06-30-2014, 06:19 PM
I've reread some of my previous theories on gaps and find some of them pretty bizarre. Cohort sized gaps? Units in such depth? But then again I've read so much more in the 2.75 years since I wrote those posts. To clarify my current position, I still believe the following is generally true:
- Gaps existed in the fighting line during battle and were not just a factor of the approach march to contact or only used during the relief of lines. Separating units by small distances would be necessary not only during a march, to maintain cohesion and to provide mobility, but also during a fight, as units in contact do not remain stationary (attack, retreat, face about, get turned like a hoplite phalanx). In order to move across anything less than flat manicured parade ground terrain, intervals would be necessary or cohesion can be lost. Good luck doing that while being attacked by a more mobile force.
- Livy states the gaps were maniple in size. I don't think they were always that size, only at specific times and places (not every battle during all periods), as dictated by the commander. The theory of having large gaps, coupled with multiple lines, units protecting the gap (quincunx) still sounds like a sound theory. But that theory is up to interpretation, as the width of a maniple is not a constant. Intervals between individuals in a rank within the Roman line, as well as the number of ranks, would change the frontage of the formation. The width of a narrow front maniple (10x6) in close interval would be smaller than a maniple with a wide front, less ranks (20x3), in an more Polybian open interval between legionnaires. As Michael J. Taylor described in his excellent article, I don't think the depth of ranks was a constant.
- Since no one knows exactly how the Greek hoplite phalanx fought (close interval/shield overlapping and shoving vs. a more open ranked "fencing" formation), I don't think the inclusion of the word phalanx has to mean the Romans fought shield to shield either. As I had demonstrated in my posting about Ukranian Riot Police, I don't think fighting shield to shield was a viable offensive tactic for the Romans, as compared to infantry armed with Aspis shield and a spear. The description of Roman fighting by Polybius, Vegetius, Caesar, and others, as well as the use of a medium to short bladed sword (19"-26"), and the use of a large curved body shield with a reinforced umbo (shield boss), is more conducive to an open/independent offensive fighting method.
If you want to talk gaps and intervals, discuss!
- Gaps existed in the fighting line during battle and were not just a factor of the approach march to contact or only used during the relief of lines. Separating units by small distances would be necessary not only during a march, to maintain cohesion and to provide mobility, but also during a fight, as units in contact do not remain stationary (attack, retreat, face about, get turned like a hoplite phalanx). In order to move across anything less than flat manicured parade ground terrain, intervals would be necessary or cohesion can be lost. Good luck doing that while being attacked by a more mobile force.
- Livy states the gaps were maniple in size. I don't think they were always that size, only at specific times and places (not every battle during all periods), as dictated by the commander. The theory of having large gaps, coupled with multiple lines, units protecting the gap (quincunx) still sounds like a sound theory. But that theory is up to interpretation, as the width of a maniple is not a constant. Intervals between individuals in a rank within the Roman line, as well as the number of ranks, would change the frontage of the formation. The width of a narrow front maniple (10x6) in close interval would be smaller than a maniple with a wide front, less ranks (20x3), in an more Polybian open interval between legionnaires. As Michael J. Taylor described in his excellent article, I don't think the depth of ranks was a constant.
- Since no one knows exactly how the Greek hoplite phalanx fought (close interval/shield overlapping and shoving vs. a more open ranked "fencing" formation), I don't think the inclusion of the word phalanx has to mean the Romans fought shield to shield either. As I had demonstrated in my posting about Ukranian Riot Police, I don't think fighting shield to shield was a viable offensive tactic for the Romans, as compared to infantry armed with Aspis shield and a spear. The description of Roman fighting by Polybius, Vegetius, Caesar, and others, as well as the use of a medium to short bladed sword (19"-26"), and the use of a large curved body shield with a reinforced umbo (shield boss), is more conducive to an open/independent offensive fighting method.
If you want to talk gaps and intervals, discuss!
