Formation Depths?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Even with a simple Simulator, like Rome Total War, you can discern what it would take to manage a Roman Army in battle.

For Example, once I had my lines to short, and the light infantry on the left flank were overrun by the enemy. I committed both my reserve units but still was unable to save the left flank (and then center) from collapsing.

Another time, Heavy Cavalry charged my Heavy infantry core because I was too spread out, and managed to break it. Even though I killed the Kataphracts, I still lost because Enemy Heavy infantry split the unit in 2.

Another time, I won a battle using the "Cuneus" or "Boar's Head" Formation, where I put my best troops protruding from the center in a solid block of infantry, and had the whole line advance at a rapid pace. Their line was longer, but I committed cavalry to prevent the flanks from collapsing and forced their line in 2, and cut it to pieces by surrounding it (Like sort of a cannae thing, I sent my cavalry around back when my flanks stabilized)

This was just with an edited unit roster on Rome Total War, which is a crappy AI. But it does show certain elements are important, like line depth and length. And Reserves.

[Macedon]

But finding that for unexpected tactical reasons, one of these units needs to form in a longer line than had been expected, it might not be practical to reorganize into decani of 5 soldiers each on the day of the battle, but it might be practical for certain sub-units to form up by half-decani.

This is exactly what the manuals ordain. The file-leader (lochagos/decanus/hegemon etc) leads the file. The man normally standing behind him is the half-file leader (tetrarchos/dimoeretes/hemilochites etc)would side step beside him if the file should deploy half deep. Together with him every man standing in the even positions of the file would side step too. This was the standard method of dividing a single file into 2. Of course now you discuss cavalry evolutions which have some peculiarities.

[M. Val. Naso]

Caesar had to lenghten his lines to match Pompays, so it would seem length of line is quite important.
Would this change from any period? The fear of being outflanked?

I'm guessing here but the way that is phrased suggests to me that the depth was set first and then he realized he needed to make a change to match his opponent. This could indicate that the first thought was given to what the depth of the formation would be.

Not how I read it. He knew his men were down in numbers, so adjusted his lines accordingly, also pulling men from each unit to create the hidden flanking defence against Pompays cavalry.

Vegetius himself writes in De Rei Militari, that you must take care, when lengthening your battle line. If the opposing line is wider than yours, that's what the cavalry is for.

[Sardaukar]

Adrian Goldsworthy says in his book about Roman army that generally better trained and experienced troops could fight in more shallow formation, since their training & experience compensated the lack of moral support that more ranks gave. I'd say that they still never fought with less than 4 ranks, if they could avoid it.

Pompey in Pharsalus formed his legions in more than usual deep ranks, probably because majority of his troops were inexperienced.

[Theoderic]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

I won a battle using the "Cuneus" or "Boar's Head" Formation,

Hi

Could you tell me what was the depth and width of the formation that you used in the Cuneus please?

Kind Regards - Deryk

[Robert Vermaat]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:
I won a battle using the "Cuneus" or "Boar's Head" Formation,
Could you tell me what was the depth and width of the formation that you used in the Cuneus please?

Not in this thread please. RTW is for another section.

[Theoderic]

Could you explain what RTW is please?

[Theoderic]

OK - sorry get it now.....

I was actually hoping that someone might have an idea what was the depth of a successful Cuneus as I understood that it could be used to fight in all directions.....

Thanks anyway

Kind Regards - Deryk

[Marja]

Infantry or cavalry?

Eric McGreer's "Sowing the Dragon's Teeth" discusses some variations for later Byzantine cavalry. Aelian has several variations for Hellenistic cavalry, but those are aimed for quick maneuver, instead of shock.

[Nathan Ross]

what was the depth of a successful Cuneus

Cuneus is one of those tricky Roman terms that seems quite self-explanatory, but probably isn't! The 'wedge' suggests a triangular shape, the later 'pig's head' something a bit blunter, but its various appearances in the sources seem to refer to anything from a column to a square. Ross Cowan (in Osprey's 'Roman Battle Tactics') suggests that it was simply the name for any formation deeper than it was wide, and cites Tacitus on the battle of Cremona, where a legion in broken country forms up in cuneus as (apparently) a static formation. The book also has an illustration of two Roman cohorts attacking in converging columns 6 ranks wide by 80 deep, another possible interpretation based on Josephus' description of the Roman order of march in Judea.

So it seems a cuneus could be any size and dimension, but generally connotes a charge by column. I suspect the name might actually refer to the 'wedge' used by stonemasons or woodcutters to split blocks of stone or wood - the purpose of the attack being to break enemy formations.

As for a formation that could attack in any direction... The 'orbis' was a circle or possibly a square and faced in all directions, but was defensive. The 'agmen quadratum' was probably an advance in hollow square formation, which could repel attacks from all sides. Generally, to attack in a different direction the force would need to reform to face it and then advance as a cuneus, perhaps. Not an easy thing to do...

[Macedon]

Could you explain what RTW is please?

Rome Total War, the game.

[Macedon]

what was the depth of a successful Cuneus

Cuneus is one of those tricky Roman terms that seems quite self-explanatory, but probably isn't! The 'wedge' suggests a triangular shape, the later 'pig's head' something a bit blunter, but its various appearances in the sources seem to refer to anything from a column to a square. Ross Cowan (in Osprey's 'Roman Battle Tactics') suggests that it was simply the name for any formation deeper than it was wide, and cites Tacitus on the battle of Cremona, where a legion in broken country forms up in cuneus as (apparently) a static formation. The book also has an illustration of two Roman cohorts attacking in converging columns 6 ranks wide by 80 deep, another possible interpretation based on Josephus' description of the Roman order of march in Judea.

So it seems a cuneus could be any size and dimension, but generally connotes a charge by column. I suspect the name might actually refer to the 'wedge' used by stonemasons or woodcutters to split blocks of stone or wood - the purpose of the attack being to break enemy formations.

As for a formation that could attack in any direction... The 'orbis' was a circle or possibly a square and faced in all directions, but was defensive. The 'agmen quadratum' was probably an advance in hollow square formation, which could repel attacks from all sides. Generally, to attack in a different direction the force would need to reform to face it and then advance as a cuneus, perhaps. Not an easy thing to do...

[Theoderic]

Marja Erwin wrote:


Infantry or cavalry?

I was looking at infantry....

Kind Regards- Deryk

[Macedon]

Cuneus is one of those tricky Roman terms that seems quite self-explanatory, but probably isn't! The 'wedge' suggests ...

... Generally, to attack in a different direction the force would need to reform to face it and then advance as a cuneus, perhaps. Not an easy thing to do...

I agree. The Greek term embolon seems to also have been used in such a manner, although always translated as "wedge". The Byzantine cataphract wedge for example was in reality a trapezoid and not a triangle. The same applies for the term's use in many battle accounts, where it seems to mean any formation used in a point attack, no matter its shape, depth or mass.

[Theoderic]

Thanks Nathan

It is a difficult area.

I'll go back to the Armchair General thread re this...

Kind Regards - Deryk