05-22-2013, 08:18 AM
Note: - with 2+1 threads now containing the same posts - I'm not entirely sure which to use, but here goes. Perhaps a Mod can help?
Without having the actual drill manual we have to make assumptions and so I have tried to make the most logical ones I could - especially when I realised that the Romans really did use the 'pace' (the modern 2.5ft one, although using their foot (0.972 or 0.971 English)), although they counted in 'double-paces' (5ft) - because that's exactly how you successfully march around and deploy, as well as measure out the lovely simple camp of theirs.
Then, whilst I'll hint at modern terms, the Roman system was all about 'mutual support' (pairing, buddy-buddy system (rotating ranks)). If you are, as it seems obvious when considering the Early Greek (Hoplites) to Later Greek/Successor (Pike/Sarissa) to Romans and their shield design, to therefore reconstruct it then the only sensible choice is to consider the soldiers forming line by standing next to each other. Therefore that's the scale I used, whilst wanting to show each individual. So, when in line/'phalanx' the 20 men of the front rank of a full maniple occupy 50ft (same width as the longitudinal camp roads) and, without the gaps shown for clarity, a legion frontage is 500ft (1/10th of a Roman mile) - as it is for a cavalry unit (10 turma) (see below). Each 'man' is shown as a 'dot' 2.5ft between centres. A cavalry man is shown occupying twice the frontage, the depth is representative, but realistic. A 30-man turmae arranged 10x3 then occupies the same frontage as a maniple, which is the centuriae-turmae 'secret' - they occupy the same space on the battlefield, the same space in camp and the same barracks and that's why the basic sub-unit size is so fixed.
All the Roman manoeuvres we then read about in the sources (whilst it may well be worth reviewing some so I can defend those views) can then be detailed by simply considering moving the soldiers about as individuals or centuries.
Considering the soldiers (the close-order heavy infantry types) fighting at any distance from each other than shoulder-to-shoulder (turned slightly towards the enemy and therefore probably one-cubit apart indeed), makes no sense - that's how the Hoplites did it, the Pike Phalanx and then the Romans. The Romans, though, instead of taking the Spear to the extreme of the Pike, took the Shield to the maximum width - and then used it as the primary 'weapon', creating gaps through which to stab. At any further than one-pace between soldier-centres then gaps would open up - hence the choice.
The deployment picture is indeed done principally to show all the men in a sensible minimum width (in this case 3,000ft) for the army - the actual terrain would dictate the final result - my picture is simply 'idealised'.
Whilst mentioning 'Cantabrian' wasn't necessarily appropriate in this context, it was only to show that such a deployment wouldn't prevent those 'later' tactics either.
To your principle question, however, I'll come straight back and ask - given that the 3-line infantry model is well accepted, why do you think the cavalry wouldn't have been deployed similarly? The entire Consular Army organisation is an exercise in standard deployment, with inherent flexibility. Why do we accept that multiple-cavalry lines were used later and that they weren't used earlier?
For over 1,500 years the arms and armour of the ancient world didn't really change that much - so why would the tactical usage really change? They only changed in degree. The medieval period saw the extremes of armour (armoured plate) and firepower (longbow/cross-bow), but there was no appreciable tactical ®evolution until gunpowder came along. [This latter possibly deserves its own discussion elsewhere, but I also suspect it's been done before.
]
A digression, but applicable - but my premise is indeed that maniples/centuries and the cavalry troops were interchangeable and could be used similarly in the right circumstances (like the infantry retiring behind a cavalry screen) and thus the drawing. However, if the Hastati were to be replaced by the Principes, why not the lines of cavalry units?
Quote:In order to make any frontage calculations, we have to make certain assumptions as to what the "norm" was and of course always keep in mind that depths would be set according to circumstances, so no calculation can really be made the one true and undisputed truth that would be followed by all generals in all battles.
We need the intervals among soldiers, possible intervals within the battle-line and the assumed depths for both infantry and cavalry. These are the main variables assuming that the number of the men themselves will of course be a constant equal to their nominal strength. So, what are the values you used in your model?
