Use of whistles to relay commands in battle

[Crispvs]

I may be mistaken in this, but doesn't the detail of exchanging lines to put fresh soldiers in the front line come from Polybius, meaning that it is a practice of the second century BC and one which may not have been in use later, useful as it might seem. Caesar, nearly a century later, on one occasion mentions deciding to put his men into the the traditional three line formation, which recalls Polibius' description but at the same time suggests that other formations (and possibly practices) were in use by this time. What that might mean for formations a century after this is anyone's guess.

Regarding the actual practice of exchanging men, I would prefer to try and build a reconstruction of how it might be done on the basis of things we already know rather than things which are little more than theory. To witt: we know the Roman army used trumpets; we know they could be formed into three lines, the front two of which could in some way be exchanged; we know they had large numbers of projectile weapons in the form of pila and probably slings and arrows; as well as knowing that they trained intensively (which was probably the case in Polybius' time as well, at least during periods of service).

Using these factors I would propose the following as a possibility for Caesar's time, using one cohort of 480 men as my example:

The three maniples are stood next to each other, with prior centuries in open order in front, posterior centuries in closed order behind. I assume the frontage to be ten men for each century/maniple, with the most experienced and best equipped men in the front two ranks.
During the fighting the front thirty men do the bulk of the fighting. As they are more experienced and better equipped they stand far more chance of surviving than many of the more inexperienced and more poorly equipped men behind them, who are there largely to give the formation depth and staying power if the enemy try to push forward. Some of the men in ranks three four and five might throw javelins over the heads of the men in front from time to time if space was available and they were not tightly compacted. Those in ranks six, seven and eight (assuming an eight man depth) could not do so due to the possibility of hitting their own men. Any serious casualties in the front rank would be replaced by experienced well equipped men from the second rank, with the wounded men being withdrawn from the front line in an ad hoc but well practice way. Men who had fallen might be able to be dragged back by men in ranks behind, as is described several times in the Iliad (which of course might not be relevant as it describes warfare several centuries before).

After a given time (perhaps five minutes) the posterior centuries replace the now tired prior centuries. At a signal from a trumpet, the front ranks of the prior centuries intensify their efforts for a short burst which which cannot be sustained for long but which drives the enemy back slightly, allowing the prior centuries to contract into closed order. This would start in the rear ranks , allowing the posterior centuries to move forward through the gaps being created by the contracting prior centuries. As the posterior centuries move forward the contracted rear ranks of the prior centuries begin to fall back, allowing the posterior centuries to begin to expand towards open order. By this stage the prior and posterior centuries would look like interlocking triangles from above. As the middle ranks of the prior centuries contract, the still contracted front ranks of the posterior centuries rapidly move forward between them and release a volley of pila over the heads of the still expanded front ranks of the prior centuries, causing a momentary confusion in the enemy ranks which allows the front ranks of the prior centuries to contract and withdraw while the front ranks of the posterior centuries move forward and expand into open order. With a frontage per century of only ten men, the expansion to open order would take only a second or two, giving a new cohort frontage of thirty fresh well equipped men. While this was going on the middle ranks would throw a further volley over the head of the men in front to cause more discomfort to the enemy while the front line was compromised. As the contracted front ranks of the prior centuries withdraw, the ranks of the posterior centuries would fully expand to open order, closing the gaps between the centuries again to produce a cohesive thirty man wide, eight man deep formation.

I think that with a few days' training, such an operation would be relatively easy to achieve and would possibly take about a minute to carry out.

Meanwhile the three prior centuries would draw back a little way to spend five minutes catching their breath and sorting themselves out, before exchanging back to the front again.

I don't think that many trumpet blasts would be required to carry out this operation once the men were used to doing it.

I appreciate that this suggestion is far from perfect, but I offer it as what I hope is a more realistic suggestion than the HBO idea.

Note that I do not think that the exchange of lines refers to an exchange of individual ranks but of full lines several men deep. Also, regarding the idea that you could put a hand around a belt to pull a man back, I think that if a weighted belt is loose enough to fit your hand behind, it is also loose enough to start slipping down.

