frontage of a consular army

[Justin Swanton]

Firstly, I would re-emphasise a point I made several years ago now - that the 'open order' concept that Polybius seems to imply is, frankly, not practicable for the actual combat phase.  That believing that a Roman century 10-men wide in open order (each man with a 3ft gap between them - side-to-side and front-to-back) facing 20 close order 5-deep (the pikes that show forward, with the first 5 ranks ranks leaning forward, before they start to carry the pike almost vertically) could possibly resist the pike-phalanx - or even just a similar hoplite array (which stood equally shoulder-to-shoulder), is, I'm afraid, pretty non-sensical.  I have therefore become convinced that what Polybius describes was not the case for the actual combat phase when a closer order was necessary.

A closer look at Polybius makes clear IMHO that he wasn't talking about open order at all for the legionaries. Let me quote from my book (quicker to copy and paste):

A typical file had about three feet between the centre point of each man of the file which allowed the front man a certain amount of give when fighting his opponent:

Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man – because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing – it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. – Polybios, Histories: 18.30

Note that Polybios’ three feet is measured from the centre point of a legionary to the centre point of each legionary beside him and the legionary behind him, which gives the spacing shown in Diagram 2.



Diagram 2: Polybios’ legionary deployment.

It is often assumed that Polybios’s legionaries each occupied a width of 6 feet since he affirms that one legionary faced two phalangites in battle and each phalangite occupied a space of 3 feet. This however arises from a misunderstanding of Histories: 18.29 which is commonly rendered as follows:

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close
order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear

And then a little later:

The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx.

So three feet plus three feet equals six feet. The phrase ‘three feet of space’ is interpreted as three feet of width, which means that for Polybios a close-order phalanx corresponds to the intermediate order of the tacticians, clearly a contradiction.

But what exactly is Polybios saying? The phrase ‘space of three feet’ translates the Greek: ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ – en trisi posi – literally ‘in three feet’. What do the three feet refer to? The answer lies in the passage that follows this phrase. After establishing the three feet distance, Polybios goes on to do some maths. A sarissa is 14 cubits (21 feet) long – a cubit being about 1½ feet. Of the 14 cubits, only 10 project in front of the phalangite’s grip. This allows one to calculate how many ranks would have their sarissa project past the front rank. The answer is 5 ranks, with the sarissa of the 5th rank projecting 2 cubits past the front rank men.

But something is missing from the equation: the distance between each rank. Without that factor it is impossible to calculate how many ranks can bring their sarissas to bear beyond the front of the phalanx. Polybios gives that distance. Where? When he states that a phalangite in close order occupied three feet (or 2 cubits), that is, three feet of depth. With that figure the maths is easy: 10 cubits minus 2 cubits (4th rank) minus 2 cubits (3rd rank) minus 2 cubits (2nd rank) minus 2 cubits (front rank) = 2 cubits of sarissa projecting ahead. Polybios indicates the width occupied by the phalangite file when he mentions that the phalanx is in ‘close order’. Each file of a close order phalanx occupies a frontage of one cubit, or about 1½ feet, as described by the tacticians. Hence a Roman soldier occupying a space three feet wide will face two phalangites in close order and ten sarissa-points along with them.

Does Polybios affirm that Roman soldiers occupied a frontage six feet wide? To reproduce the passage from Livy quoted above:

Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man – because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing – it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. – Histories: 18.30

The phrase ‘a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet’ translates the Greek: ἵστανται μὲν οὖν ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι – istantai men oun en trisi posi meta ton hoplon kai Romaioi.

Word for word: ‘they stand so then in three feet with arms also the Romans’. Or in better English: ‘So the Romans also occupy three feet when in arms.’ The ‘also’ refers back to the three feet of depth occupied by the phalangites, hence the meaning is that Romans ranks, like phalangite ranks, are three feet apart.

‘It is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear’ translates the Greek: προφανὲς ὅτι χάλασμα καὶ διάστασιν ἀλλήλων ἔχειν δεήσει τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐλάχιστον τρεῖς πόδας κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτην καὶ κατὰ παραστάτην, – prophanes hoti chalasma kai diastasin allelon echein deesei tous andras elachiston treis podas kat’ epistaten kai kata parastaten.

