08-10-2015, 12:58 AM
As to why sizable gaps, or any gaps, against a spear or sarissa phalanx mainly, is a generally bad idea, I will make an initial attempt to list some issues.
You can go on and on about why you don't think they are generally a good idea, but intervals/gaps in the lines occurred. Even the Greeks and Byzantines sources and manuals report of intervals between units and even had suggestions for what to do with them at times (fill them with skirmishers). Xenophon discusses them, so do multiple Roman sources.
I tried explaining with my illustrations as simply as possible why gaps couldn't be exploited easily, how they worked, and some examples of small and large versions used by the Greek and Hellenistic city states and Rome. Its a bit vexing that you still don't get it, but its really not surprising that you won't acknowledge that all the Roman sources I listed state large intervals between Roman maniples existed in combat.
In a previous thread about this topic you stated this:
"Yes, there are a number of examples of Greek infantry (hoplites, pikemen and possibly other types of troops) arraying with sizable intervals between smaller units. This was nothing (too) strange and the authors described it clearly. "
then in the beginning of this thread you state this:
"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?"
Then you write this:
"The key to all this is that I do not say that intervals were never used. They had their tactical uses and were a viable choice for certain tactical circumstances."
Your stance in this matter is a bit confusing, as if when you edited your last post in this thread you completely changed your mind from a black and white viewpoint and decided to clarify that gaps obviously occurred (at least you're willing to now concede that) but were situation dependent, which I've never said otherwise.
In all of the Roman histories I've read, few actually describe in detail the detail for fighting techniques of the century, maniples and cohorts in combat that you demand as proof. They barely describe the depth of each line, formations, positions of people, spacing between files and ranks, or even if rank and file actually existed. And yet numerous sources state intervals existed before the battle, and then describe them used in battle (such as Zama and Muthul River) but because they don't spell it out for you, stating "And then with maniple sized gaps between maniples, Caesar's legions crashed against Pompeius' lines. The sources you want to read don't exist, what we have are small pieces we need to interpret. I don't think any existing evidence is enough for you to change your stance.
________
"Scipio placed his men on the field in the following order:
The hastati first, with an interval between their maniples; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the intervals between those of the hastati as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because the enemy was so strong in elephants. In the rear of these he stationed the triarii. On his left wing he stationed Gaius Laelius with the Italian cavalry, on the right Massanissa with all his Numidians. The intervals between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples, which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces between the maniples...
...
The rest of the elephants charged the Roman velites in the spaces between the maniples of the line, and while inflicting much damage on the enemy suffered severely themselves; until, becoming frightened, some of them ran away down the vacant spaces, the Romans letting them pass harmlessly along, according to Scipio's orders, while others ran away to the right under a shower of darts from the cavalry, until they were finally driven clear off the field.
It was just at the moment of this stampede of the elephants, that Laelius forced the Carthaginian cavalry into headlong flight, and along with Massanissa pressed them with a vigorous pursuit. While this was going on, the opposing lines of heavy infantry were advancing to meet others with deliberate step and proud confidence"
There is the evidence that proves spaces between maniples existed in combat. Since its your contention that they didn't exist, its on you to prove Polybius got it wrong.
When you get done with that one, work on accounts of the battles of the Muthul River, Chaeronea, and Pompey's battle against Oroeses. How are all those sources wrong and you're right?
You can go on and on about why you don't think they are generally a good idea, but intervals/gaps in the lines occurred. Even the Greeks and Byzantines sources and manuals report of intervals between units and even had suggestions for what to do with them at times (fill them with skirmishers). Xenophon discusses them, so do multiple Roman sources.
I tried explaining with my illustrations as simply as possible why gaps couldn't be exploited easily, how they worked, and some examples of small and large versions used by the Greek and Hellenistic city states and Rome. Its a bit vexing that you still don't get it, but its really not surprising that you won't acknowledge that all the Roman sources I listed state large intervals between Roman maniples existed in combat.
In a previous thread about this topic you stated this:
"Yes, there are a number of examples of Greek infantry (hoplites, pikemen and possibly other types of troops) arraying with sizable intervals between smaller units. This was nothing (too) strange and the authors described it clearly. "
then in the beginning of this thread you state this:
"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?"
Then you write this:
"The key to all this is that I do not say that intervals were never used. They had their tactical uses and were a viable choice for certain tactical circumstances."
Your stance in this matter is a bit confusing, as if when you edited your last post in this thread you completely changed your mind from a black and white viewpoint and decided to clarify that gaps obviously occurred (at least you're willing to now concede that) but were situation dependent, which I've never said otherwise.
In all of the Roman histories I've read, few actually describe in detail the detail for fighting techniques of the century, maniples and cohorts in combat that you demand as proof. They barely describe the depth of each line, formations, positions of people, spacing between files and ranks, or even if rank and file actually existed. And yet numerous sources state intervals existed before the battle, and then describe them used in battle (such as Zama and Muthul River) but because they don't spell it out for you, stating "And then with maniple sized gaps between maniples, Caesar's legions crashed against Pompeius' lines. The sources you want to read don't exist, what we have are small pieces we need to interpret. I don't think any existing evidence is enough for you to change your stance.
________
"Scipio placed his men on the field in the following order:
The hastati first, with an interval between their maniples; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the intervals between those of the hastati as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because the enemy was so strong in elephants. In the rear of these he stationed the triarii. On his left wing he stationed Gaius Laelius with the Italian cavalry, on the right Massanissa with all his Numidians. The intervals between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples, which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces between the maniples...
...
The rest of the elephants charged the Roman velites in the spaces between the maniples of the line, and while inflicting much damage on the enemy suffered severely themselves; until, becoming frightened, some of them ran away down the vacant spaces, the Romans letting them pass harmlessly along, according to Scipio's orders, while others ran away to the right under a shower of darts from the cavalry, until they were finally driven clear off the field.
It was just at the moment of this stampede of the elephants, that Laelius forced the Carthaginian cavalry into headlong flight, and along with Massanissa pressed them with a vigorous pursuit. While this was going on, the opposing lines of heavy infantry were advancing to meet others with deliberate step and proud confidence"
There is the evidence that proves spaces between maniples existed in combat. Since its your contention that they didn't exist, its on you to prove Polybius got it wrong.
When you get done with that one, work on accounts of the battles of the Muthul River, Chaeronea, and Pompey's battle against Oroeses. How are all those sources wrong and you're right?
