10-12-2011, 02:07 AM
Quote:Macedon,
Can you please describe in detail how you believe the Romans fought. Pick a time period where the maniple styled legions existed, or early cohorts were used and describe how they were composed, organized, deployed and battled in melee.
Great post BTW. For the life of me can't figure out how some of those sources were included. Must have been tired. Also, I don't comprehend Latin or Greek but am curious as to how not one book I have read included your translation meaning of the word phalanx. How is it that every historian I've read got it wrong? If it is true then all the speculation is over, the Romans fought in one superlong continuous phalanx, just in three lines. But then why is there still debate? Why do major historians throughout the last couple hundred years (who also read Latin and Greek) argue with each other about Gaps and such?
I will Bryan. The thing with many scholars is that they do not know ancient Greek, so more often than not they do not check the original texts. Yet, I have not translated the word "phalanx". It is in the original text. The thing is that the translator chose not to translate it as "phalanx" but as a more Anglosaxon "line". If we agree, this is a debate on its own, that in the ancient works a phalanx was indeed always a continuous line, then it is true that the words of Polybius are hard to interpret otherwise. I am not 100% sure that it is so though. I give it a very high probability, especially when comparing the term with how it was used in the Byzantine manuals, where a phalanx is always and definitely ONE of the units in the formation, so when we can have multiple phalanxes in a single line, but I really cannot say I am adamant in my objections. And no I am not trying to be overly modest or something. I have changed the way I view certain aspects of tactics one to many times to be able to declare I am absolutely certain in my interpretations. For me, the part about the Romans not fighting "phalangidon" (=like a phalanx, in the manner of a phalnax) but in maniples (kata speiras = by speirai/maniples) or singly is a stronger argument than any mention of the word "phalanx" because it tactically juxtaposes the two forms of fighting.
Regarding Frontinus and Vegetius, my quotes are from translations and so I do not vouch for their veracity, no matter how recognized a translation might be. I really hoped you might know Latin or that someone who knows Latin can compare the quotes with the originals. You would be amazed at how many things can be perceived otherwise if the originals are studied from a tactical instead of a literary perspective.
And of course, I urge you to double check my translation, I have made mistakes in the past.
