10-12-2011, 03:28 AM
To me, the typical checkerboard formation of the Polybian Romans would be the initial arrangement of the units. They would thus march towards the enemy, facilitating movement and retreat of light infantry and cavalry. I see the posterior centuries deployed behind the ones in front, same order and density. The skirmishers would do their job, attack the enemy line or the enemy skirmishers. When the commander in chief decided it was time to attack or when the enemy started its own charge, the skirmishers would be recalled through the gaps. Up to now, there is no real difference of our systems.
I suggest that in a normal pitched battle, the posterior centuries would swiftly take their position at the left of their "right" centuries, effectively closing the gaps, possibly leaving very small intervals, like a few yards, only in the case of cohorts. In the case of maniples, I do not think that there would be so many intervals left, maybe some for specific reasons, like to facilitate some movement of light infantry to and from the front.
On the other hand, I see no problem of the checkerboard formation being retained during charge if fighting on very rough terrain. It is true, that in that case, gaps would assist the maniples in keeping their order while swarms of skirmishers would exploit the rough ground the maniples would have avoided. This is what seems to be the case in Selassia, what Antigonus did to attack the hill where Cleomenes' brother was in command.
So, in one continuous line, the maniples would engage the enemy in a normal pitched battle. They would try to keep their cohesion with the maniples on the sides and would not individually rush forward or retreat more than a few yards. Of course one would wonder where the novelty in all that is. In my opinion it lies in the training to tactically retreat, which was a good way to draw an enemy to uneven ground, since most armies would just strive to keep their ground (the stratagem of Philip in Cheronea pops to mind), a tactic to be used whenever convenient as well as to their uncanny ability to somehow relieve the front.
Much debate has been made regarding this mysterious relief system. Was it done in units? In whole lines? Would the rear units march forward or the front units march to the rear?
To me, again, every single method would have been an option. We have examples of front lines retreating behind rear lines in the Byzantine manuals, so it was clearly possible to do so. We also have countless examples of units rushing to the help of the front as well as whole lines doing so... So, I choose to not dismiss any of these methods but to accept every single one and have the commander in chief utilize what he deems fit.
I would suggest that the standard method would be the unit by unit relief, not because the sources suggesting so are more than those suggesting otherwise but because, in my personal opinion, it makes sense. If maniple 3 is doing well and maniple 6 is mangled, I would like to be able to allow the former to do its job while supporting/relieving the latter. I propose that someone in the maniple would have been charged with relaying their status to their support units. Each maniple of Principes would initially be responsible to watch the standard of a certain maniple in the front. The maniples were many, so it would be impossible for the commander himself to keep track of their individual needs. If a maniple needed support, there would be a distress sign, possibly stating the kind of support it would need. So, maniple 6 calls for relief and the Principes maniple covering it would get the signal and rush to its support. Once there, I suggest that the following system of actual exchange of lines would take place :
1. The first rank of the Principes maniple arrays behind the last rank of the Hastati maniple. Each rank of Hastati marches to the rear of the Principes, while the latter step forward towards the first rank.
2. Rank by rank (and not by file), this is actually a very safe and quick maneuver up to the first rank, the Hastati would reform behind the Principes maniple. There is absolutely no need for the Hastati to make any special maneuvers, no closing of files, nothing. A simple exchange of ranks.
3. The first rank of the Hastati would of course retreat last. To do so with more safety, each first ranker of the Principes would sidestep presenting his shield forward so that the Hastatus could use his shield as partial cover. If we accept that the Romans fought in open order, this maneuver would be even easier, the first ranker would only have to step back two yards.
4. Once behind the Principes (now this part of the line effectively being doubled in depth), the Hastati would quickly reform, count and then march to an appropriate distance. If it was battle worthy, it would possibly rejoin combat if the Principes needed relief.
