10-11-2011, 02:21 PM
I have a number of questions and comments on your excellent presentation of your theory Bryan.
First, let me sum up how I understand it, so that you may correct me if I did not get something right. I will call the units arrayed in front “the front line” to easier describe what I understood. I will make some initial remarks and questions after each point, in my next post I will try to present/refute sources. –Now that I am posting this, I see that some of my points were covered by posts of other members, so excuse me if some questions seem to have been asked again- So, in your opinion :
1. Your model is trying to cover and simulate Roman battle formations from at least the Polybian times to at least the times of Julius Caesar.
2. In your model, the first Roman line that fights against the enemy formation is arrayed with sizable gaps. These gaps are usually the width of a maniple (some 20 yards?) in the case of maniples or wider (?) in the case of later cohorts. An exception regarding width but not placement could be Cannae, as Polybius states, another exception regarding placement but not width would be Zama, again according to Polybius.
-Please check your refs. I tried to find them and I was unfortunately unable to. You may have mixed some up. About the ones I did find, Livy, at that point, describes an older formation with undetermined “small” gaps among the companies. He has his Triarii fill in the gaps and attack, unfortunately, he does not comment on the role of the gaps in the attacks of the other lines or whether they did attack with gaps. One could assume that since he has the Triarii explicitly close up the gaps, he infers that the other lines did not or (the other side) that closing up the gaps was a norm, so that explicitly stating it every time would be redundant. I admit I do not read Latin, so I might be missing something in the original text. Polybius descriptions merit much more analysis, especially as to what exactly the original Greek text says as opposed to the translation, so I will refrain from that for now, I would just recommend rechecking the refs and posting the correct ones (I assume that the ones you gave were Pol 6.9, Pol 7.9 and Pol 3.113 ? (you wrote “6:9,7-9 & 3:113 among others”)).
3. Posterior centuries were arrayed, as their name implies in the back ranks and did not play any particular role in your system other than filling the back ranks of the maniple/cohort.
-You mention the right – left centurions described by Polybius, do you assume that the “left” centurion would be the one in charge of the posterior century? If so, would he be posted, as Polybius suggests on the left of the maniple (the actual words Polybius uses for maniples are simaia,speira and taxis, Greek for subunits of the maniple size common in all Greek armies, he actually also calls them cohorts (11.23.1), the only Roman term he uses for them.). Do you place both centurions in the first rank or the left centurion in the first rank of his century, that is the middle rank of the maniple?
4. The gaps were covered by the units of the second line (that would be the Principes in the case of the Polybian era) which would be arrayed only a few yards away from the rear ranks of the first units (I deduced that from your illustration but you did state that they were off scale so I might be wrong here) and/or sometimes by Velites, as as the case at Zama. This is why the gaps should be as wide as the units behind them.
-So, would the second line be arrayed very close to the first or not? How far do you think should it be posted in order for it to actually do actively and efficiently cover the flanks of the first line units? If a unit of the first line was forced to retreat, would the units of the second line in its rear keep their relative positions to it by also retreating? What if that retreat made it lose its preferred distance with the other unit it was supposed to cover? What would happen if a unit drove the enemy back? Would it press on getting inside the line of the enemy? Again would the support unit on the rear follow? How important would you consider keeping an even front with the same line units on your left and right would be? In the case of Caesarian cohorts, wouldn’t the gaps between them would also be as wide as a cohort, which would be quite wide, especially if you place the men in open order, or do you suggest a different placement/density?
5. During the initial charge, the first line would charge the enemy, throw their pila and then charge into the melee. If things did not go well, the line would orderly retreat while at the same time, the second line would attack as the first did before through the gaps of the first line. From your metaphor with the pistons I assume that you think that this might happen repeatedly until the end of the battle.
- Who would give the command for the second line to attack? Would that attack be coordinated or made by single units “as situation demanded”? What would happen if certain units were hard pressed while others were actually victorious, would all be “relieved” or just the ones suffering?
6. I guess that the attack of the second line would facilitate the first line to disengage and reorganize, since the enemy would be reluctant to follow.
-Wouldn’t that mean that the enemy against whom the units of the line fought would also reorganize and take a breath, since the enemy fighting against the Romans would now also disengage and those who just also covered the gaps were engaged?
7. Should the enemy utilize missiles or attack the unshielded flank of the unit, the unit would turn and present face to the enemy.
-Wouldn’t that beat the whole purpose of a unit relying on maneuverability (practically the ability to easily retire and reengage)? Files forced to change face would make the unit more static and would potentially cause disorder (or don’t you agree that a formation facing to multiple directions cannot be as maneuverable and manageable as one facing a single direction?). How would the centurions or other first-rank soldiers on the corner of the first rank defend against 2 or more enemies attacking them simultaneously with no one to protect their personal flanks, especially if we assume that Polybius description of the Roman line fighting in open order (actually “extra” open order, since Pol’s 9 feet for each man is 50% more than the usual 6 feet of open order and 200% more than normal close order of 3 feet) is correct? Does such an order agree with your system? (it seems that Polybius makes some math mistakes when describing the space men occupy in line in chapter 18, his mathematical ability is sadly not in par with his ability as a historian… his critique of Callisthenes is another testament to that.).
8. The enemies of Rome did use recorded countermeasures.
- What were these? Did you find any mention as to anyone somehow exploiting the manipular system as you or anyone else imagines it looked? Do we have any information/advice/stratagem addressing any of the theoretical and practical problems of such a formation?
9. Do you know ancient Greek or Latin? This is an honest question, I always think of reading at the primary sources in their original as very important and I want to know if you can better help me understand the Latin texts (I do not know Latin so I also have to read from the English translations) while understanding what I will be saying about the Greek texts (I know ancient Greek).
- for example, if I told you that there were mentions of Polybius in those same texts explicitly stating that the Romans fought “phallangidon”, like a phalanx, but that is generally not translated in such a manner in the translations, which are usually made by scholars who have little interest in battle mechanics so they try to make an embellished, easy to read work for everyone and do not even understand what difference it makes when translating various military terms in proper English, would that make you see the same texts with another eye?
Thanks in advance, I will now start compiling examples from explicit sources.
First, let me sum up how I understand it, so that you may correct me if I did not get something right. I will call the units arrayed in front “the front line” to easier describe what I understood. I will make some initial remarks and questions after each point, in my next post I will try to present/refute sources. –Now that I am posting this, I see that some of my points were covered by posts of other members, so excuse me if some questions seem to have been asked again- So, in your opinion :
1. Your model is trying to cover and simulate Roman battle formations from at least the Polybian times to at least the times of Julius Caesar.
2. In your model, the first Roman line that fights against the enemy formation is arrayed with sizable gaps. These gaps are usually the width of a maniple (some 20 yards?) in the case of maniples or wider (?) in the case of later cohorts. An exception regarding width but not placement could be Cannae, as Polybius states, another exception regarding placement but not width would be Zama, again according to Polybius.
-Please check your refs. I tried to find them and I was unfortunately unable to. You may have mixed some up. About the ones I did find, Livy, at that point, describes an older formation with undetermined “small” gaps among the companies. He has his Triarii fill in the gaps and attack, unfortunately, he does not comment on the role of the gaps in the attacks of the other lines or whether they did attack with gaps. One could assume that since he has the Triarii explicitly close up the gaps, he infers that the other lines did not or (the other side) that closing up the gaps was a norm, so that explicitly stating it every time would be redundant. I admit I do not read Latin, so I might be missing something in the original text. Polybius descriptions merit much more analysis, especially as to what exactly the original Greek text says as opposed to the translation, so I will refrain from that for now, I would just recommend rechecking the refs and posting the correct ones (I assume that the ones you gave were Pol 6.9, Pol 7.9 and Pol 3.113 ? (you wrote “6:9,7-9 & 3:113 among others”)).
3. Posterior centuries were arrayed, as their name implies in the back ranks and did not play any particular role in your system other than filling the back ranks of the maniple/cohort.
