Deconstructing Polybius - an example

[Bryan]

Mark Hygate wrote:
well just above this extract of Polybius at Cynoscephalae where the Romans receive the phalanx-charge (bearing in mind that phalanxes charge at the walk to preserve the formation) and no one would be stupid enough to charge an unbroken line of sharp points (Poly 18.25)

At Cynoscephalae, the Romans charged:
"Upon this being done, the enemy being now close upon them, orders were sent out to the men of the phalanx to lower their spears and charge, while the light infantry were ordered to place themselves on the flank. 10 At the same moment Flamininus, having received his advanced force into the gaps between the maniples, fell upon the enemy." Poly 18.24

At Pydna, the Romans charged:
"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. 2 Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. 3 For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; 4 while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death." Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paullus, 20

In both examples, the Romans (and Socii) were forced to retreat because, as both you and Macedon correctly point out, its really hard to get through the forest of sarrisa. However, they did try. And they didn't just stand there in pretty ranks waiting for the spear points to slam into their shields. They attacked!

- and Caesar's first battle against the Helvetii (Gallic Wars I.24-25) where he waits to receive the Helvetii; then unleashes pila-volleys (pila are close-range weapons, but the hill would help); and only then do the Romans charge. (I only looked quickly)

Again, this is just another example of the Romans charging forward. They didn't just sit back and wait for their enemy to hit them. They waited till the enemy was in range and then attacked them.

Mark Hygate wrote:
For the Romans it's - punch shield - stab/thrust - return - over and over until tired - replace with fresh rank or fresh century/maniple. Very simple and very effective.

Why did Rutilius Rufus hire gladiator lannistas in 105 BC to train his men to evade and inflict blows with their swords, if it was just hide behind your braced shield and stab over it while occasionally punching your shield out to another shield. (Don't forget, Rome's adversaries carried shields too)

They are efficient killing machines - not vehicles for individual sword-play. Anyone who fought with big gaps to each side would die easily - from those exposed sides.

"For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter. He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly." Pol 18:32:10-11

Indeed I have come to realise that I have perhaps always had a different view to the way the Romans fought - unless I have mis-understood.

You probably did misunderstand. It happens. I made some pretty egregious claims a while ago in this forum and was flabbergasted when questioned for sources. At the time, I didn't have them. Not enough anyway, because, in all honesty, I had made some of the stuff up because it "just felt right" and as you say often, the sources aren't that detailed.

In the end, I conceded that I was wrong and then spent the next year and a half reading everything I could get my hands on. For that, I have Macedon to thank, for he is the one that spanked me. Thanks, Macedon, for motivating me to learn more. Now when I debate I can provide sources because I actually read them (the English translations at least). :wink:

Now I am a bit better informed. I recommend you retire your ideas for now, read all the sources to can, read them twice, highlight them and take notes, read some secondary sources like Keppie, Connolly, Cowan and others and try to understand why they make the claims they do about the individual and collective fighting styles of the Romans. Heck, I even bought every copy of Ancient Warfare Magazine. Turns out there is some decent info in those, wish they sold them here in the states. But I digress. At the end, if you have the evidence to substantiate your original claims, start a new thread and show your proof or just bring this one back from the dead.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Why are the prior/posterior deployments of the centuries different between the periods? I've never come across anything that suggests that - please point me.

I was passing on my research in a general manner. There are organisational changes in 312 BC and 102 BC. The century organisation you describe is introduced in 102 BC. That is my findings. However, I was trying to delicately nudge you to investigate other deployment possibilities.

Mark wrote:
In addition, I believe there is only the one reference in Ceasar's commentaries that suggests that a 4-3-3 cohort deployment was used instead of the otherwise normal legion in 3 lines which could easily have been preserved if they chose to.

I found the 4-3-3 to be a one of deployment. It is not the standard deployment of the legion. My theory is Caesar deployed in the 4-3-3 because he is concerned about the Spanish auxiliary infantry. Both armies had five legions but the Pompeians had those extra Spanish auxiliaries. My hypothesis is Caesar’s first and second line will fight the Pompeian legionaries, and Caesar’s third line, the Spanish auxiliaries. Also Caesar’s 4-3-3 terminology is misleading. I took the frontage of the five Pompeian legions deployed 5 cohorts wide by 2 cohorts deep for each legion and from that determined Caesar’s deployment arrangement. From this I could understand how it can be termed 4-3-3 but it is not literally deployment that way. Here again, I found flexibility of the legion to be remarkable.

