10-09-2011, 06:18 PM
Quote:Yes I see you have fully analyzed this and the idea of the checkerboard formation, which you have so readily grasped, was never used in any battles.
So where was the Roman advantage from? They are simply formed up in one battle line exactly like their foes? No manouverable smaller blocks?
The idea the men in the blocks behind the fron row would just stand there like sheep amuses me. Of course they would cover the gaps, as would the skirmishers.
But I will withdraw from this conversation as I obviously have never understood any of the sources available to me, and all the modern reinterpretation is obviously correct!
Bye!
So, in order to discuss an issue, you need me to readily agree with whatever you say? Did I advertise any self-proclaimed expertise? Did I anywhere say anything else than my own opinion or am I not entitled to one? Did I say you were wrong? Did I not end my post with a "What do you think?" question so that you can of course present how you propose that these problems were dealt with? Or is it you whose opinion should be taken as universal truth? I do not understand... do you think that I have no right to pose questions?
Come on! I was very civil and I am open to discussion. I did not aggressively criticize your poorly presented proposal, even though you made no effort to make it understandable... For example, what Roman army are you referring to? Where are your posterior centuries arrayed? How far from the ones in the front line? Did you see any model that has the centuries of the same line arrayed in quincunx formation in any sources (since you mentioned that in your self-critisism)? I always thought that what Polybius suggested as the (to me non-engaged) Roman army of HIS era was that it was the maniples of the Hastati, the Principes and the Triarii that were posted so... What does this have to do with centuries from the same cohort? Or didn't you mean that? And how could I know what you mean if you do not analyze it more?
If you think that the "centuries" are posted right behind the gaps, effectively closing them then say so, but then... where lie the advantages to the Roman line? Do they now protect their flanks from enemy missiles or sarissas? I made many explicit questions you could try to address before resorting to red herring ironies of how we unschooled peasants do not worship the four lines of unexplained (probably to you self-explanatory) wisdom you deigned share.... Well... humor me... consider me an aloof buffoon and do explain your position to help me understand it, cause I still cannot picture it nor place it in time.
The Romans had an advantage when they won battles because of many factors. When they lost battles they had a disadvantage... I do not say that they fought exactly as everyone else did, the Greeks fought differently when armed with the pike, differently when fighting with the spear, the Illyrians, the Persians, the Indians all still fought differently and all of them mostly in uninterrupted lines. So, I do not have to look for any advantage there, although there might have been one, something I never dismissed as a possibility. Do you dismiss anything that is contrary to your own opinion?
