Regarding your (Mark's) illustration given in the next post, the things that struck me as odd have all to do with the cavalry deployment. The first thing that troubled me to see it as a standard battle-line was the deployment of the Roman cavalry behind the Triarii, which I guess you did to compare their frontages as you suggest them to be. The second thing was that you deployed the allied cavalry in three lines, which, to the best of my knowledge, was not yet an option. The third thing was that you posted the turmae (or whatever squadrons they would form) too close to each other, which makes it impossible for them to fight in the usual/traditional (for the era) manner of "perispasmoi".
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
I drew this the other day as an element of my 'little thesis' (end of the month?) showing the standard Consular Army (with each man shown as an individual). From lower element to upper it shows a likely: march on in column of 'cohorts'; left 10-pace movement of the rear centuries to form what looks like a rather nice 'chequer-board'; with a forward 10-pace march to close the line.
Each man is shown representing a close order of 1 pace per man (2.5 Roman feet) so that the entire force occupies 3,000ft of frontage; the 2+2 legion element holding 2,000ft of that, almost exactly the same distance as a side of the standard camp - which we know was constructed behind such a line in the face of the enemy.
I offer it here only as a nice possible representation of a draughts/chequers/chess board/quincunx.
Macedon wrote:
............
@ Mark, What kind of march does your image depict? It is not a battle-array is it?
The picture shows 3 views (bottom to top) of a standard Consular Army of the Polybian period [Consul; 2 x (Roman legions of 4,200 + 6 Tribunes 300 Cavalry) + 2 x (Allied legions of 4,200 + 6 Prefects + 900 Cavalry) .
In the lower section they will have just marched on in columns of maniples and deployed left and right of the axis; in the centre they have formed the (a possible) 'quincunx' formation (which to the enemy appears as a continuous line, of course), but allows complete tactical flexibility; and in the upper each rear century has marched forward to form line.
A mix of all 3 formations (individually by maniples/cohorts/lines as desired) can be used during the battle. So, yes, it does show a stylistic 3-Line army deployed for battle in various stages - meeting all the known criteria to the best of my knowledge. It's not a specific element of that 'little thesis' of mine, but I had done it anyway to show something - that a turmae is so sized as to cover the same frontage (particularly) and almost the same area as a full maniple.
Macedon wrote:
The things that struck me as odd have all to do with the cavalry deployment. The first thing that troubled me to see it as a standard battle-line was the deployment of the Roman cavalry behind the Triarii, which I guess you did to compare their frontages as you suggest them to be. The second thing was that you deployed the allied cavalry in three lines, which, to the best of my knowledge, was not yet an option. The third thing was that you posted the turmae (or whatever squadrons they would form) too close to each other, which makes it impossible for them to fight in the usual/traditional (for the era) manner of "perispasmoi".
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?
The cavalry particularly is shown where it is for three reasons:
- that I want to show all of them and there are 3x as many Allied cavalry as Roman and I've put them on the wings
- that the frontage of 10 turma is the same as for 10 maniples and effectively then all are interchangeable, within a single deployment construct
- and, where else do I put them?
The Roman cavalry are behind the Roman legions and just 'behind' the Consul (the tiny dot right in the centre at the rear of each formation) acting as the reserve, able to receive immediate orders and deploy wherever needed, but, as you surmise, were actually drawn there to show the relationships.
I don't understand why you might think that deploying in 3 lines for the cavalry was "not yet an option" - that's certainly worth a discussion, but nothing at all prevents 'attack & retreat' tactics - that's just the cavalry version of the infantry rotating ranks and rotating maniples. As I now understand it - if you think of an individual man as a century, then the tactics are just the same. The cavalry turma in 3 ranks of 10 fight with the first two ranks (both probably forming 2x10man wedges or, later, when equipped with javelins to play follow the leader and perform the 'cantabrian'; and the 3rd as a reserve - just the same as the 3 lines of cavalry can, the same as the Hastati & Principes, with the Triarii as the reserve. I see it as a very simple system that any competent Consul could then use.
In short, however, the picture(s) are the 'having moved up and formed the battle array' formation(s) and not what might then happen in the actual battle - but could show what was possible. For example, the famous 'Zama tactic' is simply possible by marching the rear-centuries back to the column position, rather than forward to make the line.
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?
I've been particularly studying Book 6 for the thesis, but have read 1-5 - can you point me at the passage, please?
