Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Early Republic Consular Army deployment...
#16
Quote:...............
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?

I've taken your nice neat picture element and now created my own (hence running out of time to reply yesterday) to help describe where I am coming from...

Picture 3 (unless I misunderstand) is obviously from a sculpted frieze and therefore represents an isometric style of projection - I therefore interpret it as soldiers in successive ranks in close-order and not in a 'cuneus', which I believe is normally translated as a 'wedge'.

So - my 4 piccies show: a standard 60-man part-century of Hastati/Principes marching on in close order facing the enemy (they could, however, march normally in this sort of formation in a true open order by having every second file march behind it's first and then move to this formation when the firsts halt); the second shows the transition formation that allows all the others to be formed from it - the century-level version of the quincunx; the third shows the soldiers having stepped to the right to open the lanes for transit my others (Velites); and the last showing the ranks closed up to receive a charge - full close order (which is what my very original drawing showed).

Take the forward 30 men of the century and scale them up so that each man represents an actual century and you see the same drill movements applied to a half-legion (so for a full put them side-by-side).

The whole point about not extending sideways once deployed is that it is simply not practicable once on the battlefield. If you are going to fight closed-up shield-to-shield, then you have to deploy on that basis from the outset. Trying to extend the actual frontage of any army in the face of the enemy is a tricky manoeuvre best accomplished with reserves and not any idea of getting everyone to shuffle side-ways.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
               
Reply
#17
Dear Macedon - we're simply having to get our posts smaller - otherwise we'll just have too much trouble formatting! Smile

Quote:.................. 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.

I have come to the conclusion that what Polybius seems to have implied when the legions were enlarged makes no sense whatsoever when trying to deploy armies and isn't supported by what happened later - especially when there is a so much moe sensible, practicable and useful interpretation. For that, however, I'll have to ask you to wait for another week or so and then I would love you to criticise that part of my little thesis.

Quote: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.

Most of the 'Roman' sources are written in Greek - which is where I sincerely hope I can ask for help. However, my point here is that the Greeks did use wedges, the Roman system developed from them, they were used later and afterwards and the 10man section is perfectly sized for one - so why do we think they may not have? We only lack a confirming source, but that's where we are - in which case it's back to logic, deduction and interpolation


Quote: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.

I see - Aelian is not a source I have yet studied, as I understood that it too was a re-hash of Asclepiodotos - and given that that portion of Arrian seems to be a very poor re-hash, I'm sad to say I didn't. The fact that Arrian apparently supports the 3 ranks, however, is most useful. Two points here:

1. Firstly that, and I need help with the Greek, as I read the translation then the Decurions appointed matching 'adjutants' (optios) like the Centurions. Whilst a suitable Greek word may have been used they were neither of them actual 'file-closers'; the century needs someone to control the opposite corner of the formation; the section of 10 troopers in a line (rank) needs someone at the other end to keep the line.

2. Which leads to the next - (melée) cavalry fight in separate lines/ranks - they do not fight en-masse like infantry. It doesn't matter that the Greeks invented nice 'square' or rhomboidal formations to march around in - you don't fight like that. Successive lines fight, so that horses don't get in each other's way. I believe we must try to interpret some of the sources and temper them with logic. 30-man turmae split cleanly into 3 parts that support each other under a single leader.

Lastly - and thank you - but Aelian's 9x3 would seem to be simply an example of Asclepiodotos' perfect square discussion when the riders are deployed with the ranks separated at 3x the frontage - and Aelian knows how big a turmae is!

The rest is a bit more complex - but I will indeed happily make, if they are "bold and different" and "unconventional" suggestions, especially when to do otherwise makes no sense at all. I have come to believe through this period that I have been able to spend researching what I can and thinking - that we cannot just rely on the paucity of information we do have, particularly if it doesn't join up properly.

But - my 3 lines of turma (whilst indeed only representative) are indeed 9 lines in total - that's close to 8 :wink: . Much more importantly, many of the later and Byzantine examples are for mixed formations of lance and bow-armed cavalry when they would 'fight' in denser formations to protect the archers. But you don't: charge home; throw javelins; or run down broken infantry en masse.

