Formation Depths?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

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...

Yeah the Boar's Head Formation, we've discussed this at length on TWC.

It appears the formation (used by the Barbarians and Late Romans at least) was a main line of infantry, with a column of the best infantry protruding from it. This probably resulted in like a trapezoid or something, but had a lot of shock force and was rather effective.

[Crispvs]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen,

Can you all *please* stop quoting great big blocks of text in your replies. If the text is already in the thread then we can all read it in its original post. Quoting large amounts of text does little more than clutter up an interesting thread. If you need to quote in order to reply, then fine, but please only quote the specific piece you are replying to. We do all have the ability to scroll back up the page if we really need to check what someone said.

Crispvs