Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Early Republic Consular Army deployment...
#46
Quote:The translation that I'm using (the, most recent I believe, one by Robin Waterfield) gave no hint of that sort of word - so please, please let us explore that a bit. The part of Ch26 that I'm looking at says ...
It's a nice translation, but is no longer the most recent, now that the Loeb Classical Library have released Walbank's revision of Paton's translation (reviewed here). But, if you do not already know about it, you really must have a look at the online Loeb (beware: it's Paton's unrevised original translation, occasionally mis-transcribed, but links to Walbank's Commentary): http://pace.mcmaster.ca/
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#47
Thanks DrC - that's most helpful. It seems almost sad that I acquired what seemed the most recent and then there's another. Given my ever increasing experience of Polybius I'm going to forgive the various translators when it comes to "...a..." or "...about a...", or anything similar and I'm going to accept a third being 300 in this case.

I'm busy typing now and hope to get that long promised bit of work done, not that the delay hasn't been worth it in some cases - I really hope people may find it of interest - I may even contribute something useful. We'll see...... Smile
Reply
#48
Quote:Retuning to this small issue of a 10-man section being 'unheard' of - let alone just re-confirming that 10 men are the perfect size of a meaningful wedge where every man can fight, with the lone exception of the one in the centre - who is probably the signifer (and therefore doesn't have a spear anyway).

You may think so yourself, but, we have no account of 10 man cavalry wedges, whereas I have accounts of wedges of 64, 384, 504, 516 and 1,504 men, while the Companion squadrons were also much much greater than 10 men. As far as I am concerned, we could debate wedges of 3 men but the thing is that any theory has to measure up to evidence and analogy. Right now, you have what Polybius describes as files act as ranks and what is never described as a wedge form wedges. Possible? Of course... Can it really become anything more than a fringe theory? Not unless you put forward less "logic" and more literary or syncretic evidence.


Quote:However, the query I'm really following up is that Arraianus doesn't seem to agree with you - at the end of his tactical handbook (which still seem to me to be a bad re-hash of Ascelpiodotus indeed) when he comes to the Roman Cavalry Exercises (when it seems clear he is watching a demonstration in an arena, possibly involving no more than a couple of turma) - in Ch42 he seems most adamant about 10-man units..

You had better not diminish the value of the sources, especially of one that was written, however influenced, by a guy who had seen battle and had himself arrayed troops for combat or/and exercise. The fact that Arrian agrees with the writings of others authors of questionable military experience is very strong evidence that the information should be taken seriously. Now, the Roman exercise he describes is one method that the Romans of his era would have used, which of course has little to do with what you are trying to analyze. This is why I wrote in a previous post that there is absolutely no evidence that the Cantabrian circle was a Republican tactic or that it was performed with multiple squadrons behind one another. As for the dekadarchiae, this is nothing in there that makes them a rank. A dimoerites is defined by Arrian as a half-file leader (ch.6) and generally, the lower officer ranks are always within a single "normal" file. And do not forget that the Cantabrian formation is just a part of the exercise. It is not "the" manner of fighting for the Roman cavalry.


Quote: If you have the time and are willing, I would very much appreciate any comment on the sentence and word constriction around the 10-man units and the 'double-pay' and 'pay-and-a-half' ranks mentioned? My copy (translation by James G DeVoto is somewhat 'literal' by design I believe).

You want me to translate it for you? Just write what DeVoto writes and I will happily see to it. An initial comment would be what I wrote above, that there is no hint as to whether this dekarchia is arrayed in a single or multiple rank or file.


Quote: Just to summarise this element of the likely tactics given the turmae organisation. It does seem obvious to me that the 30-men are indeed divided into 3 separate lines/ranks of 10 who operate one behind the other - with a Decurion holding the right of the line and the 'optio' holding and controlling the other end - and they are indeed the perfect size to assume a wedge for the striking power if necessary - but holding lines most commonly.

You know how I feel about this. Too bold and too unsupported to be accepted simply as "logical". The whole Graecoroman system of ranked officers is based on the file not the rank. Having the three officers in a single file is against "custom". As I see it when (and of course there would be times) the turma had to array 3 deep, the decurions would be all posted in the first rank (probably in files 1-5-10) and the optios on the rear. The use of wedge for Republican cavalry is totally unsupported and so cannot be used as an argument, so are 10 man wedges. The very fact that you need to divide a turma in three wedges is also very bold. Placing the optios in file in the same rank as their decurions is also problematic, which is my least supported disagreement since I do not profess any certainty on the position of the optio, I just think that he was customarily placed as a file-closer. One assumption is probable, two possible, all of them together make your proposal a "target" to criticism by proponents of more conventional theories.


Quote: Cavalry simply do not function well in long files - the horses get in each other's way. Cavalry, up to Napoleonic times, operate in successive waves and not en masse.

