Login

04-07-2004, 11:19 AM

I was reading one of Osprey's Essential Histories of Caesar's Civil War, by Goldsworthy, and he writes that the Roman legion of the time would draw up three lines deep, the first line of four and the second and third of three cohorts. What struck me as strange was that he said they were arraigned with gaps in the lines which were covered by the cohorts in the next line. I do remember a post which talked about the usefulness of this formation in depth, but I thought the quincunx was used mainly because of the different troop types (princeps, hastati, triarii) of earlier armies. Any thoughts?

Vincula · 04-13-2004, 02:14 PM

I can't see this working in practise. Wouldn't the enemy just pour thru the gaping holes? 
Can anyone point us to the previous thread where this was discussed?

Hibernicus · 04-13-2004, 02:37 PM

The gaps in the checkerboard formation are also know as "killing pockets". The enemy moves in and is attacked from three sides. Imagine arrows and/or pila volleys from a couple of different angle simultaneously! 
 
Been there, done that.. its brutally efficient. 
 
Also works well as a "wedge formation", where an entire centuria would be the point of a wedge.. you could actually have several such "wedges" along a battle line 
 
Or form an echelon formation in which centuria are staggered diagonally back from each other.. undisciplined troops fall into this trap nicely, streching their lines, exposing flanks, bunching up... 
 
 
 
Hibernicus

04-14-2004, 02:31 AM

I seem to remember the conversation going the same way as the one Velite, myself and others had in the wedge formation board. As Hibernicus rightly points out the chekerboard is basically a line of wedge/echelon/vee formations when one looks at the first two battle lines together. Pila and arrow volleys strinking a foolhardy and overstretched enemy force who stupidly assaulted through the gaps in the Roman front line would be devasting when one considers the likely alignment of Roman centuria in a "regular" battle line(ie:in ideal open terrain in which each line of cohorts was probably two centuria deep like in the Pre-Marian times) . Hence an enemy force assaulting through a gap between two centuries/one maniple would be assailed by at least 6 centuries worth of pila (and lancea in later times)plus arrrows from archers which in many cases were placed between the second and third battle lines(see Caesar, Tacitus and Josephus). While a clever adversary would not fall for such a ploy, some certainly did, because there are plenty of accounts of the second battle line being just as heavily engaged as the first(which would only be partially be explained by line rotation). Indeed the ability of the Romans to rapidly change formations/alignments, rotate their lines and manuever reserve forces to take advantage of rash enemy manuevers were essential to Roman tactical victories.

drsrob · 04-14-2004, 06:39 AM

Personally I think the actual configuration was not much different from that of the Polybian legion. A cohort was after all composed of three maniples. Unlike what generally is assumed these would in my opinion be positioned next to each other and not behind one another. 
In the Polybian legion the gaps would, I think, be closed by marching the posterior century of each maniple left and then forward. This procedure would work just as well for a 'Marian' legion. The gaps then would not have been between the cohorts, but between the maniples. Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

04-14-2004, 03:06 PM

There's a pretty good site a found with some great illustrations of some of the formations and tactics we have been discussing 
www.geocities.com/Athens/...gions.html 
I suspect a Romanarmy.com member may have created it; it's quite good. The problem is the table of contents/homepage is down so you have to keep clicking next to move to the next page. Also, there aren't many direct citations used, though he/she does occasionally mention the authors that he/she sourced(Delbruck/Connolly, and the primary sources, Vegetius, Livy etc.) 
Some good scholarly secondary sources on Roman tactics/formations in the early principate are: Connolly's works, Speidel's Framework of An Imperial Legion(1992, from Oxbow books) and others, Goldsworthy, Gilliver's "Roman Art of War" (1999) and TR Homes's "Caesar's Conquest of Gaul(1911 , but still regarded as the best summary on Roman tactics). Hans Delbruck's monumental 1896 work on warfare in antiquity is still useful(this goes to the lack of modern scholarship on Roman tactics), though it is controversial and at times very sloppy in terms of historical methodology. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/15/04 12:48 am

04-15-2004, 01:14 PM

Very interesting discussion all around. 
 
The checkerboard seems the only way to explain how the Romans were able to bring up the second line easily in the midst of a battle without interpenetrating their units, which is complicated. However, I am still not convinced that the Romans would have liked their units to be both outflanked and pinned frontally. It would seem the both the Roman and the enemy line would fit into each other like tongue-and-groove resulting in a very messy battle. Again, though, I could see how an enemy trapped and compacted in the gaps between cohorts/centuries would be very vunerable to missle fire. 
Hibernicus, your view of the wedge formations is a saw-toothed line of echeloned-century cohort wedges? Assuming the checkerboard worked, this would seem to work even better, but doesn't answer my question of being hit in the flanked.... 
 
