Quincunx and Keppie\'s hypothesis

[Mark Hygate]

Moved....

[Macedon]

Are these manuals available on the web? I would be very gratefull if you could give me some informations!

Hmm.... I do not really know, I will look for them. I know they are out there (most of them) in pdfs but only in Byzantine Greek. If you cannot read Greek you will not be able to use them. I think that it will be very difficult to find English translations in digital form, although you can order the books. These works are the Tactica of Nicephorus Ouranus, of Nicephoros Phocas, of Leo VI the Wise, of Maurice, as well as three other unnamed treatises. All very interesting, containing some great details and, to me, very valuable to understand older Roman systems as they inevitably describe an evolution of Graecoroman tactics, so they have to contain many elements to draw analogies.

[Macedon]

Definitely worthy of discussion then - here (I don't want to de-rail the OP), or I'll re-post and take it there - as well as inviting all those with an armchair, fine brandy and an open mind?

I agree, I also think such a discussion deserves a thread of its own, as well as a very comfortable armchair... 8)

[Bryan]

Mark Hygate wrote:

Each man is shown representing a close order of 1 pace per man (2.5 Roman feet)

Per your illustration, for your final disposition of the fighting array you have the entirety of the Roman army on line, with no gaps, in close fighting array of 2.5 Roman feet per man (the exact width of the scutum I might add).

What would happen when the orders were given to open ranks to the six feet of space a soldier needed to fight effectively with sword and shield, per Polybius? Would the entire army just open up further to the left and right? Which maniple was the pivot point for the rest to move from? Would the new array be twice or more the width?

Here's a hypothesis I've came up with not long ago. Maybe the Prior (front/advancing/leading) centurion/century was called so because during the march, he/they got to be in the lead, while the Posterior (rear/trailing) centurion/century had to march behind? The less senior men eat the dirt of the more senior. For those that have ever marched in large groups, marching in the rear of any formation kind of...well, sucks.

My Take on Roman Battle:
With a depth of 4-6 men (per the width of Roman roads and the internal "streets" inside the Roman camps) , it'd be easy to simply form the maniples in close order in front of their tents (slightly more than width of shield), right face the maniples and march them out the camp and into battle lines, leaving the gaps between maniples that Livy et al mention.

While they are forming up, velites and cavalry protect them by skirmishing with the enemy. Once the last units of the triari are in position (the reserve of the army), the recall is sounded for the skirmishers (to simplify, it could just be the order for the main assault). The velite retire back through the gaps as the maniples extend to open order (six feet).

The hastati, the line infantry made up of the youngest of the Romans and allies, must earn their citizenship and prove their virtus, they will charge first. Centurions lead by example, from the right and left of the maniple, in order to see and lead the maniple more efficiently. Why two centurions? Because the Romans like multiple leaders in all regards. Two Consuls, four praetors, six tribunes, three decurions, etc. Keeps men honest.

The hastati looses their pila as the enemy formation of infantry come into range. How they did it, who knows? by rank, by individual, by entire maniples? It probably varied.

If the hastati maniples are properly led, motivated, well fed, fighting from good ground, Gods are on their side, etc., the missile exchange is short and the maniples close with the enemy for some shield and sword work. As the Roman method of fighting involved the individual defending himself with shield and sword, space is necessary to wield both. Hence Polybius' description of the spacing. Any strict rank and file would collapse as the Hastati front hit the enemy. The Roman fighting method needed no strict order within the ranks. Orders are simple: Stay with the standards, leave them only to retrieve a standard, a fallen mate or a weapon. Disobey and you die, the ultimate form of discipline. Draconian (not to be confused with the modern concepts of a disciplined army, where everything is uniform and neat)

The best and most courageous men in the maniple are put in the front ranks. These are your killers, willing to risk death in order to kill the enemy in combat. They are what wins battles. Centurions lead them by example. The Roman army is generally of conscripts, not all will desire to be a hero and a majority of them, just as it is now in the military, are just along for the ride. Those who are natural cowards will find a way to the rear of the formation. But the optio, the chosen man and assistant of the centurion, will be there to keep them in the ranks. Not only that, but behind the maniples ride the tribunes, leading the men on and on the watch for bravery and cowardice alike. The cowards have no place to run to without being seen, two other lines are behind them. Any coward with thoughts of running or even hesitating will be seen by the optio, the tribunes, and their older brothers, uncles and fathers in the Principes and Triari.