........................
Reply
#18
Quote:Sorry it took so long to reply, this new website format is not really working all that well for me.

No problem and thank you - and I'm more than happy to try and defend - although you've got me a bit..... (and I shall not try and quote carefully as it's getting tricky.....)

The two quotes from Polybius Bk18 I assume are from the fragments, which sadly I haven't seen, but now am surprised enough to want to not believe them and am sure a mistake has been made somewhere.... :?

For if a single Roman legionnaire is fighting effectively on his own (within a 6ft square bubble), then the Roman empire would never had come into being! At least 10 pike-blades backed by the weight of 32 men grinding forward would simply have bowled him over. Any average Celtic band would have faced Romans with a two-to-one advantage and one would have ripped the shield away whilst the other got in with the sword or spear. Surely we cannot believe that, even though it's been written? :o

I'm fairly happy my belief is that the Romans fought shoulder-to-shoulder and, more importantly, shield-to-shield - nothing else makes sense. [I must admit here that the closest I have personally been to that style of combat is riot training (with similar shields and pointy batons), but that has only confirmed that belief.]

That spacing does allow easier marching about and I could easily believe that - and Polybius would have seen training and gladiatorial-type combat - but against real enemies trying to kill you; I'm way more than sceptical.

As to the 8 man contubernia existing in the Republic - simple deduction once I realised that was when the 80-man century was originally formalised.

The need to deploy and fight the Consular army given it's organisation tells us it fought 6/8 deep - for there's just no other way it can be. But no, no particular source - we just don't have one. I don't believe we need one.

In my drawing of the camp (see little thesis in a week or so) I left the gaps in the pallisade at 50ft, the same as the narrower road widths - which would allow a maniple to fill the space perfectly deployed 20-wide. Marching out of it, however, would depend on the style of gateway - I would suspect, however, the narrow part to be probably 25ft and allow the lead century to march out in close order (if having to fight).

As to why a Roman so armed would fight shield to shield.....(and yes, affected by that riot training).....

"I have a shield 2.5ft wide and 4ft long - braced forward with my weight behind the shield, with a nice sword with a sharp point and sharper edges. I'm protecting the right-side of my buddy to the left and I'm safe behind the man to my right. There's only a small gap at the bottom, not too far from the ground, so not much will get through there. I'm peeping over the top to see what's in front and my helmet protects what's exposed.

"We punch with the shields, opening a small gap on the right through which we stab and cut - in and out as fast as we can. On the command we stamp forward and push with the shield. We repeat the motions over and over until we start over the bodies of the fallen. The man behind me thrusts down to make sure the body is a dead one.

"When I tire the man behind is ready to take over, his shield edge is at my shoulder, on his command I punch with my shield and rotate right stepping back; his shield moves over to fill the gap and I am protected. He fills the space and the fight continues. I catch my breath."

That's how the Romans fought - I would stake my life on it. More, it's exactly how I would train people to do it and I would select Roman equipment over Greeks any time - because the Romans won.

The Greeks and Macedonians also, however, fought like that, thrusting spears out to kill the enemy - why do we think the Romans didn't?

Polybius, like most writers it seems, would see battle from a distance. They would have seen them march up and on parade (open order). As a Greek he thinks in cubits - 2 of them only being a bit longer than a pace - which I am convinced the Romans used.

I am more and more convinced that we need to be a bit more scpetical with the sources we have - and even be prepared to dismiss some of them if they make no sense.

Do we really want to believe that the Romans and Greeks fought like we see in '300', 'Rome' & 'Spartacus' (recent)? For that will be 'history' in relatively few years and that's what most will believe. Why should we think our ancestors are any different? Real evidence, however, is nice. Smile
Reply
#19
Quote:The whole point about not extending sideways once deployed is that it is simply not practicable once on the battlefield. If you are going to fight closed-up shield-to-shield, then you have to deploy on that basis from the outset. Trying to extend the actual frontage of any army in the face of the enemy is a tricky manoeuvre best accomplished with reserves and not any idea of getting everyone to shuffle side-ways.

