Caeserian Checherboard?

[Anonymous]

"How we engage a large enemy force in battle.<br>
...<br>
We take two or even three phalanxes, all facing in the same direction, and we place them at a distance from each other which is equal to the length of their front. In the spaces between each phalanx we insert two or three ranks [standard for the normal phalanx should be 8 ranks], who should be in a straight line with the front ranks, so that all the men may appear to the enemy as one continous phalanx.<br>
...<br>
When the enemy approach more closely, our formation should move forward a short distance, just enough so that the ranks posted in the intervals between each phalanx will find themselves on a line with its rear ranks. ... the enemy coming up opposite our phalanxes will become engaged with each of them. But those opposite the intervals between each phalanx will be unable to do any fighting, or else, andvancing in upon the intervening spaces, they will be caught in a cross fire at close range and suffer severely."<br>
<br>
<br>
from:<br>
The Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy, chapter 37, believed to date from mid 6th century by a retired army engineer<br>
citated after George T. Dennis: Three Byzantine Military Treatises, Washington 1985, p. 111-12. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

That is very interesting, and looks similar to XVI century tactics, assuming the troops inter phalanx were shot, however it would be nice to have the actual reference instead of second hand reference, anyone have it? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

That seems pretty cut and dry. Great Reference for checkerboard and possibly killing pockets in the Late Roman/Earl Byzantine Armies. This jibes with Polybius's account and Livy's. As I've mentioned before one of the best summaries of the two arguments is in TR Holmes Caesar's Conquest of Gaul(1911): it features a a twelve page discussion on intervals, and talks about the accounts of Polybius, Livy and Caesar and how they may support or refute each argument. Holmes falls on the side of Kroymayer/Veith--the pro-intervals folks, but as he mentions all of the authors admit that there were certainly some intervals between units, and that at certain times the Roman maniples/cohorts would have fought in a close order with small gaps or no gaps. He also discusses the debate on the size of said intervals and line replacement. Sabin and Goldsworthy are the two most well known modern interval supporters based on their theories on the mechanics of Roman warfare, which(in my view) only further support some of Veith/Holmes's conclusions made nearly a century ago.<br>
--Rufus <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://b30.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/22/04 2:27 pm<br></i>