Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Deconstructing Polybius - an example
#46
I'm sorry antiochus, I really don't understand your point. :?

Polybius describes the 'norm'. For the standard Consular army he effectively notes that from each of the Allied legions in that army it was normal for a picked force (the extraordinarii) to be selected to carry out particular roles. That force took (likely) 10 centuries of infantry and 10 (if exactly a third) turma of cavalry from each legion.

The Battle of Cannae forces are set in a particular time and place. I read nothing more into Livy's figures except that, after a period beforehand representing a number of conflicts that had reduced the size of the legions through casualties and wastage, the forces available were brought up to strength and then fielded as above. The apparent fact that the Allied cavalry was not up to the normal strength ratio vis a vis the Roman is simply (likely) due to the fact that they couldn't resupply sufficient to do so.

This is no different to the Battle of Pharsalus where Caesar only fielded 22,000 men, but that that was far less than the number of legions that were present would suggest, they were just severely understrength after all those years of campaigning. There are no organisational anomalies present in either case (most likely); they are just the figures that appertain at the time.

The 1,000 in Sicily is simply the number that is quoted. I have no reason to suggest that it is incorrect, but it could certainly be rounded. Given Livy's general approach to numbers, I am sure he is relying on the sources to give him the detail, but I suspect that it is a number in excess of 900 and less than 1,050 however if it is.

We have no idea if it's exactly 250 Roman and 750 Allied, or any other such mix. The fact that there are only 1,000 cavalry to 40,000 infantry could simply be explained by the fact that most of the infantry is occupied by garrison and fort duties and they simply don't need any more cavalry than ~1,000 to carry out scouting/patrolling and liaison duties.

In short - the Consular Army standard organisation a la Polybius is exactly that - a standard. Whilst certainly suitable to consider for the subject of standard organisational theory (hence the thesis), it has no bearing on actual figures quoted during particular campaigns when numbers would steadily fall and occasionally rise when reinforcements appear.

So, whilst I may conclude that the standard small fixed depot garrison of the Imperial period may be a 6-century auxiliary cohort and that it would most likely have 6 x 80 man centuries with a Centurion, Optio and Signifer each, plus a Cornicen and Praefectus Cohortis in command (plus super-numeries) as a standard organisation; at any time from historical snap-shots (say of pay or feeding records) it could be under-strength for many reasons (losses, illness, provincial guard or tax duties, etc).

The Battle of Cannae figures otherwise make perfect sense. If they had wanted to extract an extraordinarii of the standard size, then they could have, or they could have required a bigger one than normal.
Reply
#47
Mark wrote:
I'm sorry antiochus, I really don't understand your point.

From many of your postings I get the sense you are introducing too much conjecture than empirical data.

Mark wrote:
That force took (likely) 10 centuries of infantry and 10 (if exactly a third) turma of cavalry from each legion.

Polybius states “about” a third, not “a third” so it’s on you in your thesis to establish if “about” a third is correct or incorrect. Can you use empirical data to inform you readers the size of the extraordinarii is based on there being a standardisation set of ratios of Roman cavalry to allied cavalry? If not how can you prove it was on an ad hoc basis?

Mark wrote:
The apparent fact that the Allied cavalry was not up to the normal strength ratio vis a vis the Roman is simply (likely) due to the fact that they couldn't resupply sufficient to do so.

How can you prove it? Could it be that Livy is showing the new the ratio of Roman cavalry to allied cavalry? If you can establish that then you have good grounds to claim it could be due to a resupply problem. However, why aren’t the Romans also affected by a resupply problem?

Mark wrote:
This is no different to the Battle of Pharsalus where Caesar only fielded 22,000 men, but that that was far less than the number of legions that were present would suggest, they were just severely understrength after all those years of campaigning. There are no organisational anomalies present in either case (most likely); they are just the figures that appertain at the time.

Appian claims Caesar’s army was “about” 22,000 men. Does the word “about” mean it is under or over the given figure? So who is right, Appian “about” 22,000 men, or Caesar’s 22,000 men? Eutropius and Orosius number Caesar’s army at 30,000 men. So who is right? To date the only method employed by academics to define who is right and who is wrong is based on who is the most reliable (the pecking order).

Mark wrote:
We have no idea if it's exactly 250 Roman and 750 Allied, or any other such mix.

Taking your premise there is 30 cavalry to a squadron, the 250 Roman cavalry amounts to 8 point 33333 squadrons, so this can be ruled out.

Mark wrote:
The fact that there are only 1,000 cavalry to 40,000 infantry could simply be explained by the fact that most of the infantry is occupied by garrison and fort duties and they simply don't need any more cavalry than 1,000 to carry out scouting/patrolling and liaison duties.

I could come up with hundreds of reasons but can I prove anyone of them? In 229 BC, Polybius (2 11) has the Roman army in Illyria numbering 20,000 infantry and 2000 cavalry. Both examples (40,000 infantry and 1000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry and 2000 cavalry) are related to armies serving overseas. So two consular armies in Sicily get 1000 cavalry and one consular army in Illyria gets 2000 cavalry. There’s a story here.

