07-03-2014, 11:11 AM
Quote:Well let me just throw more into this fire
I think there was no STANDARD whatsoever in aligning a legion/army
There was a standard legion sure and we know about but when it comes to deployment there was none, there were only choices an commander had to do, that is whey they were learning by example, if you carefully read Caesar you will get what I mean he arranged his battle array depending on the circumstances and he often won because of the way he array his peeps
Well, firstly thanks to Bryan for reviving this thread - I have read it all.
As to a 'standard' - yes, I am a firm believer that there was a standard - and it's how the Romans were trained. I think I'm quite happy now with my interpretation of the 'triplex acies' and whenever we read that for a pre-Marian/cohort-based army then it probably formed up like that. Funnily enough I am not so sure we should rely on that description after the pre-cohort army disappears, even if it is used.
Once the cohort-army appears then the tactical unit of maneuver seems to change and yes, good generals can exploit that - but it is not unreasonable to think that the cohort then fought in a fairly standard way and the general relied on them to do so. The 'secret' is simple - train and train and train and then get clever when the situation demands it, for you have a good base upon which to innovate.
As to 'gap's - I am anti-gaps for a fairly fundamental reason...
Whilst Roman military history may be my favorite, I have studied most of them at one time or another. Stopping an enemy from penetrating that front line (whether it is contiguous on a single battlefield, or dispersed over a wide and mobile front), has been a basic precept throughout. Forces and methods have been developed to also try and accomplish just that.
More at issue - we here have also brought up examples of the Romans trying to break up things like 'phalanxes' by getting past the pikes even, let alone an actual gap left between formations. The 'manipular tactic', the 'saw formation' (one and the same?), the 'wedge', the 'boars head', the 'column', and the pike phalanx itself all are apparently designed to achieve that break-through of the 'line'.
Times when gaps are deliberately created and (the Xenophon example particularly) you don't form a line are the rarity, for special occasions, and thus talked about.
The classic ones we all know about - the details of Cannae and Zama - I am now comfortable with. I'd like to put them together in an appendix for a possible interpretation of the manipular-legion-based 3 lines - but are there any others that people might wish to see me try and cover? 3rd to 2nd C BC to limit to the likely period of said structure - 'cohorts' would be after.
