01-07-2014, 03:01 PM
Michael, having read your paper “Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment” I believe your use of the empirical data in the primary sources has left your flanks rather exposed.
Michael wrote:
“at Cynoscephalae, both armies were roughly equal in size, at c. 26,000 troops. Philip V deployed a phalanx of 16,000, in addition to 2000 peltasts, 2000 Thracians, 2000 Illyrians and 1500 mercenaries.”
Using your numbers for the Macedonian army, this adds up to 23,500 men which are not “roughly equal in size to 26,000 troops.” Although it is a minor point, you have omitted Livy’s reference there were 2000 cavalry. This brings the total for the Macedonian army to 25,500 men.
Michael wrote:
“Flamininus’ two legions were c. 4200 strong, a fact that is nowhere explicitly stated, but readily deduced.”
I dare to differ. Legions of 5400 men are more “readily deduced” and supported by the primary sources for this period.
Michael wrote:
“Firstly, Plutarch reports Flamininus had c. 26,000 troops, from which 6400 Aitolians, 1200 Athamanians and 800 Cretans/Apollonians must be subtracted. This gives a rough estimate of 17,500 Roman troops, or 4,400 a legion/ala, counting cavalry. The detachment previously reported by Livy (32.11.7) at the Aous Pass consisted of 4000 infantry and 300 cavalry, and is surely a single legion. Thus Flamininus’ legions were standard strength of 4000–4200 infantry.”
What you fail to mention is, and one that is important is Plutarch numbers the Roman army at “OVER 26,000 men.” Therefore this is greater in number than 26,000 men. Also you fail to bring into the discussion that Plutarch’s 6400 Aitolians (6000 infantry and 400 cavalry) is contradicted by Livy’s figure of 1000 Aitolians (600 infantry and 400 cavalry). From my perspective you have used Plutarch’s figure for the Aitolians because you want the numbers to get as close to Polybius’ legion of 4200 men as possible, therefore your comment the 4400 men included the cavalry, of which I gather must number 200 cavalry. The 4000 infantry you mention at the Aous Pass is described in some translations as a picked force which could represent any number of troops and not necessarily a legion. It could be 1800 velites and 1800 hastati totalling 3600 men, which has been rounded to 4000 men. The fact the 4000 men are accompanied by 300 cavalry would suggest it is a legion but how can we be sure?
You are also inclined to believe that Livy’s reference to the 2000 hastati “may instead refer to both Roman and allied hastati combined from the legion and its allied wing, c. 2400 if each contained 4000–4200 men.” This shows your strong determination to protect your theory the legion numbered 4000 to 4200 men. I want to indulge in an exercise using the primary sources to see if it is possible to dispute your claim Flaminius’ legions numbered 4000 or 4200 men, or 4400 men which includes the cavalry.
Let’s take the premise the legion numbered 5400 men as it did at Magnesia some seven years later. Trusting to Livy’s claim the hastati numbered 2000 men, of which I will claim it is 1800 hastati rounded to 2000 men, a 5400 man legion could consists of:
1200 velites
1800 hastati
1800 principes
600 triarii
What we have is a 4200 men legion reinforced with 600 additional hastati and 600 additional principes. Let us remember that Polybius informs us the triarii always remained constant at 600 men and the others were enlarged, which I interpret to be the hastati and principes. This also raises the question that when the legion is increased by 1000 men, is the figure of 1000 men as given in the primary sources rounded from 1200 men? Let’s now say Flaminius has four legions each of 5400 men totalling 21,600 legionaries. Now if we add Plutarch’s 8400 foreign allies, the figure increases to 30,000 men, which does not accord with Plutarch’s figure of “over 26,000 men.” However, by adding Livy’s figure of 3000 foreign allies to the 21,600 legionaries, the total is 24,600 men, which also does not appropriate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men. So what is missing? It is obvious that the 600 Roman and 1200 allied cavalry are missing from the Roman order of battle. With their inclusion, the Roman army now numbers 26,400 men, which would better approximate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men.
Michael wrote:
“The Seleucid infantry line was anchored by its main phalanx, 16,000 men strong, 32 men deep…On either side of the phalanx were two divisions of Gallic infantry, 1500 men each…I will therefore hypothesize a depth of 12 to the Galatian infantry.”
The deployment of the Galatian infantry would indicate they are flank guards for the Seleucid phalanx. Even if this was not their role, your theory of them being 12 deep means they do not have the same staying power (depth) of the Seleucid phalanx deployed 32 ranks deep. To better improve their staying power to match the Seleucid phalanx, each of the 1500 Galatian infantry units can be deployed 50 men wide by 30 men deep. In this manner, the Galatian infantry are only two ranks short of the Seleucid phalanx.
