10-06-2011, 10:23 PM
Robert Vermaat wrote:
The Strategicon describes such a file, and recommends that, in order to ensure that the formation can make a turn in place when attacked by an enemy from behind, or split down the middle, the file closers should also be motivated soldiers. They could also serve in a capacity to 'motivate' the soldiers in the rear of the file.
Anyway, the point i want to make is that the formation is always 4, 8 or 16 deep, so when there's a manpower shortage, the front become smaller - the depth always remains the same.
So your basing what happened in 100 BC on something that was written in the 6th century. So your saying that no military innovation happened between the Romans in the mid Republic period of a civil militia period with politically chosen military commanders to an actual true professional military. The formation is always 4,8,16 men deep, okay show me please.
Robert Vermaat wrote:
A phalanx of 16 I can imagine, but whereever did you find a description of a germanic shield wall with a formation depth of 50 ?!?? Unimaginable. My guess would be that this never exceeded more than 4 to 8, the rest swarmed around - Germanic tribes never had the Roman's training nor discipline.
Four (five if you could the separate ones at Arausio) Roman consular armies had been beaten by the Cimbri/Teutone confederation. Gnaeus Papririus Carbo (C. 113 BC), Marcus Junius Silanius (C. 109 BC), Lucius Cassius Longinus (C. 107 BC), Quintus Servilius Caepio (C. 106 BC) and Mallius Mallius Maximum (C. 105 BC)
So these barbarians just used their size to beat the trained and disciplined Romans. Okay, fine, but since the battlefields aren't known or mentioned in detail by any sources that the terrain would have limited the deployment of the width of the German battleline. Going from Plutarch they numbered over 500,000 with him stating that the numbers were probably more not less. So if the terrain doesn't allow you to add width to fight the Romans it would mean depth. So lets play conservative and say that the germans only showed up to each battle with 150,000 men. In one line of 8 deep that would mean 18,750 files (150,000/8 ). Since the Germans are known to carry shields they probably fought in a shield wall. So we'll give a frontage of three feet for each file. So the Germans with no gaps have a front line of 56,250 feet (3 * 18,750). So you're saying that the Germans would had a front of 10 1/2 miles? My guess, they packed them in with deeper ranks.
Robert Vermaat wrote:
Ah, but here we have a big difference. Greek hopltes never threw missiles, only their light support troops did. Germans never had anything but javelins, which soon ran out (next to some archers perhaps. The Romans on the other hand not only had heavy missiles in every front rank (pilum, or later plumbata), but were know to sustain a constant rate of missile fire with javelins, slingers, archers throughout the battle.
I don't get what you are saying. You concede that the enemies of Rome used slingers, archers and carried javelins. Caesar in De bello Gallico mentions archers. I,7-31 is an example. But then you state that they used them up quicker than the Romans?
Robert Vermaat wrote:
If you present it like that, they will of course fail do to the odds being heavily against them. But Romans often fought in line; before, during and after the development of the manipular system. Roman infantry from the Tetrarchy and after was known for an immense steadfastness, even when outnumbered. So to the contrary, they could (and did) win.
My argument is thus: 1st line of Romans, the hastati maniples, used as columns to pierce enemy line. Organized based off of polybius' description. Since gaps are present the second line of Principes maniples is not a reserve (the triari is the reserve) but is actually used as a front line as well when they are committed. See the bad diagrams I made earlier.
Please give sources for your quotes about Romans fighting on line verses in lines (one means in continuous line the other is an order of battle) during the maniple and cohort state of the Republic. If you can I will concede that argument.
Robert Vermaat wrote:
Ah, it was you with that quote about Germanics and training. they didn't. They wer raiders, not training full time for pitched battle. they screamed and ran at the enemy, and when scared they could loose. Big time. As the Cimbri and Teutones eventually did.
So again you're saying that a culture which is based on all males being raised as warriors (they only took warriors when they migrated from Jutland), who walked all around western Europe defeating everyone they encountered for over ten years (Gauls and Germans were the first to ask Rome to intervene in the first place), were ignorant about warfare. They trounced the Romans at five different battles, almost a sixth when Catalus barely kept his men in check when the Cimbri crossed the Po. But they're untrained, undisciplined screaming beserkers?
They would have been broken down in families, clans, lesser tribes, probably with "Big Men", chiefs or thanes commanding them. But they fought in unorganized ranks? Might not of been completely orderly compared to Romans or Greeks but they would have needed some order to not just be successful but to feed them all and later organize them for battle.
How about this. In order for the trained and disciplined legions of Rome to finally conquer these people it took Gaius Marius reorganizing the legions in some way and then using flanking attacks from hidden forces to win one battle (Aquae Sextiae) and some other form of trickery to win the other (Vercellae).
My take on it:It wasn't a specific Roman order of battle that gained them an empire, it was the ability of men, Generals, centurions and the good old foot slogger. And their ability to never accept defeat even if they lost a major battle.
Anyway, can we copy all this and just put it in a new topic called "Roman Tactics during the Transition From Maniple Legions to Cohort"?