But if if you start with the formation described in the third picture and then you close the files, you'll obtain a sort of wedge formation, and with a simple manouvre you can pass from this wedge to the array of the second pictures and then also to the close one. In this manouvre could have had an important role the two centurions, prior and posterior, at the right and at the left of maniple. I don' t think this is a difficult movement to do, even on the battlefield ( expecially if the soldiers are trained ) Speaking about that, I would recommend this video ( just the first minute) by Ars dimicandi:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zeVH881lY28

PS: I have take the pictures by Taylor's paper " Roman soldier in open order, Polybios 18.30 " It is available on the web http://www.academia.edu/3394799/Roman_So...ing_Paper_
It is very interesting ( I am a little insistent about this argoument, I know :-) )
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#20
Franceso wrote:
I have take the pictures by Taylor's paper " Roman soldier in open order, Polybios 18.30 "


I have the same interpretation of open order and close order as does Taylor. Basically every second file moves forward to form open order. It is simple and elegant. However, Franceso if you have a pdf of the paper could you send it to me at [email protected]

To download the paper I have to join Facebook, something I do not wish to do.
Reply
#21
To Antiochus: You may also sign up on Academia.edu without joining Facebook ( I'm not on Facebook myself): you have to indicate your first and second name and an email address... let me now if you are able to download the paper, otherwise I'll try to send you it by email !
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#22
Mark Hygate wrote:

The two quotes from Polybius Bk18 I assume are from the fragments, which sadly I haven't seen, but now am surprised enough to want to not believe them and am sure a mistake has been made somewhere

Full Online Translated works of Polybius

Polybius, like most writers it seems, would see battle from a distance. They would have seen them march up and on parade (open order). As a Greek he thinks in cubits - 2 of them only being a bit longer than a pace - which I am convinced the Romans used...I am more and more convinced that we need to be a bit more scpetical with the sources we have - and even be prepared to dismiss some of them if they make no sense.

Polybius was a Greek nobleman and military officer and was held hostage in Rome in the household of the Aemilii Pallii. There he met who would later be Publius Scipio Aemelianus Africanus the Younger, who he evidently became friends with. NOTE: Scipio Aemelianus' father was in command of the army that destroyed the last Macedonian army (Perseus V) in battle at Pydna. After his term as hostage was over, he stayed in Rome as he enjoyed the city. He followed Scipio Aemelianus to Africa to fight Carthage in the 3rd Punic War and watched the Romans in battle. He was an eyewitness to the Roman war machine and had a better view than most other sources. What sources are you using?

The Roman manipular system was a military reform that occurred sometime during or around the 3rd Samnite War. Previously, it is believed that the Romans used a phalanx-type system that was somewhat similar to that which was used by the Greek city states. Around 300 BC or thereabouts, the new reform resulted in the use of the Roman levies being organized into maniples. Why did the Romans do this? No one knows exactly but some people think it was due to the mountainous terrain in Samnite lands, they needed the loose order of the manipular formations (to include gaps) that allowed the Roman forces to tranverse difficult terrain while engaged with the enemy.

Fast forward nearly a century, the Romans used this formation to win a few land victories in the 1st Punic War, subdue the whole of Italy, subdue Cisalpine Gaul south of the Po River when they crushed the Gauls at Telemon (225 BC) and then onward, into the 2nd Punic War, where Hannibal used the tactics against them in numerous battles. Later, after Scipio Africanus beat Carthage in Spain and Hannibal at Zama, the Romans turned east against the Macedonians and used the manipular tactics against the Macedonians and their phalanx. It should be pointed out that the Macedonian phalanx only made up a portion of the full Macedonian army, as did the Roman shield and sword fighting infantry of citizens and Socii.

For if a single Roman legionnaire is fighting effectively on his own (within a 6ft square bubble), then the Roman empire would never had come into being! At least 10 pike-blades backed by the weight of 32 men grinding forward would simply have bowled him over. Any average Celtic band would have faced Romans with a two-to-one advantage and one would have ripped the shield away whilst the other got in with the sword or spear. Surely we cannot believe that, even though it's been written?

And yet they did use these tactics and won repeatedly (but not all the time). They lost plenty of battles but always win the wars. That is why Rome became an empire. There army was certainly beatable.