Mark wrote:
I would also go as far as to say that the middle deployment of my picture is much more a 'quincunx' than yours - let alone I think your saw-tooth isn't what he meant.

Who is the directing unit in your legion? I have allocated maniples five and six.

Mark wrote:
It is a digression, but there are sufficient references in many sources (cf Gallic Wars 8.17) to a 'lighter infantry' in the Roman legions to suggest that the velites of the Early Republic may well have remained in the century/maniple/cohort structure of the Late Republic (and possibly still the younger members who are more nimble); let alone the differently armed soldiers of Josephus' guard troops withdrawn from the legions; and the later references to lanciarii in the Late Army. All may represent no change in actual overall structure.

Caesar does mention the antesignani, so why do they have to be velites?

Bryan wrote:
You probably did misunderstand. It happens. I made some pretty egregious claims a while ago in this forum and was flabbergasted when questioned for sources. At the time, I didn't have them. Not enough anyway, because, in all honesty, I had made some of the stuff up because it "just felt right" and as you say often, the sources aren't that detailed. In the end, I conceded that I was wrong and then spent the next year and a half reading everything I could get my hands on.

Sounds like you went into a gunfight without any bullets and were last seen galloping out of town yelling “I’ll be back.”

[Mark Hygate]

@Bryan,

I will indeed retire, for I simply don't have the time just now, sadly (I haven't written more of that little thesis in days). My researches over the last year have been to do with organisation and not the detailed mechanics of fighting; if I have the time to review the same and more sources I will see if I can find what I'm after. However, the problem is simple and each time I have asked I have been ignored....there are, I now assume, no sources.

In the other thread - no one has been able to point me at a source that describes how the cavalry charged without killing themselves and mutilating horses. Absolute basic common sense suggests that you simply cannot conduct a cavalry charge with troops in deep formations. Cavalry never fought/were organised in files and even the sources don't claim that - only for infantry. Cavalry fought in lines. Did then and in all of history when conducting charges when there was the possibility of hard contact or the need to evade. Please show where I'm wrong.

This thread is harder. Polybius simply tells us that the phalanx should (and I believe would) always win against troops formed up 3ft apart. He then doesn't go on to explain in enough detail how the Romans did win - but has to turn on the previous success of the phalanx and give excuses. I do maintain that there is the distinct possibility that Polybius never experienced the actual fighting of the troops of the line and never spoke to a single soldier or centurion to ask. I don't blame him for that, it just wasn't necessary.

Yes, I have always believed the Romans fought side-by-side, just like the Greeks and their successors - to think otherwise never occurred to me. Having been pointed at what Polybius actually says, however, has indeed shown me the limitations of those sources (although I had realised it for other reasons). In fact every fibre of my being suggests that fighting with such gaps between soldiers against any enemy is absolutely doomed to failure (and I do have formal martial and tactical training). The fact that apparently no sources says that - is because they don't - for no one covers it - they probably didn't think they needed to, or, in some cases, simply don't know.

But yes, you can count this as a 'win' if you so desire and that is your 'bag'. Me, it makes no difference. If there's ever the chance to re-enact this or have a good computer model simulate it, then we will know more. But until the 'where's the source - I won't believe anything that there isn't a source for - provide your source' suffers a bit of a 'loss', then I fear for the study here. I will also note that there's very few that seem interested anyway.

So, I will take time when I can to read sources and see - but equally, it seems, many here already have - so - where are the sources that do describe infantry fighting and cavalry charging? :wink: Produce your sources!

Anyway - I'm sorry for one thing, I really don't think your counters to my two simple examples work - in each case the Romans waited first. But the example of the 'throwing the standard' was a good one - for it is very unusual and shows just how difficult the phalanx really was - it's not a common tactic - so the Romans fighting even (in my case) close together wouldn't always work - apart, not a chance.

And of course lanistas were used for training - this is one of the new legions - who else is going to train them, especially if training was now lacking and they weren't called up every year and took their military requirements seriously? This is the start of the new longer serving legions - they don't yet have their own trainers.

@antionchus

Why do you need a 'directing unit'? The legions fight in line - movements controlled by the Tribunes/Prefects and at a gross level by the Consul(s). Why invent a non-requirement?

