Roman Infantry Tactics by M. J. Taylor

[antiochus]

Michael, having read your paper “Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment” I believe your use of the empirical data in the primary sources has left your flanks rather exposed.

Michael wrote:
“at Cynoscephalae, both armies were roughly equal in size, at c. 26,000 troops. Philip V deployed a phalanx of 16,000, in addition to 2000 peltasts, 2000 Thracians, 2000 Illyrians and 1500 mercenaries.”

Using your numbers for the Macedonian army, this adds up to 23,500 men which are not “roughly equal in size to 26,000 troops.” Although it is a minor point, you have omitted Livy’s reference there were 2000 cavalry. This brings the total for the Macedonian army to 25,500 men.

Michael wrote:
“Flamininus’ two legions were c. 4200 strong, a fact that is nowhere explicitly stated, but readily deduced.”

I dare to differ. Legions of 5400 men are more “readily deduced” and supported by the primary sources for this period.

Michael wrote:
“Firstly, Plutarch reports Flamininus had c. 26,000 troops, from which 6400 Aitolians, 1200 Athamanians and 800 Cretans/Apollonians must be subtracted. This gives a rough estimate of 17,500 Roman troops, or 4,400 a legion/ala, counting cavalry. The detachment previously reported by Livy (32.11.7) at the Aous Pass consisted of 4000 infantry and 300 cavalry, and is surely a single legion. Thus Flamininus’ legions were standard strength of 4000–4200 infantry.”

What you fail to mention is, and one that is important is Plutarch numbers the Roman army at “OVER 26,000 men.” Therefore this is greater in number than 26,000 men. Also you fail to bring into the discussion that Plutarch’s 6400 Aitolians (6000 infantry and 400 cavalry) is contradicted by Livy’s figure of 1000 Aitolians (600 infantry and 400 cavalry). From my perspective you have used Plutarch’s figure for the Aitolians because you want the numbers to get as close to Polybius’ legion of 4200 men as possible, therefore your comment the 4400 men included the cavalry, of which I gather must number 200 cavalry. The 4000 infantry you mention at the Aous Pass is described in some translations as a picked force which could represent any number of troops and not necessarily a legion. It could be 1800 velites and 1800 hastati totalling 3600 men, which has been rounded to 4000 men. The fact the 4000 men are accompanied by 300 cavalry would suggest it is a legion but how can we be sure?

You are also inclined to believe that Livy’s reference to the 2000 hastati “may instead refer to both Roman and allied hastati combined from the legion and its allied wing, c. 2400 if each contained 4000–4200 men.” This shows your strong determination to protect your theory the legion numbered 4000 to 4200 men. I want to indulge in an exercise using the primary sources to see if it is possible to dispute your claim Flaminius’ legions numbered 4000 or 4200 men, or 4400 men which includes the cavalry.

Let’s take the premise the legion numbered 5400 men as it did at Magnesia some seven years later. Trusting to Livy’s claim the hastati numbered 2000 men, of which I will claim it is 1800 hastati rounded to 2000 men, a 5400 man legion could consists of:

1200 velites
1800 hastati
1800 principes
600 triarii

What we have is a 4200 men legion reinforced with 600 additional hastati and 600 additional principes. Let us remember that Polybius informs us the triarii always remained constant at 600 men and the others were enlarged, which I interpret to be the hastati and principes. This also raises the question that when the legion is increased by 1000 men, is the figure of 1000 men as given in the primary sources rounded from 1200 men? Let’s now say Flaminius has four legions each of 5400 men totalling 21,600 legionaries. Now if we add Plutarch’s 8400 foreign allies, the figure increases to 30,000 men, which does not accord with Plutarch’s figure of “over 26,000 men.” However, by adding Livy’s figure of 3000 foreign allies to the 21,600 legionaries, the total is 24,600 men, which also does not appropriate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men. So what is missing? It is obvious that the 600 Roman and 1200 allied cavalry are missing from the Roman order of battle. With their inclusion, the Roman army now numbers 26,400 men, which would better approximate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men.