That's how the Romans fought - I would stake my life on it. More, it's exactly how I would train people to do it and I would select Roman equipment over Greeks any time - because the Romans won...The Greeks and Macedonians also, however, fought like that, thrusting spears out to kill the enemy - why do we think the Romans didn't?

Maybe because the Romans weren't Greeks or Macedonians and had their own customs and ways of fighting? You are reviewing the ancient period through modern eyes. You are trying to find the best method of fighting. Greek tactics but with Roman equipment. This is not how it was. The Romans had their own ways of fighting and they were probably more influenced by the Gauls than by the Greeks (at least in the beginning).

For if a single Roman legionnaire is fighting effectively on his own (within a 6ft square bubble), then the Roman empire would never had come into being! At least 10 pike-blades backed by the weight of 32 men grinding forward would simply have bowled him over. Any average Celtic band would have faced Romans with a two-to-one advantage and one would have ripped the shield away whilst the other got in with the sword or spear. Surely we cannot believe that, even though it's been written?

Read the full passage by Polybius (18:30-31). He only mentions the fighting spacing of the Romans in comparison to the spacing of the Macedonians. He mentions that the Romans could not get past them, that as long as the Macedonians kept their order, they'd push the Romans back. But then he continues and says that because of the nature of the Macedonian phalanx, they didn't perform well to bad terrain or attacks on their flanks and rear (hard to turn around with a 20 ft pike). So eventually, the Romans would find gaps and the maniples, acting under orders of the tribunes and general, would attack the gaps created by the bad terrain (battle of Pydna).

As for the Gauls, the Roman discipline won out them over. Gallic military forces were not disciplined, in the sense that they did not have to fight if they didn't want to. They were loosely held together and so were difficult to control in battle, they did there own thing by tradition and no one could do anything about it. On the opposite side, you have the Romans, who take the Oath of Disciplina upon enlistment, and swear that they will obey orders. Couple that with the imperium of the magistrates in command of the army, the power of the tribunes and centurions, and you get a force of men who are simply forced to obey orders. The Romans and Gauls would charge each other but the longer fight favored the Romans, not because they were better trained, but because if they ran or even retreated their life was forfeit by the Consul. That is discipline and the Gauls didn't have it. If a warrior felt the battle lost he'd no longer obey his tribal king because the king had no authority anymore to do anything about it. Roman discipline and organization won out. In terms of individual fighters, the two sides fought similar to one another, pole arm missile weapons, long shields with a center horizontal grip and long swords. (Gallic swords are said to be incapable of stabbing, however, this was probably not true. It was their custom to slash. The Roman gladius hispaniensis was a cut and thrust sword with a blade length of 25" to 27".)

As to the 8 man contubernia existing in the Republic - simple deduction once I realised that was when the 80-man century was originally formalised.

Which ancient source said the Roman century had 80 men? What time period was the source writing about?
Polybius states the maniples of the Hastati and Princeps were 120 men, while the Triari (or Pilus) were 60 men. At Cannae, the maniples were even larger in terms of the amount of men. During the late republic, other sources gave different numbers, ranging from 80 to 100 men in a century. But this was paper strength. Considering disease, desertions and battle, no century/maniple would have been full strength.

I have a shield 2.5ft wide and 4ft long - braced forward with my weight behind the shield, with a nice sword with a sharp point and sharper edges. I'm protecting the right-side of my buddy to the left and I'm safe behind the man to my right. There's only a small gap at the bottom, not too far from the ground, so not much will get through there. I'm peeping over the top to see what's in front and my helmet protects what's exposed...We punch with the shields, opening a small gap on the right through which we stab and cut - in and out as fast as we can. On the command we stamp forward and push with the shield. We repeat the motions over and over until we start over the bodies of the fallen. The man behind me thrusts down to make sure the body is a dead one...When I tire the man behind is ready to take over, his shield edge is at my shoulder, on his command I punch with my shield and rotate right stepping back; his shield moves over to fill the gap and I am protected. He fills the space and the fight continues. I catch my breath.