This is your boldest statement. What you are suggesting is totally in contrast with all accounts we have. Successive waves as you mean them, that is in ranks. was not the way a squadron fought in the ancient times and you have to be able to support that with evidence that will show it was the norm (since every other method was inefficient according to it) which you will not find. There is just so much in the sources about cavalry files and their role in the deployment and the charge that says otherwise.

However, I am curious, which ancient authors are your favorite? Who, would you say, do you mostly trust when it comes to (cavalry) tactics? Who has influenced your understanding of tactics most? You talk with the certainty of someone who has extensively studied the ancients which is a good thing, provided you have. So, your ideas, however radical and unconventional, must have some origins.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#49
Returning to speak about infantry's deployment, I found some interesting points in Tacitus (historiae,2.42) and Frontinus (stratagemata,2.3.20). In each account the units are deployed in "cunei"(wedges) in order to leave intervals between themselves( in the first case because the ground was irregoular and sattered by trees and shrubs, in the second case the gaps were leave in order to host skirmishres). This could confirm the hypothesis according to wich the gaps were " caused" by very close formations( wedges) and then (partially) closed when these formations extended themselves... by the way, again in the Stratagemata (2.3.17) speaking about gaps in the battle line, Frontinus uses the latin term "relinquere" ( to leave). This may suggest that gaps were actually closed before a clash...
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#50
Dear Macedon (although I would love to seek as many opinions/opposing views as possible from anyone who's interested),

Once more our posts can get too long to follow easily, so I shall pick and choose a bit, but if there is an element I miss, please let's address it. I'm actually keen that we might try to raise sub-topics discretely as it will make it much easier to follow in a 'conversational' style - let alone stop us both from writing an epic each day! So.....

Firstly - two things to not misinterpret - I am not claiming a 10-man wedge existed, I was noting that it is the perfect sensible size for one - bigger, actually, is far worse as we will come to. Secondly, that, no, I was not claiming the Republican Roman Cavalry used the 'Cantabrian' tactic - it was just an example. As to my views only ever becoming a 'fringe theory' - well, that's possible, but only if people aren't willing to re-look at what's actually written and, more importantly, what is not.

Can I confirm, please, that you are a fair scholar of Ancient Greek, perhaps professionally or a serious amateur - but that you're not a military man? There would be no criticism implied whatsoever - but I do ask if you have any vested interest in believing what has been written and only in what has been written? I ask this, having been relatively happily 'forced' into a sleepless night when I came back down and re-read Arrian and Ascl. (Aelian is on the way!). For I can then also ask - do you know of any source that actually describes the physical elements of men fighting hand-to-hand? For the Ancient Greek Tactics are all about deploying and moving around the battlefield - not about actual fighting.

In addition, you inform me that Polybius describes his cavalry deployed in files rather than ranks - and I challenge that, for he doesn't. More importantly, whilst we are given structures, names, ranks and layout of the heavy infantry component of Greek armies (presumed to mostly discuss pike-phalanxes at that stage), we are never given that for cavalry - simply discourses on shapes. 'Shapes' and formations that are detailing the initial formations adopted and then help move formed bodies of troops around the battlefield. None of them describe how 'shock cavalry' fights (later). So, given Polybius might well have (given my contention) wanted to give a Greek term/rank to the 'adjutant' to a Roman Decurion - what Greek term would he have used? I suggest he used the closest analogy (that of file-closer) to actually describe a 'rank-closer'. If there's clear evidence that I'm wrong, please, just let me know?

This is all because I do believe we have to make sensible assumptions, logical (indeed) connections and some interpolation to fill in the blanks. Especially when our sources are not particularly military men who have experienced battle close up and are then describing from that knowledge. For you assert above that Arrianus is a man who has 'seen battle and arrayed troops for combat'. Has he? Unless I am (and will happily be) mistaken, Arrianus was a Greek priest, who travelled widely and obtained the favour of Hadrian. The cavalry exercises he witnessed were likely a demonstration for him - and it certainly reads like that, with no evidence that he knew what and why he was seeing. Certainly as a provincial Governor it is possible that he was at a battle, but was he actually there? He doesn't claim that and it is only apparently accepted wisdom that he is actually 'Xenophon. It doesn't actually matter whether he is, or not, but at no point has he necessarily acquired any experience to consider him a 'General' who knows how to deploy troops, let alone how they fight.

