An argument for the pace and not the cubit

[Bryan]

George,

Polybius isn't describing how the Roman's fight against everyone, he's comparing the Roman spacing with the Macedoinian's. After describing how many men the Roman front rankers face, he gets into the second ranks and beyond . He concludes with: (Your own post post from earlier, of the translation of the passage in question):

the rear ranks can be of no help to the front rank (=protostatae) either in thus forcing the pikes away or in the use of the sword

Polybius isn't saying "no support to the front rankers" except in the context of fighting against the Macedonian pike formation. Considering that each Roman in the front rank is only facing 2 out of the 10 pikes at any one time, and that he is six feet in front of the man behind him, against a Macedonian phalanx, there obviously is no way a the men in the rank behind can support that person by parrying away pike heads or using a sword. That's obvious. However...

Polybius doesn't not mention pila in his list of ways the follow on ranks aren't able to support the front rankers. Since its not discounted, its a possibility. Second rankers and beyond could support the front rankers by throwing pila, and that would still make what Polybius wrote correct.

Lastly, Polybius is not referring to fighting Gauls or Lusitanians or other Romans, who are more likely to try or attempt to exploit the gap he describes, which would increase the effectiveness of the second ranker being able to support the front rankers. He's specifically comparing and contrasting the differences in spacing between Roman infantry and Macedonian pikemen.

You can't prove a negative. I might not be the only one reading too much into something.

What I am describing could just as mean this. Instead of the original on the left, it can be the one on the right:


[attachment=8650]polybianformation.jpg[/attachment]

[Macedon]

1. Polybius is supposedly describing the Roman system of fighting, not how the Romans fought against the Macedonian phalanx alone. He is very clear on that. So, what he is describing is supposedly the "norm" for the Romans. This system he then contrasts to the one of the Macedonian phalanx.

2. What he word by word says about the men behind is that

"οὔτε βιάσασθαι ῥᾴδιον, μηδέν γε τῶν ἐφεστώτων δυναμένων συμβάλλεσθαι τοῖς πρωτοστάταις μήτε πρὸς τὴν βίαν μήτε πρὸς τὴν τῶν μαχαιρῶν ἐνέργειαν."

translation : "neither is it easy for them to push forward, as none of those standing behind them acts with (supports) the protostatae, not as far as pushing forward is concerned nor by using their swords."

Should he be describing a "quincunx" formed phalanx, then the second rank would be among the "ephestotes".

3. I do not have to provide evidence for what Polybius does not say, you have to provide evidence based on what he does say. He also does not say that the Romans were trying to crawl towards the Macedonians or that the Macedonians also hurled pots with snakes, would it be OK for me to make such assumptions and then say that they cannot be disproved while citing Polybius as my supporting source? I remind you that I do not dismiss this particular formation as a possibility, I just say that Polybius cannot be used as a source to support it. I have the same problem. Polybius describes an open formation while I support that the Romans normally fought in a close ordered phalanx. So, when I discuss Polybius I have to disprove him, not follow him, which I can do. I sincerely believe that Polybius has problems with his understanding of phalanx intervals, I have a number of arguments that show it and this is how I approach him on this matter.

4. You still have not answered why Polybius, a man who you support knows what he is describing, wrote a text that for a Greek reader would never mean what you are proposing. Do you think that he is a bad user of the Greek language? That could be an argument I would understand but of course I would like some proof of it. Maybe he was mistaken... maybe what he describes is plainly wrong. Again, you need arguments as evidence for that and of course, once you support that you have to move to other sources.

5. Regarding your readings of the translations. You yourself come to two possible but very different formations. Do you really believe that the mind of any Greek reader would go to the "quincunx" formation? Do you believe that the mind of any English speaker today would go to it? Not, unless he specifically looks for it. But Polybius did not write for Roman generals, he tried to explain with plain words, that is to the common reader, why he believed the Roman system was superior and that common reader is the average Joe, that is someone for whom the rank and file system is the "norm", a Greek of his era.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I do not even say you are wrong! However, IF you want your opinion presented in an academic form outside the informalities of a forum, you plainly have to find supporting arguments (the same applies to Mark with whom you share this particular view). One that says that Polybius (or anyone else) does not explicitly say that such a formation was not used cannot be taken seriously. This is the ONLY thing I have been supporting from the beginning. Alternatively, you can just quote other scholars and be done with it by letting them bear the burden of evidence. If you still believe that you can write a paper in which you will state that Polybius supports such a formation, then by all means do so, I don't think I have much more to add as arguments against it. Just be sure you at least have some answers as to the issues above, because they most probably will crop up in future discussions or reviews.