Can I play?
'And then you notice that because you can't maneuver, you are hemmed in. The press of bodies and shields prevents you from even moving your sword arm. The Gauls, fighting in a looser formation, have room to maneuver, and they do. Like flies they move around, left right, front back. Attacking and retreating, like some gladiator. They press forward with quick attacks and hop back before you can respond with a riposte. They swing their long blades, hacking shields apart, smashing helmets, breaking collar bones, opening necks. You yell to your mates to move but they don't listen, they're too focused on the enemy to pay attention to your yells. Besides, over the din of battle, the screams of the wounded, the battle cries, it makes it impossible to hear anything clearly.

You know you will soon die, by this point you can barely breath. You give a quick prayer to the Gods in the hope that your death will be quick. Then suddenly HE appears. A dashing warrior, tall and wearing a cuirass of gilded silver under his flowing generals cape. Covering his balding head is brilliantly burnished bronze helmet with a flowing red horsehair crest. Imperator Caesar has arrived, Gods be good. He takes a shield and pushes his way to the front, no easy task considering how tightly the maniple is compressed. He hacks forward with his own sword, which probably cost more than your house and property. He is yelling something but you can't hear it. His lips make it seem that he is yelling "Open the maniples!" You can't be sure but then it becomes obvious that someone heard it, because the cornicen blares from behind the maniple and you hear the three short blasts that are the notes to "open the ranks."

You shove sideways, you shove forward against the enemy, trying to open room. Before the battle, the centurion had everyone count off so the odd and even men would know the difference. But that seems like a year ago, and in the press of the fight, the rank and files are chaos. So you just step forward. And to the side. You attack with your shield's bottom, smashing it against an enemy's shield. He edges back, you edge forward into the space. Then you take a side step to the left. Your mates are doing the same and soon the maniple is back in open order, as it should be and you now have the proper room to fight with your long spanish sword and 15 pound curved oval shield. Caesar is gone, to save another threatened maniple no doubt. But it doesn't matter. You have things in hand now, as you dodge a violent Gallic sword swing by moving left and deflecting the blow with your shield, instead of taking the full force of the sword swing. Your shield will hold up for now. You will survive this battle.'
Reply
#23
Quote:.................

Full Online Translated works of Polybius

Thank you for the link - I have had varying success with access to some of the online sources - for my little thesis I have been concentrating on Book 6, whilst I have the recent translation by Robin Westerfield of 1-6 +12. This discussion is something of a digression, although very interesting.
.........................
Quote:Which ancient source said the Roman century had 80 men? What time period was the source writing about?
Polybius states the maniples of the Hastati and Princeps were 120 men, while the Triari (or Pilus) were 60 men. At Cannae, the maniples were even larger in terms of the amount of men......................

I am keen to defend that thesis next month, rather than give bits away beforehand, but it's a good rehearsal - I take the 80 man century direct from Polybius Bk 6 - for in each case you have forgotten the Velites (and you are not alone in doing that) - 20 per century and 60+20=80

Secondly, whilst I just re-scanned the final chapters of Bk3 (Cannae) I couldn't see any reference to larger maniples and would much appreciate a more specific reference, for it's all important to the arguments against my thesis?

Quote:Can I play?......................'

This though - yes, an interesting alternative. My simple question to you is - would you seriously suggest to the carefully trained police professionals in the pictures I append here for interest that standing shoulder-to-shoulder is not the best way and that they should leave gaps? For if true you can save most governments a great deal of money. For myself, considering that the riot police are equipped exactly like the Romans, but with non-lethal versions - and I can assure you from personal experience that you can move around just fine as long as you practice - whilst dodging and dealing with petrol bombs at the same time!

The lower picture shows perfectly the value of a 'phalanx' - you can do 'anything' behind it! Big Grin


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Reply
#24
Quote:.......
But if if you start with the formation described in the third picture and then you close the files, you'll obtain a sort of wedge formation, and with a simple manouvre you can pass from this wedge to the array of the second pictures and then also to the close one. In this manouvre could have had an important role the two centurions, prior and posterior, at the right and at the left of maniple. I don' t think this is a difficult movement to do, even on the battlefield ( expecially if the soldiers are trained ) Speaking about that, I would recommend this video ( just the first minute) by Ars dimicandi:.........

