Early Republic Consular Army deployment...

[Bryan]

Mark Hygate wrote:

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.

And now the next sentence reads:

"What then is the reason of the Roman success, and what is it that defeats the purpose of those who use the phalanx? 2 It is because in war the time and place of action is uncertain and the phalanx has only one time and one place in which it can perform its peculiar service." Polybius 18:31.1

I recommend you continue reading. Polybius wasn't a fan of the Macedonian phalanx and discuses why in the proceeding paragraph.

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

Sorry, been busy as hell with work. Here are some Polybius sources. Have to go digging for Livy some other time.
Polybius 3:107.9-12 (increased size of individual legions)
Polybius 3:113 (increased size of maniples)

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.

You need my full name? Why? Is that now forum policy? PM if you want to know more about me, I don't feel comfortable discussing sensitive personal info on an open forum.

If my tone is too aggressive, my apologies. ad: I will tone it down. I spent a decade among barbarians and am still learning to be civilized.

[Macedon]

If my tone is too aggressive, my apologies. ad: I will tone it down. I spent a decade among barbarians and am still learning to be civilized.

Hehehe... You guys are no Greeks, so you are barbarians by default!

and... (wearing the moderator toga)

Full names are not demanded, only first names. However, it would be better if you both added them to your signatures as protocol demands.

[Bryan]

Hehehe... You guys are no Greeks, so you are barbarians by default!

To that I say "Bar bar, barbar bar. Bar?" :evil:

[Mark Hygate]

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...

Not at all - but I must try not to get too distracted from that 'little thesis' which is not to do with tactics, but organisation

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.

As a teaser - I am indeed going to argue that the numbers quoted above are not actually a given - as Polybius very carefully never says how many Velites there are. Even given the figures I often see quoted (1,200 of each) - the increase to the large legion is 800 and not 900. :wink:

................................

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.

I apologise if I may be using a contentious use of 'logic' (it seems logical to me!) I'm certainly trying to be deductive . Those deductions are based upon what we are told the turmae (which I think is best translated as 'troop'), without any contention I believe as it's laid out simply and unambiguously as 30 'troopers' in 3 sections of 10, each lead by a Decurion and his 'second', is.

Now that I positively know which Greek term is used - ouragoi - thank you; then, because I cannot envisage a troop in 3 files of 10, but can in 3 ranks of 10, then I am suggesting that the best Greek term available to pass the rank was used, but that there was no equivalent for 'rank-closer' that could have been used instead. I would add that the same usage for the optio to a centurion, also isn't strictly a 'file-closer' as he's actually responsible for controlling the actual shape of the century from the opposite corner - the troop has 3 of them, because, like the Decurions, they control their sections as slightly separate parts of the whole. The troop does indeed act as a mini-legion (troopers replacing maniples), with the first 2 ranks conducting the attacks and the third is the local reserve. The cavalry battle (where the Roman cavalry of the period are 'medium/melée cavalry' is a fairly fluid affair, with the attacks and retreats as mentioned before; their whole aim being to defeat/deny the enemy cavalry and hopefully exploit any real openings, let alone run down the routers as the infantry defeat them.

To be honest I have not studied this element with any intention and have not been looking for sources to confirm or deny - it simply has stemmed from having been looking at the organisational aspects and therefore making some possible (perhaps logical :wink: ) deductions seeing as the subject has come up.

However, I'm also not aware that there are accounts that say none of that is impossible either. All of the 3 tactical manuals mentioned are believed to be based upon an earlier work by Posidonias and all therefore describing earlier Greek tactics. However, I may just invest in Aelian to see for myself as it is available.
..........................

[Macedon]

Polybius is a terribly important source although sometimes he has some problems with total numbers. By the way... have you looked into the puzzle of Polybius' extraordinarii (Pol.6.26.6.)?

[Mark Hygate]

..........
Full names are not demanded, only first names. However, it would be better if you both added them to your signatures as protocol demands.

I see - I must admit I only saw reference to such a 'protocol' by accident the other day. Could I suggest it is better advertised. And I will attempt to do so now, although on such a forum it never occurred to me not to use my name.

