found to be short of the truth. For three hundred thousand armed fighting men were advancing, and much larger hordes of women and children were said to accompany them, in quest of land to support so vast a multitude, and of cities in which to settle and live, just as the Gauls before them, as they learned, had wrested the best part of Italy from the Tyrrhenians and now occupied it." Plutarch, Life of Marius, 11:2
My bad, I meant 500,000 total. 300,000 warriors with another couple hundred thousand women and children.
Macedon wrote:
The sources seem to agree that 6-10 is normal, 4 is possible but rare (when an army is very experienced AND less in number than the enemy, in training (Vegetius) etc). Barbarian depths are very rarely attested but again, there is no reason to think that they deployed very deep. A unit 50 deep needs 2,500 men to be just 50 men (maybe 50 yards) wide. I know that this is a later source but Sextus Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum for example, describes the Danish (Viking) wedge as 10 ranks deep.
The time period I am referring to is the mid Republic (2nd Punic War), to 104-100 BC (Cimbri War), to the exploit of G. Julius Caesar in Gaul and the Civil War. And what sources detailing ROMAN formations in the mid to late Republic?
Macedon wrote:
I have still to see one example of how Polybius suggests that a fragmented phalanx was used by the Romans during combat.
If you look at my diagram that I made what I describe is not a fragmented phalanx or an articulated phalanx. It is maniples, then later cohorts, that are used as independent fighting blocks of men to strike wholes in other phalanxes. The front maniples and then later cohorts are used as wedges to break a line, they are supported by others behind them covering their gaps who can support them by attacking. Nothing fancy, about as simple as it can get, but to me it makes sense.
I have read till my eyes are blood shot and can't find ANYTHING that specifically tells how the Romans fought exactly. The more I read the more I realize that almost everything that many people assume about Romans was later created by other historic secondary sources based on the few primary ones from the ancient world. Don't get me wrong, Connolly, Goldsworthy, Momsen, brilliant dudes. But it doesn't mean everything they wrote was correct. The same sources they had access to we now have access to.
I used sources to defend my argument. Can you please do the same. Since this thread is about as off topic as it can get, please post your sources with a brief summary so this topic can just die off already.
Once again, we need to rename this thread. Can a moderator just copy everything since page 2 and post it into another thread topic? I am not doing it cause this argument is going nowhere fast.
JC deployed 4 deep against Pompey, Pompey deployed 10 deep.
"Caesar, observing his former custom, had placed the tenth legion on the right, the ninth on the left, although it was very much weakened by the battles at Dyrrachium. He placed the eighth legion so close to the ninth, as to almost make one of the two, and ordered them to support one another. He drew up on the field eighty cohorts, making a total of twenty-two thousand men. He left two cohorts to guard the camp. He gave the command of the left wing to Antonius, of the right to P. Sulla, and of the center to Cn. Domitius: he himself took his post opposite Pompey. At the same time, fearing, from the disposition of the enemy which we have previously mentioned, lest his right wing might be surrounded by their numerous cavalry, he rapidly drafted a single cohort from each of the legions composing the third line, formed of them a fourth line, and opposed them to Pompey's cavalry, and, acquainting them with his wishes, admonished them that the success of that day depended on their courage. At the same time he ordered the third line, and the entire army not to charge without his command: that he would give the signal whenever he wished them to do so." De Bello Civili, 3:89
This is the extent that mentions how he formed at Pharsalus against Pompeius Magnus. So exactly where did you read Caesar was had only four ranks?
(Edit)
I just read the Frontinus source and see where you're coming from. Never heard about him before and will do some research but it still sounds fishy. Here's why:
Each unit/century/cohort/legion would have had different strengths. Some had been hit harder by fighting/disease/desertions over time than others. I don't see how they could have done it with an even 4 man deep solid formation. As evidence Caesar (or Hirtius) says this:
"He placed the eighth legion so close to the ninth, as to almost make one of the two,
and ordered them to support one another." De Bello Civili, 3:89
The 9th Legion was hit hard at Dyrrachium so Caesar had them reinforced not by pulling men from other units to beef them up but by putting them CLOSER to a legion with better strength (8th)
So maybe they couldn't muster many ranks. But others would have been able to.
BTW, This line also heavily implies that there was normally an interval/gap separating legions or at least their cohorts.
Thus proving that units weren't in one continuous line. And that Frontinius simplified it in his description. (Isn't he known for questionable sourcing?)
Macedon wrote:
Polybius and every other Greek writer never described the first line of the Romans as anything else than a continuous, virtually uninterrupted line.