Michael wrote:
“at Cynoscephalae, both armies were roughly equal in size, at c. 26,000 troops. Philip V deployed a phalanx of 16,000, in addition to 2000 peltasts, 2000 Thracians, 2000 Illyrians and 1500 mercenaries.”
Using your numbers for the Macedonian army, this adds up to 23,500 men which are not “roughly equal in size to 26,000 troops.” Although it is a minor point, you have omitted Livy’s reference there were 2000 cavalry. This brings the total for the Macedonian army to 25,500 men.
Michael wrote:
“Flamininus’ two legions were c. 4200 strong, a fact that is nowhere explicitly stated, but readily deduced.”
I dare to differ. Legions of 5400 men are more “readily deduced” and supported by the primary sources for this period.
Michael wrote:
“Firstly, Plutarch reports Flamininus had c. 26,000 troops, from which 6400 Aitolians, 1200 Athamanians and 800 Cretans/Apollonians must be subtracted. This gives a rough estimate of 17,500 Roman troops, or 4,400 a legion/ala, counting cavalry. The detachment previously reported by Livy (32.11.7) at the Aous Pass consisted of 4000 infantry and 300 cavalry, and is surely a single legion. Thus Flamininus’ legions were standard strength of 4000–4200 infantry.”
What you fail to mention is, and one that is important is Plutarch numbers the Roman army at “OVER 26,000 men.” Therefore this is greater in number than 26,000 men. Also you fail to bring into the discussion that Plutarch’s 6400 Aitolians (6000 infantry and 400 cavalry) is contradicted by Livy’s figure of 1000 Aitolians (600 infantry and 400 cavalry). From my perspective you have used Plutarch’s figure for the Aitolians because you want the numbers to get as close to Polybius’ legion of 4200 men as possible, therefore your comment the 4400 men included the cavalry, of which I gather must number 200 cavalry. The 4000 infantry you mention at the Aous Pass is described in some translations as a picked force which could represent any number of troops and not necessarily a legion. It could be 1800 velites and 1800 hastati totalling 3600 men, which has been rounded to 4000 men. The fact the 4000 men are accompanied by 300 cavalry would suggest it is a legion but how can we be sure?
You are also inclined to believe that Livy’s reference to the 2000 hastati “may instead refer to both Roman and allied hastati combined from the legion and its allied wing, c. 2400 if each contained 4000–4200 men.” This shows your strong determination to protect your theory the legion numbered 4000 to 4200 men. I want to indulge in an exercise using the primary sources to see if it is possible to dispute your claim Flaminius’ legions numbered 4000 or 4200 men, or 4400 men which includes the cavalry.
Let’s take the premise the legion numbered 5400 men as it did at Magnesia some seven years later. Trusting to Livy’s claim the hastati numbered 2000 men, of which I will claim it is 1800 hastati rounded to 2000 men, a 5400 man legion could consists of:
1200 velites
1800 hastati
1800 principes
600 triarii
What we have is a 4200 men legion reinforced with 600 additional hastati and 600 additional principes. Let us remember that Polybius informs us the triarii always remained constant at 600 men and the others were enlarged, which I interpret to be the hastati and principes. This also raises the question that when the legion is increased by 1000 men, is the figure of 1000 men as given in the primary sources rounded from 1200 men? Let’s now say Flaminius has four legions each of 5400 men totalling 21,600 legionaries. Now if we add Plutarch’s 8400 foreign allies, the figure increases to 30,000 men, which does not accord with Plutarch’s figure of “over 26,000 men.” However, by adding Livy’s figure of 3000 foreign allies to the 21,600 legionaries, the total is 24,600 men, which also does not appropriate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men. So what is missing? It is obvious that the 600 Roman and 1200 allied cavalry are missing from the Roman order of battle. With their inclusion, the Roman army now numbers 26,400 men, which would better approximate to Plutarch’s figure of over 26,000 men.
Michael wrote:
“The Seleucid infantry line was anchored by its main phalanx, 16,000 men strong, 32 men deep…On either side of the phalanx were two divisions of Gallic infantry, 1500 men each…I will therefore hypothesize a depth of 12 to the Galatian infantry.”
The deployment of the Galatian infantry would indicate they are flank guards for the Seleucid phalanx. Even if this was not their role, your theory of them being 12 deep means they do not have the same staying power (depth) of the Seleucid phalanx deployed 32 ranks deep. To better improve their staying power to match the Seleucid phalanx, each of the 1500 Galatian infantry units can be deployed 50 men wide by 30 men deep. In this manner, the Galatian infantry are only two ranks short of the Seleucid phalanx.
