Ancient Armies YouTube video: Could an Infantry Line Wheel?

[Justin Swanton]

This might be of interest to forumites as quite a bit of it comes from Asklepiodotus, i.e. the hellenistic tactical manuals.

[Sean Manning]

Hi Justin, I think that is a good summary of how things worked in the drilled Greek and Macedonian systems (and how some things which look easy on a wargames table could be much more complicated on the battlefield!) I'm not sure how much is valid for Romans or earlier Greeks. Romans seem to have placed a big emphasis on 'follow the standard' rather than on ranks and files, and they often fought in looser formations so if a few guys had to jog a bit and dodge around each other to form up in a new direction it was not a catastrophe. The average Greek militia probably had to figure out anything more complicated than 'form up and advance' as they went along. There is a bit in Keegan's Face of Battle where a survivor of Waterloo says that in the moment they found a way of doing a movement that was needed, but it did not look like a diagram in a drillbook. But as far as Xenophon's Spartans or Asclepiodotus' Macedonians go, I think its a good overview and that the animations help people understand things which might not be as clear in drawings with arrows.

It also brings up the question of just what Big Al was doing in the opening stages of Gaugamela!

[Justin Swanton]

Hi Sean. Ta for the feedback. :-)

I don't think Roman or any infantry that fought in melee combat were ever in loose formation. Polybius makes clear a Roman legionary occupied an area 3 x 3 feet, the equivalent of the Hellenistic intermediate order which was the default spacing of the pike phalanx (though it did fight legions in close order: 1,5 x 1,5 feet) and the deployment spacing of the hoplite phalanx. Roman infantry certainly had ranks and files. There is a mention in the sources (don't have it right now) that Pompey's lines at Pharsalus were 10 ranks deep.

Greek citizen hoplites certainly didn't have the training to execute wheels and there is no mention of subunits suitable for wheeling in their armies. As you say, they would just form up in a line, advance, and fight. The hoplites that overlapped the opponent's left would simply turn individually to face the edge of the enemy line and munch into it like pacmen.

Big Al was marching his phalanx rightwards in column, wheeling it back into line when the chariots charged it. Or is there something I'm missing?

[Sean Manning]

Polybius says that each Roman infantryman occupied three feet of breadth for their body and arms and another three feet so they could step and use their weapons freely (Polybius 18.30.5ff). You can fudge it a bit, like Michael Taylor's 'checkerboard' model, or choose to disbelieve, but that is what he says.

Here is a description of hand to hand combat with no formation at all https://bookandsword.com/2014/04/03/a-pr...ghanistan/ We hear of the same in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, where infantry had poor weapons and little or no training in hand to hand combat so if the lines came together everything became a few moments of chaos until one side ran away.

IIRC, Big Al was leading his army diagonally forward. Presumably this was columns of individual sub-units each advancing at an angle and then deploying into a wider shallower formation which could only move straight forward as the King's Men started to move.

[Justin Swanton]

Polybius says that each Roman infantryman occupied three feet of breadth for their body and arms and another three feet so they could step and use their weapons freely (Polybius 18.30.5ff).  You can fudge it a bit, like Michael Taylor's 'checkerboard' model, or choose to disbelieve, but that is what he says.

Meself I prefer to look at the original Greek. I covered this point in my book. Let me copy/paste as that's quicker:

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.

[Sean Manning]

If its a dispute about what that passage actually says, that is a hippos of a different colour. I agree that the first text of chapter 29.2 which comes to hand does not have "in breadth" in it but I want to have a look at the whole passage. I might be able to get back to this one or two weekends from now.