Once the hastati maniples become either exhausted or entrenched, the tribunes can relieve them when necessary. How they did that, no one can know. Any idea put forth is pure conjecture. Maybe they simply march forward and open their ranks once they pass the retreating hastati maniples. Or they could infiltrate by files, etc. But however they did it, the method must account for lack of training (not every Consul or Praetor trained their armies, most didn't), intense noise, fatigue, confusion, disordered ranks, casualties, a dozen or more calones (armed camp servants) and with mules (my guess, to carry wounded, extra weapons, water, etc.) in the rear of the maniples.

If victory hasn't been achieved by the time both Hastati and Principes lines have both been blooded, then something is wrong. Now it comes down to leadership at the mid level, tribunes and such will issue fragmentary orders that could lead to victory (flanking attacks by the uncommitted Triari) or by simply retreating back to camp while covered by cavalry and the Triari.

Feel free to rip this apart.

[Cesco]

To Macedon: Thanks! I have studied classical Greek, but I could try to read them

[Cesco]

Per your illustration, for your final disposition of the fighting array you have the entirety of the Roman army on line, with no gaps, in close fighting array of 2.5 Roman feet per man (the exact width of the scutum I might add).

What would happen when the orders were given to open ranks to the six feet of space a soldier needed to fight effectively with sword and shield, per Polybius? Would the entire army just open up further to the left and right? Which maniple was the pivot point for the rest to move from? Would the new array be twice or more the width?

According to the Taylor's paper, opening ranks would not involve to double the front of a maniple, but were the ranks to be doubled...
I really recommend to read THIS http://www.academia.edu/727113/_Not_so_d...an_armies_
and THIS http://www.academia.edu/3394799/Roman_So...ing_Paper_
It is very interesting expecially if read with the text of the Epitoma rei militari ( I. 26)!

[Macedon]

Btw, the unnamed treatises are generally known as the "De re militari", "De re strategica" and "Sylloge tacticorum"

As for opening ranks, there was a number of methods. There would either be expansion of the phalanx or unit (to the left, to the right or to both flanks), or doubling (or multiplying) of the depth of files, in which case, the length of the phalanx remained the same. The doubling itself would take place either by whole files being posted behind the ones remaining in the front or by the men of the retreating file being inserted as epistatae/secundi within the file remaining in place. There is no reason to assume that the Romans, as the Greeks and others, did not use all these methods as circumstances demanded.

[Vindex]

May I ask why there are two threads on this?

And it would be in Moderator GREEN but colours are missing at the moment...
(Edited) :whistle:

[Cesco]

[

My Take on Roman Battle:
With a depth of 4-6 men (per the width of Roman roads and the internal "streets" inside the Roman camps) , it'd be easy to simply form the maniples in close order in front of their tents (slightly more than width of shield), right face the maniples and march them out the camp and into battle lines, leaving the gaps between maniples that Livy et al mention.

While they are forming up, velites and cavalry protect them by skirmishing with the enemy. Once the last units of the triari are in position (the reserve of the army), the recall is sounded for the skirmishers (to simplify, it could just be the order for the main assault). The velite retire back through the gaps as the maniples extend to open order (six feet).

I agree with this description , expecially regarding the maniples extending their front before or even during the melee. The problem is to understend in wich formation they deployed before the clash. Maybe this formation could be a sort of acies quadrata described by Vegetius ( see picture 1), obtained closing the files ( not the ranks!) of an ordo duplex, or open formation ( see picture 2)...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

May I ask why there are two threads on this?

