11-24-2013, 04:25 PM
Your colleagues do have a point although for me the probability that they (and a number of other translators) are right is fairly low. You see, Polybius uses "dense" as an adjective and not as an adverb. The meaning, as I see it, is like in English :
he arranged the maniples denser
he arranged the maniples more densely
In the first instance, which is the case here, the probability that he means the intervals between the maniples is low and the probability that he means the maniples themselves as individual entities is high. In the second it is the exact opposite that is true. I am fairly sure that he means the men in the maniples and that he would have expressed it differently should he mean the intervals. And even in the second instance, he would have meant the intervals, if any, between the maniples of the same line and not those of the lines, where, he would under no circumstances use the word "denser", as they weren't normally dense in the first place. He would have said something like "more closely" instead.
So, in order to make the numbers fit, you chose to array the Carthagnians in practically 2 "lines" instead of one. This is a very bold suggestion that cannot be easily supported by the texts at hand. Is there any hint in the sources to use in your support or is it a conclusion you have come to solely based on other battles of the Carthaginians? I understand that one major reason for you to come to it would be the same why I concluded that the Romans fought in a single line. Mathematics. If Hannibal had arrayed in one line, then the Romans had to also array in one to make the descriptions fit. If you have Hannibal array in two lines, then the Romans are allowed to also array in two but, again, not in three.
How in your model do you explain the fact (with which you agree), namely that the Libyans attacked (flanks and/or rear) the Romans who had funneled into the gap created by the retreating/fleeing Celts? The distance between the two Roman lines was considerable, unless you support that they were for some reason very close together but why would they have done so if they were not joined in one line? So, as the Hastati gradually lost their order in the pursuit, lessening their front as the wings tried to keep in touch with their advancing middle, the second line would still have retained their front and order and would have counterattacked any attempt of the Libyans to engage, especially if they at the same time they extended parallel to the them, practically showing them their backs. Even if the interim distance was not that long, they would not have dissolved their order to just run behind the Hastati. How do you support your opinion that "they would not have been able to stop the Africans"? Why wouldn't they? Wasn't it one of their main functions? They would not have been pinned by the enemy skirmishing cavalry yet, they would have received those of the hastati in flight, they would be fresh and ready.
Regarding the reasons for deploying deeper, they are a number and yes, to help less experienced troops retain order is of course one. In my understanding of battlefield tactics, a deeper formation does not directly affect "attacking" power. It does so indirectly by protecting its order during combat as well as during the charge and by prolonging its staying power by providing more reserves for the tired and the wounded or dead. So, a line in double depth has two first-rankers and two rear-rankers, more men who were supposed to be of the same fighting calibre and quality of arms. One in triple or quadruple depth correspondingly more. I also commented on this in my first post.
he arranged the maniples denser
he arranged the maniples more densely
In the first instance, which is the case here, the probability that he means the intervals between the maniples is low and the probability that he means the maniples themselves as individual entities is high. In the second it is the exact opposite that is true. I am fairly sure that he means the men in the maniples and that he would have expressed it differently should he mean the intervals. And even in the second instance, he would have meant the intervals, if any, between the maniples of the same line and not those of the lines, where, he would under no circumstances use the word "denser", as they weren't normally dense in the first place. He would have said something like "more closely" instead.
So, in order to make the numbers fit, you chose to array the Carthagnians in practically 2 "lines" instead of one. This is a very bold suggestion that cannot be easily supported by the texts at hand. Is there any hint in the sources to use in your support or is it a conclusion you have come to solely based on other battles of the Carthaginians? I understand that one major reason for you to come to it would be the same why I concluded that the Romans fought in a single line. Mathematics. If Hannibal had arrayed in one line, then the Romans had to also array in one to make the descriptions fit. If you have Hannibal array in two lines, then the Romans are allowed to also array in two but, again, not in three.
How in your model do you explain the fact (with which you agree), namely that the Libyans attacked (flanks and/or rear) the Romans who had funneled into the gap created by the retreating/fleeing Celts? The distance between the two Roman lines was considerable, unless you support that they were for some reason very close together but why would they have done so if they were not joined in one line? So, as the Hastati gradually lost their order in the pursuit, lessening their front as the wings tried to keep in touch with their advancing middle, the second line would still have retained their front and order and would have counterattacked any attempt of the Libyans to engage, especially if they at the same time they extended parallel to the them, practically showing them their backs. Even if the interim distance was not that long, they would not have dissolved their order to just run behind the Hastati. How do you support your opinion that "they would not have been able to stop the Africans"? Why wouldn't they? Wasn't it one of their main functions? They would not have been pinned by the enemy skirmishing cavalry yet, they would have received those of the hastati in flight, they would be fresh and ready.
Regarding the reasons for deploying deeper, they are a number and yes, to help less experienced troops retain order is of course one. In my understanding of battlefield tactics, a deeper formation does not directly affect "attacking" power. It does so indirectly by protecting its order during combat as well as during the charge and by prolonging its staying power by providing more reserves for the tired and the wounded or dead. So, a line in double depth has two first-rankers and two rear-rankers, more men who were supposed to be of the same fighting calibre and quality of arms. One in triple or quadruple depth correspondingly more. I also commented on this in my first post.