But yes - whilst the Greek spacing is all in cubits - in thinking about deployment and the Polybian camp as part of the thesis study, let alone thinking of days of drill and time spent teaching same, let alone the width of the shield, it became pretty obvious that the Romans used paces (either 2.5ft as ours are, or the (double) pace of 5ft the Romans used). The entire Polybian camp can definitely be done with a little practice with the groma, some spears and soldiers marching about, just as suggested.
The open-order therefore is, as I think Franciso alluded to in the previous thread, only a front-to-back opening, rather than side to side - you simply wouldn't, under general circumstances, extend to the right by opening gaps that can be exploited. However, at the century-level version of the quincunx, that's exactly what you would do in opening the ranks front-to-back. That not only gives room to throw pila, but allows every second man (in an effectively similar manner to what the rear-centuries do in the maniple equivalent) to step back and to the right to allow the Velites to move through.
Quote: 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.
Been there, done that - but don't 'quite' agree. Whilst I do think (and even show in that diagram) that the 'posterior' centuries would always follow normally; I am fairly comfortable that this 'rear' position was used as shown on the battlefield as an integral part of Roman tactical manoevre.
Quote: 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.
Well, now you've got me to take a small section of my Polybian Camp graphic that actually showed that, for I effectively constructed it at the same scale! [See attached] - which purports to illustrate why the area assigned to a 'maniple' was 100ft on the road side and the spacing assumed seems correct.
Shown is a 50ft-wide portion of the via Principalis heading towards the Porta Decumana and the 'enemy'. There is space (at the one-pace close spacing) to fit not only a full maniple (120 Hastati/Principes + 40 Velites) 4-deep on parade either side of the road exactly along the side of their area, but also therefore to fit a turmae 5-wide or a maniple in standard 10-wide column for deployment (not standard marching) or combat.
I think they'd actually wheel on to the road centre to then march themselves....
In addition, whilst my original picture shows gaps between the maniples for clarity - I do believe the shield-to-shield would extend all along the line - otherwise it shows points of potential weakness.
Quote: ....
...
The rest - not unreasonable - we could tweak here and there I'm sure.
In order to make any frontage calculations, we have to make certain assumptions as to what the "norm" was and of course always keep in mind that depths would be set according to circumstances, so no calculation can really be made the one true and undisputed truth that would be followed by all generals in all battles.
We need the intervals among soldiers, possible intervals within the battle-line and the assumed depths for both infantry and cavalry. These are the main variables assuming that the number of the men themselves will of course be a constant equal to their nominal strength. So, what are the values you used in your model?
Now, regarding the cavalry deployment you chose to use. When I spoke about multiple cavalry lines, I had in mind the later cavalry tactics that used to indeed array the horse in multiple independent battle-lines.Why do you think it is possible that the Roman cavalry would array in three lines of intersupporting turmae? Have you found any evidence thereto or of such a system? Plus, what makes you think that the Republican Roman cavalry used the so-called Cantabrian circle, which, IIRC, does also not require multiple squadrons arrayed behind one another? And of course we are again discussing "normal" deployment. I am sure, that according to circumstances, anything was possible, of course we have cavalry behind the legions, or infanty in abnormal depths etc etc.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Note: - with 2+1 threads now containing the same posts - I'm not entirely sure which to use, but here goes. Perhaps a Mod can help?
Quote:In order to make any frontage calculations, we have to make certain assumptions as to what the "norm" was and of course always keep in mind that depths would be set according to circumstances, so no calculation can really be made the one true and undisputed truth that would be followed by all generals in all battles.
We need the intervals among soldiers, possible intervals within the battle-line and the assumed depths for both infantry and cavalry. These are the main variables assuming that the number of the men themselves will of course be a constant equal to their nominal strength. So, what are the values you used in your model?
Without having the actual drill manual we have to make assumptions and so I have tried to make the most logical ones I could - especially when I realised that the Romans really did use the 'pace' (the modern 2.5ft one, although using their foot (0.972 or 0.971 English)), although they counted in 'double-paces' (5ft) - because that's exactly how you successfully march around and deploy, as well as measure out the lovely simple camp of theirs.