Such a method of relief would not be only used by the Romans. I assume that at least the Greeks used it too, but thought it unwise to keep more reserves than the ones that would most possibly be necessary. Furthermore, Greek armies tended to be smaller and their organization was mostly tribal, so it was more difficult to ordain sizable reserves. Another difference is that a spear/pike bearing phalanx will less likely get disordered, while a line of swordsmen would be more prone to it and thus demanded more reserve units to get the upper hand from other sword armed lines or keep fighting against spears and pikes.
I suggest that in a normal pitched battle, the posterior centuries would swiftly take their position at the left of their "right" centuries, effectively closing the gaps, possibly leaving very small intervals, like a few yards, only in the case of cohorts. In the case of maniples, I do not think that there would be so many intervals left, maybe some for specific reasons, like to facilitate some movement of light infantry to and from the front.
On the other hand, I see no problem of the checkerboard formation being retained during charge if fighting on very rough terrain. It is true, that in that case, gaps would assist the maniples in keeping their order while swarms of skirmishers would exploit the rough ground the maniples would have avoided. This is what seems to be the case in Selassia, what Antigonus did to attack the hill where Cleomenes' brother was in command.
So, in one continuous line, the maniples would engage the enemy in a normal pitched battle. They would try to keep their cohesion with the maniples on the sides and would not individually rush forward or retreat more than a few yards. Of course one would wonder where the novelty in all that is. In my opinion it lies in the training to tactically retreat, which was a good way to draw an enemy to uneven ground, since most armies would just strive to keep their ground (the stratagem of Philip in Cheronea pops to mind), a tactic to be used whenever convenient as well as to their uncanny ability to somehow relieve the front.
Much debate has been made regarding this mysterious relief system. Was it done in units? In whole lines? Would the rear units march forward or the front units march to the rear?
To me, again, every single method would have been an option. We have examples of front lines retreating behind rear lines in the Byzantine manuals, so it was clearly possible to do so. We also have countless examples of units rushing to the help of the front as well as whole lines doing so... So, I choose to not dismiss any of these methods but to accept every single one and have the commander in chief utilize what he deems fit.
I would suggest that the standard method would be the unit by unit relief, not because the sources suggesting so are more than those suggesting otherwise but because, in my personal opinion, it makes sense. If maniple 3 is doing well and maniple 6 is mangled, I would like to be able to allow the former to do its job while supporting/relieving the latter. I propose that someone in the maniple would have been charged with relaying their status to their support units. Each maniple of Principes would initially be responsible to watch the standard of a certain maniple in the front. The maniples were many, so it would be impossible for the commander himself to keep track of their individual needs. If a maniple needed support, there would be a distress sign, possibly stating the kind of support it would need. So, maniple 6 calls for relief and the Principes maniple covering it would get the signal and rush to its support. Once there, I suggest that the following system of actual exchange of lines would take place :
1. The first rank of the Principes maniple arrays behind the last rank of the Hastati maniple. Each rank of Hastati marches to the rear of the Principes, while the latter step forward towards the first rank.
2. Rank by rank (and not by file), this is actually a very safe and quick maneuver up to the first rank, the Hastati would reform behind the Principes maniple. There is absolutely no need for the Hastati to make any special maneuvers, no closing of files, nothing. A simple exchange of ranks.
3. The first rank of the Hastati would of course retreat last. To do so with more safety, each first ranker of the Principes would sidestep presenting his shield forward so that the Hastatus could use his shield as partial cover. If we accept that the Romans fought in open order, this maneuver would be even easier, the first ranker would only have to step back two yards.
4. Once behind the Principes (now this part of the line effectively being doubled in depth), the Hastati would quickly reform, count and then march to an appropriate distance. If it was battle worthy, it would possibly rejoin combat if the Principes needed relief.
Such a method of relief would not be only used by the Romans. I assume that at least the Greeks used it too, but thought it unwise to keep more reserves than the ones that would most possibly be necessary. Furthermore, Greek armies tended to be smaller and their organization was mostly tribal, so it was more difficult to ordain sizable reserves. Another difference is that a spear/pike bearing phalanx will less likely get disordered, while a line of swordsmen would be more prone to it and thus demanded more reserve units to get the upper hand from other sword armed lines or keep fighting against spears and pikes.
