06-30-2014, 04:42 AM
Bryan wrote:
There would never be 60 men in a triarii maniple except maybe on the first day it formed.
Gellius tells us that a legion had 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries. This has led all and sundry to then align Gellius with Polybius, minus the cohort arrangement. When the masses have done their calculations the end up with 10 maniples of hastati each of 120 men, 10 maniples of principes each of 120 men, and in order to reach a maximum of 30 maniples, the 600 triarii are organised into 10 maniples of 60 men.
So when is a maniple a maniple? Or doesn’t anyone believe the Romans had standardised names for standardised units? Let’s not forget that Polybius writes that a maniple had more than 100 men, and yet scholars somehow believe the triarii are organised into maniples of 60 men. This is fitting squares in round holes. It always astounds me the violence people are prepared to commit against the primary sources in order to protect their theory. Has anyone of you studied Roman mathematics? At a guess I would say most of you think it is irrelevant. Do the Romans use triangular numbers or square numbers? Also it’s important to remember we use maths algebraically, whereas the ancients used maths geometrically. So numbers represents shapes and military formations are shapes. So is the Roman military a true sexagesimal system?
Bryan wrote:
Also you keep bringing up centuries and Polybius who never used that term.
Polybius (6 24) states that the four property classes (helokias or class by age) were divided into ten companies (deka mere). Polybius further explains that these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla. This clearly shows that Polybius is uncertain about the identity of these ten companies. However, my research has vexilla = century.
Bryan wrote:
Your desire to find a standardized battle template might be flawed, as the legions were never standardized.
I have to disagree. My research has the Roman legion being standardised and I would go as far to say “chronic standardisation.”
Bryan wrote:
I don't buy into the idea that in a triplex acies, the Triari line had to be the same width as the other two lines.
For the triarii to replace the principes, as Livy clearly states they did, they have to be the same frontage. In your scenario, if the triarii didn’t have the same frontage as the principes, then they will be overlapped by the enemies frontage, which would have had the same frontage as the principes.
Bryan wrote:
In warfare in general, reserve units are rarely the same size of the front line units in contact; the 2 up, 1 back rule is generally used for reserves.
This is not modern warfare or Napoleonic warfare, this is ancient warfare and matching the enemies’ frontage was of critical importance. The ancient accounts show that in regard to Roman warfare, in the pre maniple legion, reserve units replaced units in the main battle line, whereas in the maniple legion, lines replaced lines. Therefore, each line has to have the same frontage.
Bryan wrote:
At Pharsalus, Caesar's third line (reserve) was made up of two cohorts, as his usual 4-3-3 formation was disrupted when he pulled one cohort in the third line from each legion to form a forth line protecting his right flank. With his front rank cohorts fighting four ranks deep, I don't see how two cohorts could cover down on the same territory that four cohorts covered.
Caesar, Frontinus and Plutarch have the fourth line organised into six cohorts amounting to 3000 men.
Bryan wrote:
It seems from your (Mark’s) graphic that you chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion. Why do you not believe him when it comes to gaps? (Pol. Hist. 3.113)
I have no problem with a legion having gaps or intervals in the line, but only when it is not fighting. The reference to gaps seems to be in content of having adopted the formation necessary for allowing troops to retreat between the gaps, before closing up to engage the enemy.
Mark wrote:
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.
Suda pi 2279
Πρίγκιπες: οὕτω καλοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι τοὺς ἀκμαιοτάτους ταῖς ἡλικίαις: τοὺς γὰρ νεωτέρους καὶ πενιχροτέρους γροσφομάχους καλοῦσιν, εἶτα τοὺς πρίγκιπας: τοὺς δὲ πρεσβύτας τριαρίους: καὶ τοὺς ἁστάτους καλουμένους, οἵ εἰσι πρότεροι τῶν πριγκίπων. καὶ αὗται μὲν αἱ ὀνομασίαι. ἡ δὲ ἐξόπλισις τοὺς μὲν τριαρίους εἶναι χ#, τοὺς δὲ πρίγκιπας #22ασ1#, ἴσους δὲ τούτοις τοὺς ἁστάτους, τοὺς δὲ γροσφομάχους πλείους τῶν τετρακισχιλίων: φορεῖν δὲ μάχαιραν καὶ γρόσφον.
“This is what Romans call those who are in the prime of life; for the younger and poorer men they call velites, then the principes, the oldest men [are called] triarii; and the so-called hastati come before the principes. And these are the names. As regards the deployment: the triarii are 600, the principes 1200, the hastati the same, the velites more than four thousand; and [the velites] carry a sword and a javelin.”
Tim wrote:
Anyway I do agree with the century being 10 files of 3/6 or 8 men depending on type of troops/periods and all.
I found a reference to “doubled files” in Dionysius (VI.93) for the Roman army. However, when I had the translation checked, it read “poiesantes puknous tous lokhous emballousi tois polemos.” This literally means “making in order of battle the lochoi, in charged his forces.” So there is no mention of files whatsoever. All my research points towards the Romans working by rank and not by file. The Roman system is all about geometric horizontal blocks, not vertical blocks.
Tim wrote:
It would be odd if the triari were indeed the key. (I did read your steps on the other thread) From my limited knowledge of the literature, they barely seem to take part in the battles and weren't they even left behind in camp at Cannae?
The triarii are the key, but they weren’t left in the camp at Cannae. Plutarch has 88,000 men “arrayed for battle,” so this number includes the triarii. Those not arrayed for battle are the artificers, who are left behind in the camp as was the situation at the battle of Veii in 480 BC.
One factor that astounds me with those who study Roman military history is the lack of critical study. Too many things are taken for granted that no one questions them anymore because many believe they have been fully analysed. However, they haven’t. There is one important point that has been overlooked by many scholars past and present and that is Polybius’ (6 20 8-9) remark: “when the strength of each legion is brought up to 4200.”
If a legion numbered 4200 men in the first place, then there is no need to state “the strength of the legion is bought up to 4200 men,” it should read “a legion numbered 4200 men or in times of exceptional danger is bought up to 5000 men or 5200 men.”
What all have failed to understand is Polybius is referring to another legion smaller than 4200 men. The history of this legion, including when it was introduced, its size and organisation, and the times it was used and for what purpose it chartered in my book. It has a very interesting history, and is a legion best suited for garrison work and siege operations. When it comes to the Roman legion, I have found Polybius to be the most unreliable source, yet everyone swears by him, and that is the greatest mistake.
There would never be 60 men in a triarii maniple except maybe on the first day it formed.
Gellius tells us that a legion had 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries. This has led all and sundry to then align Gellius with Polybius, minus the cohort arrangement. When the masses have done their calculations the end up with 10 maniples of hastati each of 120 men, 10 maniples of principes each of 120 men, and in order to reach a maximum of 30 maniples, the 600 triarii are organised into 10 maniples of 60 men.
So when is a maniple a maniple? Or doesn’t anyone believe the Romans had standardised names for standardised units? Let’s not forget that Polybius writes that a maniple had more than 100 men, and yet scholars somehow believe the triarii are organised into maniples of 60 men. This is fitting squares in round holes. It always astounds me the violence people are prepared to commit against the primary sources in order to protect their theory. Has anyone of you studied Roman mathematics? At a guess I would say most of you think it is irrelevant. Do the Romans use triangular numbers or square numbers? Also it’s important to remember we use maths algebraically, whereas the ancients used maths geometrically. So numbers represents shapes and military formations are shapes. So is the Roman military a true sexagesimal system?
Bryan wrote:
Also you keep bringing up centuries and Polybius who never used that term.
Polybius (6 24) states that the four property classes (helokias or class by age) were divided into ten companies (deka mere). Polybius further explains that these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla. This clearly shows that Polybius is uncertain about the identity of these ten companies. However, my research has vexilla = century.
Bryan wrote:
Your desire to find a standardized battle template might be flawed, as the legions were never standardized.
I have to disagree. My research has the Roman legion being standardised and I would go as far to say “chronic standardisation.”
Bryan wrote:
I don't buy into the idea that in a triplex acies, the Triari line had to be the same width as the other two lines.
For the triarii to replace the principes, as Livy clearly states they did, they have to be the same frontage. In your scenario, if the triarii didn’t have the same frontage as the principes, then they will be overlapped by the enemies frontage, which would have had the same frontage as the principes.
Bryan wrote:
In warfare in general, reserve units are rarely the same size of the front line units in contact; the 2 up, 1 back rule is generally used for reserves.