Michael wrote:
“The Seleucid infantry line was anchored by its main phalanx, 16,000 men strong, 32 men deep…On either side of the phalanx were two divisions of Gallic infantry, 1500 men each…I will therefore hypothesize a depth of 12 to the Galatian infantry.”

The deployment of the Galatian infantry would indicate they are flank guards for the Seleucid phalanx. Even if this was not their role, your theory of them being 12 deep means they do not have the same staying power (depth) of the Seleucid phalanx deployed 32 ranks deep. To better improve their staying power to match the Seleucid phalanx, each of the 1500 Galatian infantry units can be deployed 50 men wide by 30 men deep. In this manner, the Galatian infantry are only two ranks short of the Seleucid phalanx.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Has the article been published? Is it available?

Thanks,

[Mark Hygate]

I too have enjoyed Michael's draft essay early - and would love to back query Steven using my current work on organisations; for I didn't see anything to really worry about in Michael's figures.

Cynoscephalae - Flamminius, given that no figures are indeed given explicitly, could be reasonably expected to have a 'normal/standard' Consular Army. Polybius describes such as a total of at least 20,848 (18,400 infantry + 2,400 Cavalry + Tribunes and Prefects). If the Roman legion element is also reinforced by an additional 1,600, as per 'standard', then that comes to ~22, 650. If you divide by 4 (2 Roman + 2 Allied) to get a figure per legion, then that figure lies between ~5,200 and ~5,600.

Would that not account for the ~5,400 more "supported by the primary sources for this period"? However, they are using legions that accord completely with Polybius' detail and are no larger.

Livy's "The hastati of the legion, numbering 2000 men, were ordered to follow him at a distance of one mile"; is quite possibly an excellent example of something I have seriously wondered about when authors (not just ancient) quote figures. The hastati of a Polybian legion are in '20 centuries'. In casual passing many equate 'century' to 100. Perhaps that's all that Livy means and it would make perfect sense to advance the first line and they don't have to be any more than the 'standard' size of 1,200 hastati, 400 velites and 60 'officers' one might expect, organised in 20 centuries and that's in fact what Livy's original source says.

Magnesia - Livy states legions of 5,000 men explicitly, which are again perfectly 'normal' for Polybius' expanded legions - 4,200 + 800. Where are the 5,400?

[antiochus]

To Alexander. The article can be found in the thread "An argument for the pace and not the cubit" #348897 page 4

Mark wrote:
I too have enjoyed Michael's draft essay early - and would love to back query Steven using my current work on organisations; for I didn't see anything to really worry about in Michael's figures.

After reading your post I realised I am going to be involved in a debate which requires me to deal with conjecture and you not checking your translations.

Mark wrote:
Cynoscephalae - Flamminius, given that no figures are indeed given explicitly, could be reasonably expected to have a 'normal/standard' Consular Army. Polybius describes such as a total of at least 20,848 (18,400 infantry + 2,400 Cavalry + Tribunes and Prefects).

Where does Polybius give these numbers? If Polybius gives a number of 20,848 men which is new to me, then you have a discussion.

Mark wrote:
If the Roman legion element is also reinforced by an additional 1,600, as per 'standard', then that comes to ~22, 650.

So Polybius’ legion of 4200 men is with the additional 1600 men you call per standard, then Polybius’ legion numbers 5800 men. I have never seen a source stating a legion numbered 5800 men or 1600 was the standard.

Mark wrote:
If you divide by 4 (2 Roman + 2 Allied) to get a figure per legion, then that figure lies between ~5,200 and ~5,600. Would that not account for the ~5,400 more "supported by the primary sources for this period"? However, they are using legions that accord completely with Polybius' detail and are no larger.

What can I say?

Mark wrote:
Livy's "The hastati of the legion, numbering 2000 men, were ordered to follow him at a distance of one mile"; is quite possibly an excellent example of something I have seriously wondered about when authors (not just ancient) quote figures. The hastati of a Polybian legion are in '20 centuries'. In casual passing many equate 'century' to 100. Perhaps that's all that Livy means and it would make perfect sense to advance the first line and they don't have to be any more than the 'standard' size of 1,200 hastati, 400 velites and 60 'officers' one might expect, organised in 20 centuries and that's in fact what Livy's original source says.