Crispvs

[Rubico]

This is a very interesting discussion. I too saw the opening scenes of HBO's ROME, and noted the use of whistles to provide "shift" rotations. I completely agree that we cannot get our history from TV shows, but I would like to add a modern perspective.

I was a police officer for 36 years (Chicago area). During that time, we had to train for riot/hostile crowd control situations (we hated it, by the way). We had plexiglass shields, riot helmets, leather glove and boots, ballistic body armor, riot batons and lots of other toys. But our formations would have been somewhat recognizable to a Roman soldier. And we rotated our ranks so that the guys in front were replenished by fresh troops from the rear. In order to communicate formation changes, the commanding officer relied upon an air horn. It was very loud, and the number of bursts would signify the type of formation and other commands (formation right/left/oblique, forward, halt, etc.).

I would bet the Romans were very aware of the use of audible signals to do the same things.

[Bryan]

Crispus,

You read my mind in terms of how you described the fighting. Simple, straightforward, easy to learn, easy to command.

I recently knocked out some diagrams of the Roman formations in battle. Actually making a picture of it gave me I think a greater understanding of it.

[attachment=1832]1Maniplelegionagainstgreekstylephalanx.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1833]2Maniplelegionagainstgermans.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1834]3Maniplelegionagainstgermans.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1835]4Maniplelegionagainstgermans.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1836]5Cohortlegionagainstgermans.jpg[/attachment]

[Bryan]

Unfortunately the diagrams lost a lot of their detail when I posted it, to include the text so I will describe what you see:

I know there is a lot of controversy about the whole "Gap" idea but I believe that Polybius was not referring to maniple size gaps just for deploying the legions.

I think the answer lies with that the Romans came up with a formation designed to break up traditional shieldwalls and phalanxes. The formation was the maniple, a column of two centuries front to back which would give them depth (actual numbers and psychological edge).

Multiple sources write that is was unusual for the Romans not to charge the enemy instead taking the enemy charge and then counterattacking. So Roman tactics were based on ferocity, aggression and offensive spirit. They used the maniples similar to how Napolean later used similar columns, isolated attacks in mass against points of the enemy line to destroy their cohesion and order.

Perfect tactic when dealing with enemy that fight in shield walls, traditional greek phalanxes or Macedonian phalanx. Their fighting ability revolves around keeping their ranks together, if they lose order they will probably lose the battle. The only thing keeping the men alive is their cohesion, as soon as it is lost the cowards will run leaving the brave to die in the front ranks.

The problem with the maniple formation is it is unflexible and predictable. Since they always deployed in the same formation it would be easy for a smart enemy of Rome to come up with a way of beating them. (Hannibal at Trebia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae). The key to this formation is a smart Roman commander who will use it in the best terrain.

The most apparent weakness that most speak about are the gaps themselves. The enemy can flood into the gaps and attack the hastati maniple's sides. However this is exactly what the Romans want, to attack the gaps means that the enemy has to break ranks. While the Romans in back and sides hold the enemy off with pilum and swords the tribunes riding between the hastati and principes line will be waiting for the moment to start ordering the principes maniples forward. If the hastati maniples don't penetrate the enemy line and are stalled or if they start getting surrounded he orders centurions from the Principes maniples to advance.

If the enemy formation has surrounded the hastati maniples then that means that their cohesion has been lost, easy pickings for the attacking principes maniples. If the enemy kept their ranks then by deploying the principes maniples it would take pressure off of the Hastati maniples who could back off, regroup, shift posterior century to the front and then attack again.

Attack, get relieved by maniples attacking to the left and right of you, pull back, rest, drink water, attend to wounded, relieve centuries and attack again. Continue until victory. Simple and brutally efficient.

The main problem that comes is when the enemy formation has such numbers and depth that it is impossible for 120 - 160 men maniples to break through them. Also the depth of the enemy formation would allow the front rankers to surround and swallow up the maniples without losing general cohesiveness of the army. I believe this situation occurred in the 113 - 101 BC period when the Romans went to war against the massive Cimbri/Teutone/Ambrone confederation. The Germans together had an army of a half a million. When the uninspired Roman consuls with little imagination orders his army forward in normal triplex acies formation of maniples they were swallowed up. The men in the rear maniples watch it, get scared and run. Once they run the real slaughter begins.