The Strategicon describes such a file, and recommends that, in order to ensure that the formation can make a turn in place when attacked by an enemy from behind, or split down the middle, the file closers should also be motivated soldiers. They could also serve in a capacity to 'motivate' the soldiers in the rear of the file.
Anyway, the point i want to make is that the formation is always 4, 8 or 16 deep, so when there's a manpower shortage, the front become smaller - the depth always remains the same.
So your basing what happened in 100 BC on something that was written in the 6th century. So your saying that no military innovation happened between the Romans in the mid Republic period of a civil militia period with politically chosen military commanders to an actual true professional military. The formation is always 4,8,16 men deep, okay show me please.
Robert Vermaat wrote:
A phalanx of 16 I can imagine, but whereever did you find a description of a germanic shield wall with a formation depth of 50 ?!?? Unimaginable. My guess would be that this never exceeded more than 4 to 8, the rest swarmed around - Germanic tribes never had the Roman's training nor discipline.
Four (five if you could the separate ones at Arausio) Roman consular armies had been beaten by the Cimbri/Teutone confederation. Gnaeus Papririus Carbo (C. 113 BC), Marcus Junius Silanius (C. 109 BC), Lucius Cassius Longinus (C. 107 BC), Quintus Servilius Caepio (C. 106 BC) and Mallius Mallius Maximum (C. 105 BC)
So these barbarians just used their size to beat the trained and disciplined Romans. Okay, fine, but since the battlefields aren't known or mentioned in detail by any sources that the terrain would have limited the deployment of the width of the German battleline. Going from Plutarch they numbered over 500,000 with him stating that the numbers were probably more not less. So if the terrain doesn't allow you to add width to fight the Romans it would mean depth. So lets play conservative and say that the germans only showed up to each battle with 150,000 men. In one line of 8 deep that would mean 18,750 files (150,000/8 ). Since the Germans are known to carry shields they probably fought in a shield wall. So we'll give a frontage of three feet for each file. So the Germans with no gaps have a front line of 56,250 feet (3 * 18,750). So you're saying that the Germans would had a front of 10 1/2 miles? My guess, they packed them in with deeper ranks.
Robert Vermaat wrote:
Ah, but here we have a big difference. Greek hopltes never threw missiles, only their light support troops did. Germans never had anything but javelins, which soon ran out (next to some archers perhaps. The Romans on the other hand not only had heavy missiles in every front rank (pilum, or later plumbata), but were know to sustain a constant rate of missile fire with javelins, slingers, archers throughout the battle.
I don't get what you are saying. You concede that the enemies of Rome used slingers, archers and carried javelins. Caesar in De bello Gallico mentions archers. I,7-31 is an example. But then you state that they used them up quicker than the Romans?
Robert Vermaat wrote:
If you present it like that, they will of course fail do to the odds being heavily against them. But Romans often fought in line; before, during and after the development of the manipular system. Roman infantry from the Tetrarchy and after was known for an immense steadfastness, even when outnumbered. So to the contrary, they could (and did) win.
My argument is thus: 1st line of Romans, the hastati maniples, used as columns to pierce enemy line. Organized based off of polybius' description. Since gaps are present the second line of Principes maniples is not a reserve (the triari is the reserve) but is actually used as a front line as well when they are committed. See the bad diagrams I made earlier.
Please give sources for your quotes about Romans fighting on line verses in lines (one means in continuous line the other is an order of battle) during the maniple and cohort state of the Republic. If you can I will concede that argument.
Robert Vermaat wrote:
Ah, it was you with that quote about Germanics and training. they didn't. They wer raiders, not training full time for pitched battle. they screamed and ran at the enemy, and when scared they could loose. Big time. As the Cimbri and Teutones eventually did.
So again you're saying that a culture which is based on all males being raised as warriors (they only took warriors when they migrated from Jutland), who walked all around western Europe defeating everyone they encountered for over ten years (Gauls and Germans were the first to ask Rome to intervene in the first place), were ignorant about warfare. They trounced the Romans at five different battles, almost a sixth when Catalus barely kept his men in check when the Cimbri crossed the Po. But they're untrained, undisciplined screaming beserkers?
They would have been broken down in families, clans, lesser tribes, probably with "Big Men", chiefs or thanes commanding them. But they fought in unorganized ranks? Might not of been completely orderly compared to Romans or Greeks but they would have needed some order to not just be successful but to feed them all and later organize them for battle.
How about this. In order for the trained and disciplined legions of Rome to finally conquer these people it took Gaius Marius reorganizing the legions in some way and then using flanking attacks from hidden forces to win one battle (Aquae Sextiae) and some other form of trickery to win the other (Vercellae).
My take on it:It wasn't a specific Roman order of battle that gained them an empire, it was the ability of men, Generals, centurions and the good old foot slogger. And their ability to never accept defeat even if they lost a major battle.
Anyway, can we copy all this and just put it in a new topic called "Roman Tactics during the Transition From Maniple Legions to Cohort"?
