Login

08-08-2001, 08:20 PM

Greetings, 
 
I'm curious about a few things and thought I might find some help for them here. The composition of roman formations is puzzling to me (probably because I started out with Vegetius). 
 
In Book II, Sections 15, 16, 17 Vegetius seems to be describing four lines with an unknown number of ranks an files: 
The first five cohorts (whom he terms the "principes" and the cavalry on the wings form the first line. 
The second five cohorts (whom he terms the "hastatii") form the second line. 
The light troops "exculcatores, armaturae and scutati" form the third line. 
And the triarii form the fourth line. 
 
In Book III, Section 14 Vegetius has altered the lines by dividing the light troops into two categories and adding another line of slingers: 
The "principes" form the first line. 
The "hastatii" form the second line. 
Light infantry, archers, and javelin-throwers form the third line. 
Very light infantry, archers, light javelin-throwers and dart (plumbatae) throwers form the fourth line. 
Slingers (hand and staff) and crossbowmen form the fifth line. 
The triarii form the sixth line. 
 
How many ranks and files would these formations likely contain (best guess for whatever time periods you care to choose)? 
By the time we get to the Byzantine armies this line concept has been transferred to the ranks. The Strategikon and other Byzantine military treatises specify a similar breakdown except now the lines have become ranks. So the first rank is heavily armoured and equipped for hand to hand combat. The second rank is heavily armored and fighting with spears. Armored archers and javelin throwers make up the next rank. The interior ranks are composed of the lightly armored with distance weapons (right down to new recruits throwing rocks) and the last rank is composed of heavily armored veterans armed for hand to hand combat. This led me to wonder if the Romans, proper, had ever used this type of composition in their formations?

***Praefectusclassis*** · 08-09-2001, 05:50 AM

Hi Jjordan! 
This would typically be a question Sander would answer, and I bet he'll add something when he gets back into the information age, but I'll give it a try here. 
As you already say, Vegetius is not the clearest source for the formation of the Roman Army. The trouble with him is that he picks fragments of earlier and recent practice, weapons and troop-types and mixes them together into a store he likes. For instance: the names of the soldiers in the line (Principes, hastati, triarii and light-armed or velites), he seems to have read in Polybius VI.21-24, but cohorts didn't exist then. Then again, plumbatae are (for him) very recent. 
 
In the Polybian system, the velites would hold a skirmishing line in front of the legion and would withdraw when attacked by heavy infantry. The first line of heavy infantry was formed by the centuries of hastati, the second by the principes (maybe Vegetius was confused by the terminology) and the last line by the triarii. This difference disappears in the Imperial legions, when the formation would be determined by the seniority of the cohort (which is a very late Republican innovation). Vegetius describes this too: 1st cohort right flank, first line, the second next to it etc. 
 
But exactly how the legion would be formed depended on the situation, lay of the land, disposition of the enemy, etc. The legion could be formed up in two lines of five cohorts, three in 4-3-3 etc. 
The number of ranks and files would again have been flexible. Within the basic legionary units, century and maniple/cohort, it would be up to the commanding officer to decide about with and depth of the legion's frontage. On a wide front a century could be formed in 10 lines of 8 man, or deeper: 8 and 10. But of course many more options were possible. 
 
I hope this somewhat answers your question! 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 8/9/01 7:55:45 am

08-12-2001, 08:49 AM

Battle formation depth 
 
There are varying depths recorded of battle lines. In Josephus battle lines of three men deep or three deep with an extra line of archers are recorded. His marching orders are six men wide and this probably represented the depth of a unit's battle line. Arrianus has a battle line of four ranks of kontophoroi, legionary heavy infantrymen probably armed with the pilum, and four ranks of lonchophoroi, legionary heavy infantrymen armed with a light javelin, with an added ninth rank of archers. His marching order is four men deep. There is a single instance of a battle line ten men deep, involving a recently formed legion and probably reflecting the lack of experience of the troops as well as the full strength of a newly formed unit. The Byzantine era handbook of Mauricius (late 6th century CE) contains formations of sixteen, eight and four men deep with either fou, two or one ranks of light troops attached to the ranks of heavy infantry. However it is unsure to what extent one can use this later source for the Roman army of previous centuries. While part of the material has close parallels with earlier sources, other parts are markedly different from what is known for earlier periods. 
 
Thus there are predominantly records for lines either three and six or four and eight men deep with at times extra ranks of differently armed soldiers. Whether this was a result of a different organisation or simply caused by varying strengths of formations is unsure. Deeper formations can be a token of either the low morale of units, a marching order for faster manoeuvre (less files to be kept abreast) or special precaution against cavalry attack. Shallower lines are possibly units having moved up the files to a close order formation before contact in infantry fighting. The latter could explain the difference in width allowed per file (6 vs 3 feet) in the battle orders of Polybius and Vegetius. Such a manoeuvre is described in the hanbook of Mauricius. 
 
Arrianus, Ektaxis 4 (four abreast); 5 (idem); 6 (idem); 15 (eight deep); 16-18 (four heavy kontophoroi, four heavy lonchophoroi, one archers). 
Frontinus, Strategemata 2.3.22. 
Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 2.156 (three deep); 5.135 (three deep plus fourth rank of archers); 3.124 (marching order six abreast); 5.48 (idem). 
Mauricius, Strategikon, 8.7 (sixteen plus four, eight plus two, four plus one). 
Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 3.15 (depth of ten, six or three). 
Goldsworthy, Roman army at war, 176-183. 
 
 
Composite battle line 
 
The description of the battle lines in Vegetius has been interpreted by modern scholars as representing perhaps the makeup of a single battle line with ranks of differently armed men. Such a composite battle formation has both earlier and later parallels in the Roman army. The most clear indication for such a formation is in Arrian's Ektaxis with its nine ranks of troops armed with three different primary weapons. While this may have been inspired by descriptions of such a formation in Xenophoon's Cyropaedia or by experiments in the army of Alexander the Great's last years, the mention of a heavy infantry battle line with an extra rank of archers incorporated in Josephus may serve to caution the interpretation of Arrian's tactics as particularly innovative. Mauricius provides the clearest description of the composite battle line with differently equipped soldiers in the various ranks of the same formation, the light troops either stationed at the rear of the heavy troops or forming alternating ranks. 
 
Arrianus, Anabasis, 7.23.3-4. 
 
 
Relevant books 
 
Dennis, G.T., Maurice's Strategikon. handbook of Byzantine military strategy ( Philadelphia 1984)178p. 
Goldsworthy, A.K., The Roman army at war 100 BC-200AD (Oxford 1996) 311p. 
Milner, N.P., Vegetius: epitome of military science (Liverpool 1993) 152p. 
 
 
Regards, 
 
 
Sander van Dorst

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me