05-23-2013, 01:51 PM
Mark Hygate wrote:
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
Full Online Translated works of Polybius
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.
Polybius was a Greek nobleman and military officer and was held hostage in Rome in the household of the Aemilii Pallii. There he met who would later be Publius Scipio Aemelianus Africanus the Younger, who he evidently became friends with. NOTE: Scipio Aemelianus' father was in command of the army that destroyed the last Macedonian army (Perseus V) in battle at Pydna. After his term as hostage was over, he stayed in Rome as he enjoyed the city. He followed Scipio Aemelianus to Africa to fight Carthage in the 3rd Punic War and watched the Romans in battle. He was an eyewitness to the Roman war machine and had a better view than most other sources. What sources are you using?
The Roman manipular system was a military reform that occurred sometime during or around the 3rd Samnite War. Previously, it is believed that the Romans used a phalanx-type system that was somewhat similar to that which was used by the Greek city states. Around 300 BC or thereabouts, the new reform resulted in the use of the Roman levies being organized into maniples. Why did the Romans do this? No one knows exactly but some people think it was due to the mountainous terrain in Samnite lands, they needed the loose order of the manipular formations (to include gaps) that allowed the Roman forces to tranverse difficult terrain while engaged with the enemy.
Fast forward nearly a century, the Romans used this formation to win a few land victories in the 1st Punic War, subdue the whole of Italy, subdue Cisalpine Gaul south of the Po River when they crushed the Gauls at Telemon (225 BC) and then onward, into the 2nd Punic War, where Hannibal used the tactics against them in numerous battles. Later, after Scipio Africanus beat Carthage in Spain and Hannibal at Zama, the Romans turned east against the Macedonians and used the manipular tactics against the Macedonians and their phalanx. It should be pointed out that the Macedonian phalanx only made up a portion of the full Macedonian army, as did the Roman shield and sword fighting infantry of citizens and Socii.
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?
And yet they did use these tactics and won repeatedly (but not all the time). They lost plenty of battles but always win the wars. That is why Rome became an empire. There army was certainly beatable.
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?
Maybe because the Romans weren't Greeks or Macedonians and had their own customs and ways of fighting? You are reviewing the ancient period through modern eyes. You are trying to find the best method of fighting. Greek tactics but with Roman equipment. This is not how it was. The Romans had their own ways of fighting and they were probably more influenced by the Gauls than by the Greeks (at least in the beginning).
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?
Read the full passage by Polybius (18:30-31). He only mentions the fighting spacing of the Romans in comparison to the spacing of the Macedonians. He mentions that the Romans could not get past them, that as long as the Macedonians kept their order, they'd push the Romans back. But then he continues and says that because of the nature of the Macedonian phalanx, they didn't perform well to bad terrain or attacks on their flanks and rear (hard to turn around with a 20 ft pike). So eventually, the Romans would find gaps and the maniples, acting under orders of the tribunes and general, would attack the gaps created by the bad terrain (battle of Pydna).
As for the Gauls, the Roman discipline won out them over. Gallic military forces were not disciplined, in the sense that they did not have to fight if they didn't want to. They were loosely held together and so were difficult to control in battle, they did there own thing by tradition and no one could do anything about it. On the opposite side, you have the Romans, who take the Oath of Disciplina upon enlistment, and swear that they will obey orders. Couple that with the imperium of the magistrates in command of the army, the power of the tribunes and centurions, and you get a force of men who are simply forced to obey orders. The Romans and Gauls would charge each other but the longer fight favored the Romans, not because they were better trained, but because if they ran or even retreated their life was forfeit by the Consul. That is discipline and the Gauls didn't have it. If a warrior felt the battle lost he'd no longer obey his tribal king because the king had no authority anymore to do anything about it. Roman discipline and organization won out. In terms of individual fighters, the two sides fought similar to one another, pole arm missile weapons, long shields with a center horizontal grip and long swords. (Gallic swords are said to be incapable of stabbing, however, this was probably not true. It was their custom to slash. The Roman gladius hispaniensis was a cut and thrust sword with a blade length of 25" to 27".)
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.
Which ancient source said the Roman century had 80 men? What time period was the source writing about?
Polybius states the maniples of the Hastati and Princeps were 120 men, while the Triari (or Pilus) were 60 men. At Cannae, the maniples were even larger in terms of the amount of men. During the late republic, other sources gave different numbers, ranging from 80 to 100 men in a century. But this was paper strength. Considering disease, desertions and battle, no century/maniple would have been full strength.
