+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space (/showthread.php?tid=7188)
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Matthew - 10-23-2006
Quote:what about 160 for a maniple?
Yup, the reinforced Legion certainly complicates matters, but I don't think Davide has this in mind here.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Mitra - 10-23-2006
Quote:Mitra:3nlkq6d4 Wrote:he uses the word "ordini" in the sense of rank, but in in Livius 8.8 ordo is used in the sense of maniple.That may not be the case as some here believe he means line of maniples. My own opinion is mixed and may well be with you on this, especially if you, being Italian, can say specifically that 'ordini' means a single line of soldiers and would definitely not mean a line of maniples. I would be very grateful if so, as it would be a very specific description of his theory of possible troop rotation during combat. He does mention individual rank rotation in a separate part of The Art of War.
I dont think to have well understand the question,Tarbicus. In Italian language "Ordini" like ranks is a very archaic form derived from latin, in modern language on use "ranghi" (equivalent to ranks). Machiavelli use "ordini" with ranks sense (and the english translation correctly translate in this sense). His final idea is that at last hastati, principes and triarii make "mucchio" mass in english, using large space between the ranks of triarii.
In latin ordo, can be used for rank, for the hastati or the principi or the triarii, or for indicate a military unit , the century especially (from this ordinarius = centurion).
I dont remember a excerpt in the Art of War where on speak of rank rotation. You can indicate me?
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Mitra - 10-23-2006
Quote:L C Cinna:2u9cy6hl Wrote:what about 160 for a maniple?
Yup, the reinforced Legion certainly complicates matters, but I don't think Davide has this in mind here.
Especially reinforced legion make me to think a different idea on triarii battle situation.
We take Livy passage "triarii consurgentes, ubi in interualla ordinum suorum principes et hastatos recepissent, extemplo compressis ordinibus uelut claudebant uias unoque continenti agmine, iam nulla spe post relicta, in hostem incidebant;"
"triarii stand up, after to have admit principes and hastatos in gaps between his maniples, immediately lock the ranks, closing the routes to form a continuous column, last hope left, fall on the enemy"
This is the normal translation; concentrate yours attention on "compressis ordinibus", "continenti agmine" and "hostem incidebant"
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Mitra - 10-23-2006
Quote:I thought Livy was writing much later than Polybius. Do you mean because of the sources he uses. Scipio certainly seems to divert from the established dogma, but then so do pretty much all the other generals of the same period.
Sure for the sources. The different battle tactics in II punic war is subject of article i'm preparing for italian review; we have much difference between the italian way to the battle after Cannae, and the Scipio way influenced by greek infantry teory.We can speak of evolution vs innovation.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Tarbicus - 10-23-2006
Quote:In Italian language "Ordini" like ranks is a very archaic form derived from latin,...Never mind, I was hoping it may have had a more specific meaning in Italian.
Quote:I dont remember a excerpt in the Art of War where on speak of rank rotation. You can indicate me?Book Two:
'...For a courageous army is not so because the men in it are courageous, but because the ranks are well disciplined; for if I am of the first line fighters, and being overcome, I know where I have to retire, and who is to take my place, I will always fight with courage seeing my succor nearby: If I am of the second line fighters, I would not be dismayed at the first line being pushed back and repulsed, for I would have presupposed it could happen, and I would have desired it in order to be he who, as it was not them, would give the victory to my patron.'
[url:vh9szzxw]http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar2.htm[/url]
He may also be talking about maniples, but I think somehow he means individual ranks.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Mitra - 10-23-2006
Quote:Book Two:
'...For a courageous army is not so because the men in it are courageous, but because the ranks are well disciplined; for if I am of the first line fighters, and being overcome, I know where I have to retire, and who is to take my place, I will always fight with courage seeing my succor nearby: If I am of the second line fighters, I would not be dismayed at the first line being pushed back and repulsed, for I would have presupposed it could happen, and I would have desired it in order to be he who, as it was not them, would give the victory to my patron.'
[url:4ivnl0ys]http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar2.htm[/url]
He may also be talking about maniples, but I think somehow he means individual ranks.
The original text is not very specific; "ranks are well disciplined" in the original text is "ordini bene ordinati", in the context of phrase the best sense is "have the troops/units in good order". "first line fighters" "second line fighters" in the text is "primi combattitori" and "secondi combattitori" "first fighters" "second fighters". The entire pass is much generic but the phrase "I know where I have to retire" implicitly appears a reference to a long distance movement like a unit change not to a ranks change.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Tarbicus - 10-23-2006
Quote:but the phrase "I know where I have to retire" implicitly appears a reference to a long distance movement like a unit change not to a ranks change.I personally feel that can be interpreted either way, as retiring from the front line into the second can be read into that phrase also.
It's all too generic as you say.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Mitra - 10-23-2006
Quote:as retiring from the front line into the second can be read into that phrase also
You speak of this phrase "If I am of the second line fighters, I would not be dismayed at the first line being pushed back and repulsed"?
The original text speak of "i primi" "the firsts" not of "first line"; like you say is a question of point of view.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - drsrob - 10-24-2006
Quote:I thought Livy was writing much later than Polybius. Do you mean because of the sources he uses. Scipio certainly seems to divert from the established dogma, but then so do pretty much all the other generals of the same period.The Polybian Legion was established in it's final form only in 211 BC. At the seige of Capua an experimental corps of light infantry was formed, which afterwards became a regular part of the organization. These were the velites. New in their equipment was the shield, a smaller versian from the cavalry shield, and the javelin. The latter had the same head as the existing pattern; the difference therefore was in the shafts, which were probably shorter.
