Early Republic Consular Army deployment...

[Macedon]

Retuning to this small issue of a 10-man section being 'unheard' of - let alone just re-confirming that 10 men are the perfect size of a meaningful wedge where every man can fight, with the lone exception of the one in the centre - who is probably the signifer (and therefore doesn't have a spear anyway).

You may think so yourself, but, we have no account of 10 man cavalry wedges, whereas I have accounts of wedges of 64, 384, 504, 516 and 1,504 men, while the Companion squadrons were also much much greater than 10 men. As far as I am concerned, we could debate wedges of 3 men but the thing is that any theory has to measure up to evidence and analogy. Right now, you have what Polybius describes as files act as ranks and what is never described as a wedge form wedges. Possible? Of course... Can it really become anything more than a fringe theory? Not unless you put forward less "logic" and more literary or syncretic evidence.

However, the query I'm really following up is that Arraianus doesn't seem to agree with you - at the end of his tactical handbook (which still seem to me to be a bad re-hash of Ascelpiodotus indeed) when he comes to the Roman Cavalry Exercises (when it seems clear he is watching a demonstration in an arena, possibly involving no more than a couple of turma) - in Ch42 he seems most adamant about 10-man units..

You had better not diminish the value of the sources, especially of one that was written, however influenced, by a guy who had seen battle and had himself arrayed troops for combat or/and exercise. The fact that Arrian agrees with the writings of others authors of questionable military experience is very strong evidence that the information should be taken seriously. Now, the Roman exercise he describes is one method that the Romans of his era would have used, which of course has little to do with what you are trying to analyze. This is why I wrote in a previous post that there is absolutely no evidence that the Cantabrian circle was a Republican tactic or that it was performed with multiple squadrons behind one another. As for the dekadarchiae, this is nothing in there that makes them a rank. A dimoerites is defined by Arrian as a half-file leader (ch.6) and generally, the lower officer ranks are always within a single "normal" file. And do not forget that the Cantabrian formation is just a part of the exercise. It is not "the" manner of fighting for the Roman cavalry.

If you have the time and are willing, I would very much appreciate any comment on the sentence and word constriction around the 10-man units and the 'double-pay' and 'pay-and-a-half' ranks mentioned? My copy (translation by James G DeVoto is somewhat 'literal' by design I believe).

You want me to translate it for you? Just write what DeVoto writes and I will happily see to it. An initial comment would be what I wrote above, that there is no hint as to whether this dekarchia is arrayed in a single or multiple rank or file.

Just to summarise this element of the likely tactics given the turmae organisation. It does seem obvious to me that the 30-men are indeed divided into 3 separate lines/ranks of 10 who operate one behind the other - with a Decurion holding the right of the line and the 'optio' holding and controlling the other end - and they are indeed the perfect size to assume a wedge for the striking power if necessary - but holding lines most commonly.

You know how I feel about this. Too bold and too unsupported to be accepted simply as "logical". The whole Graecoroman system of ranked officers is based on the file not the rank. Having the three officers in a single file is against "custom". As I see it when (and of course there would be times) the turma had to array 3 deep, the decurions would be all posted in the first rank (probably in files 1-5-10) and the optios on the rear. The use of wedge for Republican cavalry is totally unsupported and so cannot be used as an argument, so are 10 man wedges. The very fact that you need to divide a turma in three wedges is also very bold. Placing the optios in file in the same rank as their decurions is also problematic, which is my least supported disagreement since I do not profess any certainty on the position of the optio, I just think that he was customarily placed as a file-closer. One assumption is probable, two possible, all of them together make your proposal a "target" to criticism by proponents of more conventional theories.

Cavalry simply do not function well in long files - the horses get in each other's way. Cavalry, up to Napoleonic times, operate in successive waves and not en masse.

This is your boldest statement. What you are suggesting is totally in contrast with all accounts we have. Successive waves as you mean them, that is in ranks. was not the way a squadron fought in the ancient times and you have to be able to support that with evidence that will show it was the norm (since every other method was inefficient according to it) which you will not find. There is just so much in the sources about cavalry files and their role in the deployment and the charge that says otherwise.

However, I am curious, which ancient authors are your favorite? Who, would you say, do you mostly trust when it comes to (cavalry) tactics? Who has influenced your understanding of tactics most? You talk with the certainty of someone who has extensively studied the ancients which is a good thing, provided you have. So, your ideas, however radical and unconventional, must have some origins.