06-29-2014, 04:07 PM
[quote="Mark Hygate" post=356689]
Yes I chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion - I'm not aware (having searched and asked) that there is any other detail for that period that covers the level necessary. I have also not "cherry-picked" in the slightest - I have no problem whatsoever with Polybius' Cannae account - in fact the determination of deployment frontage and the normal gaps produced by the (as I believe it was) deployment procedure, arrangement of the triplex acies and the simple movements between them explain, for me, not only what happened at Cannae, but also the simple and probably sensible Roman battle plan that Hannibal managed to disrupt so well.[/i]
Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position (wiki definition). This is exactly what you are doing. You are ignoring all the evidence from the sources that you disagree with, because it flies in the face of your "common sense" while using those same sources to prop up your theories.
- That there is no suggestion that the gaps closed up (Poly 3.73) doesn't mean they didn't - to me it would be a simple drill (let alone essential)
He's not the only one that brought up the gaps. Livy did too, as did Caesar in bits and pieces. As did others. None of the sources spent great time describing approach march formations, most of their emphasis was on battles themselves. So while an argument can be made that the gaps were closed upon contact, it can equally be made that they weren't closed.
- Caesar (GW 5.15) does not say that the cohorts - in fact it can be read that it was 2 legions by then - deliberately left a gap - merely that there was one - a gap that was then exploited by the enemy! Which, in a nutshell, happens to be my entire issue with gaps!
That passage isn't describing a battle, its describing a skirmish that occurred while fortifying a marching camp. Two cohorts move out (described as a small distance from one another) and the enemy breaks through them. Since there were no forces immediately behind those two units the enemy was able to break through them. But at the same time, it didn't mean disaster for the cohorts either, as they were able to retreat in good order. The point of including the link to the Cowan book section, as well as the many past debates on the subject, was to point out to you about the tactical use of gaps in a formation. Follow on lines, behind the initial lines, would cover down on the gaps, therefore it would be close to impossible to exploit. In order to enter the gaps between a unit, an enemy would be forced to completely break any resemblance of their own formation (not cohort sized, still maniple sized). The whole time they are in the gaps they would be threatened by missile fire from the maniples to the sides, skirmishers and armed camp servants located in the gaps, as well as the ever present threat of a completely fresh and intact maniple that is directly behind the gap. Every gap is effectively a salient that is guarded by three sides by cohesive units, against a unit that would need to break cohesion to enter.
- there is nothing at all about gaps in the 'orbis' formation description in those passages; in fact I read into it that there were no gaps (which there are not normally in 'all round defence' formations like 'marching boxes' and 'squares') because the attacking enemy cannot get in and chooses (because the sallies are effective) to harass from a distance
? Cowan literally wrote there were gaps, "for the sake of cohesion..." The square formations from the Napoleanic era were individual battalions and regiments, separated from one another, so cavalry couldn't destroy them while giving them freedom to fire their muskets. In the ancient period, square formations often consisted of the entire Roman army, ie. multiple legions, let alone cohorts, maniples and centurions. There would have been a need to separate those units slightly from one another for the sake of unit integrity, as individual units could be fulled out of the formation for sallies, etc.
- that gaps (of some size, in some formation, under some drill) are created to allow passage of skirmishers, replacements, centurions - does not mean that they are always there - that's supposition - and there are definitely ways it can be achieved.
Battle lines are never static. Skirmishers would constantly be moving around, replacements would need to move around, centurions would need to move around, units would be relieved, entire lines relieved and reinforced. Units would need to move forward and to the rear freely, in whatever terrain the battlefield was on, to attack or retreat. If gaps did disappear in battle, it would be for a short period, and then they would need to open up again so units and individuals could maneuver. Being able to move is flexibility. Gaps allow that. Not being able to move is not flexible. Having no gaps makes that happen.
And.....particularly for this topic - Polybius does NOT say that the centurion 'fought at the front - at the right of his century' in 6.24. My translation also says the centurion(s) were there to 'command' their halves of the maniple (or the whole if one was absent - so obviously not even anywhere near the century/maniple!)). Is there a different word in Greek for 'command' and 'lead'? :?
You're correct. But lots of other evidence exists to show that the centurion fought in the front ranks during battles. If you want that evidence, I'd just reread this thread because many posters have contributed examples. Those that have been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread that you still chose to ignore because they don't agree with your hypothesis.