Literally: ‘Clear that looseness [i.e. not to be too tightly packed] and standing-apartness from each other need to have the men at least three feet in respect of those behind and those on the side.’ In better English: ‘Clearly the men need to be loosely arrayed and have space between each other – at least three feet to the men behind and the men on either side.’

One measures the three feet from which point to which point? There can be only two points that apply in all cases: from the midpoint of one file to the midpoint of an adjacent file, or from the midpoint of a rank to the midpoint of the rank behind it. This means in fact that each man occupies a space measuring three by three feet.

[Mark Hygate]

........, which gives the spacing shown in Diagram 2. ......................
.............This means in fact that each man occupies a space measuring three by three feet.

Thank you Justin, that was most informative and I bow to your ability to read in the original - the one skill I don't possess!

I almost completely agree with your interpretation, except in a couple of areas...

The diagram is, I believe, perfectly laid out - except that I have become convinced that the Romans us one pace (2.5ft) rather than 3ft.  Polybius own experience as a Greek soldier leads him to believe it's 3 feet and, unless he chose to ask for accuracy, he probably never questioned it.

The issue of depth is more interesting, particularly when it comes to formations, moving and the actual contact stage.  The 2.5ft/3ft space is sufficient for the small discreet movements needed just before combat, but more, perhaps most likely doubled (another reason I prefer the pace after many years marching and teaching it) is needed for general and tactical movement.

However, for the actual contact (using indeed a Pike-armed syntagma facing a Roman maniple) then I do not believe measured depth is a necessary idea.  For to both provide the phalanx's inertia that the Roman's are trying to resist (before then 'manipulating' their formation(s) to break up the enemy line); you need the following ranks to press up hard against the front.  In the Pike phalanx it's the following 4 rows, all leaning forward with their pike heads protruding (exactly as described) - the final, up to, 11 ranks are all busy holding their pikes up.  The Romans use 6 ranks total.  Anything above the 6th rank couldn't contribute much due to diminishing returns.  6 ranks is just enough.  On perfectly level ground it often doesn't seem to be enough, but any ground conditions that can disrupt the phalanx's forward progession make it more likely.

For this condition is another reason I think the one-pace is used; for I see the Roman shields being side-by-side trying to prevent any gaps, with each man hunched inside the curve covered from eyes to shin and pressing the whole left-hand side of his body into the effort.  Which is, indeed, the reason the sword is carried on the right!  For if it was trapped inside the shield it couldn't be drawn; and for the initail phase of such a contact it's the shield that is the weapon - until such time as the enemy line is broken - the entire raison d'etre of the Roman tactics.

[Justin Swanton]

Thank you Justin, that was most informative and I bow to your ability to read in the original - the one skill I don't possess!

Thanks Mark. I came to the conclusion long ago that if you want to do serious history you have to read the texts in the original language. The number of spectacular pigs' breakfasts I have seen mistranslations make of crucial texts just keeps growing the more I go along. I'm better at Latin than Greek but I can pick my way through the latter with the help of Perseus.

The diagram is, I believe, perfectly laid out - except that I have become convinced that the Romans us one pace (2.5ft) rather than 3ft.  Polybius own experience as a Greek soldier leads him to believe it's 3 feet and, unless he chose to ask for accuracy, he probably never questioned it.

It doesn't really matter as the actual spacings on a real battlefield would have varied a bit. The legionary needed a lateral space a little wider than his shield as part of his fighting technique involved making lightning strikes past the side of his shield as well as over the top of it and, unlike the hoplite or phalangite, he had to be able to move freely backwards and forwards, which meant his shield couldn't bang against those of his neighbours. To quote Vegetius:

Every soldier, therefore, fixed a post firmly in the ground, about the height of six feet. Against this, as against a real enemy, the recruit was exercised with the above mentioned arms, as it were with the common shield and sword, sometimes aiming at the head or face, sometimes at the sides, at others endeavouring to strike at the thighs or legs. He was instructed in what manner to advance and retire, and in short how to take every advantage of his adversary - De Re Militari: 1

The issue of depth is more interesting, particularly when it comes to formations, moving and the actual contact stage.  The 2.5ft/3ft space is sufficient for the small discreet movements needed just before combat, but more, perhaps most likely doubled (another reason I prefer the pace after many years marching and teaching it) is needed for general and tactical movement.

Sure. Open order in depth would have been used for marching as a soldier needs at least about 4 feet of depth when advancing at anything faster than a crawl. Open order for width could also be used but I don't think it was essential unless you're talking about a day march where the enemy were not in close proximity. The tacticians go into some depth describing battle columns that were created when the enemy was near and could be converted instantly into lines by the subunits (always square-shaped by the way) wheeling right or left. Those columns were necessarily in intermediate order (2 cubits per file and rank).

However, for the actual contact (using indeed a Pike-armed syntagma facing a Roman maniple) then I do not believe measured depth is a necessary idea.  For to both provide the phalanx's inertia that the Roman's are trying to resist (before then 'manipulating' their formation(s) to break up the enemy line); you need the following ranks to press up hard against the front.  In the Pike phalanx it's the following 4 rows, all leaning forward with their pike heads protruding (exactly as described) - the final, up to, 11 ranks are all busy holding their pikes up.  The Romans use 6 ranks total.  Anything above the 6th rank couldn't contribute much due to diminishing returns.  6 ranks is just enough.  On perfectly level ground it often doesn't seem to be enough, but any ground conditions that can disrupt the phalanx's forward progession make it more likely.

Absolutely yes about the pike phalanx. It surprised me that no-one I know ever picked up on the fact that the pike phalanx practised othismos, with the rear ranks pressing against the ranks in front and transmitting the pressure via the pikes to the enemy - pikes were generally jammed into enemy shields. The tacticians all describe this clearly. Phalangite shields, like hoplite shields, were concave, allowing the phalangites to breathe under the pressure since the top edge of the shield rested against their sternum whilst the bottom edge rested against their pelvis, leaving them free to breathe. Without their shields they would have been asphyxiated by the pressure.

The Roman shield, however, was not configured for othismos and I don't think legionaries ever attempted it. Confronted with a pike phalanx the legion had no option but to fall back as it did at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, only winning the battle when the phalanx was outflanked. In a straight frontal fight in good terrain against a phalanx the legion wouldn't stand a chance and there is no case of it winning in those circumstances.

For this condition is another reason I think the one-pace is used; for I see the Roman shields being side-by-side trying to prevent any gaps, with each man hunched inside the curve covered from eyes to shin and pressing the whole left-hand side of his body into the effort.

That doesn't work. Bardunias tried it in Greece with reenactors and all that happened was that the reenactors were crushed into a forward-facing position. Fortunately their aspides allowed them to keep breathing. Legionaries would likewise find themselves facing forward and would then have had the life squeezed out of them.

[Justin Swanton]

Returning to the subject of the thread:

In Polybius' legion there are 1,200 velites, 1,200 hastati, 1,200 principes and 600 triarii, with 10 maniples per line (except the velites that aren't organised into separate maniples).

Each maniple of the hastati and principes consists of 120 men whilst that of the triarii has 60 men. Deploying the hastati and principes 20 men wide and 6 deep and the triarii 3 deep enables the velites to deploy 20 wide and 6 deep, and subsequently reinforce each maniple of the hastati, principes and triarii with an additional two ranks, making the hastati and principes lines an optimal 8 ranks deep and the triarii 5 ranks deep. The legion will be about 200 yards wide (at one yard per file) and the 4-legion infantry of a manipular army about 800 yards wide.

What is interesting here are the velites. They form the front line of skirmishers but are also equipped for melee combat. They are not organised into their own maniples but are co-opted to the maniples of the hastati, principes and triarii. This suggests that after initial skirmishing they withdrew, one-third to each of the lines, to augment them, probably forming the rear ranks. This dual role was originally performed separately by the 900 rorarii and 300 leves of the earlier legion, the leves skirmishing and the rorarii augmenting the lines, which suggests these two lines were combined into one – the beginning of a process of simplification of the legion’s troop types that eventually culminated in the all-purpose Marian legionary.

