11-18-2016, 04:56 PM
(11-18-2016, 03:59 PM)JaM Wrote: Where I wrote it has to be two ranks deep? Plutarch described three ranks, with first one kneeling... Obviously when facing cavalry you wont form a column, but want to keep your frontage, and prevent cavalry to pour in the gaps... especially if that cavalry might have some ranged weapons... so let say with 6 ranks, 3 would form that lets call it SHIELD SCREEN, remaining would be ready to use their javelins when cavalry gets closer, or be ready to countercharge..
This the text from Plutarch:
"Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them.
The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof, affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it. "
Plutarch says the second rank and those after held their scuta overhead, which were like roof tiles, which is THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF TESTUDO. Plutarch doesn't describe ranks 4 and after as hiding behind a shield screen, he describes them as HOLDING THEIR SHIELDS OVER THEIR HEADS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN TESTUDO FORMATIONS. When discussing Testudo, historians actually use this piece of text as evidence.
No, there is no Shield Screen, you don't get to invest things when there were already existing ones to describe it. Shield Wall. Phalanx. Fulcon.
Line and Column are base military formations, universally used thorough the history. call it whatever you want. I'm just surprised somebody who claim to serve with military doesn't have base military knowledge about formations... Triplex Acies is a formation of three lines (with gaps between maniples)... when Maniples marched into battle, they were marching in columns as it was easier to maneuver into positions..
Don't go there, you really don't want to get personal and start questioning my military service. You truly don't want to do this, because if you think things are heated now, should you choose to call me a liar or a fool it will get a whole lot worse very quickly.
You're using Line and Column (I'll keep them capitalized for a reason) in the same sense that people discussing Napoleonic era infantry tactics use the terms. Romans marched in column, they didn't advance in column like the French regiments of the Napoleonic War did. Romans fought in line, but it wasn't the thin Line you are theorizing, most times it was 5-10 deep, aside from a very few small situations when it was made smaller and only one line, usually against cavalry and threat of envelopment (like Cassius' recommendation at Carrhae).
surprisingly for you, even Napoleonic infantry fought with battalions having GAPS from each other...
And if you had bothered actually reading older threads on this forum instead of making believe it started when you started posting regularly you would have seen that I'd already discussed this stuff all the way back in 2011. Use the search feature, you wont jump to incorrect conclusions then.
Further, this post of yours is proof that you are merging Roman military tactics with Napoleonic era tactics in your quest to simplify everything, the same thing you're doing with the Republican era Scuta and 15th century Pavise.
NOT ALL cavalry was fighting like that... Celts, Iberians,Carthaginians and even Romans went for shock action and closed in... and regarding Magnesia, you are wrong... Seleucid cataphracts charged small Roman cavalry detachment (3 turmae) and then attacked Italic legion on the flank.. you should spend a bit more time reading about Magnesia...
"many historians believe that Seleucid heavy horse successfully charged through the Roman front line."
"many historians"
"historians"
A whole slew of historians believe the Seleucid horse charged through the initial line. Even if you don't except that example, it also happened to Ventidius at Mount Gindarus (they didn't succeed but they charged uphill toward the Roman infantry), to Antony's baggage train during his Parthian Campaign. Lastly, we have the example you already quoted numerous times, when Antony's legions took up a kneeling testudo because of the missile threat from Parthian archers, the Parthian cataphract frontally charged them confusing the Romans kneeling with passivity, in which they were grossly wrong.
and nice picture, yet since when some modern day painting serves as proof of anything????
There are these people called historians, and they work with these people called artists, and together they create these things call prints. And their work is more credible than twcenter.com fanbois.
Yours in italics.
(11-18-2016, 03:59 PM)JaM Wrote: but i dont doubt you will tell me Garry Bruggemann is also a fraud that was incorrect in every single word he wrote...You're still upset that I called SLA Marshall a fraud? He was, no matter how much you want to use him to support you theories on warfare and killing, Marshall is a fraud and everyone who follows him and the subject now knows this.
And Lindy is not a fraud but he's not a source either, he's an entertainer.
We've discussed Bruggemann's website on this forum in the past, you've not read them (as you've not read anything else apparently). I agree with some of the things he proposed, I disagree with other things. At least he was original though and did his homework on the sources he used.
