11-24-2013, 08:39 AM
Macedon wrote:
The Greek text is very clear on this "He arranged the semaeae (maniples) more dense than before and the depth of the speirae (maniples again) (many) times greater than their frontage" So, we are talking about the soldiers in the maniples being arrayed closer to each other (which could be close or compact order) and practically in column. I still cannot see it as arranging the lines closer to each other, without of course claiming that they were not, I have them unite the lines myself. I only speak of the translation of the said text.
Thanks for this. I have been debating to some colleagues that it’s about the men in the maniples being closer than normal, but my colleagues slap me around and say it is also to be interpreted that the lines of maniples were also closer. The reason why I have the lines of hastati separated from the principes/triarii is because the allow intervals in the lines, the principes/triarii have to be further back from the hastati. This still does not prevent the Africans from being able to encircle the Romans. What it does mean is at the beginning the Africans cannot completely encircle the Romans.
Macedon wrote:
So, "a complete encirclement" does not of course tactically mean that they were "completely surrounded" by an uninterrupted chain of men.
Then we on are the same page. Is this the first time a RAT member is in agreement with me? You guys must be mellowing.
Macedon wrote:
So, in your model, is the total frontage of the whole Carthaginian infantry formation equal to that of the Romans?
I have a very different formation for the Carthaginian infantry that does not exactly follow the traditional view of the hollow lambada. If I had to give it a description I would call it a triangle. The base of the triangle is the main body of Carthaginian infantry, while the two sides form the wedge. The Romans will break through the wedge, but it is the role of the main body (the base of the triangle) to hold the Romans while the Africans encircle the Romans. It is the main body that starts to become concave at this point, and not the apex of the wedge as is the common theory. So to answer your question, only the main body (the base of the triangle) is equal in frontage to the Roman infantry. Actually when I look at it, the wedge could technically be also regarded as having the same frontage as the Romans, but stepped back.
Macedon wrote:
If these 23,000 men arrayed in extra deep, dense files as the texts say, then we are talking about a frontage normally held by correspondingly less men. Against them Hannibal arrayed about 32,000 allies, so, in order for the two lines to have the same length of frontage, the Carthaginians should be arrayed even deeper/denser! This is a mathematical problem I cannot solve unless I assume that at least a good number of the men on the rear, if not all, joined the Hastati in the first line. Else, I have a Roman line for some reason much shorter than that of the enemy, which was a tactical possibility, but would have been commented on as a stratagem. How have you worked this issue out, so that the two lines are similar in length?
See my answer above about the main body (the base of the triangle) being equal to the Roman frontage. I did an overview of Cannae some five years ago and could not mentally get my head around the depth of the Carthaginian infantry. I couldn’t understand why the Romans threw away the tactical advantage of having more men. Why couldn’t they form up in their normal deployment depth (and there is one), thereby forcing Hannibal to match it? Like at the Trebia, they would have achieved their break through. However, as Livy and Polybius remind us most of the Roman infantry were raw recruits, the importance of this piece of information cannot be played down. It could be the Roman commanders did not have any confidence in the majority of their army (both infantry and cavalry). A good investigator should not let his own prejudices get in the way, but by following Polybius I was struggling with the depth of the Carthaginian infantry, let alone the Romans. I experimented with expanding the frontage but the numbers I got for the Carthaginian infantry went beyond Polybius comment of just over 40,000 men. I have a good understanding of Polybius’ writing style and a good idea of what “just over” should amount to. Too much expansion of the Roman frontage and the Carthaginian infantry numbers go pear shape. The only way I can get the depth of the Carthaginian infantry to conform to the depth of the infantry I have worked out from the Trebia, Ilipa, the Great Plains and Zama is to adhere to Polybius’ description of the maniple deployment. After studying Bagradas and Cynoscephalae I abandoned by prejudices about the depth of the infantry at Cannae.
Also the Roman command structure at Cannae holds some interesting clues about what their intentions are. Unfortunately modern historians have not given this enough due investigation. Look at who commands what, and then investigate their military career previous to Cannae.
Macedon wrote:
Do you mean 6 squadrons one behind another as in 6 successive lines? Do you mean that they joined in a single squadron that was 6 times larger and deeper than a single one?
The 6 squadrons deep means one squadron behind another in 6 successive lines. For example the 30 squadrons were deployed 5 squadrons wide by six squadrons deep or six lines deep. So with the Roman cavalry being six lines deep, you would have thought they would have had some staying power. So much for Plan A.
Macedon wrote:
I turned the quotes into italics to make them easier to read, so no worries.
Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately I think it will be the norm. I haven’t a clue as to what is going on. I can't even get the smily face to work and I wanted to put in a few of them. I deleted RAT from the favourites list and reinstalled it but the BBcode still does not load. Also the title bars that were originally red are now always blue. This all started when I updated to the latest super doopper internet provider system ASDL premium, no expenses spared system.