Thank you, the video was rather fun - I would love to get my hands on a similar bunch for a few hours and tidy up the drill. Many of the movements seemed most reasonable, although perhaps not all the permutations would be used to keep things simple.

The one I have particular issue with (considering the need to maintain a formation across a legion frontage), though, is the side-stepping to open and close the maniple. This is simply impractical. For one maniple of 2 centuries in an open field, fine, although I don't see the value - but not when there are 10 maniples over a legion and 40 over an army - the outer ones are not going to be side-stepping nearly 1,000ft! Smile
Reply
#25
This though - yes, an interesting alternative. My simple question to you is - would you seriously suggest to the carefully trained police professionals in the pictures I append here for interest that standing shoulder-to-shoulder is not the best way and that they should leave gaps? For if true you can save most governments a great deal of money. For myself, considering that the riot police are equipped exactly like the Romans, but with non-lethal versions - and I can assure you from personal experience that you can move around just fine as long as you practice - whilst dodging and dealing with petrol bombs at the same time!

If the police in question would like to more effectively drive rioters away, I do have a better method. First I would remove their clubs and replace them with sharp swords. Secondly, I would order then flat out to kill all the rioters and to take no prisoners. I would reward men who fought bravely with decorations and slaves (made up of family members of the fallen rioters) and with cash allowances after I confiscate the property of said rioters, while at the same time I would beat or kill those police who ran or showed any form of cowardice.

But you can't do any of that, because police rioters have a completely different task than Roman soldiers or any others. What is the mission statement given to riot police before they deploy? One force solely relies on deadly force (ancient warfare), the other goes out of its way to prevent it (police), while also protecting the lives of its own forces for liability reasons. Hence the tactics. Comparing some techniques of counter riot tactics is apples and oranges to ancient warfare.

If you want to compare how men react in group dynamics than by all means, watch videos of riots. But I don't think for a second that modern day riot tactics are:
1. Standardized (Compare South African, Korean and Russian methods to those used in the United States or Europe)
2. Or Meant to defeat the "enemy" as brutally as possible, to "crush" their will

Here are the world's best riot police in action. (spring riots are an annual event in S. Korea) Where is the perfect order and effectiveness here? Kind of looks like the riot police aren't doing so well? Why? Because the rioters showed up to the riot with actual weapons (pipe/pole arms) and the riot police are NOT trained to handle that.
South Korean Riot

As for your phalanx methods of fighting, if your shield is anywhere close to your mates to the left or right of you and if they simply lean into your space, there shield will overlap your own and will prevent you from moving yours. How can you use your shield offensively if you can't move it? How can you turn to block a sideways attack if you can't move? You say you can effectively swing a riot baton behind your phalanx of plexiglass riot shields. Okay. But could you do it more effectively if you weren't standing an inch from the person next to you? Absolutely.
* As a side note, in the picture you provided of the rank of riot police in close interval formation, it seems there is NO room to effectively use the riot baton.

Also, a shield or helmet protect vital areas but only to an extent, the armor is not impervious to blows. And the shield is needed to deflect a blow, not take it squared, or it will shatter, split or splinter. A sword blow to the helmet might not pierce it but it will ring your bell and probably give you a concussion.

And I've done riot training in the military. Rules of engagement prevent us from slaughtering the rioters. If we weren't restricted by ROE and we were in the mindset to crush the rioters, we'd fix bayonets and stab them or just open up on them with rifles and machine guns.

Like this other example of a modern day technique for dealing with rioters. Not pretty, but effective.
The South African Method

considering that the riot police are equipped exactly like the Romans, but with non-lethal versions

Other than its length and width, the police riot shield has nothing in common with the Roman scutum. They weighed differently, were held differently (Romans didn't strap theirs to their arms like riot shields), and they were used differently. The police riot equipment is meant to stop the weapons most commonly used by rioters. Bricks, rocks, bottles, petrol bombs, etc. Does the police riot baton cut and thrust as effectively as a Roman sword? Are the riot police even encouraged to close with the rioters and crack their heads open? (No and No). You can't compare the two. The close ranked tactics used by riot police are designed for to face rioters in a crowded urban environment. They are not designed to kill large numbers of trained and organized warriors who are armed with similar weapons (lethal) and are protected by shields. Gaps, no gaps, it doesn't matter, the riot police have a completely different mission than Romans did and fight accordingly.

