01-11-2014, 04:26 PM
I thought it was fairly basic and therefore am unsurprised that there are no comments, so.....
Given Steps 1-3 and concentrating effort now back at the front of the formation, we have only a limited number of likely options (and dismissing at present formations where the gaps between soldiers are overly excessive):
- Option 1 - that a 10 x 6 century actually occupies the ~60ft frontage with each man covering ~6ft and each man is in a regular grid pattern as might be expected and appears like the most common interpretation of Polybius 18.28-31. This would mean that the posterior century is literally behind the 'prior'. This has the possibility of converting to a 'shield-wall' type formation if either the posterior century's files march forward in between the gaps; but this would take time and intermixes the century's; this could, however, be considered as operating as a maniple and the initial result (20x6 where each man is now on a ~3ft frontage and ~6ft depth is rather like Vegetius' description). Or, the prior century could close right, the posterior could close left and then march forward. Again this would take time.
- Option 2 - that each century actually forms up 5 x 12 and that posterior centuries plan to fill a gap left between maniples of century size. Again this would appear as a regular spaced ~6ft grid; with the expectation that the 12-man file is a mixture of 2 contubernia; either filling gaps by having the rear 6 pace left and march forward (very Greek in style), but again this would take time; or knowing that is the likely plan it could have completely intermixed contubernia with each 2nd man able to fill the gaps by a simple pace sideways and then one forwards. This could be much quicker, but the intermixing would be an unusual expression of the 'fighting with your tent-mates' concept.
- Option 3 - expressed in the previous attachment of mine as Fig 1, with 1a & 2 being the others formed. Whilst very 'neat', the chequer-board formation is a bit unusual; although a perfect drill solution to the problem. It can form any of the other formations quickly; it can march in any direction at full speed as the spacing allows; but allows those same alternate formations to be adopted just as quickly; and it is the neatest in terms of concentrating the century in the smallest possible space.
Whilst it does indeed meet all the criteria, however, and I was minded to think about the way it works as a micro-version of how I see the legion function as 60 centuries (instead of men); I must also note that the 'quincunx' formation formed seemed to satisfy that criteria too. However, as the question in the other thread shows, I am now really wondering if that is indeed a true historical element?
I also wonder if anyone has ever suggested the idea of prior and posterior contubernia? This would assist in Options 2 & 3 and also help in understanding how they camped.
I would appreciate any comments. For Bryan (or anyone else), I hope that the original 'open' formation would meet your sword-wielding criteria, let alone sufficient space to march around, but noting that a closer formation is indeed possible if better for a particular circumstance (shield-wall/phalanx or testudo)?
But there is also Polybius' to take back into account and therefore a complete re-look. In reviewing once again Bk 18.28-31 and taking a step backwards, however, it is obvious that he doesn't really answer his own question and not really the Roman formation at all. What he does do, however, is 3 things:
- firstly he tells his Greek readers that the phalanx was the most wonderful invention ever, eponymous with the mighty Greeks of old and a perfect and unstoppable force.
- secondly, he tells his Roman readers that their soldiers are mighty warriors in the heroic tradition able to fight in any direction and overcome their foes.
- and thirdly, with it apparently being obvious to his readers that the phalanx should dominate in all conditions and should even roll right over the Romans; he then describes the phalanx's flaws in that it will fail on almost every occasion due to the: cracks in the earth; tussocks; pebbles; and the fact that the earth isn't flat everywhere. ie that it's where the phalanx was forced to fight either by the incompetence of the later Greek generals, or the simple luck of the Romans!
I have a bit more respect for the Greek/Macedonian phalanx than that, let alone their generals and, whilst the ground makes a difference I am sure they knew that. If the phalanx was that flawed it would have been seen years before. The only weakness of a phalanx is if it comes apart - and I believe that's what the smaller-unit tactics of the Romans brought to the game. I am minded, therefore, to note that Polybius may well be thinking of his readership to remain popular.
Overall, any of Options 1-3 could work. I like Option 3, but it is almost too neat. I am minded still to prefer the one-pace 2.5ft because of the width of the shield and the whole style of Roman military measurements. Hence, back to the reason for the thread, I believe each legion operated on a standard 500ft frontage; and the reason is because the 'triarii always number 600'.