Thank you Mark for advancing our understanding of the Roman legion. Now we all know that when Livy mentions 2000 hastati Livy actually means 1200 hastati, 400 velites and 60 officers because as you have stated “that's in fact what Livy's original source says.”

Mark wrote:
Magnesia - Livy states legions of 5,000 men explicitly, which are again perfectly 'normal' for Polybius' expanded legions - 4,200 + 800. Where are the 5,400?

The translator as given by Rev. Canon Roberts as found on Bill Thayer’s excellent site reads: “The Roman army was practically uniform as regards both the men and their equipment; there were two Roman legions and two of Latins and allies, each containing 5000 men.”

However, the Perseus site and some other translations I’ve come across and had done for me read “There were two Roman legions and two of allies of the Latin confederacy; each consisted of five thousand four hundred men.”

Romana acies unius prope formae fuit et hominumet armorum genere. duae legiones Romanae, duaesocium ac Latini nominis erant; quina milia et quadringenos3 singulae habebant. Romani mediam aciem, cornua Latini tenuerunt; hastatorum primasigna dein principum erant, triarii postremos claudebant. extra hanc velut iustam aciem a parte dextra consul Achaeorum caetratis immixtos auxiliares Eumenis, tria milia ferme peditum, aequatafronte instruxit; ultra eos equitum minus tria miliaopposuit, ex quibus Eumenis octingenti, reliquusomnis Romanus equitatus erat; extremos Tralles etCretenses—quingentorum utrique numerum explebant—statuit. laevum cornu non egere videbaturobiectis talibus

[Michael J. Taylor]

Dear Steven:

Thanks for the post.

I'm pretty confident that the legions at Cynoscephalae were c. 4200 infantry, although in my footnotes I admit this puts me uncomfortably at odds with the likes of Frank Walbank and Nicolas Sekunda. The issue obviously hinges on how many Aetolians were in the army with a strength of somewhat over (hyper) 26,000. Most scholars agree that Plutarch is right and Livy wrong (or perhaps not Livy, but his manuscript tradition) This is in part because in other instances the Aetolians routinely mustered 4000-6000 infantry; it would also be very surprising for them to send 600 infantry but 400 cavalry, as this would be an unusually high ratio of cavalry to infantry for the Greek world.

If we assume each legion/ala has 4200 infantry and 300 cavalry (perhaps several hundred more Italian cavalry), add in 6400 Aetolians, 1200 Athamanians and 800 Cretans and Apollonians, this puts us comfortably at "hyper" 26,000.

As I noted, the fact that an infantry unit at Aous pass somewhat earlier was 4000 infantry and 300 cavalry makes me strongly feel that this was a single legion/ ala in Flamininus' army.

As to the 2000 hastati legionis which Flamininus brought with him into Boeotia : I maintain that this is simply a detachment, and its reported strength may be particularly rough.

It is true that the legions at Magnesia were 5400 infantry. However, this was after a decade of demographic recovery from the 2nd Punic War, and these were also strengthen by over 5000 Scipionic volunteers. It should be noted that it is not until 184 that Livy seems to routinely report 5200 strong legions.

You are also quite correct that my depth for the Galatians at Magnesia is a conjecture. However, if we do assume they maintained the same depth as the Phalanx, as you propose, the basic argument would not change: the legions would have a front of 430 meters, instead of 460 with gaps of 7-16 meters rather than 10-20. This would be in keeping with the paper's model of modest gaps in between maniples.

Best,

Michael

[antiochus]

Michael wrote:
I'm pretty confident that the legions at Cynoscephalae were c. 4200 infantry, although in my footnotes I admit this puts me uncomfortably at odds with the likes of Frank Walbank and Nicolas Sekunda.

And also it puts you uncomfortably at odds with me. But the good news is I don’t count, so you have nothing to worry about. :cheer:

Michael wrote:
The issue obviously hinges on how many Aetolians were in the army with a strength of somewhat over (hyper) 26,000.