Later Marius takes over and reforms the army. He uses cohorts, a concept used in the past when maniples were detached and formed together to be used independently. But now Marius has a maniple from each line made into one formation designed to fight together. The Triari is renamed Pilus and is beefed up to full manpower and will now be on the front line, why waste veteran experience?

The maniples would have small enough gaps between them for maneuver and to allow them to open and close ranks without upsetting order. The gaps between cohorts are now bigger, equal to their width, but since the formation is now about 480 men strong instead of 160 it would be extremely unlikely for the enemy to be able to surround them and destroy them. If enemy of Rome did that it would mean the entirety of the front of their line would have to break ranks to do it. Again, easy pickings for cohorts in the second line or for cavalry to attack.

Since the tactics worked (Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae, 250,000 dead Germans to 1,500 Romans) everyone jumped on board. When a Consul raised and organized an army later on he did it on the lines of Marius' new model army. Why? It works. Same as before, the principal is sound, why recreate the wheel if you don't have to.

Another major factor in the Cohort legionary formation would be its flexibility. The commander could station his cohorts anywhere he wanted to. One line, two, three, detach men for flanking attacks, make a fourth line to prevent flanking attacks (Caesar at Pharsalus). Gaps, no gaps, auxiliary infantry and slingers in the gaps. Whatever, it is all based on the imagination and audacity of the Roman commander.

Altogher, this is my opinion but it seems to make sense to me. Retarded simple to lead and signals would be simple as well. Need to change direction of a cohort, tell the Pilus Prior centurion. Everyone guides off of his century.

So now let the discussion begin.

[Brent Nielsen]

Byron wrote: The maniples would have small enough gaps between them for maneuver and to allow them to open and close ranks without upsetting order. The gaps between cohorts are now bigger, equal to their width, but since the formation is now about 480 men strong instead of 160 it would be extremely unlikely for the enemy to be able to surround them and destroy them.

The gaps don't exist at all in the front line, each of those four cohorts is tied in with the next. Macedon and I have discussed this many times and have yet to agree. He says they all line up 6-eight ranks deep. It is both mathematically and physically impossible for the second and third line formations to line up as deep and as wide with only three cohorts instead of four. I propose the following and more practiable approach: the second lines simply line up thinner (say four to six insted of the six to eight)than the first line. Since third line cohorts were more than likely even shorter on manpower, they can attempt to do the same with ranks 1-3 men deep or remain in their sold cohort formations and fill in where necessary and as needed. Although I like the whistle idea for individual Centuries, it is not due to HBO. Cornicens and Bucinare are assigned to the cohorts and Century level. Occum's Razor says (simplest solution is the most likeley) these were used to deliver signals not whistles. As far as the enemy learning and using them, Caesar's opponents usually didn't live long enough to put such an idea to the test and he makes no record of it in Gaul. His Pompeian opponents might have been a different story but the evidence is lacking.

[Brent Nielsen]

I agree with most of Cripus' proposal, but remember 480 is the authorized strength...on paper...what was 'on hand' could and often was much lower! Most of the diagrams I have seen show the 'maniples' standing prior century to the right and posterior to the left. This would require in rank rotation front to rear which automatically negates the need and significantly reduces the confusion of swapping posterior and prior centuries. Read Policeman Rick's explanation...exactly the same we did it in the military and a more practical one for the post Marian Legions.

[Bryan]

Brent,

You say; "The gaps don't exist at all in the front line, each of those four cohorts is tied in with the next."
Polybius states they did exist for the Polybian maniple legions and I state that it makes sense to continue with the fighting method with cohorts as well. If it isn't broke, why fix it? Only thing wrong is overall numbers, so beef up the maniple attacks to cohort size, done!

In my opinion, having the entire front line of cohorts and centuries being organized in one continuous line wouldn't work. Centuries eight men deep as fighting units wouldn't work. Formation lacks depth, maneuverability and hitting power.