[Mark Hygate]

Polybius is a terribly important source although sometimes he has some problems with total numbers. By the way... have you looked into the puzzle of Polybius' extraordinarii (Pol.6.26.6.)?

Oh yes! Not only, having been exposed to many other authors writings over the years and simply accepted the organisations given, it was only last year with the time and interest available that I determined that I really must concentrate on the original sources. The only failing that I suspect I will never now be able to address is that, whilst I had long known that I somewhat regretted my choice of German over Latin given my outside interests (although serving in Germany was assisted); that in fact most of the sources are in Greek and that's Ancient as opposed to Modern! Fumbling over original Latin and seeing names and numbers is quite possible - but Greek eludes me. The best I can hope for is the assistance of Ancient Greek scholars such as those I have found lurk here.

As to the Extraordinarii 'puzzle' - it's interesting that you use that word and I will indeed ask you to wait no more than a couple of weeks I hope; for I never really considered it that. To me, gaining an understanding of the Extraordinarii was central to the entire theory I hope to expound - it only remains to see if it can stand up to the scrutiny I have hoped to find here.

What I must stop doing, however, is digressing too much on 'this'! Although....... :whistle:

[Mark Hygate]

..................
Sorry, been busy as hell with work. Here are some Polybius sources. Have to go digging for Livy some other time.
Polybius 3:107.9-12 (increased size of individual legions)
Polybius 3:113 (increased size of maniples).............

I need to be 'busy' with several other things - I'm just being bad because this is much more interesting!

Having re-checked those bits, with which I am familiar - I have no problems with the 4,200-5,000 legions - in fact it's part of the 'other work'. The 'increased maniples, however, I read completely differently (having just done so again) - to me that passage became '....he deployed the maniples in column of centuries, rather than line as normal so that instead of a maniple forming 20 x 6/8 they were formed 10 x 12/16....'.

The larger figures are with the Velites counted in and this increased depth to resist the enemy was what was desired. It seemed a most logical and easily performed deployment - based upon the same principles argued for earlier.

[Macedon]

As to the Extraordinarii 'puzzle' - it's interesting that you use that word and I will indeed ask you to wait no more than a couple of weeks I hope; for I never really considered it that. To me, gaining an understanding of the Extraordinarii was central to the entire theory I hope to expound - it only remains to see if it can stand up to the scrutiny I have hoped to find here.

What I must stop doing, however, is digressing too much on 'this'! Although....... :whistle:

Then you will be intrigued to know that this is the exact term used by Polybius originally. A very interesting thing about him is his Latin terminology that now and then crops up in his Greek work (like the fact that he is talking about the Roman coortis too).

[Mark Hygate]

....................

Then you will be intrigued to know that this is the exact term used by Polybius originally. A very interesting thing about him is his Latin terminology that now and then crops up in his Greek work (like the fact that he is talking about the Roman coortis too).

Oh ho! Then I'm sorry that I missed the emphasis you meant on that term......

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:

"The first thing they do is select.......and form them into a select battalion. They are called the extraordinarii, which is the Latin for 'elite'............a third of their [Allies] cavalry and a fifth of the infantry........."

If you're saying that Robin translated 'coortis' as battalion, then that's excellent! Where is, or should be, the 'puzzle' bit?

For me this bit is one of those that seems to make complete sense.

[Macedon]

Oh no! The "coortis" word crops up at another point in his work, nothing to do with the extraordinarii. What I meant was that it is a valuable fact in Polybius that he now and then gives Roman terms which in translations usually look like translated Greek and not like real life Roman words, contemporary to Polybius. So, readers usually pass them by or wonder about how they would be in Latin, when Polybius does just that, that is giving the terms in Latin.

Regarding the extraordinarii, the thing is that all models include them in the "Wings" when, according to Polybius, they were not. However from the little you wrote of the translation you are using, the text should be "about a third of the cavalry".

"ἐκ δὲ τούτων λαμβάνουσι τῶν μὲν ἱππέων εἰς τοὺς ἐπιλέκτους ἐπιεικῶς τὸ τρίτον μέρος, τῶν δὲ πεζῶν τὸ πέμπτον. τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς διεῖλον εἰς δύο μέρη, καὶ καλοῦσι
τὸ μὲν δεξιόν, τὸ δ’ εὐώνυμον κέρας. " (6.26.8 )

[Mark Hygate]

............
Regarding the extraordinarii, the thing is that all models include them in the "Wings" when, according to Polybius, they were not. However from the little you wrote of the translation you are using, the text should be "about a third of the cavalry". ..........

