Standard frontage allotted to a single legionary?

[Darth_Roach]

I have read a volume of contradicting figures there - some say it was 0.9 meters, some that it was 1.0, some - 1.8. What was it really?

[Sean Manning]

Roman armies had two basic orders for fighting: one with four cubits of width per man, and one with two cubits. The closer order was more defensive and popular later, the more open order was more aggressive and popular earlier. Polybius says that in his day, as a legion entered hand to hand combat each legionary had a space 4 cubits wide and more than 2 deep to fight in (18.29). Vegetius believed that each legionary had two cubits of width per man in the old days.

[Darth_Roach]

Thank you. It definitely clears things up.

[Robert Vermaat]

Vegetius believed that each legionary had two cubits of width per man in the old days.

That would be 3 ft. per man, and that's very close order.

[Gaius Colletti]

Vegetius believed that each legionary had two cubits of width per man in the old days.

That would be 3 ft. per man, and that's very close order.

I've always taken this to mean the legionaries were 3 feet apart, but is the actual meaning they had 3 feet total? Did one legionary's right "frontage" overlap with his neighbors left "frontage"?

[Darth_Roach]

3 feet between legionaries would equal 4 cubits of frontage.

[Robert Vermaat]

Vegetius believed that each legionary had two cubits of width per man in the old days.

That would be 3 ft. per man, and that's very close order.

I've always taken this to mean the legionaries were 3 feet apart, but is the actual meaning they had 3 feet total?

Vegetius bk III.15:
Explanato, qualiter debeant acies instrui, nunc podismum mensuramque ipsius ordinationis exponam. In mille passibus campi una acies mille sescentos sexaginta sex suscipiet pedites, propterea quia singuli pugnatores ternos occupant pedes. Quod si sex acies in mille passibus campi uolueris ordinare, nouem milia nongenti nonaginta sex pedites sunt necessarii.
Having explained the general disposition of the lines, we now come to the distances and dimensions. One thousand paces contain a single rank of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man being allowed three feet. Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men.

A space of 3 feet between one man and the next would be quite a gap, but it would also mean 'at least 3 feet per man' in the text, allowing for each man to occupy at least 3 feet, without the spacing.

Did one legionary's right "frontage" overlap with his neighbors left "frontage"?

I'm not sure why that would be the case? But his scutum would cover part of the man to his left, that's for sure. Shields, especially in very close order, are described to overlap, perhaps as far as to the umbo of the man to the left. Would that allow for space to wield a sword? No, but when Vegetius wrote, the hasta was the main weapon.

[Sean Manning]

Robert, are you sure? Round and oblong shields are rarely wider than 90 cm, so normally if you have significant overlap between shields you are closer than 2 cubits per file. (Incidentally, that translation of Vegetius has a misprint; he says that one thousand six hundred and sixty six men fit into a mile. One Roman mile is 5,000 Roman feet, and 3 x 1666 = 4998).

I'm not sure if I agree that shields, in general, are designed to overlap; do you mean late Roman shields?

Of course these numbers are approximate- soldiers probably measured the right space by eye and by using their arms as two-cubit measure- but they work as rules of thumb.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Sean,

Robert, are you sure? Round and oblong shields are rarely wider than 90 cm, so normally if you have significant overlap between shields you are closer than 2 cubits per file.

Indeed, when they are overlapping you are in synaspismos, very close order. I don't think that Vegetius had that in mind: close order sure, but not as packed as it would get with overlapping shields.

(Incidentally, that translation of Vegetius has a misprint; he says that one thousand six hundred and sixty six men fit into a mile. One Roman mile is 5,000 Roman feet, and 3 x 1666 = 4998).

Well spotted! My Milner indeed has 1666. I was in a hurry and did not do the math.

I'm not sure if I agree that shields, in general, are designed to overlap; do you mean late Roman shields?

Indeed, Late Roman shields, which I think were designed to overlap.

Of course these numbers are approximate- soldiers probably measured the right space by eye and by using their arms as two-cubit measure- but they work as rules of thumb.

Vegetius as well as Maurice are of course writing a treatise (although Maurice had experience in the field, which shows), but you are correct - a lot would have been different in practice.

[Sean Manning]

I wasn't trying to catch you out, Robert ... I just noticed it when I read the Latin, and it reinforces what Vegetius is doing. We Anglos are used to a UK or US mile of 5,280 feet. Its been a while since I struggled through Polybius 18.29, 30 but I remember that the Greek was clear about each file of Romans getting six feet of width.

[Draconis]

Hi everyone, i'm new here so likely going to put my foot in my mouth ... Strangely enough, I have been thinking about this question for awhile before finding you guys. In the movies and pictures I've seen of Roman re-enactment formations, the shields are edge to edge, but this seems wrong to me. I can't quote Vegetius, but when I was younger I fought in many SCA battles, often on the shield wall. One thing I noticed then was this: a close formation with no space between shields blocked the use of weapons. It made a nice wall defensively, but counterattack with hand weapons difficult.