Mark wrote:
In short - the Consular Army standard organisation a la Polybius is exactly that - a standard. Whilst certainly suitable to consider for the subject of standard organisational theory (hence the thesis), it has no bearing on actual figures quoted during particular campaigns when numbers would steadily fall and occasionally rise when reinforcements appear.

To prove that would require undertaking a comprehensive study of the empirical data. I’ve done this and there are hundreds of them that have been processed and explained in the book. They all follow a standard; the only variance is the number of light infantry supplied to a consular army pre-211 BC. If fact when you categorise the empirical data concerning cavalry numbers a set of mathematical patterns become very apparent. Although it is common practice, I wouldn’t recommend taking selective numbers from the primary sources and ignoring others or dismissing them to support a theory because it is akin to building on sand. And it will be detrimental to the author because the author will miss out on some exciting discoveries. At Lake Trasimene Appian (Hannibalic War 7 2 8) has 3000 cavalry accompanying Flaminius’ army. So what is about a third of 3000 cavalry equating to? Dionysius states the Roman cavalry at Asculum was over 8000 men, so what is the size of the extraordinarii? I’m not asking you to give an answer I just want to point out if anyone is doing any research on the Roman army they should use more empirical data and not just select data that supports the author’s theory.

Mark wrote:
The Battle of Cannae figures otherwise make perfect sense. If they had wanted to extract an extraordinarii of the standard size, then they could have, or they could have required a bigger one than norm.

But did they? You are doing a thesis that includes the extraordinarii, so what are the numbers for the extraordinarii based on? Will the cavalry be based on “about” a third or exactly one third. Can you use empirical data to inform you readers the size of the extraordinarii is based on there being a standardisation set of ratios of Roman cavalry to allied cavalry? If not how can you prove it could be on an ad hoc basis?
Reply
#48
Quote:At Magnesia, the Roman legions were defeated by Antiochos while the battle was won by the auxiliaries under Eumenes. The phalanx retreated orderly in squares with the Romans unable and unwilling to do harm by frontal attack. Again the Romans defeated them indirectly when the elephants were put to flight.

At Magnesia the only part of Seleucid army which was victorious was not their phalanx, but their cataphracts (3000) and Agema cavalry (1000). However, their success was by no means defeating the entire Roman army - they defeated only one legion. All other legions won the battle - not just the auxiliaries of Eumenes.
Reply
#49
But in the second part you are right - the amok of elephants contributed to defeat of phalanx at Magnesia.
Reply
#50
Peter, Antiochos was at the head of the cavalry on the Seleucid left, not the phalanx, so in effect you are saying the same thing I said. And of course not all Roman legions were put to flight but a part of them was although we do not know how many, could have been a legion, could have been more or less. The Macedonian phalanx at Magnesia was deprived of both its flank support, the left because Antiochos had advanced too far ahead and the other because they had fled after the tumult the chariots had caused and then simply retreated while, according to Appian and Livy does not actually write anything that would suggest something different, with the Romans posed against them keeping at a distance. So, as my point was, the phalanx was not beaten by the Roman infantry line, as was the question, but the battle was lost and in the process they were also defeated as they were unable to retreat to safety.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#51
Quote:Peter, Antiochos was at the head of the cavalry on the Seleucid left, not the phalanx, so in effect you are saying the same thing I said.

You didn't clarify this before. Antiochos was in personal command of Seleucid cavalry (was that really their left wing or right? - I think that was Roman left, but Seleucid right), but at the same time he was the commander in chief of the entire army. So when you said that Antiochos defeated the Romans, I couldn't be sure whether you say about his cavalry or claim that it was his phalanx which defeated the Romans.


Quote:And of course not all Roman legions were put to flight but a part of them was although we do not know how many, could have been a legion, could have been more or less.

According to what Justin and Livy write, it could be only one legion (or at most one legion and one ala supporting that legion). And Appian doesn't mention how many, he only writes about the Seleucid cavalry "breaking through the Roman phalanx" (looks like this is very on-topic in this thread).

But Appian writes about breaking through the line, not about breaking (routing) the line, and certainly not about routing the entire Roman line (or the entire Roman army). So it probably was just part of it (as Justin and Livy write, it was just one legion or at most one legion and one supporting ala).

Breaking has two meanings - cracking something in half or routing something.

I would rather check the original word in Appian's account again.


Quote:So, as my point was, the phalanx was not beaten by the Roman infantry line, as was the question.

In the end it was beaten - but before that elephants saw confusion among the phalanx.

However, elephants were annoyed by Roman pila / javelins / arrows IIRC.

So Romans caused the fact that those elephants started to run amok, IIRC.
Reply
#52
He was on the right.. I was thinking wrongly of the Roman perspective.. with the term "Romans" I meant "the enemy" and especially part of the Roman infantry line, which was what the discussion was about... I took it for granted that it would be a known fact at the time, which is why I then wrote that the phalanx retreated orderly in squares per Appian. There was no reason at the time to be overly specific.

If you read the whole thing, you will see we were specifically discussing instances where the Roman infantry, legionary line engaged and defeated a Macedonian, sarisa bearing phalanx face to face in regular combat. So, Magnesia was an example where that did not happen. .
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#53
If we assume that Roman sources tell the truth regarding Roman casualties at Magnesia, then it is impossible that more than one legion was defeated. Even if just one entire legion routed, casualties would be much heavier. But sources don't say about any Roman legion routing - Appian writes that the line (phalanx) of - perhaps just one (Livy; Justin) - Roman legion was broken (i.e. cut through or cracked in half) by Seleucid cavalry charge (probably charging in wedge or column formation). This can explain the relatively low Roman losses (if we want to trust their casualty figures) - only a thin section of the Roman battle line was smashed.

In other case, massively routing Romans would be exposed to cavalry chase for a long time. And this means extremely heavy casualties (if entire legion is routing, then most of it should be wiped out).


Quote:If you read the whole thing, you will see we were specifically discussing instances where the Roman infantry, legionary line engaged and defeated a Macedonian, sarisa bearing phalanx face to face in regular combat. So, Magnesia was an example where that did not happen. .

Indeed, at Magnesia legions didn't engage in close combat until phalanx got confused by elephants.

The battle of Pydna was an example where this happened, however.
Reply
#54
The verb used by Appian is "to cut through" (diakoptein) and certainly describes a "breaking through" assault. Plus, although he gives the same casualty numbers as Livy, he specifically writes that these 300 were of the Romans of the city, that is that the allies were not included in this number. Of course, all this has nothing to do with the point I wanted to make at the time, but, I thought I should write this post, since you seem interested in that battle.

As for the Roman rout, cataphracts would not follow them at some great speed and certainly would not precipitously ride forward after the enemy, so, most Romans escaping to their camp is logical, especially since it would not be a very great distance away and the garrison had already formed a defensive line to receive them.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#55
Oh, and according to Appian casualties on the Roman-Pergamonese side were:


Quote:Of the Roman dead there were found twenty-four knights and 300 foot-soldiers from the city, being mostly those whom Antiochus had slain. Eumenes lost only fifteen of his horse. It is believed that the loss of Antiochus, including prisoners, was 50,000. It was not easy to number them on account of their multitude. Some of his elephants were killed and fifteen were captured.

And Macedon, you claimed that troops of Eumenes took the brunt of combats after the Romans fled.

Taking the brunt of combats, defeating the Romans, and suffering only 15 killed?

Or you think that these casualty figures are false? But I remember that you strongly defended the casualty figures from Macedonian-Persian battles, claiming that they are surely not underestimated (even though many things indicate that they are - even the description of the course of these battles), so why would you claim the opposite now? Because now your Greek compatriots have an unfavourable casualty ratio?

I am inclined to think that many casualty figures from Ancient sources are "invented" and not real.

But when I argued that Macedonian losses at Gaugamela had to be larger, you strongly opposed.

So I suppose that now you also oppose when I say that 324 Roman and 15 Pergamonese dead = too low?
Reply
#56
Is there a reason we are digressing that much? If you want to discuss Magnesia, feel free to start a topic. Plus, there is no reason to put words in my mouth... where did I speak of any "brunt of combat"? I just wrote that "the battle was won by them", the rest is yours...
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#57
Quote:As for the Roman rout, cataphracts would not follow them at some great speed and certainly would not precipitously ride forward after the enemy,

Why they would not follow them or ride forward after them at some great speed, etc., etc. Is a horse slower than a heavily armoured human? Accounts say that he chased the Romans up to their camp.

Also - Antiochos had apart from his 3000 cataphracts, also 1000 Agema, who were not so heavily armored.


Quote:The verb used by Appian is "to cut through" (diakoptein) and certainly describes a "breaking through" assault.

So exactly what I said - they smashed a relatively short section of the Roman battle line.


Quote:that is that the allies were not included in this number

Indeed, so probably casualties of the Latin allies were at least similar or bigger than those of the "Romans from the city". When it comes to Eumenes - 15 dead horsemen, but how many infantry (if any - because Appian doesn't even mention their losses, looks like he assumed that there were none).


Quote:where did I speak of any "brunt of combat"? I just wrote that "the battle was won by them",

I'm interested to see what is your theory then. How could they win without fighting?
Reply
#58
I will again warn against digressing that much. IF you really want to discuss the battle, open up a thread and let those who are interested in contributing do so. And be sure to check the expression "to bear the brunt of battle". It is not synonymous with "to fight". There is no reason to misunderstand each other because of such mistakes.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply


Forum Jump: