10-14-2011, 12:24 AM
Sorry if my previous post sounded negative or immature but I have a ton of things that need to get done and constantly having to post here with tons of sources is cutting into my life. But I will defend myself.
Macedon wrote:
Have you actually read what I wrote or did you think it too cumbersome so you had to assume that my position was that the Romans always fought in a long continuous line?
i read them. Trust me I did. As evidence:
Macedon wrote:
Did I say that there were no intervals?
before that he wrote:
Again I do agree that intervals would have been employed as suggested before combat or by the rear lines but I disagree with their use during the actual melee.
He later wrote:
Indeed, there are mentions of such intervals in their primary sources, unfortunately very few determine their width and none actually explaining or describing their use in combat. No mention of any such interval being exploited by the enemy (in the specified era) exists, nor any mention of any measure as to how to guard it. Of course lack of such evidence is not proof, this is why the debate rages even today, thus while not denying the probability I will show quotes that suggests that such intervals were not employed.
These are just a few of the many ways that I have become frustrated and confused. And this is why I don't like debating on the internet. Again, back to the whole Special Olympics joke.
So I think I demonstrated enough evidence already that gaps did in fact exist in combat. I even demonstrated a method that they could be used properly.
This whole argument still stems from the gaps/interval debate. I brought up Polybius and Livy and then Caesar himself. I quoted lines from Caesar to substantiate that gaps existed as well even though he only mentions them between legions.
Macedon reply:
Another (I would admit totally unsupported by modern historiography) theory could have the 8th be posted behind the 9th. This is something that comes to mind since there is absence in the translation of any certain hint as to the relative position of the two here or in any part of the description of the battle. Then, Caesar's orders would be interpreted in another sense, the 8th would indeed as a whole support the 9th, effectively forming a second line very close to the front. Maybe the whole of the 9th would be deployed in single line? Now, such an idea is not supported by bibliography and may easily be dismissed by the Latin text itself if there is something there not clearly translated... As a tactical decision it would certainly though not be a first (told you we RomanArmy forumites are prone to wild theories!).
Okay, a little out of left field, but okay. Still think that this goes against the concept of unity of command which is a principle of warfare but okay, a possibility until you read the example of how Caesar had organized legions into the fabled triplex acies while fighting in Spain.
"Caesar had three lines, four cohorts out of each of the five legions formed the first line. Three more from each legion followed them, as reserves: and three others were behind these." 1:83
Meaning each legion controlled its own battle space with the cohorts within broken up to form different lines.
Macedon swiftly counters with:
And where exactly does your disagreement lie? At Pharsalus it seems the formation was 4/3/2/1... Do you really suggest that there were no tactical variations? Afranius posted his legions against Caesar in two lines... Studying a traditional, often used formation is very understandable, not taking into account the different variations is a mistake. (It awfully looks to me like soccer tactics... Whether you play 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, even 5-3-2 etc it is up to the coach. Yet, generally, coaches use variations of the 4-4-2 system.)
Ahhh, okay...my argument is that gaps existed. That separating units makes sense. That if fighting against a solid line, whether straight or snake shaped would be easily broken by using independent and flexible combat units that each have a mind of their own (centurion) that could fight and maneuver in different ways when necessary (again I gave examples of this).
Further confusing me and sending me into an endless spiral of "This is Going Nowhere Slowly" is when Macedon himself quotes Caesar:
He gave the command of the left wing to Antonius, of the right to P. Sulla, and of the center to Cn. Domitius: he himself took his post opposite Pompey.
and then says later:
Now you are debating that the legions did not (ever? traditionally?) fight trying to keep their relative positions but when we read that someone drew his battleline posting legion A&B on the right wing, C&D in the center and E&F on the left wing, we should understand that this someone was preparing to give 6 different battles that would not be coordinated, that legion E would not care where legions D and F were... Now, THIS is a theory you will need much effort to support. Does it also work in your manipular model?
Did you read the Caesar's Commentaries? At almost every single battle he describes chaos and independent action from each legion. Did I say this? Or did Caesar kind of imply this?
I will finish by answering a question from Macedon.
So, now your model has every Roman battle being a sum of many individual, virtually tactically independent battles whose sum would determine the outcome?
Judging by my own experiences in the military, in war and in combat and from reading such writings as Caesar's commentaries and many other historical accounts of battles including Romans or others, I believe this to the bottom of my heart. Everything else is an author simplifying the battle or campaign by giving credit to the whole rather than the individual soldiers or units.
Lastly, this thread is still going nowhere since both parties wont agree with each other. We can continue but both parties will still ignore everything the other says except to use it as evidence to push their own ideas. So I am bailing out for now. Someone else can jump in, Crispus, you sound like you have some ideas, lets hear them!