I don't believe anyone knows exactly what the antesignanii actually were - but they could certainly have been similar to the velites with a new name - or are you assuming that the standard bearer fought in the front line too? A man with a standard, no shield, 3ft from his nearest neighbour..... :woot:

But do I think that there were always 'lighter infantry', probably armed with the hasta rather than the pilum - yes. Certainly in the Imperial period and perhaps earlier.

[Bryan]

Mark,

But yes, you can count this as a 'win' if you so desire and that is your 'bag'. Me, it makes no difference.

I am sorry you took it this way. I am not trying to win. This is just a history forum about Rome and Greece (a good one though). We're allowed to disagree and as long as we are polite, we are encouraged to debate. As such, I am simply trying to point you in the right direction.

You provided a hypothesis in the last thread about how the Roman infantry fought. I disagreed and provided a source, in the form of Polybius, that countered your hypothesis. So, you then discounted Polybius. Okay, not what I would have done, but some could call it a method.

Yes, I have always believed the Romans fought side-by-side, just like the Greeks and their successors - to think otherwise never occurred to me....But until the 'where's the source - I won't believe anything that there isn't a source for - provide your source' suffers a bit of a 'loss', then I fear for the study here.

You fear for the study of history because people want sources and not assurances? If you want to convince me, or any other person, that your hypothesis deserves merit, then persuade us using historical methods, which include sources. If you don't care, then stop posting altogether. Don't get angry that I am debating you, it's not personal. If a source as widely known and accredited as Polybius contradicts your hypothesis, maybe you were wrong to begin with.

So, I will take time when I can to read sources and see - but equally, it seems, many here already have - so - where are the sources that do describe infantry fighting and cavalry charging? Produce your sources!

For the Roman Republican era, here's a list of the ancient sources I have studied so far (though I haven't read them all word for word). All discuss close in infantry fightin at one level or another:
Polybius, Livy, Caesar, Frontinus, Vegetius, Sallust, Plutarch, Orosius, Florus, Valerius Maximus

I am sure there are others. I just found out about Gellius due to Antiochus' below post, will have to read up on him too. And if I read something in one of these sources that contradicts my previously held beliefs, I'll readjust those beliefs. Because that's how history works.

PS I actually never commented about your opinions on cavalry tactics, I just focused on the infantry side. I am still in the learning process when it comes to the cavalry and have yet to really comment on it because I really don't know enough about horses or cavalry tactics used throughout the ages. Yet. I actually think your comments about the line spacing and depth bring up some good points. The emphasis of my studies started on infantry tactics (my background), specifically during the Republican period of Rome. But I continue learning more and more every day. And as I do, my opinions change.

[Cesco]

Mark wrote:
So, I will take time when I can to read sources and see - but equally, it seems, many here already have - so - where are the sources that do describe infantry fighting and cavalry charging? Produce your sources!

You could also find interesting to read Maurice's Strategikon, expecially the final part about manouvres of infantry wich could have been similar to those used by Romans

I will also note that there's very few that seem interested anyway.

I also noted this, and I can't understamd why: this is maybe one of the most important and interesting argoument on the Roman Army... :-?

[Timianus]

Allow me to jump into the lions den with a question and a comment ( I am not taking sides on this debate but find it very fascinating). First, have we taken into account the fact that as a roman hostage Polybius may have been "playing to the home crowd" in his opinion that the phalanx was inferior? Also, as he was charged with reorganizing the Greek government, wasn't it in the Romans' (and his) interest to convince the Greek populace that their fighting tactics were inferior and should stay subjugated?

My question to the group is, assuming the Romans are arrayed in an open formation, how would they respond to a direct frontal charge from a phalanx? Would it not be the most natural thing for the soldiers to close ranks and present a wall to the enemy and then counter charge?. If kept in loose formation, couldn't the spears of the phalanx could exploit the gaps in the roman line.

Also, from an "in the trenches" perspective, if the romans are fighting in open order, how do they prevent the enemy from exploiting the 3 foot gaps between the men when they are engaged. How does a legionary in the front line fight-off an enemy directly in front while being surrounded on the left and right as well?