[Mark Hygate]

...................

In Polybius' legion there are 1,200 velites, 1,200 hastati, 1,200 principes and 600 triarii, with 10 maniples per line (except the velites that aren't organised into separate maniples).

Each maniple of the hastati and principes consists of 120 men whilst that of the triarii has 60 men. Deploying the hastati and principes 20 men wide and 6 deep and the triarii 3 deep enables the velites to deploy 20 wide and 6 deep, and subsequently reinforce each maniple of the hastati, principes and triarii with an additional two ranks, making the hastati and principes lines an optimal 8 ranks deep and the triarii 5 ranks deep. The legion will be about 200 yards wide (at one yard per file) and the 4-legion infantry of a manipular army about 800 yards wide.

What is interesting here are the velites. They form the front line of skirmishers but are also equipped for melee combat. They are not organised into their own maniples but are co-opted to the maniples of the hastati, principes and triarii. This suggests that after initial skirmishing they withdrew, one-third to each of the lines, to augment them, probably forming the rear ranks. This dual role was originally performed separately by the 900 rorarii and 300 leves of the earlier legion, the leves skirmishing and the rorarii augmenting the lines, which suggests these two lines were combined into one – the beginning of a process of simplification of the legion’s troop types that eventually culminated in the all-purpose Marian legionary.

Ah ha - I've now been arguing this for some time now.....for Polybius specifically does not say there are 1,200 Velites - I am strongly of the interpretation that there are 1,000 of them - and this means there are exactly 1/3 the numbers of Light Infantry as Heavy.  They form, most likely, the 7th & 8th members of each contubernium.  And, of course, I'll still be plumping for 500ft per legion.

But what I am indeed surprised about is how you think they are equpped for melee combat - for with: no armour; a small shield probably only used to catch incoming missiles; and possibly just a dagger, they certainly don't seem to be.  I suggest it's much more likely that, after their skirmishing role is over they are most probably employed finishing off the wounded enemy that have been walked over and/or dealing with the wounded and removing them from the battle line.

As for the Marian Legion - are you forgetting the 'lighter troops' (cf Caesar)?

[Now, as to your earlier post - I'm going to have to prepare a lot more!]

[Justin Swanton]

Ah ha - I've now been arguing this for some time now.....for Polybius specifically does not say there are 1,200 Velites - I am strongly of the interpretation that there are 1,000 of them - and this means there are exactly 1/3 the numbers of Light Infantry as Heavy.  They form, most likely, the 7th & 8th members of each contubernium.  And, of course, I'll still be plumping for 500ft per legion.

Absolutely right. Funny - I've been studying this for years and I missed the obvious. Polybius clearly talks about a legion numbering 4,000 men - "if the whole number of the legion is more than four thousand..." Livy mentions 4,000-man legions twice. 1,000 velites works fine for the arrangement I described: 400 velites add 2 ranks to the hastati, 400 add 2 to the principes, and 200 add one rank to the triarii.

Not sure about them being part of the contubernium. That was a later unit of the Marian and post-Marian legion. Hyginus describes it in the context of a first-century camp.

And 500 feet = 167 yards, which is 33 yards short of my 200 yards and hence 83.5%. A pass mark. I won't fight about it. ;-)

But what I am indeed surprised about is how you think they are equipped for melee combat - for with: no armour; a small shield probably only used to catch incoming missiles; and possibly just a dagger, they certainly don't seem to be.  I suggest it's much more likely that, after their skirmishing role is over they are most probably employed finishing off the wounded enemy that have been walked over and/or dealing with the wounded and removing them from the battle line.

μάχαιρα is a flexible term. It can mean a large knife or a small sword. It can certainly be used for hand-to-hand combat:

But if it is necessary to make a military expedition anywhere, those who have been thus educated take the field, no longer with bow and arrows, nor yet with spears, but with what are termed “weapons for close conflict” [ἀγχέμαχα ὅπλα]—a corselet about their breast, a round shield upon their left arm (such as Persians are represented with in art), and in their right hands a sabre [μάχαιρα] or bill. - Xenophon, Cyropaedia: 1.2.30

The πάρμη is a light shield, true, but the velites didn't need a shield to protect themselves from enemies' missile fire. The leves were not equipped with shields and strict skirmisher class troops like Greek psiloi didn't have them either. You don't actually need a shield to protect yourself from enemy missiles. This video shows how skirmishing could go on for ages between unprotected opponents with very few casualties. The parma is light just as the machaira is small, to allow the velites to be fast and mobile and yet be able to engage in melee combat. I see velites as a rough equivalent to peltasts, able to take on cavalry at a pinch and support heavy infantry, though not in the front ranks.

Which raises the question: how does adding ranks support an infantry line? The rorarii did that but how did it help? My best-fit hypothesis is that it largely acted as a discouragement to enemy infantry who, seeing a thicker line, would feel they could not break it. Too many men to fight through. And if the men in some files were wounded or killed the velites could keep the line intact until the battle was won elsewhere. 

For me though the real clincher is the fact that the velites are part of the hastati, principes and triarii maniples, which implies they work with them, and the best role I can think of is rear rank support.

As for the Marian Legion - are you forgetting the 'lighter troops' (cf Caesar)?

Quote me that? Were these troops an integral part of the legion or were they specialist detachments meant for specific tasks?

[Mark Hygate]

As for the Marian Legion - are you forgetting the 'lighter troops' (cf Caesar)?

Quote me that? Were these troops an integral part of the legion or were they specialist detachments meant for specific tasks?

Caesar Gallic Wars: 2/24; 7/18;  Civil Wars: 1/27; 2/34; 3/62;  Alexandrian Wars: 17; 37; 39; 50; 51; 52; 59; 60; 61; 65; 69; 75; 78; 81;
Spanish Wars: 14; 15; 20; 21; 23; 24; 25; 30;

There are more than enough references to "light-armed" troops (I am, however, reading a translation, so would appreciate any comments) and separate to archers and slingers that this seems a troop type that appears alongside the legionnaires.  It's a troop type also associated with non-Romans occasionally too.

Personally I have come to believe that these troops are a development of the old Velites into the Marian legion and beyond; serve as a template for the later 'standardised' Auxilia and appear to be described by Josephus.

[Justin Swanton]

As for the Marian Legion - are you forgetting the 'lighter troops' (cf Caesar)?

Quote me that? Were these troops an integral part of the legion or were they specialist detachments meant for specific tasks?

Caesar Gallic Wars: 2/24; 7/18;  Civil Wars: 1/27; 2/34; 3/62;  Alexandrian Wars: 17; 37; 39; 50; 51; 52; 59; 60; 61; 65; 69; 75; 78; 81;
Spanish Wars: 14; 15; 20; 21; 23; 24; 25; 30;

There are more than enough references to "light-armed" troops (I am, however, reading a translation, so would appreciate any comments) and separate to archers and slingers that this seems a troop type that appears alongside the legionnaires.  It's a troop type also associated with non-Romans occasionally too.

Personally I have come to believe that these troops are a development of the old Velites into the Marian legion and beyond; serve as a template for the later 'standardised' Auxilia and appear to be described by Josephus.

Gallic Wars
2.24: The light-armed troops work in conjunction with the cavalry, not the legions. I notice that the term for them is levisque armaturae pedites - "the foot with light armament", which is interesting as this is a descriptive term, i.e. foot who happen to have light equipment, as opposed to a technical term like "leves" or "velites".

7.18: this refers to Vercingetorix's "unencumbered" troops - expeditus - who generally work with the cavalry. Light infantry fighting with cavalry was a standard tactic used by Greeks, Macedonians, etc. Cavalry files were generally about two yards wide, allowing enough room for light troops between them who could hamstring enemy horses or kill their riders who were preoccupied with the light troops' own cavalry.

Civil Wars
1.27: This refers (as far as I can see) to archers and slingers placed on walls and towers.

2.34: This again refers to "lightly armed" - levis armaturae -  placed amongst the cavalry.

3.62: More "lightly armed" who take part in a night operation with archers, and separately from the cohorts.

