05-31-2013, 04:36 PM
@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.
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.