Then, whilst I'll hint at modern terms, the Roman system was all about 'mutual support' (pairing, buddy-buddy system (rotating ranks)). If you are, as it seems obvious when considering the Early Greek (Hoplites) to Later Greek/Successor (Pike/Sarissa) to Romans and their shield design, to therefore reconstruct it then the only sensible choice is to consider the soldiers forming line by standing next to each other. Therefore that's the scale I used, whilst wanting to show each individual. So, when in line/'phalanx' the 20 men of the front rank of a full maniple occupy 50ft (same width as the longitudinal camp roads) and, without the gaps shown for clarity, a legion frontage is 500ft (1/10th of a Roman mile) - as it is for a cavalry unit (10 turma) (see below). Each 'man' is shown as a 'dot' 2.5ft between centres. A cavalry man is shown occupying twice the frontage, the depth is representative, but realistic. A 30-man turmae arranged 10x3 then occupies the same frontage as a maniple, which is the centuriae-turmae 'secret' - they occupy the same space on the battlefield, the same space in camp and the same barracks and that's why the basic sub-unit size is so fixed.
All the Roman manoeuvres we then read about in the sources (whilst it may well be worth reviewing some so I can defend those views) can then be detailed by simply considering moving the soldiers about as individuals or centuries.
Considering the soldiers (the close-order heavy infantry types) fighting at any distance from each other than shoulder-to-shoulder (turned slightly towards the enemy and therefore probably one-cubit apart indeed), makes no sense - that's how the Hoplites did it, the Pike Phalanx and then the Romans. The Romans, though, instead of taking the Spear to the extreme of the Pike, took the Shield to the maximum width - and then used it as the primary 'weapon', creating gaps through which to stab. At any further than one-pace between soldier-centres then gaps would open up - hence the choice.
Quote:Now, regarding the cavalry deployment you chose to use. When I spoke about multiple cavalry lines, I had in mind the later cavalry tactics that used to indeed array the horse in multiple independent battle-lines.Why do you think it is possible that the Roman cavalry would array in three lines of intersupporting turmae? Have you found any evidence thereto or of such a system? Plus, what makes you think that the Republican Roman cavalry used the so-called Cantabrian circle, which, IIRC, does also not require multiple squadrons arrayed behind one another? And of course we are again discussing "normal" deployment. I am sure, that according to circumstances, anything was possible, of course we have cavalry behind the legions, or infanty in abnormal depths etc etc.
The deployment picture is indeed done principally to show all the men in a sensible minimum width (in this case 3,000ft) for the army - the actual terrain would dictate the final result - my picture is simply 'idealised'.
Whilst mentioning 'Cantabrian' wasn't necessarily appropriate in this context, it was only to show that such a deployment wouldn't prevent those 'later' tactics either.
To your principle question, however, I'll come straight back and ask - given that the 3-line infantry model is well accepted, why do you think the cavalry wouldn't have been deployed similarly? The entire Consular Army organisation is an exercise in standard deployment, with inherent flexibility. Why do we accept that multiple-cavalry lines were used later and that they weren't used earlier?
For over 1,500 years the arms and armour of the ancient world didn't really change that much - so why would the tactical usage really change? They only changed in degree. The medieval period saw the extremes of armour (armoured plate) and firepower (longbow/cross-bow), but there was no appreciable tactical ®evolution until gunpowder came along. [This latter possibly deserves its own discussion elsewhere, but I also suspect it's been done before. ]
A digression, but applicable - but my premise is indeed that maniples/centuries and the cavalry troops were interchangeable and could be used similarly in the right circumstances (like the infantry retiring behind a cavalry screen) and thus the drawing. However, if the Hastati were to be replaced by the Principes, why not the lines of cavalry units?
Quote:Note: - with 2+1 threads now containing the same posts - I'm not entirely sure which to use, but here goes. Perhaps a Mod can help?
This is the right spot... There was some glitch with the shadow topics and one that renamed this one but on my screen all duplicates have disappeared since yesterday... Do you guys still see duplicates?
Quote:Without having the actual drill manual we have to make assumptions and so I have tried to make the most logical ones I could - especially when I realised that the Romans really did use the 'pace' (the modern 2.5ft one, although using their foot (0.972 or 0.971 English)), although they counted in 'double-paces' (5ft) - because that's exactly how you successfully march around and deploy, as well as measure out the lovely simple camp of theirs.