When it comes to 'shock cavalry', I am prepared to front a view (not a theory) that shock cavalry fight in lines (potentially stylised wedges if they confirm). The Greek cavalry of Alexander and the Roman cavalry of the Early Republic were 'shock cavalry' (without missiles). I certainly invite any horse-specialists to particularly chime in, for I only have very limited riding experience, although I have studied many periods of history's cavalry. I found this link which may be of interest to this element:

http://garyb.0catch.com/cavalry_charging...antry.html

I would argue that the information there doesn't quite go far enough - but I will be specific. All I have ever discovered is that charging cavalry operates in lines - for a very simple reason. If there are more charging horses immediately behind the first (as all these tactical manuals might suggest), then as soon as the first meets the enemy and slows or is stopped, then there's nothing but a mass pile-up and failure. A modern car travelling at a likely comparable 30mph, with brakes designed for the task, on nice flat roads and with nice sticky rubber tyres takes an official 75ft to stop. I would therefore argue that successive ranks of cavalry in lines when charging would never be less than 100ft apart, and sensibly they would be more. Any period in history from Alexander to Napoleon.

You control a line of cavalry from one end - the right hand end so you can wheel to the right whilst presenting your shields to the enemy, and because the senior position is on the right. To complete that control you need someone at the other end of the line to make sure it comes round. This is why the idea of 3 ranks of 10 men constituting a troop will have the Decurions at one end. The senior leads the troop. A line charges with a second following 'closely' to add the second shock and make sure anyone now the other side of the first line is dealt with and the third line follows a little more slowly to plug any gaps and prevent flanking of the first two. Each rank probably 150ft apart at least (giving them 100ft to slow and 50ft to wheel) - that's why you need 3 Decurions - because they fight as separate sub-sub-units.

I'm sorry to say that the sort of thing seen in the 'Ride of the Rohirrim' in LOTR3 was lovely - but rubbish.

So, is that too bold? Is it not common sense and logical? Is there a source that says that just isn't true - for there's even dear old Arrian telling us that horses in depth don't provide the same value as infantry (end of Tactics 16).

Finally - yes, I do dare to question the sources when common sense (I'll leave 'logic' aside :wink: ) and a lack of the detail we're looking for exist. Interpretation and interpolation are necessary. There is indeed one source (wait a while :whistle: ) that I will even propose is not only wrong, but perhaps has mislead people for a very long time and it could be regretted that his text even survived (when so much else is lost) - but we'll leave that one on the side for a while.

If people, however, are minded to think that what is written, and only what is written, and that just because it's ancient that it's true - then we will not advance our understanding........ Sad
Reply
#51
Quote:Returning to speak about infantry's deployment,..............

If you'll forgive me Francesco, I would very much like to deal with the infantry separately in a new thread on a particular couple of Polybius' chapters that you and Bryan helped me towards - to help us in deconstructing and re-interpreting what information we have.

But that will have to wait until tomorrow - I can only cope with one big missive a day! Smile
Reply
#52
Don't worry! I agree with you, there's need to have two different thread about infantry and cavalry Wink
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#53
Quote:Unless I am (and will happily be) mistaken, Arrianus was a Greek priest, who travelled widely and obtained the favour of Hadrian.
You are! :errr: Although Arrian was certainly known as a philosopher, he was also a Roman senator who served as legatus Augusti pro praetore (i.e. consular governor) of the key military province of Cappadocia in the mid-130s. His previous career will have entailed the command of a legion (a necessary prequel to command of an armed province) and (probably) a tribunate in a legion (though some senators managed to skip this step). And he was Bithynian, not Greek! Wink
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#54
Quote:
Mark Hygate post=338250 Wrote:Unless I am (and will happily be) mistaken, Arrianus was a Greek priest, who travelled widely and obtained the favour of Hadrian.
You are! :errr: Although Arrian was certainly known as a philosopher, he was also a Roman senator who served as legatus Augusti pro praetore (i.e. consular governor) of the key military province of Cappadocia in the mid-130s. His previous career will have entailed the command of a legion (a necessary prequel to command of an armed province) and (probably) a tribunate in a legion (though some senators managed to skip this step). And he was Bithynian, not Greek! Wink

Ahh, well then..... :dizzy:

So, the Forward in James DeVoto's translation is wrong (the only place I would have got the info I had to hand)? I'm genuinely surprised at that. So, 'born between 90-95AD to a Romanised Greek family' is wrong? Not a 'priest for life of Demeter & Kore'? Certainly nothing in that forward suggested to me any military element at all. Is there actual evidence (here it's me asking this!) that he was a senator and did command a legion, or is that supposition?

PS - although that doesn't preclude any criticism mind you - he's still writing from a 'distant' perspective, just like Polybius.
Reply
#55
All evidence is pointing towards Arrian having considerable military experience, which does not necessarily imply marshaling field armies in large, important battles. I would add to Duncan's comment that being a Bithynian did not mean he was not Greek, for Bithynia had a substantial "ethnic" Greek population as did Cappadocia, Mysia, Paphlagonia and other provinces in Asia Minor, especially in the major towns, like Nicomedia.