This is not modern warfare or Napoleonic warfare, this is ancient warfare and matching the enemies’ frontage was of critical importance. The ancient accounts show that in regard to Roman warfare, in the pre maniple legion, reserve units replaced units in the main battle line, whereas in the maniple legion, lines replaced lines. Therefore, each line has to have the same frontage.
Bryan wrote:
At Pharsalus, Caesar's third line (reserve) was made up of two cohorts, as his usual 4-3-3 formation was disrupted when he pulled one cohort in the third line from each legion to form a forth line protecting his right flank. With his front rank cohorts fighting four ranks deep, I don't see how two cohorts could cover down on the same territory that four cohorts covered.
Caesar, Frontinus and Plutarch have the fourth line organised into six cohorts amounting to 3000 men.
Bryan wrote:
It seems from your (Mark’s) graphic that you chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion. Why do you not believe him when it comes to gaps? (Pol. Hist. 3.113)
I have no problem with a legion having gaps or intervals in the line, but only when it is not fighting. The reference to gaps seems to be in content of having adopted the formation necessary for allowing troops to retreat between the gaps, before closing up to engage the enemy.
Mark wrote:
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.
Suda pi 2279
Πρίγκιπες: οὕτω καλοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι τοὺς ἀκμαιοτάτους ταῖς ἡλικίαις: τοὺς γὰρ νεωτέρους καὶ πενιχροτέρους γροσφομάχους καλοῦσιν, εἶτα τοὺς πρίγκιπας: τοὺς δὲ πρεσβύτας τριαρίους: καὶ τοὺς ἁστάτους καλουμένους, οἵ εἰσι πρότεροι τῶν πριγκίπων. καὶ αὗται μὲν αἱ ὀνομασίαι. ἡ δὲ ἐξόπλισις τοὺς μὲν τριαρίους εἶναι χ#, τοὺς δὲ πρίγκιπας #22ασ1#, ἴσους δὲ τούτοις τοὺς ἁστάτους, τοὺς δὲ γροσφομάχους πλείους τῶν τετρακισχιλίων: φορεῖν δὲ μάχαιραν καὶ γρόσφον.
“This is what Romans call those who are in the prime of life; for the younger and poorer men they call velites, then the principes, the oldest men [are called] triarii; and the so-called hastati come before the principes. And these are the names. As regards the deployment: the triarii are 600, the principes 1200, the hastati the same, the velites more than four thousand; and [the velites] carry a sword and a javelin.”
Tim wrote:
Anyway I do agree with the century being 10 files of 3/6 or 8 men depending on type of troops/periods and all.
I found a reference to “doubled files” in Dionysius (VI.93) for the Roman army. However, when I had the translation checked, it read “poiesantes puknous tous lokhous emballousi tois polemos.” This literally means “making in order of battle the lochoi, in charged his forces.” So there is no mention of files whatsoever. All my research points towards the Romans working by rank and not by file. The Roman system is all about geometric horizontal blocks, not vertical blocks.
Tim wrote:
It would be odd if the triari were indeed the key. (I did read your steps on the other thread) From my limited knowledge of the literature, they barely seem to take part in the battles and weren't they even left behind in camp at Cannae?
The triarii are the key, but they weren’t left in the camp at Cannae. Plutarch has 88,000 men “arrayed for battle,” so this number includes the triarii. Those not arrayed for battle are the artificers, who are left behind in the camp as was the situation at the battle of Veii in 480 BC.
One factor that astounds me with those who study Roman military history is the lack of critical study. Too many things are taken for granted that no one questions them anymore because many believe they have been fully analysed. However, they haven’t. There is one important point that has been overlooked by many scholars past and present and that is Polybius’ (6 20 8-9) remark: “when the strength of each legion is brought up to 4200.”
If a legion numbered 4200 men in the first place, then there is no need to state “the strength of the legion is bought up to 4200 men,” it should read “a legion numbered 4200 men or in times of exceptional danger is bought up to 5000 men or 5200 men.”
What all have failed to understand is Polybius is referring to another legion smaller than 4200 men. The history of this legion, including when it was introduced, its size and organisation, and the times it was used and for what purpose it chartered in my book. It has a very interesting history, and is a legion best suited for garrison work and siege operations. When it comes to the Roman legion, I have found Polybius to be the most unreliable source, yet everyone swears by him, and that is the greatest mistake.