Tesserarius - it's a role and I do not see why it's not one held by the senior soldier of the century (who in fact is nominally the right-marker as 'leader' of the first contubernium) - for then every one from neighbouring units can find him as he sleeps in the first tent. Nothing in the descriptions I have seen suggest it's another 'officer'.
The tesserarius was in charge of the guard for the century/maniple, which the Romans took pretty seriously, but you think he was just a senior soldier of the century doing an extra duty? Wasn't the senior soldier of the century the centurion? Additionally, funerary reliefs show Tesserarius carrying the same ball-headed staffs that optios also sometimes carried, no doubt a simple of some sort of rank or power. Men brag even in death of being in the position. You should probably do some more research on the position before coming to a conclusion.
Also, you state "who in fact is nominally the right-marker as 'leader' of the first contubernium", what evidence do you have for this fact?
And I must finally ask - that you believe Polybius' camp description (indeed for a 'standard' camp for a 'standard' Consular Army) to be completely meaningless? If so - thanks.
I think it was a standardized/generalized description of a marching camp. Like a template. Polybius gave many generalized descriptions, like weaponry and armor (same sized shields, all principes and triari wearing mail, no mention of other armor, helmet crests all identical, etc.). He didn't have the time or inclination to describe the subtle differences, to include the varying sizes of a marching camp based off terrain, unit size, water sources, ground hardness, etc. So he just gave a generalized description of it so his Greek readers could get an understanding of what the Romans were doing, in relation to what the Greeks were doing, battle wise, to explain why Rome was the master of the world. My opinion at least. But I doubt highly that Polybius expected someone more than 2,000 years later would try to use his rather confusing written description of the camp to try to explicate the length of a battle line.
I'll also throw in that there is no reason for a cornicen/tubicine to be in a century/maniple and I've seen no evidence for one. A likely 2 per cohort - yes. A legion-century - 60 heavy infantry + 20 'lighter troops' + centurion + optio + signifer for quite possibly an 8-900 year period - paired together in maniples, but with a clear century structure.
Now I'm confused. You're stating you don't believe the century/maniple had musical instrumentation? A cohort was 3 maniples or 6 centuries and you think there were two in there, meaning what about the other 4 centuries or one maniple? Which maniple is going into battle without a means to communicate to its men by sound?
Yes I chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion - I'm not aware (having searched and asked) that there is any other detail for that period that covers the level necessary. I have also not "cherry-picked" in the slightest - I have no problem whatsoever with Polybius' Cannae account - in fact the determination of deployment frontage and the normal gaps produced by the (as I believe it was) deployment procedure, arrangement of the triplex acies and the simple movements between them explain, for me, not only what happened at Cannae, but also the simple and probably sensible Roman battle plan that Hannibal managed to disrupt so well.[/i]
Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position (wiki definition). This is exactly what you are doing. You are ignoring all the evidence from the sources that you disagree with, because it flies in the face of your "common sense" while using those same sources to prop up your theories.
- That there is no suggestion that the gaps closed up (Poly 3.73) doesn't mean they didn't - to me it would be a simple drill (let alone essential)
He's not the only one that brought up the gaps. Livy did too, as did Caesar in bits and pieces. As did others. None of the sources spent great time describing approach march formations, most of their emphasis was on battles themselves. So while an argument can be made that the gaps were closed upon contact, it can equally be made that they weren't closed.
- Caesar (GW 5.15) does not say that the cohorts - in fact it can be read that it was 2 legions by then - deliberately left a gap - merely that there was one - a gap that was then exploited by the enemy! Which, in a nutshell, happens to be my entire issue with gaps!
That passage isn't describing a battle, its describing a skirmish that occurred while fortifying a marching camp. Two cohorts move out (described as a small distance from one another) and the enemy breaks through them. Since there were no forces immediately behind those two units the enemy was able to break through them. But at the same time, it didn't mean disaster for the cohorts either, as they were able to retreat in good order. The point of including the link to the Cowan book section, as well as the many past debates on the subject, was to point out to you about the tactical use of gaps in a formation. Follow on lines, behind the initial lines, would cover down on the gaps, therefore it would be close to impossible to exploit. In order to enter the gaps between a unit, an enemy would be forced to completely break any resemblance of their own formation (not cohort sized, still maniple sized). The whole time they are in the gaps they would be threatened by missile fire from the maniples to the sides, skirmishers and armed camp servants located in the gaps, as well as the ever present threat of a completely fresh and intact maniple that is directly behind the gap. Every gap is effectively a salient that is guarded by three sides by cohesive units, against a unit that would need to break cohesion to enter.