I am not a military man but I have served my two years as an officer in the Greek army, in the engineer corpse. I also have done some years of horseback riding when I was younger, not many and unfortunately none in reenactment gear, but enough to be able to understand some of the basics of steering a horse, galloping on rough terrain, through narrow paths, jumping over hindrances, (almost) being thrown off by scared horses etc. I like to think I have no invested interests and as for cavalry fighting in the sources, there are many accounts of such (measuring in the hundreds), which may be used to form a picture. How many of them may be used to support your theory is a hard task you will have to embark on, if you haven't already.

I only have to say that you base too much on what you call "common sense". I will not engage in an argument about who has the most experience with anything, I however know that when you will present/publish your theory about how an early Republican army was arrayed you will be confronted with criticism and questions for which you will need references. Your understanding of the ancient cavalry battle is very different to mine and I would not like to think of myself as lacking common sense. I will not say that your hypotheses are false but I can again state with certainty that they do not comply with general understanding of cavalry battles as stands today or with the sources. I do not think that you disagree with that. So, if you are really personally convinced that you are right, if you really are so sure of your own interpretation of reality, then you need to find a way to support it other than stating the obviousness of your arguments. I ascertain you that they are not as obvious as you think. If you propose that this is how the sources should be interpreted you have to state the sources and your interpretation thereof. If you think that there are no sources to be trusted, for any reason, then you need contemporary support, some works of accepted scholars who will be of the same opinion. If you cannot find support in sources or in the works of other scholars, you will have a very hard time defending your work. Your attack plan of a turma is also something new. As I said, I will not debate "logic", if I do I will have to call you irrational and you me, so we will come to a dead end and probably raise the tones of our voices without any reason. But you need references. You need a Xenophon, a Polybius, an Arrian, one of the emperors, someone to at least hint at something like that. Have you read the Byzantine manuals? Do you think that any such action is described in any of them? I asked you again, you have to base your understanding on something. What is it? Is it your experience as a rider? Some ancient/modern writer? You do realize that what you are proposing is very different to customary understanding and you want to challenge it. That is all right, I have done so many times in the past myself as have many here and others not here. Believe me, I have an open mind, but I need to see better based arguments, even if these come from Napoleonic treatises.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#56
@Macedon,

Well, that's sad. It's lucky that my 'little thesis' is about organisation and that this has been a complete digression.

You ask me for sources - I am not aware of any sources which describe the mechanics of a cavalry charge in the ancient world (and so it's difficult to counter an assertion neither of us have any information on). Please, if you know of any and can assist in their interpretation, then let's discuss them and see where they lead. Yes, I have the Byzantine manuals.

A quick search will find me the detail of the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' - wherein the cavalry charged in 3 distinct lines (2 complete Regts the first two and the last a fifth regt). I am sure there are good descriptions of some of the ones at Waterloo, but cannot reference them easily just now - I am particularly minded to recall the example of French Lancers (in the first line) followed by Hussars in support (the second line); which was considered particularly dangerous.

So, if I cannot appeal to either 'logic' (which must have a different meaning for each of us, but that's no matter), or 'common sense' - I will try 'physics' given that I'm an Engineer too (I'll be using physics tomorrow); coupled with your greater experience of riding.

In one of the Greek attested 'formations', you are charging in a file of cavalry with each horse only some 5-8 ft (10ft if you're lucky) apart from each other nose to tail - at over 20mph (that's over 30ft per second) - with horses even closer to your left and right.....

What happens when the lead horse of the file hits either an infantry spear, or even the man - or almost stops to strike at another opposing cavalryman? What happens to all the horses behind that lead trooper who will cover the space in-between in a lot less than 1 second?

Please explain to me, if you really think that such a situation is really not a problem - that I am actually irrational not to genuinely believe that cavalry has to fight in more discreet lines. If you cannot, then you might agree that the sources do not cover everything. I have a little more respect for your Greek forebears than to think that they were suicidal - no source (that I am currently aware of) suggests that indeed.

For any one else? Would a poll be of any value? (I suspect not, but would appreciate any knowledge of any source on the detail of cavalry charges that anyone is aware of - because now I'm charged up on what was a digression!) Smile
Reply
#57
As cavalry charging now belongs here - and separate to infantry....

Is there any support for the view that charging cavalry in nice regular tight formations isn't an accident waiting to happen?

Or is there any source that describes this facet of ancient warfare?

Or am I just otherwise right and that cavalry have to charge in more discreet lines than the apparent formations describe - but it's just too radical and bold a statement because no source describes it?

Any discussion possible? Any old cavalry types around?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  frontage of a consular army Michael Collins 25 2,301 09-18-2021, 05:12 PM
Last Post: Hanny
  Elite forces/units in the Pre-Marian army (early- middle republic) Corvus 7 3,408 01-05-2017, 09:06 PM
Last Post: Bryan
  Late republic deployment McClane 1 1,561 11-02-2016, 03:32 AM
Last Post: Bryan

Forum Jump: