Acies quadrata

[Flavivs Aetivs]

thinking of Agmen, what is the exact translation of "agmina?"

[Cesco]

Something like: (marching) columns; (marching) armies


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agmen

It could be interesting to know the etymology of this word, and why it was used to indicate only a marching army...

[Diocle]

The most common of my Latin Dictionaries (Castiglione Mariotti) suggests the derivation from 'ago, is, egi, actum, agere' with the meaning of 'pushing on, advancing, wind on, leading, etc. etc.'

[ValentinianVictrix]

I can see where your coming from in your Post Francis but when Ammianus describes marching in 'square formation' he invariably calls the formation 'globis' or something similar.

I'm not against the idea of Acies Quadrata meaning a four-sided formation, but it could equally relate to the four lines of infantry a formation is made up of i.e. Princepts, Hastati, Triarii and Ferentarii

[Cesco]

I can see where your coming from in your Post Francis but when Ammianus describes marching in 'square formation' he invariably calls the formation 'globis' or something similar.

I'm not against the idea of Acies Quadrata meaning a four-sided formation, but it could equally relate to the four lines of infantry a formation is made up of i.e. Princepts, Hastati, Triarii and Ferentarii

Yes the word "acies" is a bit generic and literally the interpretation you gave is correct. Anyway in that pace Vegetius is describing a small formation's drill, so i don' t think he' s reffering to four acies.

To be sure to explain my idea properly: I don't think acies quadrtata means four-sided formation, but a formation whose ranks are cubed: for example, a formation four ranks deep becomes a sixteen ranks deep formation...

I just found this translation, but it is from 1776(!) and maybe it isn't very reliable, but the autor gives the same interpretation (paragraph "evolution")
http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/

[Renatus]

I can see where your coming from in your Post Francis but when Ammianus describes marching in 'square formation' he invariably calls the formation 'globis' or something similar.

I think that I am with Francis, Adrian and Francesco on this, up to a point. Vegetius seems to be describing a training manoeuvre whereby the recruits are taken through the stages of a battle. First, the unit forms up as if on the battlefield. The lines are doubled and doubled again to receive the enemy's attack. Then the unit forms itself into a wedge to attack the enemy's line. Finally, in case the battle goes against them, the recruits are taught to form a defensive circle. I think that Milner is wrong to equate quadrata acies with agmen quadratum. The former is a battlefield formation; the latter is a column of march.

[ValentinianVictrix]

There is an interesting aspect to this topic which we are all touching on but in some ways skirting around.

Most of the Roman histories that talk about battles describe the Romans fighting in 'acies'- lines. Vegetius admitted obtaining much of his information from existing manuals, most of which now no longer exist. His description of how a single legion formed up has it divided into what is in effect four lines of troops. The first line was made up of the Princeps, the second the Hastati, the third the Triarii and then the Ferentarii. Actually the Ferentarii are described as forming the front rank and then they retire behind the other three lines to form the rear line from where they provided overhead missile fire and then were the troops tasked with pursuing the enemy if they broke off from combat.

This formation would be followed by all the legions and auxilliary units on the battlefield and if you were able to fly above the battlefield you would see the whole Roman infantry force deployed in four lines. However, by the time Ammianus wrote his history we can infer that the lines were no longer made up of sections of each legion or auxilia unit but were in fact made up of units fighting as a whole group. So, a front line would be composed of legion and auxilia units and another line behind would be formed of more legionary and auxila units. This could lend some weight to the theory that Late Roman infantry units were smaller than their counterparts from before Diocletian and Constatine's reorganisations.

In all of the above examples the cavalry were usually deployed either side of the infantry formation but unfortunately I'm not too sure if they too would have been deployed in lines or not?

[Longovicium]

Not true,alas.

I quote XXIX, 5, 39 of Ammianus' work: he is describing in detail the campaign of Theodosius against Firmus and I quote the following from that section:

39 Quamquam igitur inmite quiddam barbaricis concrepantibus armis manipuli furentium inminebant, ipsi quoque parmas genibus inlidentes: tamen ut pugnator ille cautus et prudens, militis paucitate diffisus, audacter agmine quadrato incedens, ad civitatem nomine Contensem flexit iter intrepidus, ubi captivos nostros Firmus ut in munimento abstruso locarat et celso: cunctisque receptis in proditores satellitesque memorati animadvertit acriter, ut solebat.

Which, in Rolfe's Loeb translation (page 271), is as follows:

. . . nevertheless, like a careful and discreet warrior, though distrusting the small number of his men, he formed a hollow square (the agmine quadrato mentioned above) and then advanced boldly . . .

To be honest, I can't see Vegetius mentioning a quadratum unless it was specifically different in formation from the formations preceding and following it - the line, the doubled line (and all its multiplications), the square and the circle or orbis. The square is a specifically tactical formation different from the orbis or circle in that it is an offensive mobile posture used against larger forces which have encircled you (as above) whereas the orbis is a static one used once the acies is broken or disordered in battle - or at least, that is my reading of it via Vegetius and Ammianus!

