05-23-2013, 09:55 AM
Quote:Sorry it took so long to reply, this new website format is not really working all that well for me.
No problem and thank you - and I'm more than happy to try and defend - although you've got me a bit..... (and I shall not try and quote carefully as it's getting tricky.....)
The two quotes from Polybius Bk18 I assume are from the fragments, which sadly I haven't seen, but now am surprised enough to want to not believe them and am sure a mistake has been made somewhere.... :?
For if a single Roman legionnaire is fighting effectively on his own (within a 6ft square bubble), then the Roman empire would never had come into being! At least 10 pike-blades backed by the weight of 32 men grinding forward would simply have bowled him over. Any average Celtic band would have faced Romans with a two-to-one advantage and one would have ripped the shield away whilst the other got in with the sword or spear. Surely we cannot believe that, even though it's been written? :o
I'm fairly happy my belief is that the Romans fought shoulder-to-shoulder and, more importantly, shield-to-shield - nothing else makes sense. [I must admit here that the closest I have personally been to that style of combat is riot training (with similar shields and pointy batons), but that has only confirmed that belief.]
That spacing does allow easier marching about and I could easily believe that - and Polybius would have seen training and gladiatorial-type combat - but against real enemies trying to kill you; I'm way more than sceptical.
As to the 8 man contubernia existing in the Republic - simple deduction once I realised that was when the 80-man century was originally formalised.
The need to deploy and fight the Consular army given it's organisation tells us it fought 6/8 deep - for there's just no other way it can be. But no, no particular source - we just don't have one. I don't believe we need one.
In my drawing of the camp (see little thesis in a week or so) I left the gaps in the pallisade at 50ft, the same as the narrower road widths - which would allow a maniple to fill the space perfectly deployed 20-wide. Marching out of it, however, would depend on the style of gateway - I would suspect, however, the narrow part to be probably 25ft and allow the lead century to march out in close order (if having to fight).
As to why a Roman so armed would fight shield to shield.....(and yes, affected by that riot training).....
"I have a shield 2.5ft wide and 4ft long - braced forward with my weight behind the shield, with a nice sword with a sharp point and sharper edges. I'm protecting the right-side of my buddy to the left and I'm safe behind the man to my right. There's only a small gap at the bottom, not too far from the ground, so not much will get through there. I'm peeping over the top to see what's in front and my helmet protects what's exposed.
"We punch with the shields, opening a small gap on the right through which we stab and cut - in and out as fast as we can. On the command we stamp forward and push with the shield. We repeat the motions over and over until we start over the bodies of the fallen. The man behind me thrusts down to make sure the body is a dead one.
"When I tire the man behind is ready to take over, his shield edge is at my shoulder, on his command I punch with my shield and rotate right stepping back; his shield moves over to fill the gap and I am protected. He fills the space and the fight continues. I catch my breath."
That's how the Romans fought - I would stake my life on it. More, it's exactly how I would train people to do it and I would select Roman equipment over Greeks any time - because the Romans won.
The Greeks and Macedonians also, however, fought like that, thrusting spears out to kill the enemy - why do we think the Romans didn't?
Polybius, like most writers it seems, would see battle from a distance. They would have seen them march up and on parade (open order). As a Greek he thinks in cubits - 2 of them only being a bit longer than a pace - which I am convinced the Romans used.
I am more and more convinced that we need to be a bit more scpetical with the sources we have - and even be prepared to dismiss some of them if they make no sense.
Do we really want to believe that the Romans and Greeks fought like we see in '300', 'Rome' & 'Spartacus' (recent)? For that will be 'history' in relatively few years and that's what most will believe. Why should we think our ancestors are any different? Real evidence, however, is nice.
