10-09-2011, 07:01 PM
Quote:I had taken for granted the checker board formation was a well understood one, and not one I needed to presume to explain again. It has certainly been discussed many times on this forum.
And no, unlike many, it's not my way or the highway! :wink:
I am however, unconvinced by the idea the Roman army of any period except the very early monacrchy and early republic, when the phalanx was still used, lined up in one long line,
sheild to sheild.
The century and Cohorts were manuverable small units within the whole, so why revert to an outmoded formation as soon as the battle joined?
No one, despite their long posts quoting sources, has convinced me!
Doesn't make me right, of course, but I know a lot of people who are good at quoting rules and regulations, but still do not grasp the fundementals of the reality in which they exist.
Not meaning yourself of course, but overall, I am skeptical. Now, I will try and put together a journal to put my argument across in a format acceptable to yourself and the others. When life allows me!
Thank you for being the bigger man and lower the tone. Believe me I do not and never have intended to belittle any proposal or theory. I just love discussing mechanics...
I thought that what you proposed was not following the traditional checkerboard formation model in the first place. A checkerboard formation formed by subunits of the same cohort or maniples of Hastati is what I pictured when I first read your post. Isn't that what you propose?
I do not think that any formation was or could be outdated. They were made to fit circumstances. If conditions changed, so would armament and formation. Didn't the Romans later use uninterrupted lines (I intentionally do not call them phalanxes) for certain? I have not studied Roman sources extensively though and I am really sad I do not (yet) read latin... Do we have more information in them that could shed more light?
I am looking forward to looking into your position.