[Cesco]

To be honest, I can't see Vegetius mentioning a quadratum unless it was specifically different in formation from the formations preceding and following it - the line, the doubled line (and all its multiplications), the square and the circle or orbis. The square is a specifically tactical formation different from the orbis or circle in that it is an offensive mobile posture used against larger forces which have encircled you (as above) whereas the orbis is a static one used once the acies is broken or disordered in battle - or at least, that is my reading of it via Vegetius and Ammianus!

I get what you mean, and this is a good point: substantially doubling a simple line or cubing a doubled line was the same thing...Anyway, as I said before, there is a passage in Maurice's Stratecikon in which is described a pretty similar manouvre.

[Renatus]

I quote XXIX, 5, 39 of Ammianus' work: he is describing in detail the campaign of Theodosius against Firmus and I quote the following from that section:

39 Quamquam igitur inmite quiddam barbaricis concrepantibus armis manipuli furentium inminebant, ipsi quoque parmas genibus inlidentes: tamen ut pugnator ille cautus et prudens, militis paucitate diffisus, audacter agmine quadrato incedens, ad civitatem nomine Contensem flexit iter intrepidus, ubi captivos nostros Firmus ut in munimento abstruso locarat et celso: cunctisque receptis in proditores satellitesque memorati animadvertit acriter, ut solebat.

Which, in Rolfe's Loeb translation (page 271), is as follows:

. . . nevertheless, like a careful and discreet warrior, though distrusting the small number of his men, he formed a hollow square (the agmine quadrato mentioned above) and then advanced boldly . . .

I think that you have to give Rolfe's translation of the whole section to get the flavour of what Ammianus is saying:

39. Then, although the bands of raging savages, blaring some ferocious tune on their barbaric trumpets and also clashing their bucklers against their knees, were close upon him, nevertheless, like a careful and discreet warrior, though distrusting the small number of his men, he formed a hollow square and advanced boldly. Then he fearlessly turned aside to a city called Conta, where Firmus, since it was a concealed and lofty fortress, had placed those of our men whom he had captured. But Theodosius recovered them all, and severely punished the traitors and the attendants of Firmus, as was his custom.

This appears to describe Theodosius' column of march to Conta, not a battlefield engagement. Thus, I repeat my view that agmen and acies are to be distinguished.

[Renatus]

Following from the last sentence of my previous post, Livy draws the same distinction (25. 34. 9):

Agmina magis quam acies pugnant.

'It was a battle of columns rather than lines.' (Loeb translation)

Literally, 'Columns fought rather than lines.'

[Diocle]

IMO we are moving toward the Napoleonic attack columns (or maybe also the Ordre mixte, the Emperour was an interested reader of Livy and Vegetius).

This is the description of the 'cuneus' by Simon Macdowall, IMO it's highly belivable and accurate:

"... The real form of the 'cuneus' can be found elsewhere. Tacitus' in his Histories, describes the formation as[b] 'closely compressed on all sides and secure in the front, rear and flank'. [/b] The Strategicon gives a similar description saying that the Germans attack in a formation that is 'even and dense'.
This would indicate an 'attack column' .... Taking a 400-men Auxilia unit as an example, it might form a cuneus 16 men deep with a frontage of 25 men. Once the men in the column launched a charge, the neat alignment of the ranks and files would naturally be lost and the men in the centre, feeling more secure, would surge forward, while those to the flanks might hang back. Just prior to contact, there fore, the 'cuneus' could well have had a wedge-like appearance.
Both Vegetius and the Strategikon reccomend that reserve units be deployed in 'cuneus'. This makes sense if we accept that the formation was an attack column. Having a narrower frontage, it would be more manoevrable than a battle line and the depth of the column would give it the punch needed to break through an enemy formation or plug a gap in the line."

In my opinion the wole passage of Simon Macdowell is absolutely convincing, the most interesting part is the quote of Tacitus, even if I still need to find it in the Historiae (I need to search better ... any help would be highly appreciated, at least the chapter .... )

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hold on I know a place to find Tacitus:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html

There is also:

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.html

[Mark Hygate]

....................................'DRAWING UP A LEGION IN ORDER OF BATTLE ..................................

Is it just me, or is that (otherwise completely accurate quote from Vegetius) not pretty indicative of:

- He has a copy of Polybius in one hand, probably with Livy (already only partial?)
- A basic understanding of the Later Republican-Imperial Cohort-based legion
- Some idea of changes in weapons, armour and naming 100's of years later
- And not much idea at all about actual tactics beyond what he has read

For Vegetius really comes across as an arm-chair academic. A lot of what he writes seems awfully confused to me; although that doesn't mean it's not valuable in its entirety and there are some great snippets.

But it might just be me! Principes before hastati? I think he interprets the word and doesn't know the provenance.

[Diocle]

Hold on I know a place to find Tacitus:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html

There is also:

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.html

Thanks Evan, but for the 'cuneus' we need the Histories by Tacitus, instead actually your links are for 'Germania' and 'Annales' (wonderful readings).

I've the Historiae but it's not easy to find the precise passage quoted by Colonel Macdowell .... not knowing the chapter ... a digitalized internet verison in this case would be more useful than the paper books because we would need only to clic on the word 'Cuneus' and the place in which Tacitus talks of the formation would magiaclly pop up ... :whistle: