09-15-2014, 01:00 PM
Richard wrote:
The Dunbar number is not a hard and fast one, but 200 would be within the range/deviation.
Well that is good as the maximum the maniple reaches is 200 men. After that my research shows it made smaller (the system starts over again as per the original Servian constitution).
Richard wrote:
Now, my reading is not thorough, but my suggestion is that the maniple developed because it served two purposes: the size of the unit happened to be superior to the phalanx, and at the same time it was practical for unit cohesion and phychological/social support. Caring for your friends and not letting them down sort of thing. And I didn't say it disappeared, I said that at least the social concept, and the Roman military was pretty much its own social class, kept on. I was casually (I do a lot of that) looking through Roman fort designs and see that barrack blocks face each other, which perhaps reinforces this sense of community.
Wheeler (yes him again) in his paper “Fire Power, Missiles Weapons and the Face of Battle” writes that:
“MacMullen's attempt to do likewise for the Roman legion (1984) has now generated a mini-genre of works on the "legion as society," which feature various attempts to find "buddies" in the Roman army.”
“Physical proximity of a group through living arrangements does not automatically translate into unit cohesion (cf. Gray, J.G. (1959): The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle. New York. 40-42), and "buddy theory" coincided with the creation of smaller tactical groups in the face of technical improvements in automatic weapons and firepower, which rendered large units too vulnerable. One wonders if the "face of battle" enthusiasts are not trying too hard to impose a post-World War II phenomenon on ancient armies.”
Personally I put the Roman army on a par with the Russian army of WWII. Once you were taken prisoner, you were dead to the unit you belonged to. There are references to Roman soldiers being taken prisoner during the siege of Jerusalem and then publicly being tortured. The Roman reaction seems to be well it was your fault for being taken prisoner. Therefore, I have to agree with Wheeler that the proximity of one’s living arrangements does not translate into unit cohesion.
The Dunbar number is not a hard and fast one, but 200 would be within the range/deviation.
Well that is good as the maximum the maniple reaches is 200 men. After that my research shows it made smaller (the system starts over again as per the original Servian constitution).
Richard wrote:
Now, my reading is not thorough, but my suggestion is that the maniple developed because it served two purposes: the size of the unit happened to be superior to the phalanx, and at the same time it was practical for unit cohesion and phychological/social support. Caring for your friends and not letting them down sort of thing. And I didn't say it disappeared, I said that at least the social concept, and the Roman military was pretty much its own social class, kept on. I was casually (I do a lot of that) looking through Roman fort designs and see that barrack blocks face each other, which perhaps reinforces this sense of community.
Wheeler (yes him again) in his paper “Fire Power, Missiles Weapons and the Face of Battle” writes that:
“MacMullen's attempt to do likewise for the Roman legion (1984) has now generated a mini-genre of works on the "legion as society," which feature various attempts to find "buddies" in the Roman army.”
“Physical proximity of a group through living arrangements does not automatically translate into unit cohesion (cf. Gray, J.G. (1959): The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle. New York. 40-42), and "buddy theory" coincided with the creation of smaller tactical groups in the face of technical improvements in automatic weapons and firepower, which rendered large units too vulnerable. One wonders if the "face of battle" enthusiasts are not trying too hard to impose a post-World War II phenomenon on ancient armies.”
Personally I put the Roman army on a par with the Russian army of WWII. Once you were taken prisoner, you were dead to the unit you belonged to. There are references to Roman soldiers being taken prisoner during the siege of Jerusalem and then publicly being tortured. The Roman reaction seems to be well it was your fault for being taken prisoner. Therefore, I have to agree with Wheeler that the proximity of one’s living arrangements does not translate into unit cohesion.