Then, whilst I'll hint at modern terms, the Roman system was all about 'mutual support' (pairing, buddy-buddy system (rotating ranks)). If you are, as it seems obvious when considering the Early Greek (Hoplites) to Later Greek/Successor (Pike/Sarissa) to Romans and their shield design, to therefore reconstruct it then the only sensible choice is to consider the soldiers forming line by standing next to each other. Therefore that's the scale I used, whilst wanting to show each individual. So, when in line/'phalanx' the 20 men of the front rank of a full maniple occupy 50ft (same width as the longitudinal camp roads) and, without the gaps shown for clarity, a legion frontage is 500ft (1/10th of a Roman mile)
So, you set the normal depth - with depth I meant number of ranks- at 6? (I usually do so too) I thought you had set it at 4. In my personal opinion, the legions would march to the battlefield in open order and double depth like the Greeks and when it was time to attack they would close their ranks. However, I do suspect that when they tried to act "defensively", by this I mean, to somehow mitigate the pressure of a highly dense and ordered mass of enemies, like a Macedonian phalanx, they might revert to an open order that would facilitate easier retreat - but that is just a hypothesis, trying to interpret Polybius statement of the Roman intevals among infantrymen and this peculiar retreating capability.
Quote: - as it is for a cavalry unit (10 turma) (see below). Each 'man' is shown as a 'dot' 2.5ft between centres. A cavalry man is shown occupying twice the frontage, the depth is representative, but realistic. A 30-man turmae arranged 10x3 then occupies the same frontage as a maniple, which is the centuriae-turmae 'secret' - they occupy the same space on the battlefield, the same space in camp and the same barracks and that's why the basic sub-unit size is so fixed.
The questions here are manifold. Unfortunately, there is little information on the turmae apart from certain numbers but the problems I always had when trying to interpret how they would be probably used on the battlefield were the following :
1. The unit itself borders the lowest size of independent squadron strength attested, I have one mention at 27 men but most were much larger. This makes me wonder if they were used as squadrons on their own or if they were grouped, maybe 2-5 together, to make one larger squadron. Being a natural fan of flexibility (which I call common sense), I assume that they might be put together or taken apart according to circumstances.
2, The second problem is the turma's probable depth when deployed as a squadron. Its size of 30 allows for a number of probable depths (2/3/5/6/10) and the fact that it was divided in 3 decuriae makes 3/6/10 the most probable. However, 3 deep sounds shallow, I have 3 such examples (Ascl., Ael. and Arr.) but again it is placed on the extreme low and I am generally wary when it comes to extremes. On the other hand, 10 sounds much for a rectangular formation for such an early era (again an extreme) and so maybe 5 or 6 are possible. However, I have not yet come to direct evidence as to a Republican turma depth.
3. The third issue is the gap between squadrons of any size. When discussing regular cavalry combat, with squadrons attacking, throwing their javelins and usually retreating to attack again in what was called a "perispasmos", the ancients described the squadrons of any size deploy with intervals between them equal to the length of the squadron, Polybius being one of them -he also believed that a good depth for a cavalry squadron was 8- (Pol.12.18.3. for both statements). If this rule is used, then, any length of a squadron-based cavalry formation should be doubled because of these intervals. Of course there is also evidence of phalanx like formations, but I would place them more regularly in earlier times.
4. Then comes the issue of multiple lines. The later custom of arraying cavalry lines one behind another is something very different. They indeed bear more resemblance to the triple-acies of the infantry, since these were all "reserves" and did not partake in the initial fight. Such deployment is not mentioned for many centuries yet. I think that all descriptions of cavalry arrangements have the squadrons deploy next to each other, with the only reserves sometimes mentioned being men around the commander(s). Here you need some supporting evidence, some contemporary or maybe earlier mentioning of such an arrangement. Placing at this era two and three cavalry squadrons behind each other sounds interesting but unsupported. This is also an answer to :
Quote:To your principle question, however, I'll come straight back and ask - given that the 3-line infantry model is well accepted, why do you think the cavalry wouldn't have been deployed similarly? The entire Consular Army organisation is an exercise in standard deployment, with inherent flexibility. Why do we accept that multiple-cavalry lines were used later and that they weren't used earlier?
Quote:For over 1,500 years the arms and armour of the ancient world didn't really change that much - so why would the tactical usage really change? They only changed in degree. The medieval period saw the extremes of armour (armoured plate) and firepower (longbow/cross-bow), but there was no appreciable tactical ®evolution until gunpowder came along. [This latter possibly deserves its own discussion elsewhere, but I also suspect it's been done before. ]
I very much agree with that. I personally view battlefield tactics as obeying to the same basic principals until the broad use of firepower.
