05-30-2013, 08:18 PM
Francesco,
Thanks for the reference, it is much better to read in context - just done. So, and with reference to Bryan's bit below - let's make sure....
I quite understand your point and I can only say - not necessarily. For I wasn't, whilst it could be done, suggesting that suddenly increasing the frontage individually (as indeed I argued before) is a normal manoeuvre at all. For, for the same reason I so constructed that original drawing/picture - frontage is the most important aspect of deployment. Failing to keep such a frontage can presage disaster. So, given that you have already set a unit's frontage and others are now next to you, then you cannot easily 'expand'. You can certainly, however, open up to the rear and even withdraw every second file/contubernium to achieve the same spacing should that be needed. Certainly a more open order than that I believe they mostly fought is needed to cast pila/lancea.
In the case of the relevant passage in Caesar's Gallic Wars, I think the most important point is that the legion in question (12th) is already extremely "hard pressed", all the "standards collected in one place" and the soldiers are "crowded and a hindrance to themselves" (and thus less able to use their weapons). What Caesar then orders and makes happen himself (due to the loss of lots of the legion officers) and with "no reserves" to call upon, orders the standards to be carried forwards and to extend the companies (maniples). Some soldiers are indeed already leaving.
Given this legion was being attacked from the front and flanks, it therefore seems to me that the maniples have been forced together and posterior centuries are now behind and, when you add losses and desertions, the frontage is contracting; let alone the press of the enemy starts to prevent easy movement and this is the reason the standards are closer together - bearing in mind that, across the battlefield, it is the standards that indicate the location of the sub-units. So, having re-taken the initiative he requires the maniples to fight back out and re-extend to the normal centuries side-by-side deployment, thus re-widening the frontage and shoring up the flanks. Effectively pushing out of the boxed in situation the Romans had found themselves in and allowing the shields and swords to get back to their jobs.
Now, I'm obviously having to read in things to suggest that, but again we have to. But it's suggested as a real possible detailing that may have happened - whilst using concepts already stated.
TBH - whilst being in a more 'open' order (in fact it's the normal 'close' order of today) is possible and I am sure was a part of marching and movements; whether's it's against a pike phalanx; barbarian types swinging swords; or cavalry - then I'm fairly sure shield-to-shield makes the most sense. Anything else makes the soldiers' formation weak and fairly vulnerable.
Thanks for the reference, it is much better to read in context - just done. So, and with reference to Bryan's bit below - let's make sure....
Quote:.................
What happens to the width of any military formations when this happens?
opening up to 1 pace (the length of the swordarm) apart (just like we do in normal drill today and for 100's of years (if not 1,000s!)
Does it get wider, like I mentioned in the last thread?
(Hint, it does)
But the technique is anachronistic anyway. It is just one method of widening the ranks.
I quite understand your point and I can only say - not necessarily. For I wasn't, whilst it could be done, suggesting that suddenly increasing the frontage individually (as indeed I argued before) is a normal manoeuvre at all. For, for the same reason I so constructed that original drawing/picture - frontage is the most important aspect of deployment. Failing to keep such a frontage can presage disaster. So, given that you have already set a unit's frontage and others are now next to you, then you cannot easily 'expand'. You can certainly, however, open up to the rear and even withdraw every second file/contubernium to achieve the same spacing should that be needed. Certainly a more open order than that I believe they mostly fought is needed to cast pila/lancea.
In the case of the relevant passage in Caesar's Gallic Wars, I think the most important point is that the legion in question (12th) is already extremely "hard pressed", all the "standards collected in one place" and the soldiers are "crowded and a hindrance to themselves" (and thus less able to use their weapons). What Caesar then orders and makes happen himself (due to the loss of lots of the legion officers) and with "no reserves" to call upon, orders the standards to be carried forwards and to extend the companies (maniples). Some soldiers are indeed already leaving.
Given this legion was being attacked from the front and flanks, it therefore seems to me that the maniples have been forced together and posterior centuries are now behind and, when you add losses and desertions, the frontage is contracting; let alone the press of the enemy starts to prevent easy movement and this is the reason the standards are closer together - bearing in mind that, across the battlefield, it is the standards that indicate the location of the sub-units. So, having re-taken the initiative he requires the maniples to fight back out and re-extend to the normal centuries side-by-side deployment, thus re-widening the frontage and shoring up the flanks. Effectively pushing out of the boxed in situation the Romans had found themselves in and allowing the shields and swords to get back to their jobs.
Now, I'm obviously having to read in things to suggest that, but again we have to. But it's suggested as a real possible detailing that may have happened - whilst using concepts already stated.
TBH - whilst being in a more 'open' order (in fact it's the normal 'close' order of today) is possible and I am sure was a part of marching and movements; whether's it's against a pike phalanx; barbarian types swinging swords; or cavalry - then I'm fairly sure shield-to-shield makes the most sense. Anything else makes the soldiers' formation weak and fairly vulnerable.
