06-30-2014, 03:14 PM
antiochus wrote:
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?
With all due respect, I've read pretty much every post in RAT you've written on the topic of numbers and unit strength and while I find the topic interesting, during those threads others have used quite a few historical sources to disprove your theory. And at the end of each thread, every time, it comes down to the same thing eventually, you are not willing to reveal your research in total as you are awaiting publication. I totally get it, you have every right to protect your intellectual ideas, but you might want to wait until others have at least a semblance of understanding what you are writing before you try to sway them with your Pythagorean numbers theories. We don't get it.
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.
How can vexilla, which is synonymous in size with maniple, also be a synonym for century, a sub unit of a maniple? From a different source? I was just talking about Polybius, as Mark Hygate uses him almost solely.
I have to disagree. My research has the Roman legion being standardised and I would go as far to say “chronic standardisation.”
Again, until you reveal all your theories in total, allowing others to study them, there can never be a real debate over the subject. From what I have read, it seems that isn't the case. Read the description of three different armies during the Republican time period, three actual ones fighting, not hypothetical descriptions, and you'll find three completely different legions, operating differently, at different strengths, organized differently. As an example:
When were cohorts standardized? Why did Sallust just start mentioning them while Marius becomes consul, but not when Caecilius Metellus is consul, the year before? Previous to Marius and Caesar, why are the ala organized in cohorts but not the Romans? How is it that Livy has cohorts being used nearly a hundred years before Jugurtha's war? Were they only used as ad hoc units by some commanders? Were they a byproduct of legions operating in places like Spain, which saw more fighting in smaller Fiery Wars against hit and run opponents, with a need to break units into a unit larger than maniple but smaller than a line like the hastati?
Speaking of chronic standardisation, what happened to the Roman citizen cavalry? After Marius, some armies appeared to have them, some didn't. After a while, none did (Caesar). And then some did again (Pompeius). And eventually none did (Principate), until they did again (late empire).
Too many questions like this exist for anyone to convincingly state that legions were standardized.
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.
I disagree. According to Livy, the triari didn't replace the principes, the principes line retreats through the triari line, who launch an attack, to cover the retreat. As for overlapping the enemy frontage, that could be controlled by either curving the battle line or by adjusting the gaps and/or number of ranks. Also, being closer to their base camp, the threat of being outflanked would be lessened.
If you want to discuss this further, please provide an example of an actual battle where the triari line saved the day by holding off the entirety of the enemy battle line. I mean victory, not a draw or holding action to prevent a Roman rout.
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.
I was specifically referring to the military concept of reserves, which is what the triari were. In certain situations, the triari reserve might be forced to match the length of the front line, but not in every situation. Reserves rarely in any setting, ancient or otherwise, are a separate unit that equals the fighting units of the main effort. As an example, the Triari might be half the strength of an individual lines of say the hastati or the principes, but they were actually one quarter strength of the main effort fighting lines of those two together (hastati and principes are staggered in a quincunx formation). The hastati and principes were expected to fight while the triari (pre cohort legions) was not, unless things went bad. So the main effort fighting line of one legion would have 2400 men (hastati and principes), while the reserves has 600 men, but the reserve line is supposed to be able to cover that frontage? I think in most situations, that is absurd.
Caesar, Frontinus and Plutarch have the fourth line organised into six cohorts amounting to 3000 men.
I used Pharsalus as an example of a third line, specifically used as a reserve, that was far less in strength than the main line. At Pharsulus, Caesar pulled one cohort from the third line from each legion to form the fourth line (8-9 legions present, 80 cohorts). The fourth line wasn't positioned behind the third line, they were instead at the right wing set up perpendicular to the main battle line, to stop Pompeius' cavalry. Meanwhile, the third line has a total 2 cohorts (per legion), while the second line was 3 cohorts, and the first line 4 cohorts. 4-3-2-1 (detached). That means the third line had half the numbers of the first line. Since Frontinus makes it a point to state that Caesar's line were formed in only four ranks to match the length of the battle line of Pompeius' cohorts, formed in 10 ranks, I don't see how two can cover down on four. Frontinus' statement on the depth of ranks makes sense too, as Caesar had far less infantry and his units were not up to strength. Unless you are suggesting that those cohorts formed only two ranks deep.