Quote:A digression, but applicable - but my premise is indeed that maniples/centuries and the cavalry troops were interchangeable and could be used similarly in the right circumstances (like the infantry retiring behind a cavalry screen) and thus the drawing. However, if the Hastati were to be replaced by the Principes, why not the lines of cavalry units?
I like the general thought of uniformity in the Roman army, I also support there was one, but to see the Roman horse acting like that, I really would need some supporting evidence for the reasons that allow such a deployment are, in my opinion, not found in Republican armies .
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Quote:The open-order therefore is, as I think Franciso alluded to in the previous thread, only a front-to-back opening, rather than side to side - you simply wouldn't, under general circumstances, extend to the right by opening gaps that can be exploited. However, at the century-level version of the quincunx, that's exactly what you would do in opening the ranks front-to-back. That not only gives room to throw pila, but allows every second man (in an effectively similar manner to what the rear-centuries do in the maniple equivalent) to step back and to the right to allow the Velites to move through.
Yes this is what i meant( se pictures 1 and 2 ) But I was also thinking that maybe the starting deployment of maniple was an even closer formation( pictures 3 )a sort of cuneus, wich could allows the opening of gaps, formed by closing the files of the formation depicted in the second picture... to Mark: in the other thread you said that would not have had sense to extent maniples nor it would have been possible... In wich sense?
Quote:This is the right spot... There was some glitch with the shadow topics and one that renamed this one but on my screen all duplicates have disappeared since yesterday... Do you guys still see duplicates?
Nope - all tidied up - whatever you did worked fine in the end. But goodness a lot here!
.........
Quote:So, you set the normal depth - with depth I meant number of ranks- at 6? (I usually do so too) I thought you had set it at 4. In my personal opinion, the legions would march to the battlefield in open order and double depth like the Greeks and when it was time to attack they would close their ranks. However, I do suspect that when they tried to act "defensively", by this I mean, to somehow mitigate the pressure of a highly dense and ordered mass of enemies, like a Macedonian phalanx, they might revert to an open order that would facilitate easier retreat - but that is just a hypothesis, trying to interpret Polybius statement of the Roman intevals among infantrymen and this peculiar retreating capability.
The deployed depth of a hastati/principes century/maniple would be 8 - a full contuburnium, the first six as expected and the last two from the Velites. It's the last two that would move through and back, or throwing over the top, or be off brigaded doing something else, or dealing with the injured (both friend and foe) - a whole other discussion.
But yes, similar to the Greeks, but given the Roman twist to allow the rotating centuries/individuals. That original picture shows the units in close order, with each infantryman occupying a 2.5ft/1 short-pace square, but many variations are possible. Yes, you would march on in open order with the same frontage, but double the depth. This then also allows every second man in a rank to take 1 pace to the rear and 1 to the right to open the lines to allow passage; reversing the movement to close the line again. You close up to receive a charge. The second man needs to also be that close to be able to replace the front man when tired. The open order is also sufficient to then allow pila to be thrown.
........
Quote:The questions here are manifold. Unfortunately, there is little information on the turmae apart from certain numbers but the problems I always had when trying to interpret how they would be probably used on the battlefield were the following :
1. The unit itself borders the lowest size of independent squadron strength attested, I have one mention at 27 men but most were much larger. This makes me wonder if they were used as squadrons on their own or if they were grouped, maybe 2-5 together, to make one larger squadron. Being a natural fan of flexibility (which I call common sense), I assume that they might be put together or taken apart according to circumstances.
2, The second problem is the turma's probable depth when deployed as a squadron. Its size of 30 allows for a number of probable depths (2/3/5/6/10) and the fact that it was divided in 3 decuriae makes 3/6/10 the most probable. However, 3 deep sounds shallow, I have 3 such examples (Ascl., Ael. and Arr.) but again it is placed on the extreme low and I am generally wary when it comes to extremes. On the other hand, 10 sounds much for a rectangular formation for such an early era (again an extreme) and so maybe 5 or 6 are possible. However, I have not yet come to direct evidence as to a Republican turma depth.