[Bryan]

Tim,

Can't argue the first point about Polybius, it all goes back to the credence you give him as a source. Everyone has a back story, do you trust his? Could he have been duped? Maybe. Or maybe after seeing all the problems in Greece caused by the Macedonian barbarians, he liked the Romans. (It is my understanding that the Achaean League, that his people were a part of, were not on great terms with the Macedonians, who they didn't consider proper Greeks anyway. I could be wrong)

...assuming the Romans are arrayed in an open formation, how would they respond to a direct frontal charge from a phalanx? Would it not be the most natural thing for the soldiers to close ranks and present a wall to the enemy and then counter charge?

I can argue that the only way you could get through the literal wall of spears would be as an individual. As a unit of men shield to shield, you can't do anything unless everyone does it. As an individual, you have the freedom of independent movement.

Should you face a Macedonian phalanx as a Roman, fighing as an individual in loose formation, I believe your options are limited to:
- Aim your pilum for a front ranker right in front of you and hope you pierce him or his shield enough so his movement shifts the pikes immediately around him, causing a small enough gap to appear that you can "shoulder" your way past the sarrisa tips to actually reach their front
- Block with your shield as best you can and then drop it, scramble on your hands and knees with sword in hand under the pikes and try to reach the formation
- Fall back while showering Phalanx with every pila and rock you can pick up, hoping for their strict formation to faulter, or for the terrain to worsen, allowing you to exploit a gap
- Fall on a spear point and hope the weight of your body disrupts the holder of it
- Use your sword to attempt to hack off the spear tips
- Break and run back to your camp and pray you aren't decimated after the battle

A Roman fighting shield to shield with his mates is limited to this:
- Move forward with your rank, shield braced against your left elbow and knee, half stepping, and trying to push back against the spear point to your direct front, even though there are more behind it.
- Half step back
- Throw pila and rocks
- Run away

If kept in loose formation, couldn't the spears of the phalanx could exploit the gaps in the roman line.

The only spears of the phalanx that will directly affect the front line Roman are those held by the men in the front line of the phalanx. Unless the Roman tries to maneuver past the first spear tip, he won't encounter the second, third or fourth. To those to the sides, they will be focused on other Romans. Also, to assist in his defense, the Roman's shield is curved to offer some protection to his flanks.

if the romans are fighting in open order, how do they prevent the enemy from exploiting the 3 foot gaps between the men when they are engaged. How does a legionary in the front line fight-off an enemy directly in front while being surrounded on the left and right as well?

If you are referring to the integrity of the whole line, in order for an enemy to properly exploit the intervals between Roman infantry that Polybius accounts for, the enemy must also break ranks as well. This is the trick. One side (the phalanx) NEEDS complete cohesion to function, while the Romans don't. They just need to stay with the standards. To exploit the Roman gap, the enemy creates their own gap. Think of jigsaw pieces put together.

This part applies to multiple types of adversaries a Roman could face, not just the Macedonians in their styled phalanx:

If the Roman in the front is fighting the man directly to his front, then yes, the Roman would also have to worry about his sides being exposed. However, the enemy would as well. If said enemy focuses solely on the Roman to their oblique, who is sparring with the man directly to their sides, they won't be focused on the Roman directly to their front, standing in the second rank of the Roman line, in the gap, who can still use his heavy pilum and can attack forward into the gap if necessary.

Having the freedom of movement that Polybius writes of allows for foot work, a Roman has the option to dart forward, attack, side step, back step, etc. The man who can maneuver can dodge or parry blows easier than one forced to stay in rigid position and simply "take" the blow and hope their shield isn't shattered or pierced. The movement also allows the Roman to set up an opponent, similar to boxing. That is unless the Roman indirectly leaves himself open, in which case said Roman becomes a dead Roman. Or at least wounded. Then someone from the second rank steps forward, pulls his mate back if he can, and carries on the fight.

I might not be making myself clear in this. In my head I can see it happening but I might not be expressing it well enough in writing. I will probably have to edit this a bit.

Macedonian Phalanx:
To function properly, the Macedonian style phalanx needs to stay in perfect rank/file or spears become useless and the formation dissolves. If their cohesion and order is maintained, the front is virtually impenetrable, while side and rear are always in danger. Unless terrain or excessive amounts of casualties disrupt the spear coverage in the front, in which case gaps will appear that will allow a loosely organized force to exploit them, such as the Romans or others. The Macedonian system requires long training and professional soldiers to carry it out and is expensive.