-You mention the right – left centurions described by Polybius, do you assume that the “left” centurion would be the one in charge of the posterior century? If so, would he be posted, as Polybius suggests on the left of the maniple (the actual words Polybius uses for maniples are simaia,speira and taxis, Greek for subunits of the maniple size common in all Greek armies, he actually also calls them cohorts (11.23.1), the only Roman term he uses for them.). Do you place both centurions in the first rank or the left centurion in the first rank of his century, that is the middle rank of the maniple?
4. The gaps were covered by the units of the second line (that would be the Principes in the case of the Polybian era) which would be arrayed only a few yards away from the rear ranks of the first units (I deduced that from your illustration but you did state that they were off scale so I might be wrong here) and/or sometimes by Velites, as as the case at Zama. This is why the gaps should be as wide as the units behind them.
-So, would the second line be arrayed very close to the first or not? How far do you think should it be posted in order for it to actually do actively and efficiently cover the flanks of the first line units? If a unit of the first line was forced to retreat, would the units of the second line in its rear keep their relative positions to it by also retreating? What if that retreat made it lose its preferred distance with the other unit it was supposed to cover? What would happen if a unit drove the enemy back? Would it press on getting inside the line of the enemy? Again would the support unit on the rear follow? How important would you consider keeping an even front with the same line units on your left and right would be? In the case of Caesarian cohorts, wouldn’t the gaps between them would also be as wide as a cohort, which would be quite wide, especially if you place the men in open order, or do you suggest a different placement/density?
5. During the initial charge, the first line would charge the enemy, throw their pila and then charge into the melee. If things did not go well, the line would orderly retreat while at the same time, the second line would attack as the first did before through the gaps of the first line. From your metaphor with the pistons I assume that you think that this might happen repeatedly until the end of the battle.
- Who would give the command for the second line to attack? Would that attack be coordinated or made by single units “as situation demanded”? What would happen if certain units were hard pressed while others were actually victorious, would all be “relieved” or just the ones suffering?
6. I guess that the attack of the second line would facilitate the first line to disengage and reorganize, since the enemy would be reluctant to follow.
-Wouldn’t that mean that the enemy against whom the units of the line fought would also reorganize and take a breath, since the enemy fighting against the Romans would now also disengage and those who just also covered the gaps were engaged?
7. Should the enemy utilize missiles or attack the unshielded flank of the unit, the unit would turn and present face to the enemy.
-Wouldn’t that beat the whole purpose of a unit relying on maneuverability (practically the ability to easily retire and reengage)? Files forced to change face would make the unit more static and would potentially cause disorder (or don’t you agree that a formation facing to multiple directions cannot be as maneuverable and manageable as one facing a single direction?). How would the centurions or other first-rank soldiers on the corner of the first rank defend against 2 or more enemies attacking them simultaneously with no one to protect their personal flanks, especially if we assume that Polybius description of the Roman line fighting in open order (actually “extra” open order, since Pol’s 9 feet for each man is 50% more than the usual 6 feet of open order and 200% more than normal close order of 3 feet) is correct? Does such an order agree with your system? (it seems that Polybius makes some math mistakes when describing the space men occupy in line in chapter 18, his mathematical ability is sadly not in par with his ability as a historian… his critique of Callisthenes is another testament to that.).
8. The enemies of Rome did use recorded countermeasures.
- What were these? Did you find any mention as to anyone somehow exploiting the manipular system as you or anyone else imagines it looked? Do we have any information/advice/stratagem addressing any of the theoretical and practical problems of such a formation?
9. Do you know ancient Greek or Latin? This is an honest question, I always think of reading at the primary sources in their original as very important and I want to know if you can better help me understand the Latin texts (I do not know Latin so I also have to read from the English translations) while understanding what I will be saying about the Greek texts (I know ancient Greek).
- for example, if I told you that there were mentions of Polybius in those same texts explicitly stating that the Romans fought “phallangidon”, like a phalanx, but that is generally not translated in such a manner in the translations, which are usually made by scholars who have little interest in battle mechanics so they try to make an embellished, easy to read work for everyone and do not even understand what difference it makes when translating various military terms in proper English, would that make you see the same texts with another eye?
Thanks in advance, I will now start compiling examples from explicit sources.
