07-10-2013, 04:05 AM
Bryan wrote:
Based on your research, what is the first reference during the mid to late republican time period that specifically mentions the century as the fighting unit?
Although the question is addressed to Mark, I have taken the liberty to step into the fray. The following reference is definitely not mid republican or late republican, but Dionysius (8 84) does state for the year (486 BC?) the Romans “attacked in close array both by cohorts and by centuries.” Polyaenus (Stratagems Excerpts 15 9) writes that “the number of infantry Caesar placed with his cavalry amounted to four centuries.” Caesar (BC 3 75) writes that he allocated 400 antesignani to his cavalry. Caesar (BC 3 91) gives the size of a century of ecomons at 120 men.
Bryan wrote:
Was it Caesar's use of Ordo? Livy might, I'd have to check, but he often uses anachronistic terms.
Hmmm, the old Livy uses anachronistic terms mantra surfaces again. If you believe Livy uses anachronistic terms....can you prove it?
Livy’s description of line replacement is not the only reference we have. There is also Dionysius (8 65):
“At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engaged in war. Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress.”
Here BOTH the Romans and the Hernicans are reinforcing their lines with fresh troops. And doesn’t Livy (8 9) mention there was some temporary confusion created by line replacement:
“After a time the Roman hastati on the left, unable to withstand the insistency of the Latins, retired behind the principes. During the temporary confusion created by this movement.”
Then we have references throughout the primary sources of the Romans replacing legions with legions. I think in one battle against Pompeius (Munda?), one legion is having difficulty replacing another legion due to the intensity of the fighting of the forward legions. My research, which includes a lot of detailed studies of battles, has come to the conclusion that line relief was not solely practiced by the Romans, but was a standard practice among all Italian peoples. The Carthaginian army also use such a system as the three line deployment of the Carthaginian army at Zama shows. However, the difference with Zama is Hannibal’s third line. In all my battle studies of the Punic Wars, it works out that the Carthaginian heavy infantry fought in two lines. Now this is where I believe the problem lies....it is the use of the word “line.” I have found a pattern that if the troops are of the same troop type but deployed in two lines or three lines, they are describes as a line. However, if the troops are of a different type, like the maniple legion, they are correctly described as being in three lines.
At Ilipa, the frontage of the Carthaginian infantry is equivalent to the frontage of two consular armies. This is shown by Scipio’s legions being deployment of the in the centre then changed to being deployed on each wing. Both armies have the same frontage, but the Carthaginians, because of their numbers, have a greater depth in each line of heavy infantry. Ancient warfare is about a balance between frontage and depth. The Carthaginian heavy infantry at the Trebia is also two lines deep, as is the Carthaginian heavy infantry line at Cannae. The difference is the first line forms the wedge, while the second line remained behind to try and hold the Romans while the Africans encircle the Romans.
One thing I have never seen in any discussion on line replacement, is the premise taken, the primary sources state it happened therefore it must be true. This is a much more healthy approach. Those who are sceptical or distrust the primary sources are just roadblocks whose only accomplishment past and present is to slow our understanding of the Roman military. Unfortunately, Roman military history seems to attract too many of these roadblocks. I recommend trying something new...work with the primary sources and not against them. By undertaking such an approach, the primary sources are innocent until proven guilty.
Steven
Based on your research, what is the first reference during the mid to late republican time period that specifically mentions the century as the fighting unit?
Although the question is addressed to Mark, I have taken the liberty to step into the fray. The following reference is definitely not mid republican or late republican, but Dionysius (8 84) does state for the year (486 BC?) the Romans “attacked in close array both by cohorts and by centuries.” Polyaenus (Stratagems Excerpts 15 9) writes that “the number of infantry Caesar placed with his cavalry amounted to four centuries.” Caesar (BC 3 75) writes that he allocated 400 antesignani to his cavalry. Caesar (BC 3 91) gives the size of a century of ecomons at 120 men.
Bryan wrote:
Was it Caesar's use of Ordo? Livy might, I'd have to check, but he often uses anachronistic terms.
Hmmm, the old Livy uses anachronistic terms mantra surfaces again. If you believe Livy uses anachronistic terms....can you prove it?
Livy’s description of line replacement is not the only reference we have. There is also Dionysius (8 65):
“At length the Romans' line began to be in distress, this being the first occasion in a long time that they had been forced to engaged in war. Aquilius, observing this, ordered that the troops which were still fresh and were being reserved for this very purpose should come up to reinforce the parts of the line that were in distress and that the men who were wounded and exhausted should retire to the rear. The Hernicans, learning that their troops were being shifted, imagined that the Romans were beginning flight; and encouraging one another and closing their ranks, they fell upon those parts of the enemy's army that were in motion, and the fresh troops of the Romans received their onset. Thus once more, as both sides fought stubbornly, there was a strenuous battle all over again; for the ranks of the Hernicans were also continually reinforced with fresh troops sent up by their generals to the parts of the line that were in distress.”
Here BOTH the Romans and the Hernicans are reinforcing their lines with fresh troops. And doesn’t Livy (8 9) mention there was some temporary confusion created by line replacement:
“After a time the Roman hastati on the left, unable to withstand the insistency of the Latins, retired behind the principes. During the temporary confusion created by this movement.”
Then we have references throughout the primary sources of the Romans replacing legions with legions. I think in one battle against Pompeius (Munda?), one legion is having difficulty replacing another legion due to the intensity of the fighting of the forward legions. My research, which includes a lot of detailed studies of battles, has come to the conclusion that line relief was not solely practiced by the Romans, but was a standard practice among all Italian peoples. The Carthaginian army also use such a system as the three line deployment of the Carthaginian army at Zama shows. However, the difference with Zama is Hannibal’s third line. In all my battle studies of the Punic Wars, it works out that the Carthaginian heavy infantry fought in two lines. Now this is where I believe the problem lies....it is the use of the word “line.” I have found a pattern that if the troops are of the same troop type but deployed in two lines or three lines, they are describes as a line. However, if the troops are of a different type, like the maniple legion, they are correctly described as being in three lines.
At Ilipa, the frontage of the Carthaginian infantry is equivalent to the frontage of two consular armies. This is shown by Scipio’s legions being deployment of the in the centre then changed to being deployed on each wing. Both armies have the same frontage, but the Carthaginians, because of their numbers, have a greater depth in each line of heavy infantry. Ancient warfare is about a balance between frontage and depth. The Carthaginian heavy infantry at the Trebia is also two lines deep, as is the Carthaginian heavy infantry line at Cannae. The difference is the first line forms the wedge, while the second line remained behind to try and hold the Romans while the Africans encircle the Romans.
One thing I have never seen in any discussion on line replacement, is the premise taken, the primary sources state it happened therefore it must be true. This is a much more healthy approach. Those who are sceptical or distrust the primary sources are just roadblocks whose only accomplishment past and present is to slow our understanding of the Roman military. Unfortunately, Roman military history seems to attract too many of these roadblocks. I recommend trying something new...work with the primary sources and not against them. By undertaking such an approach, the primary sources are innocent until proven guilty.
Steven