Yes it is a key point.

Michael wrote:
Most scholars agree that Plutarch is right and Livy wrong (or perhaps not Livy, but his manuscript tradition) This is in part because in other instances the Aetolians routinely mustered 4000-6000 infantry; it would also be very surprising for them to send 600 infantry but 400 cavalry, as this would be an unusually high ratio of cavalry to infantry for the Greek world.

Now that is what you should have put in your paper. Bring in the Livy data and then add other references of the Aetolians having 4000 to 6000 infantry. This would strengthen your position…and protect your flanks.

Michael wrote:
As to the 2000 hastati legionis which Flamininus brought with him into Boeotia: I maintain that this is simply a detachment, and its reported strength may be particularly rough.

I’ve gone with hastati legionis, the hastati from one legion.

Michael wrote:
It should be noted that it is not until 184 that Livy seems to routinely report 5200 strong legions.

Also the number of allies increase and this could result in the velites being decreased from 1200 velites per legion to 1000 velites per legion.

1000 velites
1800 hastati
1800 principes
600 triarii

Michael wrote:
You are also quite correct that my depth for the Galatians at Magnesia is a conjecture. However, if we do assume they maintained the same depth as the Phalanx, as you propose, the basic argument would not change: the legions would have a front of 430 meters, instead of 460 with gaps of 7-16 meters rather than 10-20. This would be in keeping with the paper's model of modest gaps in between maniples.

All’s well that ends well. However, what if there is no gaps between the maniples. Livy tells us it is so, but could it be that we have overcomplicated what he meant. What if Livy is simply describing the legion in the quincunx formation?

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
Cynoscephalae - Flamminius, given that no figures are indeed given explicitly, could be reasonably expected to have a 'normal/standard' Consular Army. Polybius describes such as a total of at least 20,848 (18,400 infantry + 2,400 Cavalry + Tribunes and Prefects).

Where does Polybius give these numbers? If Polybius gives a number of 20,848 men which is new to me, then you have a discussion.

Certainly for me, Polybius describes most of the detail for the organisation of a 'standard' legion of 4,200 total men (not incl Tribunes/Prefects, let's keep the numbers simple) and that 800 (see below) can be added to each; plus that each Roman legion is accompanied by 300 cavalry and the allies by 3 times as much (900).

Polybius also notes (III.72) that the allied infantry element appears to be commonly raised to 5,000.

So, my maths for a 'normal' or 'usual' Consular Army is (2 x (4,200 + 300) + (2 x (5,000 + 900)) = 20,800 (at full strength at the start of a campaign).

You can reduce that total by 1,600 to meet the smallest standard figure or increase it by 1,600 if the Roman legions are also reinforced. Total Roman forces for a Consular Army could then, by design, be somewhere between 19,200 to 22,400 even before adding on any senior officers (let alone servants, muleteers, etc) and, of course, can be significantly lower if there have been losses and the numbers on any particular battlefield are the most current.

Mark wrote:
If the Roman legion element is also reinforced by an additional 1,600, as per 'standard', then that comes to ~22, 650.

So Polybius’ legion of 4200 men is with the additional 1600 men you call per standard, then Polybius’ legion numbers 5800 men. I have never seen a source stating a legion numbered 5800 men or 1600 was the standard.

Sorry, a misread by yourself, the 1,600 are total Romans, it's 800 each as detailed above. Funnily enough I would have liked to find a source for a reinforced 5,800 infantry component for Allied 'legions', but I've not seen one either.

Mark wrote:
If you divide by 4 (2 Roman + 2 Allied) to get a figure per legion, then that figure lies between ~5,200 and ~5,600. Would that not account for the ~5,400 more "supported by the primary sources for this period"? However, they are using legions that accord completely with Polybius' detail and are no larger.

What can I say?

Well, I'll say that numbers are just numbers and can be rounded, averaged, distorted and/or not necessarily reported in the detail we'd like to see.