If pictures are desired to aid understanding of the options, then I could so some, but they are fairly simple.
Given Steps 1-3 and concentrating effort now back at the front of the formation, we have only a limited number of likely options (and dismissing at present formations where the gaps between soldiers are overly excessive):
- Option 1 - that a 10 x 6 century actually occupies the ~60ft frontage with each man covering ~6ft and each man is in a regular grid pattern as might be expected and appears like the most common interpretation of Polybius 18.28-31. This would mean that the posterior century is literally behind the 'prior'. This has the possibility of converting to a 'shield-wall' type formation if either the posterior century's files march forward in between the gaps; but this would take time and intermixes the century's; this could, however, be considered as operating as a maniple and the initial result (20x6 where each man is now on a ~3ft frontage and ~6ft depth is rather like Vegetius' description). Or, the prior century could close right, the posterior could close left and then march forward. Again this would take time.
- Option 2 - that each century actually forms up 5 x 12 and that posterior centuries plan to fill a gap left between maniples of century size. Again this would appear as a regular spaced ~6ft grid; with the expectation that the 12-man file is a mixture of 2 contubernia; either filling gaps by having the rear 6 pace left and march forward (very Greek in style), but again this would take time; or knowing that is the likely plan it could have completely intermixed contubernia with each 2nd man able to fill the gaps by a simple pace sideways and then one forwards. This could be much quicker, but the intermixing would be an unusual expression of the 'fighting with your tent-mates' concept.
- Option 3 - expressed in the previous attachment of mine as Fig 1, with 1a & 2 being the others formed. Whilst very 'neat', the chequer-board formation is a bit unusual; although a perfect drill solution to the problem. It can form any of the other formations quickly; it can march in any direction at full speed as the spacing allows; but allows those same alternate formations to be adopted just as quickly; and it is the neatest in terms of concentrating the century in the smallest possible space.
Whilst it does indeed meet all the criteria, however, and I was minded to think about the way it works as a micro-version of how I see the legion function as 60 centuries (instead of men); I must also note that the 'quincunx' formation formed seemed to satisfy that criteria too. However, as the question in the other thread shows, I am now really wondering if that is indeed a true historical element?
I also wonder if anyone has ever suggested the idea of prior and posterior contubernia? This would assist in Options 2 & 3 and also help in understanding how they camped.
I would appreciate any comments. For Bryan (or anyone else), I hope that the original 'open' formation would meet your sword-wielding criteria, let alone sufficient space to march around, but noting that a closer formation is indeed possible if better for a particular circumstance (shield-wall/phalanx or testudo)?
But there is also Polybius' to take back into account and therefore a complete re-look. In reviewing once again Bk 18.28-31 and taking a step backwards, however, it is obvious that he doesn't really answer his own question and not really the Roman formation at all. What he does do, however, is 3 things:
- firstly he tells his Greek readers that the phalanx was the most wonderful invention ever, eponymous with the mighty Greeks of old and a perfect and unstoppable force.
- secondly, he tells his Roman readers that their soldiers are mighty warriors in the heroic tradition able to fight in any direction and overcome their foes.
- and thirdly, with it apparently being obvious to his readers that the phalanx should dominate in all conditions and should even roll right over the Romans; he then describes the phalanx's flaws in that it will fail on almost every occasion due to the: cracks in the earth; tussocks; pebbles; and the fact that the earth isn't flat everywhere. ie that it's where the phalanx was forced to fight either by the incompetence of the later Greek generals, or the simple luck of the Romans!
I have a bit more respect for the Greek/Macedonian phalanx than that, let alone their generals and, whilst the ground makes a difference I am sure they knew that. If the phalanx was that flawed it would have been seen years before. The only weakness of a phalanx is if it comes apart - and I believe that's what the smaller-unit tactics of the Romans brought to the game. I am minded, therefore, to note that Polybius may well be thinking of his readership to remain popular.
Overall, any of Options 1-3 could work. I like Option 3, but it is almost too neat. I am minded still to prefer the one-pace 2.5ft because of the width of the shield and the whole style of Roman military measurements. Hence, back to the reason for the thread, I believe each legion operated on a standard 500ft frontage; and the reason is because the 'triarii always number 600'.
If pictures are desired to aid understanding of the options, then I could so some, but they are fairly simple.