3. The third issue is the gap between squadrons of any size. When discussing regular cavalry combat, with squadrons attacking, throwing their javelins and usually retreating to attack again in what was called a "perispasmos", the ancients described the squadrons of any size deploy with intervals between them equal to the length of the squadron, Polybius being one of them -he also believed that a good depth for a cavalry squadron was 8- (Pol.12.18.3. for both statements). If this rule is used, then, any length of a squadron-based cavalry formation should be doubled because of these intervals. Of course there is also evidence of phalanx like formations, but I would place them more regularly in earlier times.
4. Then comes the issue of multiple lines. The later custom of arraying cavalry lines one behind another is something very different. They indeed bear more resemblance to the triple-acies of the infantry, since these were all "reserves" and did not partake in the initial fight. Such deployment is not mentioned for many centuries yet. I think that all descriptions of cavalry arrangements have the squadrons deploy next to each other, with the only reserves sometimes mentioned being men around the commander(s). Here you need some supporting evidence, some contemporary or maybe earlier mentioning of such an arrangement. Placing at this era two and three cavalry squadrons behind each other sounds interesting but unsupported. This is also an answer to :
....................
1 & 2. The Polybian turmae is 30 strong - organised in 3 section of 10, each lead by a Decurion (incl). The obvious and logical deduction is that it therefore fought in 3 ranks or 10. 10, however, is also the perfect size for a 1/2/3/4 wedge. Each turmae can be considered a legion in miniature a trooper representing a maniple. As far as I have been able to determine there is no evidence for any intermediate hierarchy between turmae and unit/ala, but (I have found) that pairs and multiple pairs are likely common. The 3 examples are all, of course, the same re-hashed, likely none of them original. Ascl in fact (which the others are likely based upon indeed) doesn't actually specify the size of a 'squadron' (unlike infantry, chariots or elephants), but is where the ideas of 8-deep come from earlier in the cavalry section; apart from detailing 61, but that is to make the first perfect rhomboid.
3. Attacking and retreating ('peripasmos') doesn't necessarily apply to just skirmishing with javelins, which indeed the Early Republican cavalry don't seem to have carried anyway (Polybius VI.25). The comment in Bk XII however applies to Alexander at Issus 200yrs before Polybius and I'm fairly sure he will have Ascl to hand when writing to make such a statement, indeed that whole section is trying to disprove an account! Either way, it may not have any bearing on the Early Republic cavalry.
4. Why do you think all the cavalry are 'reserves'? The cavalry often fought their own battles. What I did in the original drawing was show the 2x3 Allied cavalry units deployed on the wings (ala) in an idealised formation. They could be depoyed that way and there's no reason not to think they weren't, if the available battlefield (3,000ft wide here) allowed. The major reason, indeed, why so many accounts don't describe what happens with the cavalry in detail is that it's not only the junior branch, but cannot be seen with all the dust and distance. So, unless we find some we will never know - I'm only suggesting likely possibilities on what we do see and interpolate from the structures we do know about.
For me it's all about making an attempt to connect the dots and make reasonable assumptions - and then see if they can fit what is available. What I don't think we should do is necessarily dismiss what seems reasonable, just because it isn't mentioned, only argue against something if it doesn't fit the evidence.
The Roman legion(s) were organised in 3 lines of 10 maniples, which supported each other and fought in a coherent way. The cavalry were organised effectively the same (it's just a matter of scale), why do we think they were different?
M2CW
Total digression - given what I'm thinking, the deployment of troops and the size and shape of the camp - without any other dissenting information I would be arguing for a Roman stade to equal 500ft - 1/10th of a mile.
Probably a whole other discussion - but why would the Romans make a stade 1/8th of a mile at 625ft - I'd almost prefer the more likely 600ft figure I've seen?
Quote:The deployed depth of a hastati/principes century/maniple would be 8 - a full contuburnium, the first six as expected and the last two from the Velites. It's the last two that would move through and back, or throwing over the top, or be off brigaded doing something else, or dealing with the injured (both friend and foe) - a whole other discussion.
So, in effect we are saying the same thing, the legionary heavy infantry arraying six deep (again and always normally... exceptions of course existed like the famed Cannae). You know, one of my arguments against a normal depth of 4 is that a reinforced legion would have 1,500 Hastati/Principes which is only oddly divided by 4 (375 files) and does not allow a doubling in contrast with 6 which gives a very neat 250 files.