"In front he placed the hastati with certain intervals between the maniples and behind them the principes, not placing their maniples, as is the usual Roman custom, opposite to the intervals separating those of the first line, but directly behind these latter at a certain distance owing to the large number of the enemy's elephants. 8 Last of all he placed the triarii. On his left wing he posted Gaius Laelius with the Italian horse, and on the right wing Massanissa with the whole of his Numidians. 9 The intervals of the first maniples he filled up with the cohorts of velites, ordering them to open the action, 10 and if they were forced back by the charge of the elephants to retire, those who had time to do so by the straight passages as far as the rear of the whole army, and those who were overtaken to right or left along the intervals between the lines." Polybius, 6:9,7-9, describing Zama
"He stationed the Roman cavalry close to the river on the right wing and the foot next to them in the same line, placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front." Polybius, 3:113, describing Cannae
I could keep going on, Polybius and Livy both make EXPLICIT references to gaps/intervals between units of each line but I am too exhausted search anymore. You need to actually read Polybius.
Macedon wrote:
The fact that the army now was subdivided in cohorts instead of maniples played little role in the battle itself.
"In the mean time, being informed that Thermus the praetor was in possession of Iguvium, with five cohorts, and was fortifying the town, but that the affections of all the inhabitants were very well inclined toward himself, he detached Curio with three cohorts, which he had at Ariminum and Pisaurus. Upon notice of his approach, Thermus, distrusting the affections of the townsmen, drew his cohorts out of it and made his escape; his soldiers deserted him on the road, and returned home. Curio recovered Iguvium, with the cheerful concurrence of all the inhabitants. Caesar, having received an account of this, and relying on the affections of the municipal towns, drafted all the cohorts of the thirteenth legion from the garrison, and set out for Auximum, a town into which Attius had brought his cohorts, and of which he had taken possession, and from which he had sent senators round about the country of Picenum, to raise new levies."
De Bello Civili, 1:12
Again I could keep listing them over and over again how Caesar gave orders for attacks to cohorts, meaning they are now the tactical instrument, but again I am tired. It seems to me legions were not administrative units similar to how division are in the US Army. So here is a link to an electronic copy of Caesar's commentaries.
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/pub...eComm.html
Go to this link, open one of the books, hit Control + F (find) and type "cohort'. Do the same for "line" and "century" Prepare to have your entire argument destroyed.
Macedon wrote:
Where did you come up with these numbers again? I do not doubt you but where does Plutarch describe a German army 500,000 men strong on the battlefield?
"For no sooner had word been brought to the people of the capture of Jugurtha than the reports about the Teutones and Cimbri fell upon their ears. What these reports said about the numbers and strength of the invading hosts was disbelieved at first, but afterwards it was found to be short of the truth. For three hundred thousand armed fighting men were advancing, and much larger hordes of women and children were said to accompany them, in quest of land to support so vast a multitude, and of cities in which to settle and live, just as the Gauls before them, as they learned, had wrested the best part of Italy from the Tyrrhenians and now occupied it." Plutarch, Life of Marius, 11:2
My bad, I meant 500,000 total. 300,000 warriors with another couple hundred thousand women and children.
Macedon wrote:
The sources seem to agree that 6-10 is normal, 4 is possible but rare (when an army is very experienced AND less in number than the enemy, in training (Vegetius) etc). Barbarian depths are very rarely attested but again, there is no reason to think that they deployed very deep. A unit 50 deep needs 2,500 men to be just 50 men (maybe 50 yards) wide. I know that this is a later source but Sextus Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum for example, describes the Danish (Viking) wedge as 10 ranks deep.
The time period I am referring to is the mid Republic (2nd Punic War), to 104-100 BC (Cimbri War), to the exploit of G. Julius Caesar in Gaul and the Civil War. And what sources detailing ROMAN formations in the mid to late Republic?
Macedon wrote:
I have still to see one example of how Polybius suggests that a fragmented phalanx was used by the Romans during combat.
If you look at my diagram that I made what I describe is not a fragmented phalanx or an articulated phalanx. It is maniples, then later cohorts, that are used as independent fighting blocks of men to strike wholes in other phalanxes. The front maniples and then later cohorts are used as wedges to break a line, they are supported by others behind them covering their gaps who can support them by attacking. Nothing fancy, about as simple as it can get, but to me it makes sense.
I have read till my eyes are blood shot and can't find ANYTHING that specifically tells how the Romans fought exactly. The more I read the more I realize that almost everything that many people assume about Romans was later created by other historic secondary sources based on the few primary ones from the ancient world. Don't get me wrong, Connolly, Goldsworthy, Momsen, brilliant dudes. But it doesn't mean everything they wrote was correct. The same sources they had access to we now have access to.
I used sources to defend my argument. Can you please do the same. Since this thread is about as off topic as it can get, please post your sources with a brief summary so this topic can just die off already.
Once again, we need to rename this thread. Can a moderator just copy everything since page 2 and post it into another thread topic? I am not doing it cause this argument is going nowhere fast.
