11-27-2013, 07:57 AM
Macedon wrote:
Mathematics was according to the ancients a key skill for commanders. Contrary to military action today, pitched battles were very mathematical in their nature as far as the shapes of the formations are concerned. Distances, intervals and other mathematical dimensions are very important to understand how and why armies formed for battle.
How very true. The first concern is to get your frontage to match that of the enemy. At Ilipa Hasdrubal, knowing he has double the number of men as Scipio’s consular army, Hasdrubal deploys his forces so they have the same frontage as two consular armies. At Lake Regulus, my reconstruction has the Romans match the frontage of the Latin army, but only after extending the Roman centre. At the Allia in 386 BC, the Romans don’t know what they are facing when it comes to frontage. At Cynoscephalae Philip arranges his 8000 phalangites to conform to the frontage of the Roman left wing. According to Livy Philip “halved the front and gave twice the depth to the files, so that the depth might be greater than the width.” I can get the Macedonian phalanx to half the frontage and double the depth, but Livy’s comment the depth might be greater than the width does not make sense unless he is referring to a single lochoi. The only way to fulfil Livy’s last remark is to deploy the 8000 phalangites 80 men wide by 100 men deep. At Zama, Hannibal’s first line of 12,000 men matches the frontage of Scipio’s army. Opposing armies knew what deployment variations each side could adopt due to them knowing how the other army was organised. Hannibal at Cannae would have known every mathematical deployment option the Romans could use.
Steven
Mathematics was according to the ancients a key skill for commanders. Contrary to military action today, pitched battles were very mathematical in their nature as far as the shapes of the formations are concerned. Distances, intervals and other mathematical dimensions are very important to understand how and why armies formed for battle.
How very true. The first concern is to get your frontage to match that of the enemy. At Ilipa Hasdrubal, knowing he has double the number of men as Scipio’s consular army, Hasdrubal deploys his forces so they have the same frontage as two consular armies. At Lake Regulus, my reconstruction has the Romans match the frontage of the Latin army, but only after extending the Roman centre. At the Allia in 386 BC, the Romans don’t know what they are facing when it comes to frontage. At Cynoscephalae Philip arranges his 8000 phalangites to conform to the frontage of the Roman left wing. According to Livy Philip “halved the front and gave twice the depth to the files, so that the depth might be greater than the width.” I can get the Macedonian phalanx to half the frontage and double the depth, but Livy’s comment the depth might be greater than the width does not make sense unless he is referring to a single lochoi. The only way to fulfil Livy’s last remark is to deploy the 8000 phalangites 80 men wide by 100 men deep. At Zama, Hannibal’s first line of 12,000 men matches the frontage of Scipio’s army. Opposing armies knew what deployment variations each side could adopt due to them knowing how the other army was organised. Hannibal at Cannae would have known every mathematical deployment option the Romans could use.
Steven