Steven
The Greek text is very clear on this "He arranged the semaeae (maniples) more dense than before and the depth of the speirae (maniples again) (many) times greater than their frontage" So, we are talking about the soldiers in the maniples being arrayed closer to each other (which could be close or compact order) and practically in column. I still cannot see it as arranging the lines closer to each other, without of course claiming that they were not, I have them unite the lines myself. I only speak of the translation of the said text.
Thanks for this. I have been debating to some colleagues that it’s about the men in the maniples being closer than normal, but my colleagues slap me around and say it is also to be interpreted that the lines of maniples were also closer. The reason why I have the lines of hastati separated from the principes/triarii is because the allow intervals in the lines, the principes/triarii have to be further back from the hastati. This still does not prevent the Africans from being able to encircle the Romans. What it does mean is at the beginning the Africans cannot completely encircle the Romans.
Macedon wrote:
So, "a complete encirclement" does not of course tactically mean that they were "completely surrounded" by an uninterrupted chain of men.
Then we on are the same page. Is this the first time a RAT member is in agreement with me? You guys must be mellowing.
Macedon wrote:
So, in your model, is the total frontage of the whole Carthaginian infantry formation equal to that of the Romans?
I have a very different formation for the Carthaginian infantry that does not exactly follow the traditional view of the hollow lambada. If I had to give it a description I would call it a triangle. The base of the triangle is the main body of Carthaginian infantry, while the two sides form the wedge. The Romans will break through the wedge, but it is the role of the main body (the base of the triangle) to hold the Romans while the Africans encircle the Romans. It is the main body that starts to become concave at this point, and not the apex of the wedge as is the common theory. So to answer your question, only the main body (the base of the triangle) is equal in frontage to the Roman infantry. Actually when I look at it, the wedge could technically be also regarded as having the same frontage as the Romans, but stepped back.
Macedon wrote:
If these 23,000 men arrayed in extra deep, dense files as the texts say, then we are talking about a frontage normally held by correspondingly less men. Against them Hannibal arrayed about 32,000 allies, so, in order for the two lines to have the same length of frontage, the Carthaginians should be arrayed even deeper/denser! This is a mathematical problem I cannot solve unless I assume that at least a good number of the men on the rear, if not all, joined the Hastati in the first line. Else, I have a Roman line for some reason much shorter than that of the enemy, which was a tactical possibility, but would have been commented on as a stratagem. How have you worked this issue out, so that the two lines are similar in length?
See my answer above about the main body (the base of the triangle) being equal to the Roman frontage. I did an overview of Cannae some five years ago and could not mentally get my head around the depth of the Carthaginian infantry. I couldn’t understand why the Romans threw away the tactical advantage of having more men. Why couldn’t they form up in their normal deployment depth (and there is one), thereby forcing Hannibal to match it? Like at the Trebia, they would have achieved their break through. However, as Livy and Polybius remind us most of the Roman infantry were raw recruits, the importance of this piece of information cannot be played down. It could be the Roman commanders did not have any confidence in the majority of their army (both infantry and cavalry). A good investigator should not let his own prejudices get in the way, but by following Polybius I was struggling with the depth of the Carthaginian infantry, let alone the Romans. I experimented with expanding the frontage but the numbers I got for the Carthaginian infantry went beyond Polybius comment of just over 40,000 men. I have a good understanding of Polybius’ writing style and a good idea of what “just over” should amount to. Too much expansion of the Roman frontage and the Carthaginian infantry numbers go pear shape. The only way I can get the depth of the Carthaginian infantry to conform to the depth of the infantry I have worked out from the Trebia, Ilipa, the Great Plains and Zama is to adhere to Polybius’ description of the maniple deployment. After studying Bagradas and Cynoscephalae I abandoned by prejudices about the depth of the infantry at Cannae.
Also the Roman command structure at Cannae holds some interesting clues about what their intentions are. Unfortunately modern historians have not given this enough due investigation. Look at who commands what, and then investigate their military career previous to Cannae.
Macedon wrote:
Do you mean 6 squadrons one behind another as in 6 successive lines? Do you mean that they joined in a single squadron that was 6 times larger and deeper than a single one?
The 6 squadrons deep means one squadron behind another in 6 successive lines. For example the 30 squadrons were deployed 5 squadrons wide by six squadrons deep or six lines deep. So with the Roman cavalry being six lines deep, you would have thought they would have had some staying power. So much for Plan A.
Macedon wrote:
I turned the quotes into italics to make them easier to read, so no worries.
Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately I think it will be the norm. I haven’t a clue as to what is going on. I can't even get the smily face to work and I wanted to put in a few of them. I deleted RAT from the favourites list and reinstalled it but the BBcode still does not load. Also the title bars that were originally red are now always blue. This all started when I updated to the latest super doopper internet provider system ASDL premium, no expenses spared system.
Steven