Roman or Socii Maniple:
The Romans are sword fighters, using shields defensively and offensively, they need room to maneuver and don't need total cohesion, just space to operate. If they were to fight as a phalanx and simply used their swords for overhanded blows there would be no reason to arm them with swords in the first place as spears are cheaper and easier to make. Once crowded, swords become less useful, as the range and type of blows they can deliver, as is the scutum, is divided exponentially by how close the ranks are bunched. The outside limit of space in which the Romans fought is that which the centurion and tribunes no longer have control of the men, who receive orders over the din of battle by signalling devices such as trumpets, horns, turning/dipping standards, etc. Also, if men break to quickly to chase an enemy, the whole integrity of the maniple comes apart.

The Roman system does not require all that much unit training but lots of individual training in the form of javelin throwing and swordsmanship, which was no doubt were part of the upbringing of a rural Roman boy, similar today to how farmers teach sons how to shoot rifles when not pushing a plow. Until 123 BC, the Romans were required to provide their own equipment and were a conscript force, a cheap and easy method of warfare that some how worked to win every single war the Romans faced.

Gods forbid your army is destroyed, then simply raise another and go fight some more. With a professional organization made up of men who take months to years to turn into an effective unit (like the Macedonian Silver Shields), the loss of a unit would devastate the war effort.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
I will indeed retire,

No you won’t, prepare to engage.

Mark wrote:
My researches over the last year have been to do with organisation and not the detailed mechanics of fighting;

Organisation and drill is my area of interest. Therefore, both are related to command and control.

Mark wrote:
Cavalry fought in lines.

I’d back you 100% on that. All Roman deployment is based on the principles of Pythagorean geometry and the cavalry are always in ranks. The file arrangement does not mathematically work. The depth of the Roman infantry and the depth of the Roman cavalry follow Pythagorean principles and it does not change from Servius to Vegetius. It’s all about ranks for both the cavalry and infantry. Why? Because the mathematics is based on the square numbers.

Mark wrote:
This thread is harder. Polybius simply tells us that the phalanx should (and I believe would) always win against troops formed up 3ft apart.

I have open order as 6ft apart and close order at 3ft apart. Lucan (The Civil War VII 490-495) states that fighting with swords in close order makes the sword a danger to themselves. To add my two cents worth, terms such as closing up, opening up etc in the primary sources is a minefield. In many cases it does not relate to the men. Over the years I have came to realise that such terms can also apply to units. The act of extending at the battle of Mons Graupius means Agricola simply chose one of the two standard deployments available. The men did not have to increase their spacing, they put more maniples in each line and therefore, had less lines.

Mark wrote:
I will also note that there's very few that seem interested anyway.

Unfortunately this is true.

Mark wrote:
Why do you need a 'directing unit'? The legions fight in line - movements controlled by the Tribunes/Prefects and at a gross level by the Consul(s). Why invent a non-requirement?

A non requirement!! Having a military background Mark I am simply stunned. :dizzy: A directing unit synchronises the movement and drill of those units ordered to conform to the actions of the directing unit. An example of a directing unit is Alexander’s royal squadron. What is does the rest of the Companions follow. This saves shouting out orders in a noisy battlefield environment. Take for example Maurice’s Strategicon (3 12):

“Orders should be given to the officers of the first combat line to conform to the movements to those of the centre meros, where the lieutenant general is usually stationed. They should keep abreast of it and make their charge at the same time.”

Maurice’s Strategicon (12 17) further defines the mouth or navel as being the centre of a line or unit, and those units around the mouth follows its lead. In my legion deployment, maniples five and six represent the mouth. Maurice also details how the second line is to conform its movements to the first line. All very informative information. The concept of the directing unit is prevalent throughout military history. In WWI the squadron leader was the directing airplane and the rest of the squadron conformed to his actions. I was recently reading about Senator Goldwater’s experience of flying B-24s in WWII, and in one mission states that because of bad cloud cover over the target area the leading plane (the senior commander), changed direction and flew to the secondary target. Goldwater states that no radio communication was given, the rest of the flight wing followed the actions of the leading plane. All armies of the Napoleonic wars had a directing unit. The French had one directing battalion in a brigade and the British manuals give instructions in how to change the directing battalion if during a battle the directing unit cannot be observed. So they have a directing battalion in a brigade and a directing division in a corps.

Mark wrote:
I don't believe anyone knows exactly what the antesignanii actually were – but they could certainly have been similar to the velites with a new name - or are you assuming that the standard bearer fought in the front line too? A man with a standard, no shield, 3ft from his nearest neighbour.....

The antesignani could be ranks one and two of the first line. This would put the stand bearer in the third line.

[Timianus]

Bryan: Thank you for the well-thought out and detailed responses.

[Mark Hygate]

antiochus,

Indeed - "retire" was a word I used, because it had been used - 'tactical withdrawal' with firm intentions of re-engagement after I have done what I need to do first, is most likely.

I am glad you also agree with the point about charging cavalry - I can only assume that my challenge has gone unanswered in that other thread, because it would be nigh on impossible to do so. Not only would it be illogical, it would border on irrational. It does make a very important point for me, however: Macedon's contention is that the sources (and here I will concentrate on Asclepiodotus) state that the cavalry also fought in file and that, in my case, the Decurion would be leading the file and not the rank. But Ascl doesn't state that - it has been read into it by Macedon and others - I'm sure he's not alone. It's simply that the sources do not say everything and for some things we have to interpret, interpolate and sometimes even guess!

As with this infantry discussion. I have never researched it - I may well now do so. It actually never occurred to me to do so and, whilst I am happily not more than 95% convinced I am still right, I am very surprised that the discussion is as heated as it is - for fighting in any other way genuinely seems silly to me.

When it comes to 'directing unit' - I was referring to your example - there is no need, I feel, for the Roman legion deployment and tactics to require a directing unit. Alexander indeed, in that scenario, has completely given up the powers of command (commanders 'direct') in order to lead his troops - his other cavalry is simply following his lead and supporting him. Given his troops obvious love and commitment to him and admiration as a leader this is a bold and, we know, often successful tactic - but it is dangerous and rather risky.

I also, btw, don't believe centurions commonly fought in the front rank, because you cannot exercise command whilst fighting - to do so is when the situation demands a leadership example and is only less of an occurrence than throwing the standard in.

Bryan,

Understood - but merely throwing out names of writers doesn't help. I will not be surprised to discover that none of them may describe what we are seeking. If you have read them and have the detailed reference(s), then that's where we can start next time.

I'm afraid I certainly don't agree with your ideas on the invincibility of the Roman soldier in his 6ft bubble and I am sure you misunderstand the power of the cohesive century within the maniple in their 'shieldwall' - if that's the right term.

So - until later (maybe :wink: ) for me - and there is only one source I serious question and consider for possible dismissal - and it's not Polybius. Thesis time.....

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
I am glad you also agree with the point about charging cavalry - I can only assume that my challenge has gone unanswered in that other thread, because it would be nigh on impossible to do so.

I generally stay away from the cavalry versus infantry debate. They get very heated. I have worked on many movies in my life dealing with horses, especially WWI movies and a mini-series. I have personally been charged by over 50 horses. This happened when a scene went wrong while filming. It happened three times. I was also part of a whole film crew being accidently run down by charging horses. It is a terrifying experience.

Mark wrote:
When it comes to 'directing unit' - I was referring to your example - there is no need, I feel, for the Roman legion deployment and tactics to require a directing unit.

And that is where we differ.

Mark wrote:
I also, btw, don't believe centurions commonly fought in the front rank, because you cannot exercise command whilst fighting - to do so is when the situation demands a leadership example and is only less of an occurrence than throwing the standard in.

I’m also in agreement.

Mark wrote:
Thesis time.....

Question: you believe a squadron numbered 30 men and you are covering the extraordinarii in your thesis. Polybius states the extraordinarii consist of one third of the allied cavalry. Now if the allied cavalry is three times the Roman cavalry as stated by Polybius, then with the Roman cavalry in a consular army numbering 600 cavalry and the allied cavalry numbering 1800 cavalry, the extraordinarii would contain 600 allied cavalry organised into 20 squadrons. If as Livy tells us the allied cavalry was twice the size of the Roman cavalry the allied cavalry would number 1200 cavalry, then one third taken for the extraordinarii would amount to 400 allied cavalry, which equates to 13 point 33333333 squadrons.

So now you have a fraction and an odd number of squadrons. So how will you explain this in your thesis? I’m not attacking here; I’m just highlighting the same problem I encountered. However, as I have a vast array of mathematical tools to answer this question I imagine it will present you with some challenges.

[Mark Hygate]

antiochus,

One of the things I have assumed (now I think of it that way) is that Polybius is describing the normal 'ideal'. Based upon that assumption I have, because they make sense, used the 'one third of 900' to equal 300 - times two for the 600 cavalry in the normal extraordinarii. I note that, thanks to help here, that some translations and probably the original say 'about' one third. That thesis will, however, show why I think that number is the desired one.

Livy, in his pretty comprehensive covering of numbers, does often show, particularly, less cavalry on occasion. However, in each case it tends to be when there are many legions in the field and also after other battles. On the assumption that his figures are accurate, I would otherwise be content to suggest that his use of 'half the allies' may well be one of those cases - and ~300 is still desired.

However, whilst I've been through Livy and made many notes - please could you point me at that specific reference and I can look at the context?

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
However, whilst I've been through Livy and made many notes - please could you point me at that specific reference and I can look at the context?

Livy 22 36

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
However, whilst I've been through Livy and made many notes - please could you point me at that specific reference and I can look at the context?

Livy 22 36

Thank you kindly. Whilst that is indeed one of the sections I have marked, it wasn't in relation to the extraordinarii.

This is the lead up to the Battle of Cannae and even Livy notes that his sources "vary so much" and thus that he himself "should hardly venture to assert anything as positively certain" (and therefore neither would I). It is therefore difficult to assert exactly what the statement "the allies furnished double the number of cavalry and an equal number of infantry" refers to. However, it is quite possible that the figure that follows in the next sentence makes it all clear....

For Livy asserts that the Romans (and Allies, of course) fielded 87,200 men in their camp. Given the note of "carrying on the war with eight legions", it would appear that we have:

- 8 Roman legions of 5,000 (the enlarged type)
- and 8 Allied legions of 5,000 (that#s the equal part)
- which leaves 7,200 which constitute the cavalry, of which 8x300=2,400 are Roman (from the preceding figures)
- and thus 4,800 are Allied - as opposed to the 7,200 one might expect from a Polybian ideal

Given the time and place and the need for the legions to be brought back to strength anyway (which makes sense that each Roman legion needed 100 cavalry each to reinforce back to 300 per legion); it simply shows that the Allies were not able to furnish the ideal cavalry complement, because there were no trained cavalry left. So, whilst Livy says he is unsure, his figures would seem to make perfect sense.

Funnily enough, that little exercise has helped a related part of that thesis no end! mile: The availability of suitable mounts.....

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Whilst that is indeed one of the sections I have marked, it wasn't in relation to the extraordinarii. This is the lead up to the Battle of Cannae.

That statement is akin to claiming the Titanic is unsinkable. In 251 BC while in Sicily, the Roman army numbered 40,000 infantry and 1000 cavalry. How do you know if the 1000 cavalry equates to 300 Roman cavalry and 600 allied which has been rounded to 1000 cavalry? Now if the allied cavalry in Sicily is doubled that of the Romans, then your claim the doubling of the cavalry only relates to Cannae is seriously undermined.

If you want to do a thesis that includes the extraordinarii then you need to do a comprehensive study of the empirical data in the primary sources for the whole period of the republic. I’ve covered the extraordinarii and found Polybius’ statement the cavalry were “about” one third is correct. However, it’s correct for the military numbers Polybius has concocted taken from various time periods; therefore it is jumbled and confused because he has incorrectly tried to reconstruct the legion from the tribal levy system. If all the ancient historians were put in a horse race, when it comes to mathematical mistakes, Polybius is 40 lengths ahead of any other historian for making mathematical mistakes. I can prove this over and over again, yet the irony is academia believes Polybius to be the most reliable of the ancient historians. However, I do like him because he provides vital information and his mathematical mistakes are fascinating insights.

So for the extraordinarii I include Polybius’ account and how he arrived at his conclusions, then I do a section of the extraordinarii when corrected which includes how the size of the extraordinarii in relation to the various Roman organisations and army sizes. This is followed by the accounts of the extraordinarii in battle. I am confident it is comprehensive and as I only work with empirical data taken from the primary sources I do not need to introduce conjecture to bring it together. The maths tells the story.