08-28-2018, 10:38 AM
Nathan wrote:
Do you have a reference? It's a little obscure otherwise!
Mate, do you realise at present I am re-examining the levy of 298 BC. All this time travelling back to Tacitus is giving me time travel lagg. Tacitus (The Annals 1 51), (13 37-38), Josephus (The Jewish War 3 32), Hyginus (The Fortification of the Camp 30)
Nathan wrote:
Rather than having the first maniple drawn up in one long line two deep, with the second maniple behind it, why not have both maniples side by side, with one century behind the other? That way you'd still have each line four men deep, but the posteriores would be behind the priores.
Yes that can be done, and I did it that way for years. However, I have found it to be wrong, and also it turned out to be a rather big red herring, and I would term it the Cannae for all academics, and historians. When you get into that territory, you get stuck.
Nathan wrote:
Polybius says nothing, as far as I know, about width of columns or depth of ranks in formation. He says that the army could march in three columns in open country - was that what you mean?
Polybius does describe going from column to battle order and the placement of the baggage. It is very informative. Polybius also mentions the Roman army being attacked from any direction and how the army would respond to this. I have not found one modern scholar that has been able to replicate what the Roman army did when attacked from the front or the rear. Most just cover being attacked on the right flank.
I spent a lot of time over the years in working out how the mechanics of what the legion did when attacked from any direction. Each time it failed, I went back to the legion’s organisation and started re-examining it over and over again.
Nathan wrote:
But I was asking about your proposed formation, based on Sallust, not that of Polybius.
Polybius and Sallust are one and the same. The mechanics are the same regardless of the period. Nothing much has changed, except the names of the units.
Nathan wrote:
But are you saying this manoeuvre was simple, or was not simple?
It was simple, extremely simply. But to do it, the army had to halt, to do the last manoeuvre. Until that point, it would be the same as Polybius (achieving battle order in one movement).
Well Nathan, you have said nothing on my legion of 12 deep changing to 8 deep.
Do you have a reference? It's a little obscure otherwise!
Mate, do you realise at present I am re-examining the levy of 298 BC. All this time travelling back to Tacitus is giving me time travel lagg. Tacitus (The Annals 1 51), (13 37-38), Josephus (The Jewish War 3 32), Hyginus (The Fortification of the Camp 30)
Nathan wrote:
Rather than having the first maniple drawn up in one long line two deep, with the second maniple behind it, why not have both maniples side by side, with one century behind the other? That way you'd still have each line four men deep, but the posteriores would be behind the priores.
Yes that can be done, and I did it that way for years. However, I have found it to be wrong, and also it turned out to be a rather big red herring, and I would term it the Cannae for all academics, and historians. When you get into that territory, you get stuck.
Nathan wrote:
Polybius says nothing, as far as I know, about width of columns or depth of ranks in formation. He says that the army could march in three columns in open country - was that what you mean?
Polybius does describe going from column to battle order and the placement of the baggage. It is very informative. Polybius also mentions the Roman army being attacked from any direction and how the army would respond to this. I have not found one modern scholar that has been able to replicate what the Roman army did when attacked from the front or the rear. Most just cover being attacked on the right flank.
I spent a lot of time over the years in working out how the mechanics of what the legion did when attacked from any direction. Each time it failed, I went back to the legion’s organisation and started re-examining it over and over again.
Nathan wrote:
But I was asking about your proposed formation, based on Sallust, not that of Polybius.
Polybius and Sallust are one and the same. The mechanics are the same regardless of the period. Nothing much has changed, except the names of the units.
Nathan wrote:
But are you saying this manoeuvre was simple, or was not simple?
It was simple, extremely simply. But to do it, the army had to halt, to do the last manoeuvre. Until that point, it would be the same as Polybius (achieving battle order in one movement).
Well Nathan, you have said nothing on my legion of 12 deep changing to 8 deep.