Lets look at a typical file of the 1st line:
1st soldier - Veteran killing machine
2nd soldier - Same
3rd soldier - Motivated soldier with decent fighting abilities
4th soldier - Somewhat motivated soldier with OK abilities
5th soldier - Doesn't want to fight any longer, only joined cause he was levied
6th soldier - Terrified of fighting/dying. (even in ancient Rome not everyone was tough)
7th soldier - Slot open, soldier wounded severely in sword sharpening accident
8th soldier - Slot open, soldier dead from fever

So now we have an entire front line of this. And they are fighting against a phalanx 16 deep, or Germans in shield wall 50 deep. For sake of argument the length of lines of both forces are equal. And for the record I am pretty sure the enemy wasn't standing still when the enemy hit them, they went forward to. Both sides would charge and both sides threw missiles. Greek phalanx had slingers, archers. The germans/celts are generally given extra lighter spears to throw.

Exactly how do the Roman's win?

Easy, they don't. Not if they fight in one line. When the two sides collide the men in the first couple ranks will fight like demons while the men in the rear panic when they see the insurmountable odds they face. Remember, war is psychological. Men see for their 6 man deep file they face 16-50 men. Not going through them so the only way is backwards.

I stated a historical example above that could be used still to argue my case. The Cimbri/Teutone confederation had destroyed a total of 4 consular armies (but I thought Romans were unstoppable...) After each victory they plunder the dead of equipment. I propose that by 102 BC when Marius first had a go at the Teutones and destroyed them they were almost entirely armed and equipped as well or if not better than the Romans.

So now you take 100,000 Germanic warriors, all who spend their entire lives training for battle, and you put them against your entire line of centuries 8 deep (but they wouldn't be because of casualties/sickness/desertions). So actually 6 deep. Or 8 deep with replacements from those of the second or third line who are now running at 40% manpower instead of 80% and who would probably not send their best men anyway because what commander/centurion sends his best men away right before a battle? I don't need to be a Roman general to figure out how this situation will turn out.

And why call the centuries Prior and Posterior if they aren't front to back. Why not say dexter and sinister instead? And you can't use "tradition" because Marius changed the name of the triari maniples to Pilus since they were no longer third rankers. Why wouldn't he change the others?

I know the prevailing thought about how cohorts/centuries deployed is right to left with no gaps but that doesn't mean the prevailing thought is wrong. Since it was never written exactly how they fought I think my above explanation explains it. At least for me it did.

[Bryan]

And to Brent and Rick,

Q: What anti-riot formation allows deep penetration of the rioters' ranks to break them up?

A: The Wedge Formation

And using the maniples and then later cohorts as independent fighting units with gaps served that purpose. Even though they weren't wedge shaped they would still perform the same function.

[Sardaukar]

In Hellenistic phalanx, when phalanx was starting to break/rout, it could be predicted/observed when movement was seen inside phalanx according to ancient sources. Thus I am bit sceptical about rotating ranks of troops inside century, because it could be easily mistaken by other troops as unit routing.

My personal view is that rotation was unit-based (apart from replacing casualties), not within century. And in sources, when fighting in usual triplex acies, second line got embroiled in fight quite quickly. This could mean that unit rotation was provided by centuries from second line.

Interesting discussion, though. And I agree with Brent that Cornicens and Bucinare were most likely used in any movement-related commands.

[Brent Nielsen]

To Bryan: And why call the centuries Prior and Posterior if they aren't front to back. Why not say dexter and sinister instead? And you can't use "tradition" because Marius changed the name of the triari maniples to Pilus since they were no longer third rankers. Why wouldn't he change the others?

Marius reforms did away with the Manipular system in anything more than an adminstrative sense. Their names weren't changed anymore than modern Battalions retain thier own Regimantal designations when Regiments are rarely used anymore. Polybius' Legions were completey different from what (at least I )have been discussing. BTW my bad about the gaps between cohorts, I meant no gaps between Centuries. Centuries 'tied in' in the front line cohorts...Thats what I get for cocktailing and typing.... I don't have acsess to a scanner at the moment but I would have you look at Goldsworthy's "Complete Roman Army" Pg 46-47 for a proper Marian Legion Formation, yours are Polybian and obsolete by the time Caesar was in Gaul.

The Centuries continued to retain their Polybian standards, a hand atop the staff for the formerly Prior Centuries and a spearhead atop the standards of the posterior units. As for why Marius 9(usually so very thorough) didn't change the unit designations is a mystery to me. Perhaps someone could start a new thread there?

