Login

Q Rutilius · 09-23-2003, 07:23 PM

I am currently reading Hannibal by Theodore Ayrault Dodge. It is an awesome piece of work; enough to make you wonder if modern scholarship has not slipped a bit. 
 
Anyway, he refers to the famous Roman checkeboard (quincux) formation. I know that at one time it was widely thought that the Romans fought in this formation, but that now days this is not so widely accepted. 
 
What I want to know is: can you refer me to any books or sources that describe how this fomation would have fought? 
 
I can not work out how the legions could have come to grips with the enemy with gaps in the line. 
 
Am not asking if they did fight this way (but feel free to comment on that too). I am asking for descriptions of how (even in theory) this formation would have been fought.

09-23-2003, 08:39 PM

Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at war" has an explanation of the checkerboard formation, with drawings. 
The first line (hastati) had no gaps when it came into contact with the eney. 
The gaps were in the second (princeps) and third (triarii) lines. This allowed the hastati, if beaten back, to fall back through the gaps. Then the gaps would close and a new line would form. 
And indeed Theodore Ayrault Dodge is an awesome writer. I haven't read his Hannibal but his Caesar is a great piece of work.

09-24-2003, 06:43 AM

The formation also made it easier to move over the battlefield, where a line would either break up or bunch up when moving over uneven terrain.

Jeroen Pelgrom · 09-24-2003, 10:43 AM

In "Warfare in the ancient world" by John Warry there is also a very good explanation about this. 
 
As Antonius said, the first line closed its gaps before the enemy reached the first Roman line (the back half of a century would close the gap next to its front half). 
If the first line failed to defeat the enemy, the first line would be exchanged withe second line. If the second line failed to defeat the enemy, this line would be exchanged with the third line. The retreating lines would fall back through the gaps of the other line. 
 
How this is done in real life is a different story.... Volo anaticulam cumminosam meam!Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pelgr003>pelgr003</A> at: 9/24/03 1:16 pm

drsrob · 09-24-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:<hr>As Antonius said, the first line closed its gaps before the enemy reached the first Roman line (the back half of a century would close the gap next to its front half).<hr>Rather, the back half of each maniple, or the rear century! Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

09-24-2003, 02:04 PM

Though we often seem to debate and discuss the various theories of how this formation fought or whether or not it closed the gaps I feel that the manipular formations (with gaps in all three lines) was developed and perfected for fighting the phalanx. Gaps in the fighting line would encourage gaps in the phalanx. The legionairies were trained and accustomed to taking advantage of these for the phalangite it would be death for one section to move beyond the support of its neighbors.

Q Rutilius · 09-24-2003, 02:29 PM

Jeff, that was my next question! I thought maybe it was an anti-phalanx formation. Which would explain why it was dropped (as I understand it) when the Romans went up against the Gauls.

09-24-2003, 04:00 PM

I've never come across anything to say it was anti phalanx, interesting idea though. 
I would have though it would be easy for the phalangites facing the gaps to simply keep pace with the ones fighting, so I can't see any advantages. 
When was the formation first mentioned?

Q Rutilius · 09-24-2003, 04:19 PM

I am not sure when the formation was first used. Perhaps it coincides with the adoption of the manipular system?

09-24-2003, 07:11 PM

It appears that this legion formation first occurred in Romes wars against Greek type armies. It seems to last throughout the period until Rome starts fighting mainly barbarian type foes. 
 
My opinion is that the checkerboard formation is not at any disadvantage when fighting a phalanx, in fact it has a significant advantage over the Greek formation. The phalanx must keep aligned (at least roughly) so that one of its battalions does not advance beyond the support of its neighbors. Any rough terrain or any too aggressive advance by one unit will place the phalangites at the mercy of the gladius armed legionary. It is not necessarily easy for the phalangite to keep formation. Dust or missile weapons effects might obscure visibility, aggressive behavior by the rear rankers might cause the front rankers to advance in an uncoordinated manner, the very helmets might obscure vision and hearing or signals might be misunderstood. 
 
In the end the phalanx appears to be a formation where everything must work just right, the manipular legion a formation that is designed to take advantage of the 'fog of war. Much as I like Connely and Warry and all the other authorities we just don't know for sure how this formation fought, maneuvered, or relieved ranks of fighters. It is always interesting to discuss and read opinions.

drsrob · 09-24-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:<hr>Which would explain why it was dropped (as I understand it) when the Romans went up against the Gauls. <hr>I don't think it was dropped at all. 
The battle arrangment for a 'Marian' legion of ten cohorts was not that much different. Only the three maniples of the cohort were placed in the same line and next to each other, while in the Polybian legion they had been divided over the three battle lines. 
Drawing the cohorts as squares is in my opinion erroneous. It would suggest that the three maniples were posted behind one another. That however would result in nine, rather than three battle lines and that's simply ridiculous. Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

09-24-2003, 08:11 PM

This is in response to an earlier query about how the alternating maniples might form into a battle line: 
 
Not that this is historical accuracy, but there used to be a time, it seems, when Hollywood film diectors did some homework. As inaccurate as much of the film is in other ways, the marching into positon of the legions in Kubrick/Douglas' "Spartacus" I think gives a good idea of the theory of chequerboard maniples. Kubrick really tried to have his legions accurate (at least to the thinking at the time). Every time I look at Connelly's diagrams, I am reminded of the film. It's still the most impressive scene in the movie (the actual fighting is kind of stagey and lame after it). 
 
Just thought I'd throw that in. 
 
Wade Heaton 
Lucius Cornelius Libo 
[email protected] 
www.togaman.com

09-24-2003, 08:28 PM

...as you described about being nine lines deep is off. In the manipular legion the first line consisted of the ten maniples of Hastati, the second line of the ten Principes, the third line of the ten Triarii maniples (60 men maniples as opposed to 120 man Hastati or Principes maniples). It would be as if the Marian legion was aligned with all ten cohorts abreast and each cohort deployed with its three maniples in column but with gaps between each maniple. 
Jeff

drsrob · 09-24-2003, 08:58 PM

I was referring to drawings of the Marian legion in battle. I agree with your description of the Polybian legion. Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

09-25-2003, 06:48 AM

I've never read anything in any of the original sources, to say the phalanx was defeated due to the roman formation. The phalanx usually finds itself being broken up after pushing back the legionaries over broken terrain, and I think in one battle, by having elephants (their own) disorder the formation. Polybius wrote about the legion versus the phalanx, but I don't remember any mention of the chequer board formation being decisive.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me