But lets not argue for the sake of winning an argument.
Macedon wrote:
Have you actually read what I wrote or did you think it too cumbersome so you had to assume that my position was that the Romans always fought in a long continuous line?
i read them. Trust me I did. As evidence:
Macedon wrote:
Did I say that there were no intervals?
before that he wrote:
Again I do agree that intervals would have been employed as suggested before combat or by the rear lines but I disagree with their use during the actual melee.
He later wrote:
Indeed, there are mentions of such intervals in their primary sources, unfortunately very few determine their width and none actually explaining or describing their use in combat. No mention of any such interval being exploited by the enemy (in the specified era) exists, nor any mention of any measure as to how to guard it. Of course lack of such evidence is not proof, this is why the debate rages even today, thus while not denying the probability I will show quotes that suggests that such intervals were not employed.
These are just a few of the many ways that I have become frustrated and confused. And this is why I don't like debating on the internet. Again, back to the whole Special Olympics joke.
So I think I demonstrated enough evidence already that gaps did in fact exist in combat. I even demonstrated a method that they could be used properly.
This whole argument still stems from the gaps/interval debate. I brought up Polybius and Livy and then Caesar himself. I quoted lines from Caesar to substantiate that gaps existed as well even though he only mentions them between legions.
Macedon reply:
Another (I would admit totally unsupported by modern historiography) theory could have the 8th be posted behind the 9th. This is something that comes to mind since there is absence in the translation of any certain hint as to the relative position of the two here or in any part of the description of the battle. Then, Caesar's orders would be interpreted in another sense, the 8th would indeed as a whole support the 9th, effectively forming a second line very close to the front. Maybe the whole of the 9th would be deployed in single line? Now, such an idea is not supported by bibliography and may easily be dismissed by the Latin text itself if there is something there not clearly translated... As a tactical decision it would certainly though not be a first (told you we RomanArmy forumites are prone to wild theories!).
Okay, a little out of left field, but okay. Still think that this goes against the concept of unity of command which is a principle of warfare but okay, a possibility until you read the example of how Caesar had organized legions into the fabled triplex acies while fighting in Spain.
"Caesar had three lines, four cohorts out of each of the five legions formed the first line. Three more from each legion followed them, as reserves: and three others were behind these." 1:83
Meaning each legion controlled its own battle space with the cohorts within broken up to form different lines.
Macedon swiftly counters with:
And where exactly does your disagreement lie? At Pharsalus it seems the formation was 4/3/2/1... Do you really suggest that there were no tactical variations? Afranius posted his legions against Caesar in two lines... Studying a traditional, often used formation is very understandable, not taking into account the different variations is a mistake. (It awfully looks to me like soccer tactics... Whether you play 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, even 5-3-2 etc it is up to the coach. Yet, generally, coaches use variations of the 4-4-2 system.)
Ahhh, okay...my argument is that gaps existed. That separating units makes sense. That if fighting against a solid line, whether straight or snake shaped would be easily broken by using independent and flexible combat units that each have a mind of their own (centurion) that could fight and maneuver in different ways when necessary (again I gave examples of this).
Further confusing me and sending me into an endless spiral of "This is Going Nowhere Slowly" is when Macedon himself quotes Caesar:
He gave the command of the left wing to Antonius, of the right to P. Sulla, and of the center to Cn. Domitius: he himself took his post opposite Pompey.
and then says later:
Now you are debating that the legions did not (ever? traditionally?) fight trying to keep their relative positions but when we read that someone drew his battleline posting legion A&B on the right wing, C&D in the center and E&F on the left wing, we should understand that this someone was preparing to give 6 different battles that would not be coordinated, that legion E would not care where legions D and F were... Now, THIS is a theory you will need much effort to support. Does it also work in your manipular model?
Did you read the Caesar's Commentaries? At almost every single battle he describes chaos and independent action from each legion. Did I say this? Or did Caesar kind of imply this?
I will finish by answering a question from Macedon.
So, now your model has every Roman battle being a sum of many individual, virtually tactically independent battles whose sum would determine the outcome?
Judging by my own experiences in the military, in war and in combat and from reading such writings as Caesar's commentaries and many other historical accounts of battles including Romans or others, I believe this to the bottom of my heart. Everything else is an author simplifying the battle or campaign by giving credit to the whole rather than the individual soldiers or units.
Lastly, this thread is still going nowhere since both parties wont agree with each other. We can continue but both parties will still ignore everything the other says except to use it as evidence to push their own ideas. So I am bailing out for now. Someone else can jump in, Crispus, you sound like you have some ideas, lets hear them!
But lets not argue for the sake of winning an argument.