[Mark Hygate]

................... I I received a recommendation for something to read a paper, a paper written by none other than Michael Taylor, who has commented in this thread already. I highly recommend that you read it:
Romans in Open Order
(Michael, if you want me to delete this, just tell me)................

Just a formal acknowledgement (there'll be a new tack later....) for Michael, particularly, that I have now had a chance to catch up and obtain this and will most happily be able to cite this information alongside my own deductions and ideas, whilst confirming that I am not claiming any unique insight in the area of formations.

It is, however, rather nice to see a similar proposition from a different starting point.

[Mark Hygate]

Dear All,

This thread has lost its way amongst detailed arguments, but I think is far from over - and therefore I would very much like to argue/propose from a different start point (one which has been a part of my own construct all along indeed, but since hidden, although mentioned).

Firstly, however, a note on sources for those committed to needing a source for everything - there aren't any for everything we would like to know. I know that, you know that and I know you know that. If there was, then we wouldn't be engaging in discussion. A 'modern' source gets us nowhere and, to be honest, it's why it is always going back to what ancient sources we have. That said, the ancient authors are as fallible as we are today - and most definitely don't get everything right; let alone we are subject to the vagaries of multiple-copying, perhaps even by non-literate copyists (although they may be better than literate ones, who could even make changes!).
Anyway....perhaps some gentle steps back to the subject at hand...

Step 1:

Leaving aside any questions over detailed tactics and ignoring supporting troops; I feel fairly confident in suggesting that the majority view of the basic manipular/Polybian legion structure is:

- 1,200 hastati + 1,200 principes + 600 triarii.

- arrayed in the 'triplex acies' into 3 lines, where the hastati form the first line, the principes the second and the triarii the third.

- that the troops are divided into centuries/maniples and likely arranged (10 x 6)/(20 x 6) respectively for the hastati/principes and (10 x 3)/(20 x 3) (see below) for the triarii.

- that the general tactical idea is that after the hastati & principes have engaged; if the battle is not going the Romans' way, then the remains of the first two lines 'retrograde' :wink: behind the triarii to either reform or retreat off the battlefield in a calm and soldierly manner.

- that each of the four legions in a Consular Army are arranged like this, with the two Roman in the centre and the two Allied on the wings.

Any comments on Step 1?


Step 2:

- that in order to perform their function, the spear-armed triarii, once the troops previously in front of them have transited (either in opened lanes, or through the manipular gaps before closing, form an otherwise standard spear-wall/phalanx on the earlier Greek (Hoplite) model.

- that, given the numbers and assumed organisation, this is a single line (per legion) of 600 men arranged 200 x 3.

- a depth of 3 being the most likely of the 1, 2 or 3 likely possible, given the weakness of the first two and the fact that the spears from a fourth rank will not protrude and a 3 rank phalanx is the least depth seen earlier from Spartan (sic) phalanxes.

- that the most likely (forgetting any discussion of pace vs 3ft at this stage) spacing for such a common formation is that each man will occupy ~3ft

- that gaps in such a 'wall' behind which the army can reorganise would not be tolerated (just like in the Greek & Macedonian constructs); be they gaps between soldiers, maniples, or legions

- therefore that the deployment frontage of a legion is 200 men wide or about 600ft, for it is the triarii numbers that cause this limit.

Any comments on Step 2?


Step 3:

- given that it is the number of triarii and the formation they must take up to perform their function that is the limiting factor;

- then going back to the first (or second) line, and down to the century level (a few intermediate sub-steps ignored so as not to belabour the point) would seem to indicate that a century in a formation 10 x 6 must also occupy a ~30ft frontage.

Any comments on Step 3?

[Mark Hygate]

I thought it was fairly basic and therefore am unsurprised that there are no comments, so.....