Bryan also wrote:Lets look at a typical file of the 1st line:
1st soldier - Veteran killing machine
2nd soldier - Same
3rd soldier - Motivated soldier with decent fighting abilities
4th soldier - Somewhat motivated soldier with OK abilities
5th soldier - Doesn't want to fight any longer, only joined cause he was levied
6th soldier - Terrified of fighting/dying. (even in ancient Rome not everyone was tough)
7th soldier - Slot open, soldier wounded severely in sword sharpening accident
8th soldier - Slot open, soldier dead from fever

I would suggest that the formation you mention is still too optomistic. Again I recommend Goldsworthy, page 91. A 1st Century AD duty roster demonstrates that keeping the men around for training otr whatever, was a full time job for a Centurion.
After subtracting in unreplaced losses and years of campaigning your file might look more like this:
Lets look at a typical file of the 1st line:
1st soldier - Veteran killing machine
2nd soldier - Same
3rd soldier - Motivated soldier with decent fighting abilities
4th soldier - Somewhat motivated soldier with OK abilities
5th soldier - Doesn't want to fight any longer, only joined cause he was levied
6th soldier - Might as well be vacant, terrified, pissing his breech cloth.
7th Soldier-vacant
8th soldier_ vacant
I stated a historical example above that could be used still to argue my case. The Cimbri/Teutone confederation had destroyed a total of 4 consular armies (but I thought Romans were unstoppable...) After each victory they plunder the dead of equipment. I propose that by 102 BC when Marius first had a go at the Teutones and destroyed them they were almost entirely armed and equipped as well or if not better than the Romans.

Whether eight deep worked for you or not (in your opinion) or not doesn't hold weight either...Eight deep (when you can get it ) turns into 14-16 deep when the second line joins the first (very soon) after battle is joined. I was hammered on this myself when I attempted to argue this point with some of the people here. I am surprised they haven't entered into this thread to beat us both up. :lol:
The 6-8 deep ranks IS documented. One of the reasons Marius did away with the Manipular Polybius formation was it's depth allowed those 100,000 Germans or 450,000 Cimbii and Teutone to flank the Generals they defeated before Marius came along and destroyed them...with a longer, more extended and flexible formation. Polybius' formation defeated the Greek and Macedonian phalanx but that formation was no longer used by Marius' time. (Caesar describes natives aligning by tribal groups but the phalanxes described by modern historians is more a translator error). Going against incredibly vast numbers called for extended lines, flexibility and teamwork to a level not possible in Polybius' formation. Legios who did not remain in formation were executed for their lack of discipine, in the standard manner. Any that wavered as YOU describe, were flogged.
Seriously though, we should atempt to find out why Marius didn't change the centuries to Sinistare and dextere! THAT IS a great question!

[Brent Nielsen]

Byron: I have never seen a diagram of a Polybian Legion fighting like this. The last frame is where I have issues. Where did you see this? Interesting concept. Not ready to buy into it but interesting!

[Bryan]

Brent,

"I have never seen a diagram of a Polybian Legion fighting like this. The last frame is where I have issues. Where did you see this? Interesting concept. Not ready to buy into it but interesting!"

I took the idea of the basic polybian legion from Polybius, Livy and a ton of other modern sources. The concept of the Marian cohort legion in quincunx formation is also out there, I just demonstrated in the picture why I think it was created.

"Marius reforms did away with the Manipular system in anything more than an adminstrative sense. Their names weren't changed anymore than modern Battalions retain thier own Regimantal designations when Regiments are rarely used anymore."

I would disagree. No one mentions how the cohort system looked in ancient sources. Goldsworthy and many others have laid down how they "think" it might have been similar to mine just be as well. Caesar mentions triplex acies in his commentaries but doesn't say how they were formed. No one else that I am aware of does either. And like I said, the whole point of a cohort system as shown above was that the commander has the luxury of staging the cohorts where ever he wants. Gaps, no gaps, 1 line, 2, 3, 4. Its up to him.

"The 6-8 deep ranks IS documented"

Source please.