Mark wrote:
Livy's "The hastati of the legion, numbering 2000 men, were ordered to follow him at a distance of one mile"; is quite possibly an excellent example of something I have seriously wondered about when authors (not just ancient) quote figures. The hastati of a Polybian legion are in '20 centuries'. In casual passing many equate 'century' to 100. Perhaps that's all that Livy means and it would make perfect sense to advance the first line and they don't have to be any more than the 'standard' size of 1,200 hastati, 400 velites and 60 'officers' one might expect, organised in 20 centuries and that's in fact what Livy's original source says.

Thank you Mark for advancing our understanding of the Roman legion. Now we all know that when Livy mentions 2000 hastati Livy actually means 1200 hastati, 400 velites and 60 officers because as you have stated “that's in fact what Livy's original source says.”

Interesting, you don't like that and decide to disparage it so. I merely used that as an example of what I meant, but believe it can indeed, and probably did happen. Given he's one of the only good sources for Roman Army Organisational detail, I'm fairly sure that Josephus does this too. But having '20 centuries of the front line' taken forward being detailed as (20x100=) 2,000 men, I do not believe is an unreasonable, distinctly possible, interpretation.

Mark wrote:
Magnesia - Livy states legions of 5,000 men explicitly, which are again perfectly 'normal' for Polybius' expanded legions - 4,200 + 800. Where are the 5,400?

The translator as given by Rev. Canon Roberts as found on Bill Thayer’s excellent site reads: “The Roman army was practically uniform as regards both the men and their equipment; there were two Roman legions and two of Latins and allies, each containing 5000 men.”

However, the Perseus site and some other translations I’ve come across and had done for me read “There were two Roman legions and two of allies of the Latin confederacy; each consisted of five thousand four hundred men.”...............s

Here you are quite right and I thank you. I am sorry that I chose to detail myself without even thinking of checking the translation at the time; it is exactly that sort of critique that I would love to receive to query that little thesis of mine when ready - for I am simply unable to have sufficient time to review everything I would like.

From the numbers above, however, an average of 5,400 is still within the bounds when including the cavalry, but especially doesn't show the differing Roman vs Allied cavalry numbers. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Rev. Roberts knew that and thus chose to translate/interpret the way he did.

For indeed I have become quite comfortable in reviewing some of the numbers I have seen and knowing that a Polybian 4,000 infantry legion is actually 4,200 as he says (and he and Livy do that a fair bit), because the former ignores the officers. That when 10 additional centuries of troops are added it could be said to be 5,200, when in fact it's 5,000 and that a 5,000 strong legion can be described as 6,000, because it contains 60 centuries, or even larger when adding the hangers on. Nor, indeed, that after some hard fighting and the legion is at ~3,000 or even less perhaps. They can all be based upon the same original structure.

Now, I know full well that that doesn't fit your theory's basis and that will be the main difference between our views - and it will be an insurmountable one.

We both might still be wrong and we will never know who might be closer (if indeed) unless and when a Roman Army Manual is finally discovered!

[Michael J. Taylor]

Dear Steven:

I've been mulling over your criticisms (and I hope you do not think my last post was attempting to "blow you off", as your issues are perfectly cogent and legitimate). However, it occurs to me that for my argument at least---which I must is trying to tease out if gaps existed between the maniples---the results would be very similar if we use your reconstruction. Let us assume that there were 5400 strong legions as Cynoscephalae. This would require the Aetolian Levy to be smaller, only 600 infantry and cavalry. The result is that presumably the entiretly of the Roman left would have been manned by 1 legion and 1 alae, once the forward light infantry and a camp guard are subtracted.

That would mean that the legion and alas had to cover a front consisting of 8000 phalangites, 2000 peltasts, 1500 mercenaries and 2000 Illyrians, c. 950 meters, or about 475 meters a legion.

Now I there is the problem of how many hastati a 5400 man legion would have. Your suggestion of 1800 is perfectly plausible, although Polybius could also be interpreted to read that the 600 triarii remain constant and the remaining troops divided between the hastati, principles and the velites, which would give 1600 hastati in a legion (this is the formula I use in the article). Let us, however, use your suggestion of 1800 hastati.