 
Rufus' link was very informative, thanks. I assume, though, that the distances between the lines were for the marching up the enemy, since they would have had to have been close to actually give support to the front line? 
 
 
Just an unofficial poll - do you think the gaps were between maniples, centuries, or cohorts? (for the Ceasarian and later legions?)

04-15-2004, 04:08 PM

Well I would say Velite that all would have gaps between them to some degree or another. Maybe just a 5 to 8 meter gap between centuries/maniples and a much larger one(20 to 30 meters) between cohorts. To not have gaps between the centuries would defeat the purpose of them having been tactical units with an independent chain of command ...in other words, having a centurion, optio , tessarius and signifer would be waste if they just massed together in combat. Also gaps would be essential at all levels of tactical units to facilitate the line rotation. I don't know if I but totally into the "Phalanx cohort" vision of the website. The centuries, in my view would have been close, but I believe there would have had to have been at least 5 to 10 meter gaps between them. It goes back to what we were saying about the problems of crowding and unused soldiers; more frontage all around means greater killing potential both from pila and gladii, hence I do believe the century was the smallest tactical unit in the Roman army; the cohort was the most important but I believe the centuria, even if operating as maniples were important. The fact that centuries were named and featured prominently of gravestones, the fact that they had standards and such a defined chain of command. Also, for those of you with out any military background, try moving a block of 480 people effectively with one NCO or Junior Officer shouting/trumpeting commands directly to the troops. It's difficult and on a battlefield even more so, whether or not Roman tactics centered around the Cohort is not the issue, they clearly did, but I don't think we can conclude that they operated as glorified phalanxes; this would ignore the importance and flexibility of the century, the skill and renown of their individual leaders and further disregard what we know of Roman weaponry and the significant differences between it and hoplite gear. 
The posterior century was very likely able to fill gaps in the flanks and help deal with enemy flankers. Unless they were massed together for special reasons(meeting a cavalry charge ala Arrian or assaulting through a breach in a city wall or field fortification) it would have been too dangerous for the posterior century to toss its pila over the heads of the anterior century.Hence they would have been useful in providing flank and rear support and line relief, not for fire support over the heads of the prior century...this would be too dangerous if they had 5 to 10 meters between them. 
As for the distance between lines, I thought the portrayal on the website was pretty good 50 feet is about the depth of a maniple of 14 to 16 ranks. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/17/04 5:24 pm

04-15-2004, 09:53 PM

The gaps I refered to in my question were the 'killing pockets'. I'm sure Roman formations were not solid blocks of troops, and I would definitely agree that the superiority of the Roman formations over the phalanx was the former's flexibility. There might even have been some space between contubernium, I don't think we really know much about drill and manouver for sure. About the rear century, it would seem to make sense that they would both work to destroy any enemies in the 'killing pocket' and to cover the flank of the first century, but how do you think this was accomplished? Did the rear century divid in half and each face to it's flank, facing into the 'pocket'?

04-16-2004, 04:19 PM

Fos sure we have very little and very controversial evidence on how the Roman line was deployed, so I would like to point out some historical para<llels from other periods for what we do have reliable information 
1) Gaps 
there are here 2 types 
a) Small gaps between units, they are necessary to assure proper deployment, so I think there is no discussion here 
b) Large gaps, the size of an entire unit, the so called "killing pockets". Those IMO are nonsense, there is no historical parallel I can recall for such a thing 
So, how were frontline soldiers replaced by fresh units? opening ranks and going through. This is a manouver described in all military works since XVI century, invoking many times by the way the Roman history, and I see no reason to look further on that regard, it is the easier, cleaner and safer explanation.

04-17-2004, 03:26 AM

Yes but we do have plenty of examples of checkerboard formations in history and I don't know if we can rule out "killing pockets" entirely. It is certainly possible, as Connolly and others suggest, that the gaps between maniples/centuria were simply filled before going into battle by the posterior centuries. I certainly believe there was that flexibility. We know of several solid single battle lines in Roman history(Pompey/Arrian) I also still believe that checkerboards might have been used, because there would be tactical advantages to it and because it is really the only way to explain the heavy fighting the second line of battle often engaged in. If the first line was "solid",as in Arrian's battle then the a third line or fourth line would seem to be quite useless, since the cohorts of the second line could easily serve as the reserve and for front line support/relief. The closest example I can think of for the usefulness of the checkerboard squares, would be the use of "cavalry squares" or columns of attack in Napoleonic times. These formations relied on breaking the enemy force by spreading him around a solid block of troops either in a defensive or offensive posture. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/17/04 5:22 pm