"Seriously though, we should atempt to find out why Marius didn't change the centuries to Sinistare and dextere! THAT IS a great question!"

I think he didn't change the name because the prior centurion still fought in front of the posterior just as they always had, not right to left. The only source to the whole right and left century position is Polybius (6:24,8-9) but depending on the translation (i've seen two) I think it's actually referring to where the centurions themselves stand in relation to the maniple itself. Based on personal believes I think it would be wise to put centuries front to back because it gave them depth and a way to relieve one another.

"One of the reasons Marius did away with the Manipular Polybius formation was it's depth allowed those 100,000 Germans or 450,000 Cimbii and Teutone to flank the Generals they defeated before Marius came along and destroyed them...with a longer, more extended and flexible formation."

I thought I stated my reasons why organizing the older maniple system into cohorts ( of 3 maniples) would work. Depth and width with the manpower to protect themselves in battle independently. Can't really explain more than I did. And Marius, Sulla, Caesar and all the others defeated their adversaries through tactics not drill and formations. Like I wrote before, what I drew on those diagrams might not be what Adrian Goldsworthy wrote in his book (even though it is close) but he only stated his assumption based on evidence like I have done mine. Just like Connolly, Delbruck, Sabin,

For the record, I am not arguing against the use of whistles or other signals to give commands to troops. Cornicen and the rest weren't used to entertain the troops. Heck, for both of my trips to Iraq I carried a whistle for similar reasons that was shown in the TV show "Rome". What I am stating is that the way that "Rome" performed a replacement of a rank (not a line) that would be unnecessary in my opinion. I stated my many reasons why it wouldn't be needed already. And judging by the searches I did on this website I am not in the minority for assuming that.

Anyway, we're starting to beat a dead horse here. Actually it's dust at this point.

Oh, and its Bryan not Byron. Think Gaelic Nobleman not English Poet

[Brent Nielsen]

Bryan wrote: "I have never seen a diagram of a Polybian Legion fighting like this. The last frame is where I have issues. Where did you see this? Interesting concept. Not ready to buy into it but interesting!"
Are you referring to the diagram I cited in Goldsworthy's "Complete Roman Army" Pg 46-47 or the diagrams you posted? My citation is the MARIAN Legion...actually post Marian Legion. The Diagrams you are showing (the ones I am contesting), are the Polybian formations which (effective in thier time) were outdated and no longer in use by the Roman Army...especially after Marius defeated the Cimbrii and Teutone. I do not suggest the transformation occured at a whim or overnight... but it was adopted by Marius, who standardized it AFTER one of his seven consulships. (Someone help me out here, I feel like am fighting with no scuta and my right hand tied behind my back with no library to back me up!)
The Polybian Legion (the one you use) defeated many different types of phalanxae but by the time of the late republic, no enemy of Rome was using the phalanx.

"The 6-8 deep ranks IS documented"

Ya got me there kiddo, I am working in Kansas and have just a minor collection of my references. The rest is at home in Columbus so I cannot cite my source tonight. I contacted my mentor, 'Macedon', who hammered me on a very similar discussion, proving himself correct in nearly every occasion with cited sources I now possess but not in my %$#@! hands! LOL!
I have asked him to enter this thread (although we should start a new one)to cite the sources he cited for me. The 'Greek' resides in Athens and can be very...ruthless in his arguements but he really knows his %$#@! LOL! I am extremely grateful for what I have learned from him.
Ben Kane (AKA Parthian Bow) and author of 'Forgotten Legion', recoomended this site in his books and I joined on his recommendation. We both have a tough audience here! He started this thread on whistles looking for information, but he is very knowledgeable on the topic we are discussing. Wisely, he avoids details on formations in his first three book, but asks about whistles! His 'F.L.' series reads like Marian tactics His Series on Hannible will (I presume) have Legions fighting in the Polybian formation, but I can't read his mind! LOL

"Seriously though, we should atempt to find out why Marius didn't change the centuries to Sinistare and dextere! THAT IS a great question!"

I think he didn't change the name because the prior centurion still fought in front of the posterior. Not right to left.

Rome wasn't built in a day and my research says Marius didn't bother fixing absolutely everything, especially when it might affect the pay and Rank systems of his Centurions.