If arrayed 3 deep in close order/6 deep in open order, these 1800 hastati would need 405 meters, leaving small gaps of about 7 meters. (This is assuming you accept my conclusions about the spacing and order of Roman soldiers).

If arrayed 4 deep in close order/8 deep in open order, these 1800 hastati would cover 305 meters, requiring larger gaps of about 17 meters in between maniples.

Thus I do think that my basic conclusion could survive both reconstructions of the order of battle on the Roman left at Cynoscephalae, namely that the Romans fought with small gaps between the maniples.

Best,

Michael

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
We both might still be wrong and we will never know who might be closer (if indeed) unless and when a Roman Army Manual is finally discovered!

Should such a discovery happen it will suffer the same fate as the primary sources. Academics will claim it is anachronistic, corrupt or unreliable because the Roman Army Manual does not conform to their theories.

Michael wrote:
I've been mulling over your criticisms (and I hope you do not think my last post was attempting to "blow you off", as your issues are perfectly cogent and legitimate).

No not for a second did I think that I was being flopped off (here I am avoiding using the term blown off as in Australia it has a very different meaning). The weakness I saw in your paper was making your calculations on 26,000 men when Plutarch specifically states over 26,000 men. It can be seen as a trivial matter to some but it will leave you vulnerable as I will show. Taking your premise the legion numbered in the 4000 man range, you deducted Plutarch’s 8400 foreign allies from 26,000 men and then divided the remaining 17,600 men by four to arrive at the figure of four legions each of 4400 men, of which this includes the cavalry. Therefore, if you are following the 4200 man legion as given by Polybius, your legion numbers 4200 infantry accompanied by 200 cavalry.

By following your theory of small legions and also by keeping within the guidelines of Plutarch, I can now make a counter claim against your 26,000 men by claiming the Roman army numbered over 26,000 men as stated by Plutarch. Here again, keeping with your theory of small legions, I propose each legion numbered 4000 men consisting of:

1000 velites
1200 hastati
1200 principes
600 triarii

The figure of 4000 men better accords with the 4000 men accompanied by 300 cavalry present at the Aous Pass. So with four legions at 4000 men plus the Plutarch’s 8400 foreign allies, the Roman army numbers 24,400 men. This still doesn’t appropriate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men. However by adding 600 Roman and 1200 allied cavalry, which amounts to 1800 men and is rounded to 2000 cavalry, the Roman army amounts to 26,400 men, which better appropriates to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men. All I am asking from the reader is to accept that the velites number 1000 men as opposed to the traditional view of 1200 men, and the legion numbers 4000 men as opposed to Polybius’4200 men. However, I can make a counter argument that Polybius also mentions legions of 4000 men.

The problem is whatever version employed, the 5400 man legion or the 4000 man legion, one version will conform to some references in the primary sources but fail to be reconciled with others. The key to the problem is the number of Aitolians. From memory isn’t there some dispute about the Aitolians being disgruntled about the rewards the Romans gave them for their contribution? And if my memory is not failing me, didn’t the Romans consider it insignificant? I’m not sure if I once read this or my mind is playing tricks.

Michael wrote:
Your suggestion of 1800 is perfectly plausible, although Polybius could also be interpreted to read that the 600 triarii remain constant and the remaining troops divided between the hastati, principles and the velites.

I’m following my research which has shown to me that the Romans can only increase two of the property classes and not three. If they chose the principes, and then chose the velites, the hastati cannot be increased. This is because the additional men, whether it is additional velites, hastati or principes are taken from the proletarii.

Michael wrote:
Thus I do think that my basic conclusion could survive both reconstructions of the order of battle on the Roman left at Cynoscephalae, namely that the Romans fought with small gaps between the maniples.

I am of the school that when they fought there were no gaps in the line. The gaps are only produced when in quincunx formation. What I like about Cynoscephalae is Philip’s right wing deployed after the Romans and this means Philip is conforming to the frontage of the Roman left wing. In this sector of the battle, I have each legion deployed five maniples wide. With a maniple deployed 20 men wide by 6 men deep, the two legions have a frontage of 200 men (100 men per legion). To match this frontage, Philip’s 8000 Macedonians are deployed 200 men wide by 40 men deep. As the depth of the phalanx is given in increments of 8 men deep (8 deep, 16 deep, 24 deep, 32 men deep), a depth of 40 men (8 x 5) conforms to this regulation.

At Cynoscephalae the Romans are creating depth by deploying the maniples in depth which is what Polybius describes for the Roman army at the battle of Bagradas (many maniples deep).

[Michael J. Taylor]

The Aetolians were indeed disgruntled, and the Romans did indeed find their claims infuriating (Polybius 18.34). Nonetheless, I doubt that the Aetolians would be in a position to make any claim at all if they had only brought 600 infantry (they would have been outnumbered by the Athamanians and the Cretans!). The most likely scenario in my opinion is that they brought a substantial number (i.e. Plutarch's 6000), but that these did not make a decisive contribution (although Polybius concedes their cavalry fought well).

Note other Aetolian levies: 6000 Aetolians recruited by Scopas to fight for Egypt (Livy 31.43), and 4000 Aetolians who joined Antiochus III at Themopylae (36.16). This seems a correct order of magnitude for the Aetolian infantry levy. Also, the difference between 6000 and 600 is pretty small in a manuscript, suggesting Livy's might simply be a Medieval copyists' error.

As to the depth of the Macedonians, I argue for 16, "doubled" from 8, although a depth of 32 would at least fit Polybius' verb (diplasiazo). It is unclear to me how Philip could double his forces to 40, given that 20 is not a known Macedonian formation. Polybius does imply the possibility of a phalanx 64 deep, however, and Alexander once deployed 120 (or 128?).

On the gaps between the maniples, it is notable that these were maintained at the very least right until the battle joined at Cynoscephalae.
δεξάμενος εἰς τὰ διαστήματα τῶν σημαιῶν τοὺς προκινδυνεύοντας, προσέβαλε τοῖς πολεμίοις
"receiving his vanguard throughout he gaps of the maniples, he fell upon the enemy."

If Flamininus felt compelled to close his gaps, Polybius gives him very little time to do so. Note that Philip does not receive his light forces through his line, but shunts them laterally to his flanks.

[antiochus]

Michael wrote:
The Aetolians were indeed disgruntled, and the Romans did indeed find their claims infuriating (Polybius 18.34). Nonetheless, I doubt that the Aetolians would be in a position to make any claim at all if they had only brought 600 infantry (they would have been outnumbered by the Athamanians and the Cretans!).

In total if they provided 1000 men, the Aetolians would be second next to the Athamanians who provided 1200 men.

Michael wrote:
The most likely scenario in my opinion is that they brought a substantial number (i.e. Plutarch's 6000), but that these did not make a decisive contribution (although Polybius concedes their cavalry fought well).

This is what makes this battle very difficult and it moves like a grandfather clock. The lack of a decisive contribution, especially by the Aitolian infantry swings the pendulum back to the smaller number.

Michael wrote:
Note other Aetolian levies: 6000 Aetolians recruited by Scopas to fight for Egypt (Livy 31.43), and 4000 Aetolians who joined Antiochus III at Themopylae (36.16). This seems a correct order of magnitude for the Aetolian infantry levy.

The pendulum now swings to the larger Aetolian infantry figure of 6000 men.

Michael wrote:
Also, the difference between 6000 and 600 is pretty small in a manuscript, suggesting Livy's might simply be a Medieval copyists' error.

Now this is the centre of the problem, is it Livy or Plutarch that is the copyist mistake? This can be a very circular debate. Therefore, it’s time to be a fence sitter.

Michael wrote:
It is unclear to me how Philip could double his forces to 40, given that 20 is not a known Macedonian formation.

You are missing the point. And I thought I made it clear. From what we know the Macedonian phalanx is given in increments of eight men deep. So it goes 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, etc. etc. Therefore, an 8000 man Macedonian phalanx can legitimately be deployed 40 ranks deep. This does not infer for one moment the phalanx’s normal deployment is 20 deep as 20 is not evenly divisible by eight. I am making the point that Philip’s phalanx was eight more men deeper than the normally accepted 32 ranks.