Let's expand on this. Before 211 time there were light infantry too. They were unlikely to have smaller shields, because then Livy/Polybius would have said that the velites were given larger shields. The velite shield is not much smaller than that of the heavy infantry, so heavier shields are equally unlikely.
Most likely therefore, the old light infantry did not have shields at all. And if that was the case, they would not be able to fight man to man, so did not need swords or helmets either. Their javelins were probably larger than those of the velites. This would make them almost identical to the Servian 5th class. Such a force of javelineers was used by the Hellenistic armies too.
And their name? Hasta is a word used not only for spears, but for javelins as well; it litterally means 'polearm'. The javelin of the velites was called hasta velitaris. Most likely therefore they were named hastati(!)
This suggests that the triple acies before 211 consisted of three widely different troop types:
- hastati: light infantry skirmishers;
principes: medium infantry and main battle force;
triarii: 3rd line forming a phalanx.
In 225 for the battle of Sentinum against the Gauls the Romans "equipped the front line with spears". This makes little sence as it stands, but - assuming a skirmisher force armed with javelins only - it would have been a good tactic against the Gauls to provide a covering force of agile medium armed men. This force could then have been expanded to the same size as the principes and preserved the name of hastati in 211.
Disclaimer: the above is my personal hpothesis/theory and cannot be found in this form in any book.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Matthew - 10-24-2006
A very interesting theory, Rob. Good explanation for the Hastati / Principes nomenclature problem. I'm not sure I would go along with it entirely; Light Foot without Shields or Body Armour of any sort sounds like an economic necessity, rather than a military doctrine [i.e. I imagine a mixture of equipment depending on the resources and preferences of the individual, as well as the circumstances in which he finds himself].
Just to nitpick, I wouldn't translate Hasta as Polearm (which has a somewhat problematic etymology), but simply as Spear, which is the most generic English term. Javelin, Pike and Lance are the normal subdivisions, I believe, and Spear operates exactly as Hasta in being able to describe all of them.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - drsrob - 10-24-2006
My Latin Dictionary gives as meaning of hasta:
- 1. bar, staf, schaft.
2. spear, lance, javelin.
So I'd say it can refer to any shafted weapon.
About light infantry without shield or sword:
Quote:... ita nec eques regius equiti par erat, insuetus ad stabilem pugnam, nec pedes concursator et uagus et prope seminudus genere armorum ueliti Romano parmam gladiumque habenti pariterque et ad se tuendum et ad hostem petendum armato. non tulere itaque dimicationem nec alia re quam uelocitate tutantes se in castra refugerunt.
"Under these conditions Philip's cavalry, unaccustomed to a stationary combat, were no match for the Roman horse, and his infantry, trained to skirmish in loose order and unprotected by armour, were at the mercy of the velites who with their swords and shields were equally prepared for defence and attack. Incapable of sustaining the conflict and trusting solely to their mobility they fled back to their camp. "
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Matthew - 10-24-2006
But not Polearm, Rob. Obviously a matter of preference, though.
That passage certainly could be interpreted to mean that Philip's Light Foot lacked Shields, but on the other hand it may simply mean they lacked Swords [i.e. the Velites are equally prepared for attack and defence, but the Greeks only for defence]. Ancient Greek Peltasts regularly made use of 'Light' Shields. I wouldn't be surprised to find Philip's Light Foot with Shield and Spear, it may just be the combination of Sword and Shield that is being highlighted.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - drsrob - 10-24-2006
Quote:But not Polearm, Rob. Obviously a matter of preference, though.You're right, perhaps it's my English that's at fault. I was thinking of the Dutch word "geweer" which today means "rifle" and also "musket", but which originally could also mean "pike" (a half pike was known as a "kortgeweer"). With pole-arm I simply meant 'a shafted weapon'.
Quote:That passage certainly could be interpreted to mean that Philip's Light Foot lacked Shields, but on the other hand it may simply mean they lacked Swords [i.e. the Velites are equally prepared for attack and defence, but the Greeks only for defence]. Ancient Greek Peltasts regularly made use of 'Light' Shields. I wouldn't be surprised to find Philip's Light Foot with Shield and Spear, it may just be the combination of Sword and Shield that is being highlighted.True. However, even with shields, the hastati light infantry would still have been unable to engage in close combat, so the rest of my argument would remain unaffected.
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - drsrob - 10-25-2006
Apparently however javelineers armed with javelins only is not unheared of in Italy. See this plate by Comerus Gallus Romus as shown in this topic
![[Image: enea.jpg]](http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Comerus/enea.jpg)
Re: Middle republican triplex acies: a problem of space - Matthew - 10-25-2006
Yeah, I was reading that thread earlier on. Some really nice illustrations there.
Bear in mind, I am not saying that early Greek and Roman Light Foot fought in close combat, nor that all of them necessarily had Shields of any sort. My only concern is in drawing conclusions about them without direct evidence of their armaments. To my mind, it is entirely possible that Roman Light Foot fought only with Spears / Javelins and without Shields, but it is equally possible that they bore Shields and I think the same is likely true of Greek Light Foot.
To me, economic necessity seems like the most likely dictator of equipment for Light Foot, rather than military doctrine.
It's a really interesting issue, though, and one that goes to the heart of the difficulties of interpreting Polybius' Republican Legion and seeing it in the context of earlier and later incarnations.
Matthew James Stanham