So I thought about the Roman Army and wondered how they would cope in battle. It seems to me that that a small space between shields would protect the legionary but also allow a space through which to stab, that being the main attack of the gladius. Also, consider close order drill...When forming for battle, it would be essential to form quickly and uniformly. When I did close order drill in the navy, we stuck out our right arm and spaced ourselves an arms length from the man on our right. A cubit is the distance from elbow to the tip of the fingers straight out. Counting shoulder, an arms length is about 2 cubits.

It is my theory that Roman Legionaries, would have formed quickly and uniformly by simply sticking an arm out to the shoulder of the man next to him and in seconds you have formation. put your arms out in both directions, and you have 4 cubitts or about 6 feet. Both easy and fast measurements.

The Romans were practical and efficient, they wouldn't have wasted time looking to see how far apart they were, not when stick and arm out and you know... So if you stand in formation in that manner, you have a small space between shields, enough room to stab through but not so far apart that an enemy can squeeze through and attack the man behind or next to you. In trying to do so though, he exposes his abdomen to your waiting gladius, a sweet target.

Whats nice too is that this method of measurement is completely consistent with the 2 cubits/4 cubits formation spaces. QED that is quite possibly how they did it.

[Robert Vermaat]

I wasn't trying to catch you out, Robert ...

Nor did I see it that way! Rest assured, I think it was a good point from you.

[Q Rutilius]

It is my theory that Roman Legionaries, would have formed quickly and uniformly by simply sticking an arm out to the shoulder of the man next to him and in seconds you have formation. put your arms out in both directions, and you have 4 cubitts or about 6 feet. Both easy and fast measurements.

This is how I have always assumed that they did it. There is an imaginary 6 feet long line and the soldier stands in the middle of it. With the shield sticking out beyond the soldier's left shoulder slightly, we'd get a width of about 2'(approximately). This gives each soldier about 2' on either side that is "his space" to fight in.

Interestingly the man in the file would be only 3' behind him. Now years ago I did some modern fencing. You are taught to move back and forth - the fencing strip is long but it is narrow. Therefore, I wonder if the Roman soldier fought more in a side to side manner than the modern fencer's backwards and forwards manner. Perhaps the use of a shield inclines one to fight more side to side. Or, since it would be impossible for a file to move backwards and forwards, the soldier has to parry blows with his shield and/or move to the side, because there is no practical way to go backwards and forwards.

[Draconis]

I used to fence also and I know what you mean but don't forget the fighting style is hugely different. The weapon in fencing is both sword and shield. Attacks are parried by the weapon as there is no shield. My experience with SCA combat on shield walls, is that fighting is done largely in front of you and to your right diagonally unless you're left handed. My thought, visualizing being in a Roman Shield wall, is that the shield is used not only to block a blow from in front of you, but also to push back an enemy with a "shoulder check" delivered sharply and putting body and shoulder into it. This would hopefully, stop the enemy soldier's advance, perhaps even pushing him back a step and pushing him off balance. I have done that many times and its quite effective. Now, with the shield in front of you, and your weapon a gladius, you will not be thinking so much of striking the man in front of you, unless you get a clear shot and can do so without exposing yourself. What you will be looking at will be the man adjecent to you diagonally to your right. Your right hand man will have similarly pushed that man back or stopped him. Your right hand man won't be easily able to stab him but with that space open to the right of your shield and the left of his, that enemy diagonal to your right will be open to a stab in his right side. If he is carrying a shield also, it will be in his left hand. His weapon will be in his right hand. In that second or two when your right hand man shield checks the man in front of him, that man will be trying to regainbalance and have his weapon arm back for balance. Either that or he will be raising his arm to strike which opens up his abdomen. That is where you make your move, and take him out. If the enemy manages to somehow squeeze by you, if the man behind you is only three feet behind you, he can engage the enemy and block his further advancement, or if he turns to deal with you, his back will be exposed to the man behind you for the kill. The thing is that even if he is squeezing between you and your right hand man, he is still open on his weapon side to a stab from the man behind you, the distance is not that great. So the wisdom of this formation is seen, The man on your right sets up the kill for you, while killing the enemy that his right hand man set up. The only dangers are to the men on the edges of the formation, particulary the right side, which is why you don't want to have your formation " Floating" you want to have your flanks protected from flanking maneuvers by the enemy or anchored on some physical obstacle which prevents the enemy attack from going past your front corner man. Rather, you may want to use your flank to place cavalry to make their own flanking maneuver, and compress the enemy into the center and create chaos in his ranks, making your legionarie's job easier. So as far as forward and backward movements are concerned, Forward is obvious. Its done as a mass so as to retain formational integrity, likewise, if backward movement is needed, perhaps to absorb a determined attack, but again, its done in mass on command, to retain integrity of your formation. As long as you maintain ranks and keep them dressed on each other, your killing machine structure can act at full efficency. Failure to maintain this allows enemy to infiltrate your ranks and break down order.

[M. Demetrius]

Tom, it's a little harder to put your left arm out when you have a shield, but it can be done by setting the shield down. However if you have to move laterally, that creates another problem...