05-23-2013, 09:05 AM
Dear Macedon - we're simply having to get our posts smaller - otherwise we'll just have too much trouble formatting! 
I have come to the conclusion that what Polybius seems to have implied when the legions were enlarged makes no sense whatsoever when trying to deploy armies and isn't supported by what happened later - especially when there is a so much moe sensible, practicable and useful interpretation. For that, however, I'll have to ask you to wait for another week or so and then I would love you to criticise that part of my little thesis.
Most of the 'Roman' sources are written in Greek - which is where I sincerely hope I can ask for help. However, my point here is that the Greeks did use wedges, the Roman system developed from them, they were used later and afterwards and the 10man section is perfectly sized for one - so why do we think they may not have? We only lack a confirming source, but that's where we are - in which case it's back to logic, deduction and interpolation
I see - Aelian is not a source I have yet studied, as I understood that it too was a re-hash of Asclepiodotos - and given that that portion of Arrian seems to be a very poor re-hash, I'm sad to say I didn't. The fact that Arrian apparently supports the 3 ranks, however, is most useful. Two points here:
1. Firstly that, and I need help with the Greek, as I read the translation then the Decurions appointed matching 'adjutants' (optios) like the Centurions. Whilst a suitable Greek word may have been used they were neither of them actual 'file-closers'; the century needs someone to control the opposite corner of the formation; the section of 10 troopers in a line (rank) needs someone at the other end to keep the line.
2. Which leads to the next - (melée) cavalry fight in separate lines/ranks - they do not fight en-masse like infantry. It doesn't matter that the Greeks invented nice 'square' or rhomboidal formations to march around in - you don't fight like that. Successive lines fight, so that horses don't get in each other's way. I believe we must try to interpret some of the sources and temper them with logic. 30-man turmae split cleanly into 3 parts that support each other under a single leader.
Lastly - and thank you - but Aelian's 9x3 would seem to be simply an example of Asclepiodotos' perfect square discussion when the riders are deployed with the ranks separated at 3x the frontage - and Aelian knows how big a turmae is!
The rest is a bit more complex - but I will indeed happily make, if they are "bold and different" and "unconventional" suggestions, especially when to do otherwise makes no sense at all. I have come to believe through this period that I have been able to spend researching what I can and thinking - that we cannot just rely on the paucity of information we do have, particularly if it doesn't join up properly.
But - my 3 lines of turma (whilst indeed only representative) are indeed 9 lines in total - that's close to 8 :wink: . Much more importantly, many of the later and Byzantine examples are for mixed formations of lance and bow-armed cavalry when they would 'fight' in denser formations to protect the archers. But you don't: charge home; throw javelins; or run down broken infantry en masse.
........................
Quote:.................. You know, one of my arguments against a normal depth of 4 is that a reinforced legion would have 1,500 Hastati/Principes which is only oddly divided by 4 (375 files) and does not allow a doubling in contrast with 6 which gives a very neat 250 files.
I have come to the conclusion that what Polybius seems to have implied when the legions were enlarged makes no sense whatsoever when trying to deploy armies and isn't supported by what happened later - especially when there is a so much moe sensible, practicable and useful interpretation. For that, however, I'll have to ask you to wait for another week or so and then I would love you to criticise that part of my little thesis.
Quote:I do not think that the Roman squadrons of this era would fight in wedges. Have you got any evidence supporting that? I can speak with certainty only of Greek sources but I cannot remember Latin sources that mention that either.
Most of the 'Roman' sources are written in Greek - which is where I sincerely hope I can ask for help. However, my point here is that the Greeks did use wedges, the Roman system developed from them, they were used later and afterwards and the 10man section is perfectly sized for one - so why do we think they may not have? We only lack a confirming source, but that's where we are - in which case it's back to logic, deduction and interpolation
Quote:No, all examples are very specific and clear in the sources. Asclepiodotos mentions the formation of a square squadron "3 or 4 deep" without mentioning the number of files -effectively discussing shape and depth (7.4.19), Aelianos describes one of 9 files in 3 ranks (27 horsemen in all) (18.7.11) and Arrianos in his Tactica gives a squadron like Aelian (16.12.10). But in my (ongoing) research, these are the smallest squadrons to ever be definitely described in Greek sources regarding the number of ranks, which would make a depth of 3 in a squadron an "extreme", however possible. Interestingly enough, they are also the smallest in full strength. Of course this does not make it impossible to be so, I only question the normality. I guess that should the Romans have less cavalry than the enemy in an extended ground, they could array thus to even the front and should the ground be narrower, they could as easily make the turmae deeper. However, according to Polybius in the extract you also gave (6.25), the decurions selected as many rear-rankers, which points to the Roman turma being normally arrayed 10 deep in the end.
I see - Aelian is not a source I have yet studied, as I understood that it too was a re-hash of Asclepiodotos - and given that that portion of Arrian seems to be a very poor re-hash, I'm sad to say I didn't. The fact that Arrian apparently supports the 3 ranks, however, is most useful. Two points here:
1. Firstly that, and I need help with the Greek, as I read the translation then the Decurions appointed matching 'adjutants' (optios) like the Centurions. Whilst a suitable Greek word may have been used they were neither of them actual 'file-closers'; the century needs someone to control the opposite corner of the formation; the section of 10 troopers in a line (rank) needs someone at the other end to keep the line.
2. Which leads to the next - (melée) cavalry fight in separate lines/ranks - they do not fight en-masse like infantry. It doesn't matter that the Greeks invented nice 'square' or rhomboidal formations to march around in - you don't fight like that. Successive lines fight, so that horses don't get in each other's way. I believe we must try to interpret some of the sources and temper them with logic. 30-man turmae split cleanly into 3 parts that support each other under a single leader.
Lastly - and thank you - but Aelian's 9x3 would seem to be simply an example of Asclepiodotos' perfect square discussion when the riders are deployed with the ranks separated at 3x the frontage - and Aelian knows how big a turmae is!
The rest is a bit more complex - but I will indeed happily make, if they are "bold and different" and "unconventional" suggestions, especially when to do otherwise makes no sense at all. I have come to believe through this period that I have been able to spend researching what I can and thinking - that we cannot just rely on the paucity of information we do have, particularly if it doesn't join up properly.
But - my 3 lines of turma (whilst indeed only representative) are indeed 9 lines in total - that's close to 8 :wink: . Much more importantly, many of the later and Byzantine examples are for mixed formations of lance and bow-armed cavalry when they would 'fight' in denser formations to protect the archers. But you don't: charge home; throw javelins; or run down broken infantry en masse.
........................