- there is nothing at all about gaps in the 'orbis' formation description in those passages; in fact I read into it that there were no gaps (which there are not normally in 'all round defence' formations like 'marching boxes' and 'squares') because the attacking enemy cannot get in and chooses (because the sallies are effective) to harass from a distance
? Cowan literally wrote there were gaps, "for the sake of cohesion..." The square formations from the Napoleanic era were individual battalions and regiments, separated from one another, so cavalry couldn't destroy them while giving them freedom to fire their muskets. In the ancient period, square formations often consisted of the entire Roman army, ie. multiple legions, let alone cohorts, maniples and centurions. There would have been a need to separate those units slightly from one another for the sake of unit integrity, as individual units could be fulled out of the formation for sallies, etc.
- that gaps (of some size, in some formation, under some drill) are created to allow passage of skirmishers, replacements, centurions - does not mean that they are always there - that's supposition - and there are definitely ways it can be achieved.
Battle lines are never static. Skirmishers would constantly be moving around, replacements would need to move around, centurions would need to move around, units would be relieved, entire lines relieved and reinforced. Units would need to move forward and to the rear freely, in whatever terrain the battlefield was on, to attack or retreat. If gaps did disappear in battle, it would be for a short period, and then they would need to open up again so units and individuals could maneuver. Being able to move is flexibility. Gaps allow that. Not being able to move is not flexible. Having no gaps makes that happen.
And.....particularly for this topic - Polybius does NOT say that the centurion 'fought at the front - at the right of his century' in 6.24. My translation also says the centurion(s) were there to 'command' their halves of the maniple (or the whole if one was absent - so obviously not even anywhere near the century/maniple!)). Is there a different word in Greek for 'command' and 'lead'? :?
You're correct. But lots of other evidence exists to show that the centurion fought in the front ranks during battles. If you want that evidence, I'd just reread this thread because many posters have contributed examples. Those that have been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread that you still chose to ignore because they don't agree with your hypothesis.
Tesserarius - it's a role and I do not see why it's not one held by the senior soldier of the century (who in fact is nominally the right-marker as 'leader' of the first contubernium) - for then every one from neighbouring units can find him as he sleeps in the first tent. Nothing in the descriptions I have seen suggest it's another 'officer'.
The tesserarius was in charge of the guard for the century/maniple, which the Romans took pretty seriously, but you think he was just a senior soldier of the century doing an extra duty? Wasn't the senior soldier of the century the centurion? Additionally, funerary reliefs show Tesserarius carrying the same ball-headed staffs that optios also sometimes carried, no doubt a simple of some sort of rank or power. Men brag even in death of being in the position. You should probably do some more research on the position before coming to a conclusion.
Also, you state "who in fact is nominally the right-marker as 'leader' of the first contubernium", what evidence do you have for this fact?
And I must finally ask - that you believe Polybius' camp description (indeed for a 'standard' camp for a 'standard' Consular Army) to be completely meaningless? If so - thanks.
I think it was a standardized/generalized description of a marching camp. Like a template. Polybius gave many generalized descriptions, like weaponry and armor (same sized shields, all principes and triari wearing mail, no mention of other armor, helmet crests all identical, etc.). He didn't have the time or inclination to describe the subtle differences, to include the varying sizes of a marching camp based off terrain, unit size, water sources, ground hardness, etc. So he just gave a generalized description of it so his Greek readers could get an understanding of what the Romans were doing, in relation to what the Greeks were doing, battle wise, to explain why Rome was the master of the world. My opinion at least. But I doubt highly that Polybius expected someone more than 2,000 years later would try to use his rather confusing written description of the camp to try to explicate the length of a battle line.
I'll also throw in that there is no reason for a cornicen/tubicine to be in a century/maniple and I've seen no evidence for one. A likely 2 per cohort - yes. A legion-century - 60 heavy infantry + 20 'lighter troops' + centurion + optio + signifer for quite possibly an 8-900 year period - paired together in maniples, but with a clear century structure.
Now I'm confused. You're stating you don't believe the century/maniple had musical instrumentation? A cohort was 3 maniples or 6 centuries and you think there were two in there, meaning what about the other 4 centuries or one maniple? Which maniple is going into battle without a means to communicate to its men by sound?