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.
Can I play?
'And then you notice that because you can't maneuver, you are hemmed in. The press of bodies and shields prevents you from even moving your sword arm. The Gauls, fighting in a looser formation, have room to maneuver, and they do. Like flies they move around, left right, front back. Attacking and retreating, like some gladiator. They press forward with quick attacks and hop back before you can respond with a riposte. They swing their long blades, hacking shields apart, smashing helmets, breaking collar bones, opening necks. You yell to your mates to move but they don't listen, they're too focused on the enemy to pay attention to your yells. Besides, over the din of battle, the screams of the wounded, the battle cries, it makes it impossible to hear anything clearly.
You know you will soon die, by this point you can barely breath. You give a quick prayer to the Gods in the hope that your death will be quick. Then suddenly HE appears. A dashing warrior, tall and wearing a cuirass of gilded silver under his flowing generals cape. Covering his balding head is brilliantly burnished bronze helmet with a flowing red horsehair crest. Imperator Caesar has arrived, Gods be good. He takes a shield and pushes his way to the front, no easy task considering how tightly the maniple is compressed. He hacks forward with his own sword, which probably cost more than your house and property. He is yelling something but you can't hear it. His lips make it seem that he is yelling "Open the maniples!" You can't be sure but then it becomes obvious that someone heard it, because the cornicen blares from behind the maniple and you hear the three short blasts that are the notes to "open the ranks."
You shove sideways, you shove forward against the enemy, trying to open room. Before the battle, the centurion had everyone count off so the odd and even men would know the difference. But that seems like a year ago, and in the press of the fight, the rank and files are chaos. So you just step forward. And to the side. You attack with your shield's bottom, smashing it against an enemy's shield. He edges back, you edge forward into the space. Then you take a side step to the left. Your mates are doing the same and soon the maniple is back in open order, as it should be and you now have the proper room to fight with your long spanish sword and 15 pound curved oval shield. Caesar is gone, to save another threatened maniple no doubt. But it doesn't matter. You have things in hand now, as you dodge a violent Gallic sword swing by moving left and deflecting the blow with your shield, instead of taking the full force of the sword swing. Your shield will hold up for now. You will survive this battle.'
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
Full Online Translated works of Polybius
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.
Polybius was a Greek nobleman and military officer and was held hostage in Rome in the household of the Aemilii Pallii. There he met who would later be Publius Scipio Aemelianus Africanus the Younger, who he evidently became friends with. NOTE: Scipio Aemelianus' father was in command of the army that destroyed the last Macedonian army (Perseus V) in battle at Pydna. After his term as hostage was over, he stayed in Rome as he enjoyed the city. He followed Scipio Aemelianus to Africa to fight Carthage in the 3rd Punic War and watched the Romans in battle. He was an eyewitness to the Roman war machine and had a better view than most other sources. What sources are you using?
The Roman manipular system was a military reform that occurred sometime during or around the 3rd Samnite War. Previously, it is believed that the Romans used a phalanx-type system that was somewhat similar to that which was used by the Greek city states. Around 300 BC or thereabouts, the new reform resulted in the use of the Roman levies being organized into maniples. Why did the Romans do this? No one knows exactly but some people think it was due to the mountainous terrain in Samnite lands, they needed the loose order of the manipular formations (to include gaps) that allowed the Roman forces to tranverse difficult terrain while engaged with the enemy.
Fast forward nearly a century, the Romans used this formation to win a few land victories in the 1st Punic War, subdue the whole of Italy, subdue Cisalpine Gaul south of the Po River when they crushed the Gauls at Telemon (225 BC) and then onward, into the 2nd Punic War, where Hannibal used the tactics against them in numerous battles. Later, after Scipio Africanus beat Carthage in Spain and Hannibal at Zama, the Romans turned east against the Macedonians and used the manipular tactics against the Macedonians and their phalanx. It should be pointed out that the Macedonian phalanx only made up a portion of the full Macedonian army, as did the Roman shield and sword fighting infantry of citizens and Socii.
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?
And yet they did use these tactics and won repeatedly (but not all the time). They lost plenty of battles but always win the wars. That is why Rome became an empire. There army was certainly beatable.
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?
Maybe because the Romans weren't Greeks or Macedonians and had their own customs and ways of fighting? You are reviewing the ancient period through modern eyes. You are trying to find the best method of fighting. Greek tactics but with Roman equipment. This is not how it was. The Romans had their own ways of fighting and they were probably more influenced by the Gauls than by the Greeks (at least in the beginning).