Also, where did you get 3000 men for six cohorts? Plutarch? I don't think those numbers are correct. Caesar in his Commentaries specifically says he had 80 cohorts, totaling 22,000 men. (DBC, 3.89). That comes out to roughly on average, 275 men per cohort or 45 men per century. But since the units weren't balanced out in strength, some units would be higher in numbers than others (case in point: the 9th Legion was very understrength compared to other legions, due to losses sustained at Dyrrachium). There is no specific mention of exactly how many legions were present under Caesar at Pharsalus but most guess eight or nine legions. He had 80 cohorts in battle that day, so it most likely was eight. (32 cohorts first line, 24 in the 2nd line, 16 in the third, 8 in the fourth [one per legion]=80). Also, to add more confusion, considering one of the cohorts would have come from the far understrength 9th Legion, and that Caesar's other cohorts were understrength as well, I don't see how there were 3000 men in Caesar's fourth line of cohorts.
Once again Plutarch drops the ball...
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.
And like I stated before, this topic is highly debatable. No evidence from any of those sources that discuss gaps specifically mention closing them, aside from one dealing only with the Triari, who were a reserve line and used spears, not pila and swords. Those posters and modern writers that believe gaps existed in the fighting during a fight (mentioned in this thread and many others) can often bring up many good examples of why gaps would make sense. Not enough evidence exists one way or another to convincingly prove one side is wrong.
Mark,
That Ross Cowan line from his book that was hyperlinked is not my own opinion, it's his, specifically in that one book. In his other books, not to mention articles in Ancient Warfare Magazine, he provides other theories to their placement. Like I mentioned before, you should read D'Amato's two Osprey books on centurions, as well as Cowan's book and Lendon's, both referenced in previous posts. Also, I'd recommend Cowan's article "The Centuria in Battle: Tactical Organization and Combat," Ancient Warfare Magazine, Special Edition 2010.
Until then, if you don't want to put words in my mouth, reread this entire thread. In it, from me and others, you'll find ample evidence provided as to why many believe centurions fought in the front rank. Polybius 6.24, while telling in its description of the centurion ranking system and where each commanded in the maniple in relation to each other, is generally not one of those used as evidence.
PhilusEstilius,
Here's a link to Polybius
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?
With all due respect, I've read pretty much every post in RAT you've written on the topic of numbers and unit strength and while I find the topic interesting, during those threads others have used quite a few historical sources to disprove your theory. And at the end of each thread, every time, it comes down to the same thing eventually, you are not willing to reveal your research in total as you are awaiting publication. I totally get it, you have every right to protect your intellectual ideas, but you might want to wait until others have at least a semblance of understanding what you are writing before you try to sway them with your Pythagorean numbers theories. We don't get it.
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.
How can vexilla, which is synonymous in size with maniple, also be a synonym for century, a sub unit of a maniple? From a different source? I was just talking about Polybius, as Mark Hygate uses him almost solely.
I have to disagree. My research has the Roman legion being standardised and I would go as far to say “chronic standardisation.”
Again, until you reveal all your theories in total, allowing others to study them, there can never be a real debate over the subject. From what I have read, it seems that isn't the case. Read the description of three different armies during the Republican time period, three actual ones fighting, not hypothetical descriptions, and you'll find three completely different legions, operating differently, at different strengths, organized differently. As an example:
When were cohorts standardized? Why did Sallust just start mentioning them while Marius becomes consul, but not when Caecilius Metellus is consul, the year before? Previous to Marius and Caesar, why are the ala organized in cohorts but not the Romans? How is it that Livy has cohorts being used nearly a hundred years before Jugurtha's war? Were they only used as ad hoc units by some commanders? Were they a byproduct of legions operating in places like Spain, which saw more fighting in smaller Fiery Wars against hit and run opponents, with a need to break units into a unit larger than maniple but smaller than a line like the hastati?
Speaking of chronic standardisation, what happened to the Roman citizen cavalry? After Marius, some armies appeared to have them, some didn't. After a while, none did (Caesar). And then some did again (Pompeius). And eventually none did (Principate), until they did again (late empire).
Too many questions like this exist for anyone to convincingly state that legions were standardized.
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.
I disagree. According to Livy, the triari didn't replace the principes, the principes line retreats through the triari line, who launch an attack, to cover the retreat. As for overlapping the enemy frontage, that could be controlled by either curving the battle line or by adjusting the gaps and/or number of ranks. Also, being closer to their base camp, the threat of being outflanked would be lessened.