And it would be in Moderator GREEN but colours are missing at the moment...
(Edited) :whistle:

I was wondering the same thing....

[Mark Hygate]

.................
I agree with this description , expecially regarding the maniples extending their front before or even during the melee. The problem is to understend in wich formation they deployed before the clash. Maybe this formation could be a sort of acies quadrata described by Vegetius ( see picture 1), obtained closing the files ( not the ranks!) of an ordo duplex, or open formation ( see picture 2)...

I don't necessarily agree with the maniples 'extending' their front simply because that just isn't possible across the battle line - nor does it make sense. However, the second picture you show is exactly what I'm thinking of representing the individual soldier-level version of the 'quincunx' and shows the intermediate step (just like teaching drill by the numbers) to allowing lanes for the velites to deploy (or anyone else to pass) - the only thing it needs is for the picture to be six ranks deep rather than three.

Some of this, however, now belongs in the 'other' thread - and if the Mods desire they could move....... :wink:

[Cesco]

As for opening ranks, there was a number of methods. There would either be expansion of the phalanx or unit (to the left, to the right or to both flanks), or doubling (or multiplying) of the depth of files, in which case, the length of the phalanx remained the same. The doubling itself would take place either by whole files being posted behind the ones remaining in the front or by the men of the retreating file being inserted as epistatae/secundi within the file remaining in place. There is no reason to assume that the Romans, as the Greeks and others, did not use all these methods as circumstances demanded.

According to Maurice's Strategicon( I have found an italian traslation on the web ) the way to double the front ( reducing the ranks ) was the following ( and it is the same shown in the video I posted in the thread " Early republic consular army deployment"): the sixteen men constituting a file, or column, were divided in primi and secundi, that is uneven and even( the priores and posteriores of the maniple?). At the injunction " Exite! " the secundi left the column, going on the left or on the right. Before that the chief could have instructed to open the formation "Largia ad ambas partes!"

[Mark Hygate]

In reviewing some of the answers and queries which have come up in more recent threads; I also went and reviewed this and other older and similar threads. This thread indeed is the one, particularly, that had problems last year and two were generated.

I am sure I asked a question here (but in the now lost other copy of the thread) and I thought it had been answered; but I would very much appreciate anyone chipping in now to confirm.....

I have just acquired a copy of Keppie's 'The Making of the Roman Army'; but it has really raised a question for me. Through just about all my generic reading over the years I had been given the impression that the 'quincunx formation' was something from an ancient source (that I just haven't seen) and that modern researchers had simply spent effort trying to determine exactly what it was. I thought access to Keppie would answer my question.

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

[D B Campbell]

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

The word is a Roman word meaning the pattern we recognize as the '5' on a die (Caesar uses it to describe the layout of one element of his siegeworks at Alesia), but he word is never used (to the best of my knowledge) for the classic checkerboard deployment that Livy describes in this well-known passage: Livy 8.8.

[Mark Hygate]

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

The word is a Roman word meaning the pattern we recognize as the '5' on a die (Caesar uses it to describe the layout of one element of his siegeworks at Alesia), but he word is never used (to the best of my knowledge) for the classic checkerboard deployment that Livy describes in this well-known passage: Livy 8.8.

Thank you DrC, that's very kind. I am familiar with that part of Livy, especially as it contains the references to the rorarii and accensi and the 15 manipuli structure that doesn't obviously then figure in Polybius' more detailed description.

However, even in that section there's no mention of a 'chequer-board' as a specific either, but merely the references to the 'retiring through the maniple (sic) intervals' and then the triarii 'closing their companies'.

I take it from that, that the possibility of a 'chequer-board' pattern is itself therefore an interpretation of that passage and that the retiring is not just through the files of troops; although, however, the apparent tactics used at Zama and the likely presence of prior and posterior centuries are also very supportive. That all said, if I understand correctly, no ancient source actually states the use of a 'chequer-board' or 'quincunx'?

Ahhh, the things we learn by looking at the originals!