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?
Read the full passage by Polybius (18:30-31). He only mentions the fighting spacing of the Romans in comparison to the spacing of the Macedonians. He mentions that the Romans could not get past them, that as long as the Macedonians kept their order, they'd push the Romans back. But then he continues and says that because of the nature of the Macedonian phalanx, they didn't perform well to bad terrain or attacks on their flanks and rear (hard to turn around with a 20 ft pike). So eventually, the Romans would find gaps and the maniples, acting under orders of the tribunes and general, would attack the gaps created by the bad terrain (battle of Pydna).
As for the Gauls, the Roman discipline won out them over. Gallic military forces were not disciplined, in the sense that they did not have to fight if they didn't want to. They were loosely held together and so were difficult to control in battle, they did there own thing by tradition and no one could do anything about it. On the opposite side, you have the Romans, who take the Oath of Disciplina upon enlistment, and swear that they will obey orders. Couple that with the imperium of the magistrates in command of the army, the power of the tribunes and centurions, and you get a force of men who are simply forced to obey orders. The Romans and Gauls would charge each other but the longer fight favored the Romans, not because they were better trained, but because if they ran or even retreated their life was forfeit by the Consul. That is discipline and the Gauls didn't have it. If a warrior felt the battle lost he'd no longer obey his tribal king because the king had no authority anymore to do anything about it. Roman discipline and organization won out. In terms of individual fighters, the two sides fought similar to one another, pole arm missile weapons, long shields with a center horizontal grip and long swords. (Gallic swords are said to be incapable of stabbing, however, this was probably not true. It was their custom to slash. The Roman gladius hispaniensis was a cut and thrust sword with a blade length of 25" to 27".)
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.
Which ancient source said the Roman century had 80 men? What time period was the source writing about?
Polybius states the maniples of the Hastati and Princeps were 120 men, while the Triari (or Pilus) were 60 men. At Cannae, the maniples were even larger in terms of the amount of men. During the late republic, other sources gave different numbers, ranging from 80 to 100 men in a century. But this was paper strength. Considering disease, desertions and battle, no century/maniple would have been full strength.
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.
Can I play?
'And then you notice that because you can't maneuver, you are hemmed in. The press of bodies and shields prevents you from even moving your sword arm. The Gauls, fighting in a looser formation, have room to maneuver, and they do. Like flies they move around, left right, front back. Attacking and retreating, like some gladiator. They press forward with quick attacks and hop back before you can respond with a riposte. They swing their long blades, hacking shields apart, smashing helmets, breaking collar bones, opening necks. You yell to your mates to move but they don't listen, they're too focused on the enemy to pay attention to your yells. Besides, over the din of battle, the screams of the wounded, the battle cries, it makes it impossible to hear anything clearly.
You know you will soon die, by this point you can barely breath. You give a quick prayer to the Gods in the hope that your death will be quick. Then suddenly HE appears. A dashing warrior, tall and wearing a cuirass of gilded silver under his flowing generals cape. Covering his balding head is brilliantly burnished bronze helmet with a flowing red horsehair crest. Imperator Caesar has arrived, Gods be good. He takes a shield and pushes his way to the front, no easy task considering how tightly the maniple is compressed. He hacks forward with his own sword, which probably cost more than your house and property. He is yelling something but you can't hear it. His lips make it seem that he is yelling "Open the maniples!" You can't be sure but then it becomes obvious that someone heard it, because the cornicen blares from behind the maniple and you hear the three short blasts that are the notes to "open the ranks."
You shove sideways, you shove forward against the enemy, trying to open room. Before the battle, the centurion had everyone count off so the odd and even men would know the difference. But that seems like a year ago, and in the press of the fight, the rank and files are chaos. So you just step forward. And to the side. You attack with your shield's bottom, smashing it against an enemy's shield. He edges back, you edge forward into the space. Then you take a side step to the left. Your mates are doing the same and soon the maniple is back in open order, as it should be and you now have the proper room to fight with your long spanish sword and 15 pound curved oval shield. Caesar is gone, to save another threatened maniple no doubt. But it doesn't matter. You have things in hand now, as you dodge a violent Gallic sword swing by moving left and deflecting the blow with your shield, instead of taking the full force of the sword swing. Your shield will hold up for now. You will survive this battle.'