If you want to discuss this further, please provide an example of an actual battle where the triari line saved the day by holding off the entirety of the enemy battle line. I mean victory, not a draw or holding action to prevent a Roman rout.
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.
I was specifically referring to the military concept of reserves, which is what the triari were. In certain situations, the triari reserve might be forced to match the length of the front line, but not in every situation. Reserves rarely in any setting, ancient or otherwise, are a separate unit that equals the fighting units of the main effort. As an example, the Triari might be half the strength of an individual lines of say the hastati or the principes, but they were actually one quarter strength of the main effort fighting lines of those two together (hastati and principes are staggered in a quincunx formation). The hastati and principes were expected to fight while the triari (pre cohort legions) was not, unless things went bad. So the main effort fighting line of one legion would have 2400 men (hastati and principes), while the reserves has 600 men, but the reserve line is supposed to be able to cover that frontage? I think in most situations, that is absurd.
Caesar, Frontinus and Plutarch have the fourth line organised into six cohorts amounting to 3000 men.
I used Pharsalus as an example of a third line, specifically used as a reserve, that was far less in strength than the main line. At Pharsulus, Caesar pulled one cohort from the third line from each legion to form the fourth line (8-9 legions present, 80 cohorts). The fourth line wasn't positioned behind the third line, they were instead at the right wing set up perpendicular to the main battle line, to stop Pompeius' cavalry. Meanwhile, the third line has a total 2 cohorts (per legion), while the second line was 3 cohorts, and the first line 4 cohorts. 4-3-2-1 (detached). That means the third line had half the numbers of the first line. Since Frontinus makes it a point to state that Caesar's line were formed in only four ranks to match the length of the battle line of Pompeius' cohorts, formed in 10 ranks, I don't see how two can cover down on four. Frontinus' statement on the depth of ranks makes sense too, as Caesar had far less infantry and his units were not up to strength. Unless you are suggesting that those cohorts formed only two ranks deep.
Also, where did you get 3000 men for six cohorts? Plutarch? I don't think those numbers are correct. Caesar in his Commentaries specifically says he had 80 cohorts, totaling 22,000 men. (DBC, 3.89). That comes out to roughly on average, 275 men per cohort or 45 men per century. But since the units weren't balanced out in strength, some units would be higher in numbers than others (case in point: the 9th Legion was very understrength compared to other legions, due to losses sustained at Dyrrachium). There is no specific mention of exactly how many legions were present under Caesar at Pharsalus but most guess eight or nine legions. He had 80 cohorts in battle that day, so it most likely was eight. (32 cohorts first line, 24 in the 2nd line, 16 in the third, 8 in the fourth [one per legion]=80). Also, to add more confusion, considering one of the cohorts would have come from the far understrength 9th Legion, and that Caesar's other cohorts were understrength as well, I don't see how there were 3000 men in Caesar's fourth line of cohorts.
Once again Plutarch drops the ball...
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.
And like I stated before, this topic is highly debatable. No evidence from any of those sources that discuss gaps specifically mention closing them, aside from one dealing only with the Triari, who were a reserve line and used spears, not pila and swords. Those posters and modern writers that believe gaps existed in the fighting during a fight (mentioned in this thread and many others) can often bring up many good examples of why gaps would make sense. Not enough evidence exists one way or another to convincingly prove one side is wrong.
Mark,
That Ross Cowan line from his book that was hyperlinked is not my own opinion, it's his, specifically in that one book. In his other books, not to mention articles in Ancient Warfare Magazine, he provides other theories to their placement. Like I mentioned before, you should read D'Amato's two Osprey books on centurions, as well as Cowan's book and Lendon's, both referenced in previous posts. Also, I'd recommend Cowan's article "The Centuria in Battle: Tactical Organization and Combat," Ancient Warfare Magazine, Special Edition 2010.
Until then, if you don't want to put words in my mouth, reread this entire thread. In it, from me and others, you'll find ample evidence provided as to why many believe centurions fought in the front rank. Polybius 6.24, while telling in its description of the centurion ranking system and where each commanded in the maniple in relation to each other, is generally not one of those used as evidence.
PhilusEstilius,
Here's a link to Polybius