Alexandrian Wars
17: The "lightly armed" are described as an entity separate from the cohorts and are sent on a naval mission to an island.
37: Don't see any light troops in this passage

39: Nor here

50: nor here

51: Nor here

52: Nor here

59-61: Nor here

65: Nor here

69: Nor here

75: Nor here

78: Nor here

81: Does Alexandrian Wars have a Chapter 81?

Spanish Wars
14: The "lightly armed foot" are with the cavalry

15: This is a specialised unit - "select lightly armed foot", pedites levi armatura electi - specially intended to fight cavalry. They do not work as part of the cohorts.

20: these are lightly armed foot who work with the cavalry in a cavalry engagement.

21: Ditto

23: Ditto

24: the lightly armed foot are described as separate from the legionaries in the casualty list.

25: the lightly armed foot are a camp guard

30: the lightly armed troops are on the flanks with the cavalry. They are clearly not part of the legions.

Overall it is clear that light troops were an integral part of Caesar's army but they were not an integral part of the legions, being attached rather to the cavalry though they could operate independently on occasion.

[Mark Hygate]

...............

Overall it is clear that light troops were an integral part of Caesar's army but they were not an integral part of the legions, being attached rather to the cavalry though they could operate independently on occasion.

Firstly an apology - Alex 37 to 81 should read 'African' - I was doing a search and missed that it changed books - sorry!

Your last comment is interesting though.  Caesar commonly mentions, as do many others the raising of 'Legions'.  You are happy that these 'lighter-armed' troops are an integral part of his army - but we never see them raised or otherwise mentioned.

When they are mentioned, it is because the narrative needs their separate acknowledgement; like when they are brigaded with the cavalry - just as the velites were wont to do on occasion; and they were used separately.

It is entirely possible that they are indeed an integral part of the legion - we have no definitive description of the legion structure throughout the entire 'Marian Legion' period.

In addition, we do have subjective evidence that the velites (from an earlier comment) are indeed a part of the heavy infantry contubernium structure.  Firstly, they are specifically apportioned across the maniples at a ratio of 2:6.  Then they are not mentioned in the description of the camp and have no separate areas for their, presumed, tents; and the proportions of the camping exactly allow for them to be incorporated into the maniples of the heavy infantry.

There is, indeed, absolutely no reason not to think that the contubernium was 8 in c300BCE and wasn't still, perhaps, 700 years later!

[Justin Swanton]

Caesar commonly mentions, as do many others the raising of 'Legions'.  You are happy that these 'lighter-armed' troops are an integral part of his army - but we never see them raised or otherwise mentioned.

It's possible that these 'lightly armed foot' were legionaries who discarded their regular arms and armour and carried only light equipment in order be fast and mobile for the special role they had to fulfill. Or they were Auxilia-type non-Romans. Or a part of the regular Roman establishment that were separate from the legions. Theories... The point is that we never seem them operating as part of a legion in the way the leves and velites did.

In addition, we do have subjective evidence that the velites (from an earlier comment) are indeed a part of the heavy infantry contubernium structure.  Firstly, they are specifically apportioned across the maniples at a ratio of 2:6.  Then they are not mentioned in the description of the camp and have no separate areas for their, presumed, tents; and the proportions of the camping exactly allow for them to be incorporated into the maniples of the heavy infantry.

There is, indeed, absolutely no reason not to think that the contubernium was 8 in c300BCE and wasn't still, perhaps, 700 years later!

The only detailed descriptions we have of the contubernium are from Hyginus and Vegetius, and it's clear in both cases they are talking about the Marian and post-Marian legion. There's an interesting thread on this at the SoA forum. See here. (I can rehash the main points if you like) Which means it probably postdates the disappearance of the velites, last mentioned in Marius' campaign against Jugurtha.

[Hanny]

U

Would anyone like to estimate the frontage of a consular army (of 4 legions, just the infantry alone, not including the cavalry)?

I`d be interested to learn how varied the answers might be.

3/4 of a mile a Legion, according to T Dodge in his book Hannibal. M Healley in his work on Cannae gets 300 feet a legion for its formation.