Centurions fight either; (1)on the right, (2)in the center,(3) where ever the tactical situation dictated. (In my first book, I have them fighting on the left where the scutum doesn't block their view of the men...oh, how wrong I was proved to be there!)
Prior to Marius' reforms, the avereage Legio had to be a land owner. The back bone of the short-term, seasonal service, 'yeoman farmer' class, who made up the ranks of the 'Polybian Legions' was pretty much exterminated after the Cimbrii and company destroyed nearly 400,000 of them during their migrations.
Forced to seek manpower from a new source, Marius introduced a very contoversial program calling for recruitment of the 'captate'.
The Roman 'headcount' were landless citizens still eligible to vote in a diocese. But with no money to provide their personal equipment, and no land for collateral, they were ineligible for military service. Marius, never the less, recruited these plebes into his army (inducing them with promises of land grants after a long-term service) and trained them in a new way. The cohort became the principle tactical arm of each Legion, NOT the maniple, but thge rank system and paperwork order of battle remained the same. I can't cite this, (the sources are in Columbus) but 'Macedon' can.
I also have (at home) diagrams demostrating how it is possible for (Polybian) Legios armed with pila to engage a phalanxe then get in under the pikes/sarrisae to slaughter with the gladius while their adversaries were still struggling with their pikes! (Again you have me by the short hairs, ...I mean the belt, the reference is at home)

Having your men on a long continuous line doesn't make you flexible, just the opposite. Having a 6 man deep front line of centuries administratively broken down into cohorts (because if they are just in a line they serve no tactical purpose of having a cohort) how do they relieve lines? Do centuries of the second line just feed men into the front until all cohesion is lost and men don't have a clue who they are fighting next to?
The flexibility lies in the ability to absorb the 5 (at times 10) to one odds the Romans were forced to deal with in Gaul, along the Rhine, in Britannia, and against the Swiss.
In his 'Commentaries', Caesar constantly referrs to detachments of COHORTs sent off to stem the break through or the flanking maneuvers at the Sambre, Gorgovia and Alesia. He never once mentions maniples.
I have already explained the 'Roman relief' proceedure...changeing out units, whether in the Polybian or the Marian formation, would most easily be accomplished by releiving tired soldiers in relays; either from front to back in the first line, or front to back with the second line butted up (literally on manny occassions)behind the first. I have done this in riot training many times and swapping out by units only leads to disaster. In relays, cohesion isn't lost (we were often a little tense and bewildered), but with consteant training and familiarity (and the second line in support) it is easier than you might think.
Sorry about the misspell on your name. Dyslexia is a terrible thing. You irritate and make my day all at the same time. I need to be working on my book.
First chance I get when I get home, I will send you a copy of my novel (Gratus), FIRST SPEAR Rudimenta. It is about Gaius Crastinus, Titus Pullo, Lucius Vorenus (and others) as recruits in Spain. It is loaded with errors I can't fix in a published and copywritten book (and I don't have the energy to go back and fix what is still a good story). Hopefully I did a better job on the sequel (after 'Macedon' squared me away, Agmen Quadrata). Once you read it I would appreciate a 'keep it straight' guy to read what I am working on. Hell, number two is finished, so how about being a test reader on number three? I will send ya a manuscript for number two to keep ya current. You are just the guy I would have make sure I don't get lazy or complacent as I proceed and Macedon is some kind of activist in Greece. LOL! How about it?
How about we start a thread on the sinsistare/dextere thing?
Gotta get to bed, ya wear me out when I should be writing on my book! LOL!
Always a pleasure to agressively agree to disagree, Brent

[Macedon]

Interesting discussion lads, but you might want to start up a new thread where we could address any claims, hypotheses or questions without diverting too much from the OP?

Let this one be about the whistles...

You might also take a look here, an earlier discussion (not that elaborate but which highlighted certain interesting points regarding the Polybian triplex acies). Of course I will be happy to contribute Brent.

[Brent Nielsen]

BTW: explain how Caesar covered 19 miles of fortifications in the jura mountains with one Legion while fighting the helveti with 16 man deep ranks? (See BG JCaesar Book I/Para VIII)