Without having the actual drill manual we have to make assumptions and so I have tried to make the most logical ones I could - especially when I realised that the Romans really did use the 'pace' (the modern 2.5ft one, although using their foot (0.972 or 0.971 English)), although they counted in 'double-paces' (5ft) - because that's exactly how you successfully march around and deploy, as well as measure out the lovely simple camp of theirs.
Then, whilst I'll hint at modern terms, the Roman system was all about 'mutual support' (pairing, buddy-buddy system (rotating ranks)). If you are, as it seems obvious when considering the Early Greek (Hoplites) to Later Greek/Successor (Pike/Sarissa) to Romans and their shield design, to therefore reconstruct it then the only sensible choice is to consider the soldiers forming line by standing next to each other. Therefore that's the scale I used, whilst wanting to show each individual. So, when in line/'phalanx' the 20 men of the front rank of a full maniple occupy 50ft (same width as the longitudinal camp roads) and, without the gaps shown for clarity, a legion frontage is 500ft (1/10th of a Roman mile) - as it is for a cavalry unit (10 turma) (see below). Each 'man' is shown as a 'dot' 2.5ft between centres. A cavalry man is shown occupying twice the frontage, the depth is representative, but realistic. A 30-man turmae arranged 10x3 then occupies the same frontage as a maniple, which is the centuriae-turmae 'secret' - they occupy the same space on the battlefield, the same space in camp and the same barracks and that's why the basic sub-unit size is so fixed.
All the Roman manoeuvres we then read about in the sources (whilst it may well be worth reviewing some so I can defend those views) can then be detailed by simply considering moving the soldiers about as individuals or centuries.
Considering the soldiers (the close-order heavy infantry types) fighting at any distance from each other than shoulder-to-shoulder (turned slightly towards the enemy and therefore probably one-cubit apart indeed), makes no sense - that's how the Hoplites did it, the Pike Phalanx and then the Romans. The Romans, though, instead of taking the Spear to the extreme of the Pike, took the Shield to the maximum width - and then used it as the primary 'weapon', creating gaps through which to stab. At any further than one-pace between soldier-centres then gaps would open up - hence the choice.
Quote:Now, regarding the cavalry deployment you chose to use. When I spoke about multiple cavalry lines, I had in mind the later cavalry tactics that used to indeed array the horse in multiple independent battle-lines.Why do you think it is possible that the Roman cavalry would array in three lines of intersupporting turmae? Have you found any evidence thereto or of such a system? Plus, what makes you think that the Republican Roman cavalry used the so-called Cantabrian circle, which, IIRC, does also not require multiple squadrons arrayed behind one another? And of course we are again discussing "normal" deployment. I am sure, that according to circumstances, anything was possible, of course we have cavalry behind the legions, or infanty in abnormal depths etc etc.
The deployment picture is indeed done principally to show all the men in a sensible minimum width (in this case 3,000ft) for the army - the actual terrain would dictate the final result - my picture is simply 'idealised'.
Whilst mentioning 'Cantabrian' wasn't necessarily appropriate in this context, it was only to show that such a deployment wouldn't prevent those 'later' tactics either.
To your principle question, however, I'll come straight back and ask - given that the 3-line infantry model is well accepted, why do you think the cavalry wouldn't have been deployed similarly? The entire Consular Army organisation is an exercise in standard deployment, with inherent flexibility. Why do we accept that multiple-cavalry lines were used later and that they weren't used earlier?
For over 1,500 years the arms and armour of the ancient world didn't really change that much - so why would the tactical usage really change? They only changed in degree. The medieval period saw the extremes of armour (armoured plate) and firepower (longbow/cross-bow), but there was no appreciable tactical ®evolution until gunpowder came along. [This latter possibly deserves its own discussion elsewhere, but I also suspect it's been done before.
]A digression, but applicable - but my premise is indeed that maniples/centuries and the cavalry troops were interchangeable and could be used similarly in the right circumstances (like the infantry retiring behind a cavalry screen) and thus the drawing. However, if the Hastati were to be replaced by the Principes, why not the lines of cavalry units?