04-18-2004, 10:34 AM

Hi RufusCaius 
I imagine you meant cavalry columns, as there were no cavalry squares. Those formations were used in Napoleonic times, yes, but only against enemy cavalry, not against infantry, and mainly because they allowed easier manouver to inexperienced troops. 
The best example for checkboard formations I can recall are the XVI-XVII century pike formations, with wide gaps between them, the reason for that was allowing for the deployment of the shot and for passing of cavalry. In general, I can recall some medieval deployments also in whic there were gaps in the second line to provide lanes to retreat to the front line, should it be hard pressed, without disorganizing the second line. However, I canÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t recall a "killing pocket" tactic in any period of history. 
Second lines were many times engaged either allowing the first line to retreat through it or replacing the front line advancing through the opening ranks.

Vincula · 04-18-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:<hr>Second lines were many times engaged either allowing the first line to retreat through it or replacing the front line advancing through the opening ranks.<hr> 
Gaps between ranks, okay. But unit-sized gaps?! Isn't that just asking for trouble?

04-18-2004, 09:52 PM

It's a debate I'm afraid that will never be totally resolved. I mean I think its telling that Delbruck and Kronmeyer(solid vs. checkerboard), who wrote the early 20th century, still rightly have many followers today and cannot be dispoven on any of their key points regrading Roman tactics. There just isn't enough out there to determine a set Roman doctrine. I think Goldsworthy's overall point here on the flexibility of the Legions and the Army in general, is worthy of keeping in mind. While there certainly would have been certain standard formations, drills and tactical doctrines, how extensive these were and how much was left to the field commanders(from Legates,Consuls and tribunes down to centurions) is certainly debatable. Clearly there might have been occasions to use both formations. A checkerboard line could not have been practicable at all times, even if it was doctrine. The same goes for the solid line. As for killing pockets, I agree there isn't much solid evidence for them. I don't find it impossible though, because of the the reasons that others more emminent than I, have discussed. 
I would add that when we talk of unit sized gaps it must be remembered that there would have to have been gaps between phalanxes as well, and in the case of the centuries a unit sized gap for a century with a 13 (for the Principate) or 10 (for the Pre-Marian Army) man frontage and a six man depth is not that extensive when one considers the frontage and tactical abilities of a phalanx. Now if the gaps were century sized, or smaller, rather than maniple sized, this would make sense, and fit with what we know of gaps in more modern pike and musket armed infantry formations. Yes its true, as Aryaman pointed out, that checkerboard formations were quite different in the 15th to 16th centuries, but then again we don't have any another examples of a line changing system like the one the Romans used, hence some aspects of its formation must have been unique. Still I think the existence of posterior and prior centuries, added to the emphasis of writers like Polybius on the 360 degree fighting ability and general flexibility of the maniple(and centuries), I think certainly some type of checkerboard formations,if not killing pockets, may have in fact occasionally been formed by Roman troops through deliberate maneuvering. As Isaid though, its a fun discussion and one unlikely to ever have definitive answers unless our archaeologist friends find Frontinus's or Cato's Art of War somewhere . Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/19/04 2:40 am

04-19-2004, 12:22 PM

It would seem to me that the checkerboard would be a line-breaking formation used for the attack. Taking Vincula's comments into consideration, the second line would have to be immidiately behind the first line so the the enemy cannot go through the gaps and around the first line. As I said before, though, this formation would be very problematic for a line to deal with. The tendency would be for the part of the enemy line opposite the gap to advance into the flank of the foward maniple, thus causing the line to break up. Probably well trained soldiers, however, would merely stand where they are and not advance into the pocket. 
 
I am certain that the Roman's flexibility lay in the small gaps between manouvering units. That '360 degree flexibility' that Rufus points out is, I think, is vital to the difference between Roman formations and the phalanx. The hoplites of a phalanx were armed with spears, which are excellent weapons if you can keep your enemy at the end of it. One must keep a solid wall of spears to keep the enemy at a distance. This is compounded when you consider the Successors Rome had to fight, with their 20 foot long pikes; not exactly the most nimble weapon. Although the phalanx could have had gaps advancing upon the enemy, they would have to have closed any gaps in the line upon contact. The Roman formations, on the other hand, can have small gaps between formations while in combat since a gladius-armed soldier has that '360 degree' fighting ability, although I would still argue that one never wants an enemy on the flank even though it was not as devastating to the Romans as it was to the hoplites or phalangites. 
 
This is a very interesting discussion, let's keep it going.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me