Quote:1 & 2. The Polybian turmae is 30 strong - organised in 3 section of 10, each lead by a Decurion (incl). The obvious and logical deduction is that it therefore fought in 3 ranks or 10. 10, however, is also the perfect size for a 1/2/3/4 wedge. Each turmae can be considered a legion in miniature a trooper representing a maniple. As far as I have been able to determine there is no evidence for any intermediate hierarchy between turmae and unit/ala, but (I have found) that pairs and multiple pairs are likely common.
I do not think that the Roman squadrons of this era would fight in wedges. Have you got any evidence supporting that? I can speak with certainty only of Greek sources but I cannot remember Latin sources that mention that either.
Quote: The 3 examples are all, of course, the same re-hashed, likely none of them original. Ascl in fact (which the others are likely based upon indeed) doesn't actually specify the size of a 'squadron' (unlike infantry, chariots or elephants), but is where the ideas of 8-deep come from earlier in the cavalry section; apart from detailing 61, but that is to make the first perfect rhomboid.
No, all examples are very specific and clear in the sources. Asclepiodotos mentions the formation of a square squadron "3 or 4 deep" without mentioning the number of files -effectively discussing shape and depth (7.4.19), Aelianos describes one of 9 files in 3 ranks (27 horsemen in all) (18.7.11) and Arrianos in his Tactica gives a squadron like Aelian (16.12.10). But in my (ongoing) research, these are the smallest squadrons to ever be definitely described in Greek sources regarding the number of ranks, which would make a depth of 3 in a squadron an "extreme", however possible. Interestingly enough, they are also the smallest in full strength. Of course this does not make it impossible to be so, I only question the normality. I guess that should the Romans have less cavalry than the enemy in an extended ground, they could array thus to even the front and should the ground be narrower, they could as easily make the turmae deeper. However, according to Polybius in the extract you also gave (6.25), the decurions selected as many rear-rankers, which points to the Roman turma being normally arrayed 10 deep in the end.
Quote:3. Attacking and retreating ('peripasmos') doesn't necessarily apply to just skirmishing with javelins, which indeed the Early Republican cavalry don't seem to have carried anyway (Polybius VI.25). The comment in Bk XII however applies to Alexander at Issus 200yrs before Polybius and I'm fairly sure he will have Ascl to hand when writing to make such a statement, indeed that whole section is trying to disprove an account! Either way, it may not have any bearing on the Early Republic cavalry.
"Skirmishing" is the right word to use but is "wrongly" understood in English. The Romans, as well as most cavalry types of the era, are consistently described as skirmishing in dense formation against each other. Exceptions where there is real violent melee between cavalry units are almost always described as doing something very strange and extraordinary as is the case in Cannae for example. I cannot be sure as to whether some cases of perispasmos might include limited melee action between maybe the most courageous front rankers, which it might, but still, it was a type of skirmish, albeit in dense formations, in contrast to the dispersed skirmishing action we imagine when we hear the term mentioned. As to the 8 man deep squadrons of Polybius, in that instance, he describes what he sees normal for his age, not for Alexander's, even if, it is true, he discusses Callisthenes' descriptions. In his comment it is grammatically clear that he sees the same relations applying to both eras. Of course he does not link it with the Romans, but it is a clue as to what was considered "norm" regarding cavalry depths in general. (Btw, I am fairly sure he does not have Ascl in hand, although he could have another manual since the former is a later author.)
Quote: Why do you think all the cavalry are 'reserves'? The cavalry often fought their own battles. What I did in the original drawing was show the 2x3 Allied cavalry units deployed on the wings (ala) in an idealised formation. They could be depoyed that way and there's no reason not to think they weren't, if the available battlefield (3,000ft wide here) allowed. The major reason, indeed, why so many accounts don't describe what happens with the cavalry in detail is that it's not only the junior branch, but cannot be seen with all the dust and distance. So, unless we find some we will never know - I'm only suggesting likely possibilities on what we do see and interpolate from the structures we do know about.