Given Steps 1-3 and concentrating effort now back at the front of the formation, we have only a limited number of likely options (and dismissing at present formations where the gaps between soldiers are overly excessive):

- Option 1 - that a 10 x 6 century actually occupies the ~60ft frontage with each man covering ~6ft and each man is in a regular grid pattern as might be expected and appears like the most common interpretation of Polybius 18.28-31. This would mean that the posterior century is literally behind the 'prior'. This has the possibility of converting to a 'shield-wall' type formation if either the posterior century's files march forward in between the gaps; but this would take time and intermixes the century's; this could, however, be considered as operating as a maniple and the initial result (20x6 where each man is now on a ~3ft frontage and ~6ft depth is rather like Vegetius' description). Or, the prior century could close right, the posterior could close left and then march forward. Again this would take time.

- Option 2 - that each century actually forms up 5 x 12 and that posterior centuries plan to fill a gap left between maniples of century size. Again this would appear as a regular spaced ~6ft grid; with the expectation that the 12-man file is a mixture of 2 contubernia; either filling gaps by having the rear 6 pace left and march forward (very Greek in style), but again this would take time; or knowing that is the likely plan it could have completely intermixed contubernia with each 2nd man able to fill the gaps by a simple pace sideways and then one forwards. This could be much quicker, but the intermixing would be an unusual expression of the 'fighting with your tent-mates' concept.

- Option 3 - expressed in the previous attachment of mine as Fig 1, with 1a & 2 being the others formed. Whilst very 'neat', the chequer-board formation is a bit unusual; although a perfect drill solution to the problem. It can form any of the other formations quickly; it can march in any direction at full speed as the spacing allows; but allows those same alternate formations to be adopted just as quickly; and it is the neatest in terms of concentrating the century in the smallest possible space.

Whilst it does indeed meet all the criteria, however, and I was minded to think about the way it works as a micro-version of how I see the legion function as 60 centuries (instead of men); I must also note that the 'quincunx' formation formed seemed to satisfy that criteria too. However, as the question in the other thread shows, I am now really wondering if that is indeed a true historical element?

I also wonder if anyone has ever suggested the idea of prior and posterior contubernia? This would assist in Options 2 & 3 and also help in understanding how they camped.

I would appreciate any comments. For Bryan (or anyone else), I hope that the original 'open' formation would meet your sword-wielding criteria, let alone sufficient space to march around, but noting that a closer formation is indeed possible if better for a particular circumstance (shield-wall/phalanx or testudo)?

But there is also Polybius' to take back into account and therefore a complete re-look. In reviewing once again Bk 18.28-31 and taking a step backwards, however, it is obvious that he doesn't really answer his own question and not really the Roman formation at all. What he does do, however, is 3 things:

- firstly he tells his Greek readers that the phalanx was the most wonderful invention ever, eponymous with the mighty Greeks of old and a perfect and unstoppable force.

- secondly, he tells his Roman readers that their soldiers are mighty warriors in the heroic tradition able to fight in any direction and overcome their foes.

- and thirdly, with it apparently being obvious to his readers that the phalanx should dominate in all conditions and should even roll right over the Romans; he then describes the phalanx's flaws in that it will fail on almost every occasion due to the: cracks in the earth; tussocks; pebbles; and the fact that the earth isn't flat everywhere. ie that it's where the phalanx was forced to fight either by the incompetence of the later Greek generals, or the simple luck of the Romans!

I have a bit more respect for the Greek/Macedonian phalanx than that, let alone their generals and, whilst the ground makes a difference I am sure they knew that. If the phalanx was that flawed it would have been seen years before. The only weakness of a phalanx is if it comes apart - and I believe that's what the smaller-unit tactics of the Romans brought to the game. I am minded, therefore, to note that Polybius may well be thinking of his readership to remain popular.

Overall, any of Options 1-3 could work. I like Option 3, but it is almost too neat. I am minded still to prefer the one-pace 2.5ft because of the width of the shield and the whole style of Roman military measurements. Hence, back to the reason for the thread, I believe each legion operated on a standard 500ft frontage; and the reason is because the 'triarii always number 600'.

If pictures are desired to aid understanding of the options, then I could so some, but they are fairly simple.