Acies quadrata

[Renatus]

As for the 'acies'/'agmen' issue: I am not sure that Vegetius should be trusted too much not to get the technical term wrong and so paraphrase it. It does seem to me that the acies quadratum and the agmen quadratum are in essence the same thing. The distinction between a battlefield engagement and an advance in a defensive column/square through hostile territory is perhaps a tenuous one. Once the hollow square comes under sustained attack, while still moving, it is essentially also engaged in a battlefield situation albeit a moving one. However, perhaps I am reading too much of the British square in the Sudan scenario here and thinking in an anachronistic fashion . . .

As VV has observed, Vegetius had access to military works lost to us. I believe him to be, on the whole, a faithful reporter of his sources. However, I have to acknowledge the possibility that he or his source may be mistaken, especially as quadrata acies is a term that, so far, no one in this forum has been able to find anywhere else. Nevertheless, it is clear that, in the passage that we are considering, the training that he describes is for battlefield situations. In context, the quadrata acies does not appear to be a hollow square but rather a solid block of soldiers (dare I say it, a phalanx?).

Just to confuse the issue, I have found the following passage in Tibullus (3. 7. 101-2):

. . . seu sit opus quadratum acies consistat in agmen, rectus ut aequatis decurrat frontibus ordo . . .

' . . . whether it be needful for the troops to draw into a square, so that the dressed line runs with a level front . . .' (Loeb translation)

This is in a panegyric to Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus and describes Messalla's skill in drawing up his troops for battle. It is poetry, of course, so one may expect unusual word order and, possibly, inaccurate terminology. Quadratum governs agmen, so challenges my assertion that agmen should apply to the column of march, not the battleline. If Tibullus is right, therefore, there could be a battlefield formation called agmen quadratum. However, this does not appear to be a hollow square but rather a formation that presents a solid face to the enemy. Tibullus contrasts it to a formation in which the line is divided, with the right wing facing the enemy's left and vice versa, thus delivering a double victory.