Check Livy and Polybius for references of the number of Romans at Cannae.
Reply
#26
Quote: For one maniple of 2 centuries in an open field, fine, although I don't see the value - but not when there are 10 maniples over a legion and 40 over an army - the outer ones are not going to be side-stepping nearly 1,000ft! Smile

The manouvre showed in the video ( less or more the same I tried to display) were performed by each maniple INDIVIDUALLY ! :-) So every men, the outer one and the inner one, had to do just one step to the side.
The utility would be the follow: once closed the file the maniple would cut in half its front, allowing the maniple behind to pass throug the open gap.
If during a battle the maniple, deployed in open order( as depicted in the second picture of your post above) was wavering under enemies pressure, could close the files to allow renforcement to advance throug gap and help them( even if ranks or files too close could be dangerous, as described by Bryan above...). It could be one of the way in wich was effectuated the substitution of hastati by principi.
This doesn't mean that maniples disn't use also a formation as that described by picture 1 and 4 Wink
Francesco Guidi
Reply
#27
Mark Hygate wrote:

For one maniple of 2 centuries in an open field, fine, although I don't see the value - but not when there are 10 maniples over a legion and 40 over an army - the outer ones are not going to be side-stepping nearly 1,000ft!

Not if there was a gap between maniples equal to their width (in closed ranks). Then they'd have plenty of space to sidestep. Plus they wouldn't need to count off beforehand, which is absolutely necessary for a man to know his position within his rank. ;-)
Reply
#28
Quote:...................
Check Livy and Polybius for references of the number of Romans at Cannae.

Okay - so that's just the totals - not that there's evidence of the maniples being actually 'bigger'?

In that case, and given the tone of the rest, then I'm uncomfortable with attemtping to continue until, as I saw the other day in a different post, that your full name is shown in a signature block as your internet handle doesn't show it like mine does.

There are far too many references to the Roman formation being described as a phalanx, let alone simple common sense and a dash of logic to suggest that they didn't. I know what was written having fully read it myself just now - and, to my pleasant surprise the last sentence of Poly Bk 18 Ch30 says:

"The consequence will be that one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx, so that he has to face and encounter ten pikes, and it is both impossible for a single man to cut through them all in time once they are at close quarters and by no means easy to force their points away, as the rear ranks can be of no help to the front rank either in thus forcing the pikes away or in the use of the sword. 11 So it is easy to see that, as I said at the beginning, nothing can withstand the charge of the phalanx as long as it preserves its characteristic formation and force."

Which is exactly what I am arguing. I really don't think you're reading those passages correctly - and I've only looked at it once.
Reply
#29
Hahaha... I hope Mark you do not feel overly pressed. My posts usually take me much time to compile, imagine you having to answer 2 or 3 posts in the row...

1. Reinforced legions of 1,500 Hastati/Principes and Velites is a given. As for how they would be normally deployed, I would say, as circumstances demanded, as always. Added depth or length, whatever was necessary. I am looking forward to see your interpretation.

2. Wedges were not a common cavalry formation and Greeks did not regularly use it. We have wedges in Philip's (attested but no examples) and Alexander's army and these are always doratophoroi, not the usual javelineer cavalry. And even these were later more usually arrayed in rectangular formations. The Thracians may have used it with javelineers if we trust the ancients in that Philip II adopted it from them. However, just because a few Greek squadrons were deployed in wedge is certainly not enough to suggest that the Roman cavalry would fight in wedges, let alone of 10 men which would be an unheard of size of a squadron. And 30 is not a good number for any kind of wedge. Of course you can theorize about anything, even that the Romans fought in rhombuses, which they surely also knew of, but still, in order to make an acceptable theory you need some kind of collaborating evidence.

3. Of course you may ask for any assistance you need including finding and translating any source you want. I do not think that there are many texts I cannot provide you with in Greek.

4. These manuals are extremely important and you have to read them all carefully. It does not matter that obviously, there was the occasional copying, all three contain important and interesting elements, especially Arrian who also occupied himself with the Roman system, as he also was a Roman "general", even though of a later age.

