08-10-2015, 02:27 PM
Nice dodge, please address this:
Polybius wrote:
The hastati first, with an interval between their maniples; behind them the principes, their maniples [i]not arranged to cover the intervals between those of the hastati as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance,[/i]
(Hist 15.9)
This source provides the evidence that it was Roman custom to stagger the maniples, with unit sized intervals between them. So that answers the question about whether the quincunx was used. Polybius says it was the Roman custom.
The next issue is whether these intervals were closed in battle or left open. The answer to that is comes in the form of battle descriptions of the Battles of the Muthul River (intervals weren't closed, they were filled with skirmishers), at Chaeronea, and Pompey's battle against Oroeses, where gaps were left open to trap cavalry and chariots (neither of which have to worry about the integrity of their own line, BTW). So at least sometimes, the intervals were purposely left open.
Lastly, there is the question about how easy it would be to frontally exploit a gap in a Roman line using heavy line infantry types. This unfortunately isn't discussed much by the ancient sources that focus on the Roman Republican period, not in relation to the quincunx formation and enemy line infantry. But as I've stated numerous times, the other sides, even the "barbarians" also took great pains to maintain the integrity of their own line, so they couldn't just charge into every open gap they saw, especially when doing so didn't even mean they could exploit the interval.
The type of evidence some people seek isn't available, so this part of the debate will remain forever questionable. But myself and other far knowledgeable persons, like Ross Cowan, Adrian Goldsworthy, and Michael Taylor have all provided evidence that suggest the Romans did use intervals between maniples and that it wasn't suicidal to do so, nor was it the only way in which they knew how to deploy their forces. I tried to explain with pretty simple drawings that if a sold like tries to break into the gaps, their integrity suffers, while the Romans don't, because nothing changes for them, and they have a 2nd and 3rd line to save them, while the solid phalanx has only one line, in great depth.
Commander's discretion means some traditional formations don't mean anything, the forces form up as he wants them to. For example, tactics will differ when Romans are fighting Gauls, who are known for the ferocity of their infantry charges and the abilities of their heavy cavalry, versus fighting a very systematic culture like the Hellenistic Successor kingdoms, versus a fast skirmishing forces like the Numidians or Lusitanians. Triplex Acies with intervals is not the only formation possible or used by the Romans, they were only really limited by the education of their commanders and the skills of the soldiers, and their arms, which can and often do dictate tactics.
Its not a given that Romans fought with intervals, but the sources do flatly state they were kept open sometimes, that it was Roman custom to have a quincunx formation, and that the Romans concept of integrity of the line differed greatly from the period Greeks' conception.
Polybius wrote:
The hastati first, with an interval between their maniples; behind them the principes, their maniples [i]not arranged to cover the intervals between those of the hastati as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance,[/i]
(Hist 15.9)
This source provides the evidence that it was Roman custom to stagger the maniples, with unit sized intervals between them. So that answers the question about whether the quincunx was used. Polybius says it was the Roman custom.
The next issue is whether these intervals were closed in battle or left open. The answer to that is comes in the form of battle descriptions of the Battles of the Muthul River (intervals weren't closed, they were filled with skirmishers), at Chaeronea, and Pompey's battle against Oroeses, where gaps were left open to trap cavalry and chariots (neither of which have to worry about the integrity of their own line, BTW). So at least sometimes, the intervals were purposely left open.
Lastly, there is the question about how easy it would be to frontally exploit a gap in a Roman line using heavy line infantry types. This unfortunately isn't discussed much by the ancient sources that focus on the Roman Republican period, not in relation to the quincunx formation and enemy line infantry. But as I've stated numerous times, the other sides, even the "barbarians" also took great pains to maintain the integrity of their own line, so they couldn't just charge into every open gap they saw, especially when doing so didn't even mean they could exploit the interval.
The type of evidence some people seek isn't available, so this part of the debate will remain forever questionable. But myself and other far knowledgeable persons, like Ross Cowan, Adrian Goldsworthy, and Michael Taylor have all provided evidence that suggest the Romans did use intervals between maniples and that it wasn't suicidal to do so, nor was it the only way in which they knew how to deploy their forces. I tried to explain with pretty simple drawings that if a sold like tries to break into the gaps, their integrity suffers, while the Romans don't, because nothing changes for them, and they have a 2nd and 3rd line to save them, while the solid phalanx has only one line, in great depth.
Commander's discretion means some traditional formations don't mean anything, the forces form up as he wants them to. For example, tactics will differ when Romans are fighting Gauls, who are known for the ferocity of their infantry charges and the abilities of their heavy cavalry, versus fighting a very systematic culture like the Hellenistic Successor kingdoms, versus a fast skirmishing forces like the Numidians or Lusitanians. Triplex Acies with intervals is not the only formation possible or used by the Romans, they were only really limited by the education of their commanders and the skills of the soldiers, and their arms, which can and often do dictate tactics.
Its not a given that Romans fought with intervals, but the sources do flatly state they were kept open sometimes, that it was Roman custom to have a quincunx formation, and that the Romans concept of integrity of the line differed greatly from the period Greeks' conception.
