Use of whistles to relay commands in battle

[Macedon]

This is the extent that mentions how he formed at Pharsalus against Pompeius Magnus. So exactly where did you read Caesar was had only four ranks?

Not at home yet,so I will be brief for now. Not only Caesar wrote about that time... Check out Frontinus and Polyaenus for more info.

"In front he placed the hastati with certain intervals between the maniples and behind them the principes, not placing their maniples, as is the usual Roman custom, opposite to the intervals separating those of the first line, but directly behind these latter at a certain distance owing to the large number of the enemy's elephants. 8 Last of all he placed the triarii. On his left wing he posted Gaius Laelius with the Italian horse, and on the right wing Massanissa with the whole of his Numidians. 9 The intervals of the first maniples he filled up with the cohorts of velites, ordering them to open the action, 10 and if they were forced back by the charge of the elephants to retire, those who had time to do so by the straight passages as far as the rear of the whole army, and those who were overtaken to right or left along the intervals between the lines." Polybius, 6:9,7-9, describing Zama

"He stationed the Roman cavalry close to the river on the right wing and the foot next to them in the same line, placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front." Polybius, 3:113, describing Cannae

I could keep going on, Polybius and Livy both make EXPLICIT references to gaps/intervals between units of each line but I am too exhausted search anymore. You need to actually read Polybius.

I wrote "I have still to see one example of how Polybius suggests that a fragmented phalanx was used by the Romans during combat."

Maybe I should have said "during the melee" to make myself clearer.

You can see that these are formations BEFORE the commencement of the battle. No one doubts that this formation was used before the actual clash of the lines took place. What most agree (among whom myself) is the fact that these gaps were closed after the light infantry retired. I will provide you with Polybius' own descriptions once I get home. The way armies deployed before the clash of the lines and how they fought was different. A pike phalanx would march in open order and before the clash would change to close or compact order. This would happen because the order used during melee is not what the ancients called "natural order", the order that facilitated marching and maneuvering. I will come back to this, don't worry. As far as your innuendo is concerned, I will let it pass, I want to consider it a misunderstanding on my part.

"In the mean time, being informed that Thermus the praetor was in possession of Iguvium, with five cohorts, and was fortifying the town, but that the affections of all the inhabitants were very well inclined toward himself, he detached Curio with three cohorts, which he had at Ariminum and Pisaurus. Upon notice of his approach, Thermus, distrusting the affections of the townsmen, drew his cohorts out of it and made his escape; his soldiers deserted him on the road, and returned home. Curio recovered Iguvium, with the cheerful concurrence of all the inhabitants. Caesar, having received an account of this, and relying on the affections of the municipal towns, drafted all the cohorts of the thirteenth legion from the garrison, and set out for Auximum, a town into which Attius had brought his cohorts, and of which he had taken possession, and from which he had sent senators round about the country of Picenum, to raise new levies."
De Bello Civili, 1:12

Again I could keep listing them over and over again how Caesar gave orders for attacks to cohorts, meaning they are now the tactical instrument, but again I am tired. It seems to me legions were not administrative units similar to how division are in the US Army. So here is a link to an electronic copy of Caesar's commentaries.
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/pub...eComm.html
Go to this link, open one of the books, hit Control + F (find) and type "cohort'. Do the same for "line" and "century" Prepare to have your entire argument destroyed.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? I think that being overly defensive of a position makes you misinterpret what people say. Did I say that there were no cohorts? I just said that IN THE BATTLE ITSELF, there was little difference whether there was a cohort beside a cohort or a maniple beside a maniple. Thee are subdivisions and are of course used organically, but in the line, even a legion beside a legion makes little difference in the way the subunits are arrayed. Outside the melee, I said the same thing you say and i think this time VERY CLEARLY. How can you destroy my argument if you do not even know what that is?

Where did you come up with these numbers again? I do not doubt you but where does Plutarch describe a German army 500,000 men strong on the battlefield?

"For no sooner had word been brought to the people of the capture of Jugurtha than the reports about the Teutones and Cimbri fell upon their ears. What these reports said about the numbers and strength of the invading hosts was disbelieved at first, but afterwards it was found to be short of the truth. For three hundred thousand armed fighting men were advancing, and much larger hordes of women and children were said to accompany them, in quest of land to support so vast a multitude, and of cities in which to settle and live, just as the Gauls before them, as they learned, had wrested the best part of Italy from the Tyrrhenians and now occupied it." Plutarch, Life of Marius, 11:2

My bad, I meant 500,000 total. 300,000 warriors with another couple hundred thousand women and children.

Well... as you see even these numbers have nothing to do with a specific battle or army. Plutarch mentions that these men came in a number of hostS. That of course means that any battle would have been against much inferior in number forces.

The time period I am referring to is the mid Republic (2nd Punic War), to 104-100 BC (Cimbri War), to the exploit of G. Julius Caesar in Gaul and the Civil War. And what sources detailing ROMAN formations in the mid to late Republic?

OK. Yet, in order to analyze even this period, you should study the manuals too. As I said, the mechanisms are not (that) different and will help you, me, us understand what we are discussing better.

If you look at my diagram that I made what I describe is not a fragmented phalanx or an articulated phalanx. It is maniples, then later cohorts, that are used as independent fighting blocks of men to strike wholes in other phalanxes. The front maniples and then later cohorts are used as wedges to break a line, they are supported by others behind them covering their gaps who can support them by attacking. Nothing fancy, about as simple as it can get, but to me it makes sense.

Such an arrangement of a line is fragmented. The battleline can have gaps under circumstances and is still called a line. A phalanx can be any line, even one with gaps. If you want to use the terminology that has the phalanx only be the way the Greeks fought, we can use that. For example the word Arrian uses for "legion" is "phalanx". Again, I have to say that nowhere have I read of any Roman army fighting in what you call a "manipular formation", while I have seen explicit examples of Greeks fighting thus.

I have read till my eyes are blood shot and can't find ANYTHING that specifically tells how the Romans fought exactly. The more I read the more I realize that almost everything that many people assume about Romans was later created by other historic secondary sources based on the few primary ones from the ancient world. Don't get me wrong, Connolly, Goldsworthy, Momsen, brilliant dudes. But it doesn't mean everything they wrote was correct. The same sources they had access to we now have access to.

I disagree with many in many issues. Gosh, they even disagree with each other! We have loads of information though that one has to piece together and, again to my opinion, you should absolutely not shun the military manuals of other eras. They occupy with problems and give explanations to situations that were common with those you research. In order to evaluate the effects of large gaps in the battle line, you should read how they were used even in other eras.

I used sources to defend my argument. Can you please do the same. Since this thread is about as off topic as it can get, please post your sources with a brief summary so this topic can just die off already.

Once again, we need to rename this thread. Can a moderator just copy everything since page 2 and post it into another thread topic? I am not doing it cause this argument is going nowhere fast.

I will, once I can. I am now only writing on the fly. Why don't you start another thread? It is only fitting that you set the original argument to be discussed.