On the first part of that - can you elucidate on what you mean, please? The extraordinarii were selected from the 'Allies' (that term having generated from the apparent fact that the two Allied/Socii legions formed on the wings of the Roman legions (in the Consular 2+2 army)) - and that this 'word' Alae later became the name of a cavalry 'cohort' after the reforms of Augustus (but could have been before too) for similar reasons. So what is it that Polybius suggests "they were not" - I haven't spotted anything to suggest there's something awry?

On the second, I was simply conserving typing. But:

- in Robin Waterfield's translation it's "...a third of the cavalry..."
- on the Lacus Curtius site it's "....about a third...." (which I hadn't thought to check before - as it just made so much sense)
- the Evelyn S Shuckburgh translation it's ".....a third..."
- in the W R Paton (Loeb) version it's "....about a third..."

That is interesting. 900/3 = 300 (being therefore exact and a number I would like to see anyway given the theory I'm going for) was not something I had thought to query. Is your "....about..." your own translation and an obvious deduction given the sentence construction? In the thesis bit on Polybius you will be able to see why I would be keen to identify such!

[Macedon]

The Greek text I gave below says the following :

"ἐκ δὲ τούτων λαμβάνουσι τῶν μὲν ἱππέων εἰς τοὺς ἐπιλέκτους ἐπιεικῶς τὸ τρίτον μέρος, τῶν δὲ πεζῶν τὸ πέμπτον. τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς διεῖλον εἰς δύο μέρη, καὶ καλοῦσι
τὸ μὲν δεξιόν, τὸ δ’ εὐώνυμον κέρας. " (6.26.8 )

From them they take from the horsemen to the picked (corpse) (already defined as the extraordinarii in the preceding sentence) about the third part and of the footmen the fifth. The rest they divided in two parts and called the one right and the other left Wing (Ala).

The bolded parts in the Greek text are the exact translations of the bolded parts in the translation. The first is a definite "about" and the other is definitely excluding the extraordinarii from the Alae.

This is what the text says exactly. The extraordinarii are, according to Polybius, taken out from the allied forces before they are divided into the left and right Wing. There is no hint though as to how these would have been used... Would they form some kind of reserve? Would they anyways be used as regular troops in the lines? Maybe as camp guards? No hint. This is what I meant with the "extraordinarii puzzle" which I personally have no real answer yet.

[Mark Hygate]

...............
This is what the text says exactly. The extraordinarii are, according to Polybius, taken out from the allied forces before they are divided into the left and right Wing. There is no hint though as to how these would have been used... Would they form some kind of reserve? Would they anyways be used as regular troops in the lines? Maybe as camp guards? No hint. This is what I meant with the "extraordinarii puzzle" which I personally have no real answer yet.

Thank you - I have no idea why then different translators try and specify when the 'about' seems to be definitive. I, as you will see, much prefer the exact, which makes so much 'logical' :wink: sense.

Now I understand what you mean by the 'puzzle', although I get no sense that Polybius considered it so - which is why, even though I consider him probably the most definitive source we have (with the exception of Josephus who does not prevaricate, but writes as he was answered), I do believe P' needs to be read with some perspective. Yes, he was a soldier - of Greece - and understands the Greek systems really well, but his time with the Romans results in more 'distant' writing, which explains a lot.

As to the Extraordinarii, I don't see them as a 'puzzle', but as simple good operational choice. The total gives a 'mini-army', with 5-century 'cohorts' representing legions and 2 x 10 turma cavalry wings - a most suitable source to provide: an Advance Guard; possibly Flank or Rear if demanded; but could (the infantry element) be used as a Camp Guard too. If on the field would rejoin their legion. All are possible in theory for such a picked element, let alone acting as an early form of a 'Praetorian Guard' indeed (in the camp description).

[Mark Hygate]

..................., 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. ................

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.