08-09-2015, 12:00 PM
As stated in more ancient posts in similar discussions, I would be interested to see any source even hinting at the use of intervals in the Republican years by the Romans during battle. As I have already stated, according to the Greeks at least, the Romans normally, in field battles, fought in phalanxes, which could hardly be meant with sizable gaps (the theory goes that the fighting gaps were as wide as a maniple, not the smaller intervals described in detail in the Byzantine manuals...) As for fighting with gaps, it was a tactical option perfectly known to the Greeks long before the Punic wars and were used, as would the Romans and others in my opinion, to attack in very rugged and uneven ground, especially uphills (during the retreat of the 10.000 or at Sellasia). Fighting in speirae (that is the Greek tactical term to look for in the sources for you who can read ancient Greek) was not something that innovative. On the other hand, the Romans seem to have employed a more fluid system of phalanx. Tactical retreat was difficult and very few times was used well and successfully (e.g. Chaeronea, Philip against the Southern Greeks). According to the sources, whereas the logical thing for a phalanx was to march forward, the Romans were very good at retreating. They could retreat long distances without breaking into flight (but not without suffering greatly also in the process), whereas other phalanxes would dissolve. This clearly shows some small unit tactic within the line that kept cohesion in retreat at the expense of the attack. As for the theory of Romans surging into gaps in the enemy line, they do not seem to have done so as a regular tactic. At Pydna, the number one example of the Romans doing so, exploiting the gaps of the 'unwieldy' Greek phalanx (a formation that was invented to actually fight in the extremely rugged Greek -and Italian- terrain), it was Paulus who in the face of defeat rode along the lines ordering the legionaries to do so, which clearly shows that it was not a standard tactic, not against the Greeks, not against the phalanx, not in the Balkan terrain.
@Bryan
What do you mean with
'If you read the descriptions of battles fought by Epaminondas, Alexander, the various successors generals, and the Romans during the mid-late Republic and into the Principate, its pretty obvious that intervals existed between different cavalry and infantry units, that the battleline was not continuous. The question isn't whether they existed, its how big they were and if the gaps were as wide as the units themselves."?
I have read all the battle description and much more and I have certainly not come to that conclusion or even been given that idea. What makes it so obvious that intervals existed between infantry units?
@Bryan
What do you mean with
'If you read the descriptions of battles fought by Epaminondas, Alexander, the various successors generals, and the Romans during the mid-late Republic and into the Principate, its pretty obvious that intervals existed between different cavalry and infantry units, that the battleline was not continuous. The question isn't whether they existed, its how big they were and if the gaps were as wide as the units themselves."?
I have read all the battle description and much more and I have certainly not come to that conclusion or even been given that idea. What makes it so obvious that intervals existed between infantry units?