5. The text of Polybius speaks of rear-rankers/file-closers (ouragoi). This would be what the optio was to a centurion and this is indicative as to why 10 was, most probably, the normal depth. As I already said, of course all other depths would have been utilized as circumstances demanded. The fact that you prefer to place the decurions one behind the other in a single file would also be a novelty which needs some documentation. They would have to be in the first ranks, even if arrayed in more than 3 files.

6. Cavalry normally fought en mass but not as infantry. It is clear from countless descriptions as well as from the manuals/treatises we have. There are discussions among the ancients about the role of horses in the file, proper distances during the attack, how they should wheel, etc etc. This was normal, proper cavalry battle and keeping their ranks was deemed as important as among the infantry. Dispersed (what "gamers" call skirmishing) cavalry formations existed and are also described (Numides, proper Tarentines, Scythians) but this is something very different. Rhomboids, Squares and Wedges were not parade formations, they were battle formations, each with its advantages and disadvantages. Byzantine formations were not denser to protect the archers, nor were they denser than more ancient formations.

4. Of course Aelian and all others know how big a turma is, but these writers give many alternatives and those 3 deep are just their extreme low.

In all, it seems to me that you have made a theory based on how you understand ancient tactics, which is perfectly all right. But this understanding of yours is not "logic". It is an educated opinion derived from your knowledge, studies on these matters and of course your own interpretation of what you have read. It too needs to be supported by some kind of evidence before being projected as a principle. Saying that cavalry battles were being conducted by loose and dispersed formations and that wedges and rectangles were parade formations is not an opinion that enjoys acceptance as far as I know and thus, in order to bring it forward, let alone use it as a basis for a whole theory on how the Republican Romans fought, it demands more evidence.

As for the infantry discussion, you gentlemen have touched many issues and my overall comment would be that you seem to be arguing over standard tactics that were all used by the Romans. Fighting in open order was certainly an option and one that the Romans would have often used due to the nature of their armament as was close order. Thickening of the ranks would have been implemented in all ways proposed, even by lengthening the line for hundreds of yards, which often happened in antiquity for tactical reasons. Open maniples in open formation 24 deep would easily reform into open maniples in close formation 12 deep, which in turn as easily would reform into closed maniples in close formation 6 deep once the skirmishers had been recalled. And if open order was preferred for any tactical reason one could propose or imagine, closed maniples in open order 12 deep would be a choice. And then of course one should also think of the option to array in an internal checkerboard formation, which would mean that the files would not side step into the files next to them but just retreat to half the distance of the back rank, effectively forming a line 6 deep with 12 ranks in open formation.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#30
Quote:...............
The manouvre showed in the video ( less or more the same I tried to display) were performed by each maniple INDIVIDUALLY ! :-) So every men, the outer one and the inner one, had to do just one step to the side.............

I think I understand where you're coming from - the movements I have a concern about are the ones at about 50s in.

My contention is this:

It is the 600 Triarii that define the maximum width of the deployed legion if they are to present a spear phalanx in the case of a reverse. Unlike the Hastati/Principes they are only half the depth at 3 ranks, which is the maximum depth at which all the spears are functional anyway. In close order at the 2.5 spacing they cover 500ft.

Within that 500ft width it is possible to consider almost any drill movements for the forward maniples - but they would normally be constrained from extending the front outside that limit. Some movements are more practicable than others. My argument is for the simplest set, but based upon the limit that the 'phalanx'-like close order of the front rank of 200 men per legion fits in the 500ft. Within that, yes, we can devise, as I'm sure were done, methods of doubling ranks, opening files and marching up and deploying.

My contention for the 2.5ft width (as opposed to 3ft) is also simple. That's both the width of the shield and the length of a pace. We march around and deploy in paces. Stick your arm out to the guy to the right with fingers extended and it's almost exactly that far. Shield to shield then nothing should get past (spear, sword or arrow/slingshot). Punch out with the left hand and the shield rotates a bit - giving just the right amount of room to thrust and withdraw.

To me it just makes sense and the formations fit - I could be wrong, but I'll happily test the argument against anything I can find, or be helped to find. Smile
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: