05-30-2013, 02:38 PM
Quote:.............. Let me ask you a question, when do the primary sources start mentioning prior and posterior centuries?
................
To the best of my knowledge I don't think the 'primary' (written a la Polybius - who otherwise mentions right & left) sources do mention them by that name, but what we have from the Imperial period is a listing of the ranks of the 6-century cohorts in the legions as well as tombstone evidence. In both cases the ranks seem to indicate a clear harking back to the Republican era in nomenclature (hastati, principes, triarii/pilus coupled with prior & posterior).
For my part, that naming and the way I have always understood (and more recently through thinking here have re-confirmed to myself) all, together, make perfect sense for what I now fairly firmly believe make up the manipular tactics:
- two centuries (hand, like the standard-tops), each able of individual control within a maniple pairing - used tactically together forming their part of manipular tactics
- where the rear century (from marching and deploying whilst still in open order 1 pace/3ft apart) is then able to manoeuvre on the battlefield to the left of the prior and so form an unbroken 'line'
- I do believe that the infantry in those centuries will resist a charge (particularly when talking about opposing a pike phalanx) by forming their own shield-to-shield 'phalanx' and then by the pair of centurions working together will manipulate their centuries to help break up the cohesion of the phalanx opposing them, until the well shielded and stabbing/slicing soldiers are past the pikes
- I do believe the Romans would often stand to receive a pike-phalanx charge, for any forward movements by the phalanx at the time of first contact could be well exploited to break up the cohesion earlier, just like we know from later accounts dealing with the Celtic (sic) types, they did the same and also used pila volleys to help
Nothing in the re-reading of this element of Polybius has changed that view, I'm afraid and if anyone can still please point me at a source that clearly conflicts then I'd love to be corrected.
Would you believe that I even re-saw the last episode of 'Spartacus' just a little while ago. Whilst I have taken issue with many of the things in the 3-series, it has been entertaining. But in the last episode, whilst the CG-views of the Roman forces at a distance look odd and the plastic segmentata is a bit sad - in the close-ups where they are shield-to-shield and we even saw a moment of a possible style of rotating ranks - it did look rather right to me! :wink: I think they were actually well advised for that bit - and no, it wasn't me....... :lol:
