04-29-2021, 11:43 AM
Understand all those points - and the previous discussions that support them. However, it's my belief that, having gone back to the original source and re-examined it (as mentioned before); that there is another interpretation - that, overall, might make more sense.
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.
The epiphany moment for me was realising what 'the Triarii always number 600' actually meant. The Triarii are still armed and armoured in a practically equivalent way to the preceeding Hoplite; presenting a shield-wall of spears behind which to retreat and re-group if necessary. Deployed 200 men wide (single legion considered) and 3-deep (the practical limit for standard hasta/spears) and shield-spearshaft-to-shield (so 2.5ft/1 pace each) will occupy 500 feet/100 double-paces.
The Roman legion cannot therefore be any wider - otherwise the tactics just won't work.
The other thing I think you are not considering (and let's indeed posit a 'numerically inferior' force of a standard Consular Army just as you suggest) where a 3,072 ft full phalangial array (and they will have supporting troops) faces off against a 2,000 ft-wide (my interpretation) infantry portion of the Consular Army. That there is an overlap doesn't necessarily result in the flanks being turned - because maintaining the phalanx's line remains paramount. If the pike-phalanx is disrupted and broken up (the exact result the Roman's are tactically organised to achieve and ernestly desire!) then it most probably loses. So it won't just sweep forward. In addition we haven't yet mentioned the supporting troops! Lighter troops and cavalry are specifically required to protect and deny the flanks. Lastly, whilst this, apparently over-whelming phalanx (1,024 men wide and 16 deep) has to maintain it's formation - the Romans have 3 separate lines of troops and great tactical flexibility. It then comes down to manoevre and use of reserves. It's the Romans that have the more tactically flexible force - but this sometimes wasn't enough...
It is my interpretation, but I do indeed reject the idea of gaps between heavy-infantry in the close battle phase, as I also do the idea of significant gaps between maniples at the same juncture. They just don't make sense. Maintaining the 'line' was a feature of warfare from the earliest organised proto-hoplite until the wide-spread introduction of the rifle. Modest gaps to enable manoever, yes.
PS - and I believe the legion Livy describes is a full-strength 5,000 man legion, albeit described as being a 'full 60-centuries' after the later generic understanding that a century became equivalent to 100...
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.
The epiphany moment for me was realising what 'the Triarii always number 600' actually meant. The Triarii are still armed and armoured in a practically equivalent way to the preceeding Hoplite; presenting a shield-wall of spears behind which to retreat and re-group if necessary. Deployed 200 men wide (single legion considered) and 3-deep (the practical limit for standard hasta/spears) and shield-spearshaft-to-shield (so 2.5ft/1 pace each) will occupy 500 feet/100 double-paces.
The Roman legion cannot therefore be any wider - otherwise the tactics just won't work.
The other thing I think you are not considering (and let's indeed posit a 'numerically inferior' force of a standard Consular Army just as you suggest) where a 3,072 ft full phalangial array (and they will have supporting troops) faces off against a 2,000 ft-wide (my interpretation) infantry portion of the Consular Army. That there is an overlap doesn't necessarily result in the flanks being turned - because maintaining the phalanx's line remains paramount. If the pike-phalanx is disrupted and broken up (the exact result the Roman's are tactically organised to achieve and ernestly desire!) then it most probably loses. So it won't just sweep forward. In addition we haven't yet mentioned the supporting troops! Lighter troops and cavalry are specifically required to protect and deny the flanks. Lastly, whilst this, apparently over-whelming phalanx (1,024 men wide and 16 deep) has to maintain it's formation - the Romans have 3 separate lines of troops and great tactical flexibility. It then comes down to manoevre and use of reserves. It's the Romans that have the more tactically flexible force - but this sometimes wasn't enough...
It is my interpretation, but I do indeed reject the idea of gaps between heavy-infantry in the close battle phase, as I also do the idea of significant gaps between maniples at the same juncture. They just don't make sense. Maintaining the 'line' was a feature of warfare from the earliest organised proto-hoplite until the wide-spread introduction of the rifle. Modest gaps to enable manoever, yes.
PS - and I believe the legion Livy describes is a full-strength 5,000 man legion, albeit described as being a 'full 60-centuries' after the later generic understanding that a century became equivalent to 100...