I never doubt the possibility of most anything happening, it is the norm I am trying to research. However, cavalry squadrons of any size deployed one behind the other is not something that we see in formations planning to act as a single line. Lack of any such description in contrast to the abundance of references to squadrons arrayed next to each other makes me very reluctant to accept the possibility. I think that there are a lot of adequately described cavalry battle instances at least as well described as those of the infantry, so I would disagree with the lack of evidence having to do with lack of descriptions. The instances in which we have several lines of cavalry are very different and generally much later. I have many such examples in the Byzantine manuals, in accounts regarding the battle array of Turks, Pechenegs and other such, predominately cavalry nations but they are very different in tactical nature. For example, the cavalry lines of the Byzantine manuals are made of squadrons arrayed next to each other, the lines standing usually at bowshot distance (what is generally described as about 350 yards) from each other, and with very specific orders as to how they should act and react during battle, how to receive the promachoi if necessary, how to follow the front line if the enemy is put to flight etc. They would not attack the enemy at the same time with the front line. This is why, in my eyes, your proposal with the turmae being arrayed behind one another and still acting in unison is bold and different from currently accepted models or cavalry arrangement. Maybe you hadn't realized that this was indeed a different, unconventional proposal? Its foremost effect is the lessening of the "normal" length of the legionary cavalry formation. However, if we assume 10 deep as normal, then things are normalized and the cavalry is arrayed in one line.
Quote: For me it's all about making an attempt to connect the dots and make reasonable assumptions - and then see if they can fit what is available. What I don't think we should do is necessarily dismiss what seems reasonable, just because it isn't mentioned, only argue against something if it doesn't fit the evidence.
The Roman legion(s) were organised in 3 lines of 10 maniples, which supported each other and fought in a coherent way. The cavalry were organised effectively the same (it's just a matter of scale), why do we think they were different?
Sure, I am open to every model and suggestion, I have myself proposed much that would sound unconventional. But when presenting a model that includes novelties, some support is necessary, even by analogy. The three lines of infantry in the triple acies clearly resemble the Byzantine cavalry formation system. Yet, the nature of combat you assign to the turmae is different to both the infantry system of the legions and to that of the Byzantine analogue. We can discuss how a system like that would probably work by taking it as a start regardless the probability of its existence if you like. But if you want to "officially" put it forward as a probability, I would still like to see some literary evidence to back it up or some tactical analogy.
Quote: Total digression - given what I'm thinking, the deployment of troops and the size and shape of the camp - without any other dissenting information I would be arguing for a Roman stade to equal 500ft - 1/10th of a mile.
Probably a whole other discussion - but why would the Romans make a stade 1/8th of a mile at 625ft - I'd almost prefer the more likely 600ft figure I've seen?
Did the Romans employ stadia? Or do you mean the Byzantine Romans? If you mean the latter, then they practically retained the Greek metric system as is evident in a number of Byzantine works as well as the Roman mile or "semeion" . (you can find examples of such metric relations in Sylloge Tacticorum and Leo VI)
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Sorry it took so long to reply, this new website format is not really working all that well for me.
Mark Hygate Wrote:
Considering the soldiers...fighting at any distance from each other than shoulder-to-shoulder...makes no sense - that's how the Hoplites did it, the Pike Phalanx and then the Romans. The Romans, though, instead of taking the Spear to the extreme of the Pike, took the Shield to the maximum width - and then used it as the primary 'weapon', creating gaps through which to stab. At any further than one-pace between soldier-centres then gaps would open up - hence the choice.
"Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth, but as in their mode of fighting each man must move
separately, as he has to cover his person with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow, and as he uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting it is obvious that a looser order is required, and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him, if they are to be of proper use." Polybius 18.30
The deployed depth of a hastati/principes century/maniple would be 8 - a full contuburnium, the first six as expected and the last two from the Velites. It's the last two that would move through and back, or throwing over the top, or be off brigaded doing something else, or dealing with the injured (both friend and foe) - a whole other discussion.
Other than Vegetius, what other ancient sources reveals the files of Republican era maniples were made up of contubernales? Also, what source do you have that the maniples of the Republican army fought 8 ranks deep? Or 6 Ranks? At what battle? Under which General?
In addition, whilst my original picture shows gaps between the maniples for clarity - I do believe the shield-to-shield would extend all along the line - otherwise it shows points of potential weakness.
"For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter. He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly." P 18:31
Again, why would a man armed in a manner to fight as in individual, with a curved scutum and 25-27" long sword, want to be shield to shield with anyone else, and thus restrict his movement, per Polybius and Caesar?
What potential weakness in the Roman line was there to exploit? Please discuss how a Macedonian phalanx will exploit the gap between Roman or Socii maniples without risking the collapse of its own line.
You seem pretty knowledgeable about the dimensions of the Roman camp, as described by Polybius, whereas I am more or less ignorant of it. But how wide was the gate they marched out of? How many men walking abreast could pass through it at a time?
