Quincunx and Keppie\'s hypothesis

[Gunthamund Hasding]

francesco a good deal of ancient works (roman mostly) can be found at Lacus Curtius
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/home.html

[Cesco]

However, is the use of 'quincunx' (otherwise seemingly Latin to non-Ancient language specialists like myself) purely a modern expression. Is the actual formation/usage of Roman soldiers actually doing this not formally attested anywhere historically? :o

Hi Mark, how are you?
If I remember well the "quincunx" is described by Polybius, maybe in the sixth book...but i am not sure about it.

[Michael J. Taylor]

Polybius does suggest a standerd "quincunx" (as Duncan Campbell pointed out, not modern coinage) schema of maniples covering down on the gaps in front, although the context is Scipio's unorthodox tactics at Zama, in which his maniples were instead arrayed in column.


(Polybius 15.9.6-7, Loeb via Lacus Curtius)
Scipio drew up his army in the following fashion. In front he placed the hastati with certain intervals between the maniples and behind them the principes, not placing their maniples, as is the usual Roman custom, opposite to the intervals separating those of the first line, but directly behind these latter at a certain distance owing to the large number of the enemy's elephants.

πλὴν ὁ μὲν Πόπλιος ἔθηκε τὰς τάξεις τῶν
ἰδίων δυνάμεων τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον. πρῶτον μὲν
τοὺς ἁστάτους καὶ τὰς τούτων σημαίας ἐν διαστήμασιν,
ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τοὺς πρίγκιπας, τιθεὶς τὰς
σπείρας οὐ κατὰ τὸ τῶν πρώτων σημαιῶν διάστημα,
καθάπερ ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις, ἀλλὰ καταλλήλους
ἐν ἀποστάσει διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν παρὰ τοῖς ἐναν-
τίοις ἐλεφάντων·

[Macedon]

I think that Mark may be meaning the term not the description. Furthermore, I also think he might mean something that could be interpreted as an "internal" quincunx formation within the phalanx itself to support the theory of the receded files?

[Mark Hygate]

Francesco, Michael, Macedon/George

Thank you all kindly. In the first place, yes, I had been under the generic impression (until revisiting this thread and asking again) that the Romans were credited with fighting in a 'quincunx' formation from an actual source, but it transpires that (and one of the best reasons for going back to the original sources) both the word and the description are interpretations rather than from an ancient source directly.

The presence of: prior and posterior centuries; mention of 'closing the maniples/companies'; gaps between maniples; and the tactics used at Zama all can support that interpretation. My own interpretation of the 'chequer-board' at the legion/maniple level doesn't actually match with Keppie's (and others who may be repeating), but is not dissimilar and still meets those criteria.

What Macedon refers to, however, is my possible interpretation of using a 'quincunx' in a tactical formation for the 'fighting century' (60 men) that I showed in the attachment to the other thread. That is very much a possibility, but one that has only probably developed from discussing and arguing about formations and fighting styles that I and others (and thank you to Bryan also) and the fact that, perhaps erroneously now it seems, I had a 'quincunx' idea in the back of my mind anyway.

The, almost perfectly described, chequer-board (with 10 x 12 arrangement) I suggested is not only almost too neat, but even stretches the bounds of my own otherwise happy criticism of ancient sources who are writing about things they only have described to them, at best may only have seen at a distance in action and who have no cameras to show us (nor even diagrams). That said, if I had to construct from scratch a tactical formation that, as I postulated, could:

- march about at full pace and thus be tactically mobile (ie the men don't rub shoulders, cross shields or foul spears/javelins) moreso than any other close-order formation could;

- allow the opening of files to permit interpenetration of other troops, like velites, with merely a single drill movement;

- transform into a close-order shield-wall/phalanx, and even a testudo variant, with another simple command and move;

- allow all those whilst marching in any of the cardinal directions;

- whilst maintaining the all important control and covering the standard fixed frontage;

- that can even still meet the Polybius (a good argument to be had), Josephus (maybe) and Vegetius descriptions

- and even allowing for the possibility of a more open sword-fighting technique that I am still sceptical about (the tactics both before and after tend to shield-wall/phalanxes).....

Then I do not think I could come up with a better. Add to that that the micro (century) and macro (legion/maniple) interpretations are then applications of exactly the same principle, then it becomes a neat and clever possibility.

But perhaps too neat......... :wink:

I'll also throw in a left-field thought that suddenly occurred just the other day. There is a tradition now that has come through knightly behaviour and personal guards - that the man acting as your 'second' (posterior?) stands a pace to the left (possibly right also) and a pace behind. That meets my quincunx exactly - and I simply wondered if there was a long standing precedent?