05-30-2013, 05:32 PM
Quote:.............
This is the famous Keppie's hypothesis, which doesn't persuade me due to my restrictive interpretation of centuries's role... anyway our idea of the manipular sistem is pretty similar: You say that the maniple was initially deployed in a deeper formation( prior century forward, posterior century behind), then it enlarged its frontage moving on the left the posterior century. I say the maniple was initially deployed in a deep close formation (12-8 ranks), then it enlarged its frontage by opening ranks and arranging an open formation (12-8 ranks); this formation could then be transformed in close one with 6-4 ranks....
I did look at the links that Macedon had kindly provided in the second post to your thread last week - and just re-looked at them again, but none of them seemed to take me to 'Keppie'. If you can tell me where I can find that, I would be grateful. For my part, some of the things there I agreed with and some I didn't (for example, with no intent otherwise, I didn't agree with Bryan's idea that the the pilus/principes/hastati distinctions remained and held any significance beyond the seniority within a cohort now we were in the Late Republic and soldiers were now commonly armed and armoured from central state sources).
I do believe the pair of centuries were intimately part of the concept of the maniple - in fact I would go as far as to say that it was an integral part of an entire concept: pair of Consuls; pair of legions; pairs of Socii legions; pairs of centuries. In fact, I have always believed that the entire manipular concept was based around the intimate co-operation between the two centuries - buddy-buddy writ large. I will go as far as to say that I see no reason this didn't continue right through the Late Republic and into the Imperial age too - no reason to change.
On that basis, I therefore do see the 'posterior' century being 'behind' initially and on the left when lined up - and in that 'quincunx' in between.
Quote:But you think maniples only fought in close order formations. I would like to point your attention on the following quote by Caesar " Laxare manipulos iussit, quo facilius gladis uti possent " ( He ordered to enlarge maniples, so that they could easily use the swords). How do you explain this passage? ( No polemic aim in this question)
............
Ahh, no not "only" - I think the maniples/centuries fought shield-to-shield to resist the phalanx and at any time it was necessary to 'hold the line'; but opening up to 1 pace (the length of the swordarm) apart (just like we do in normal drill today and for 100's of years (if not 1,000s!)) is a normal part of their drill too and could certainly be used if the situation warranted. To really think that through I would appreciate the actual reference to that portion of Caesar's Commentaries (I assume), so that I can see the context, before seeing if I can fit that into my view/theory - or whether that is indeed a reference that I've been seeking that can de-bunk it.