Michael wrote:
Polybius does imply the possibility of a phalanx 64 deep, however, and Alexander once deployed 120 (or 128?).

This is my point. All the numbers you give above are in increments of eight men deep, 64 equals 8 increments of 8 men deep, 120 equals 15 increments of 8 men deep, and 128 equals 16 increments of eight men deep. Therefore as I wrote in my previous post, 40 men deep equals five increments of eight men deep. Taking my premise a legion is deployed five maniples wide, with a maniple having a frontage of 20 men and a depth of six men, the hastati total 12 deep, the principes 12 deep, the triarii, 6 deep giving a total of 30 men deep. This should give the Romans a chance against a 40 deep formation.

Michael wrote:
On the gaps between the maniples, it is notable that these were maintained at the very least right until the battle joined at Cynoscephalae "receiving his vanguard throughout he gaps of the maniples, he fell upon the enemy." If Flamininus felt compelled to close his gaps, Polybius gives him very little time to do so.

Polybius is not specific about the time frame. All writers compress time to tell the story. We have no indication of the time that has elapsed between Flamininus’ vanguard passing through the gaps and when the Romans fell upon the enemy. Therefore, Polybius’ narrative style is not evidence nor should it be used as evidence that the Romans fought with gaps between the maniples.

Michael wrote:
Note that Philip does not receive his light forces through his line, but shunts them laterally to his flanks.

This does indicate Philip has a closed formation, but it does not tell us the Romans fought with gaps between the maniples.

[Mark Hygate]

................All I am asking from the reader is to accept that the velites number 1000 men as opposed to the traditional view of 1200 men, and the legion numbers 4000 men as opposed to Polybius’4200 men. However, I can make a counter argument that Polybius also mentions legions of 4000 men.............

Whilst we can leave (as I'm sure you'd like to and indeed it doesn't really belong here) legion sizes for another day (soon); I wanted to note my support for the above as indeed the re-interpretation of Polybius' figures was the start point for my unified organisation thesis early last year...

The figure of 1,000 velites and not the "traditional" 1,200 is indeed the most likely interpretation of Polybius as I hope to show - and will publish that element of my work shortly for critique. When Polybius (and Livy) use a legion of 4,000 they are simply quoting the infantry/soldier element; for the same legion can be stated as 4,200 strong when the 'officers' are added back in. Two numbers, same legion size and organisation.

Polybius next week or perhaps sooner....

PS - Note on property classes - the hastati & principes are the same troops, merely differentiated by organisation; the only 'difference' is whether some of them are assessed as having less property and thus do not have to turn up in lorica hamata; age and then numbers being the final determinant.

[ValentinianVictrix]

When Vegetius described the 'ancient legion' in his work is there not a thought that as he was using much earlier works for his Epitome then it is just possible his numbers could relate to the period in question in this thread just as easily as to the Diocletianic time frame?

[Mark Hygate]

When Vegetius described the 'ancient legion' in his work is there not a thought that as he was using much earlier works for his Epitome then it is just possible his numbers could relate to the period in question in this thread just as easily as to the Diocletianic time frame?

As part of my personal research, I have been attempting to re-read (several times in whole and parts) Vegetius with the others and am certainly convinced he has a copy of Polybius to hand.

I don't believe I am alone in questioning whether Vegetius legion is real at any period and, given the basis for the little theory I've put together, I think I may have a possible reason his legion is like it is. That reasoning suggests that it is not a real legion; it is one designed to be as large as practicable given his construct; builds on both manipular to later legions and accounts for 'Augustan reforms'; and adds some, by then, classic misinterpretations. It is, however, based upon sound principles. In context and as a standalone, it remains the work it always has been deemed to be, however.

[Michael J. Taylor]

The paper is now available on my academia page.

https://www.academia.edu/1602947/Roman_I...assessment

No downloadable PDF, but click the "ingentraconnect" link. Let me know if it does not work.

Best,

Michael