Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[split] Distances between files and ranks
#16
(08-22-2018, 01:43 AM)Steven James Wrote: Nathan wrote:

I think after 107 pages of posts I can be pretty sure that nobody else knows either! Unless somebody's hiding something... [Image: z8+fv48QECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAw...Onz0AAOw==]
 
Everything is out in the open. One only has only to read Livy 8 8.
 

Livy 8.8 relates to a period four hundred years before the Boudican revolt and says nothing specific about distances. It describes an essentially text-book array. In any event, I doubt that Livy had much to say about the formation drawn up by Suetonius Paulinus, having died at least 43 years beforehand.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#17
Renatus wrote:

It describes an essentially text-book array.
 
How can you be so sure?
Reply
#18
(08-22-2018, 11:52 AM)Steven James Wrote: Renatus wrote:

It describes an essentially text-book array.
 
How can you be so sure?

Because that's how it reads.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#19
Thanks for splitting the threads, Robert!


(08-22-2018, 03:21 PM)Renatus Wrote:
(08-22-2018, 11:52 AM)Steven James Wrote: Renatus wrote:

It describes an essentially text-book array.
 
How can you be so sure?

Because that's how it reads.

I would guess that, as Livy was not an eyewitness of the mid Republican army, he must have read this description of it - which means that somebody must have written it down - even if not in a text book as such!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#20
How in god' name do you insert an image into a post from my computer. Seriously, press the "insert an image" button and it wants a URL.
Reply
#21
(08-26-2018, 07:28 AM)Steven James Wrote: How in god' name do you insert an image into a post from my computer. Seriously, press the "insert an image" button and it wants a URL.

Go to 'Reply' or 'New Reply'. Write your reply. Scroll down to 'Attachments'. Click 'Browse'. Select your image. Click 'Add Attachment. Click 'Insert Into Post' and you should be there. That's what I have just done.

   
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#22
Theoderic wrote:
So is it worth trying to work out how the army moved from "closed order" to "open order" swiftly and effectively and how formations like the "wedge" were formed from the "close order" of a shield wall to enable a charge to take place.

 
Here’s my answer.
 
     
 

Romans work in line of two men deep.

Michael wrote:

Go to 'Reply' or 'New Reply'. Write your reply. Scroll down to 'Attachments'. Click 'Browse'. Select your image. Click 'Add Attachment. Click 'Insert Into Post' and you should be there. That's what I have just done.
 
Thanks Michael. Much appreciated.
Reply
#23
I think that is correct, and that in fact the (limited) visual record supports it, which I discuss further here.

https://www.academia.edu/3394799/Visual_...ry_Tactics
Reply
#24
(08-26-2018, 01:31 PM)Steven James Wrote: Here’s my answer.
Romans work in line of two men deep


Looks fine to me too. Why only two deep though?

Michael J Taylor's similar graphic (on p.111 of his paper above) has a formation three men deep, which I suppose would fit with Josephus's march pattern, and maybe the 60-man century of the Republic.

Plus, as I mentioned above, Arrian specifies eight men deep. If the cohorts of the legion are drawn up in two lines, as Vegetius implies, that would make a formation of sixteen men deep, although presumably with gaps between the ranks, files and subunits!

Perhaps more likely, I would guess, would be a single line of cohorts eight men deep, with a strengthening reserve line of two cohorts (perhaps veterans?) at the centre. This would allow the cuneus to charge from the centre and the cohorts on the wings to follow in echelon.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#25
Nathan wrote:

Why only two deep though?
 
It’s based on my research of the Roman legion from 509 BC to 410 AD. They fight in a linear manner. They do not have a file system like the Greeks. The Romans can be arrayed eight men deep, but I would have spaces between each two lines of infantry, thereby creating four lines each of two ranks. For me, a 120 maniple has a frontage of 60 men and a depth of 2 men. Therefore, a century is arrayed 30 men wide by 2 men deep. In this manner, the centurion and optio can do their job and be where they need to be, when they need to be.
 
I have a legion arrayed 5 maniples wide by 6 maniples deep. Between each row of maniples is a space, and this is the gap between the maniples Livy is referring to.
 
Nathan wrote:
Michael J Taylor's similar graphic (on p.111 of his paper above) has a formation three men deep, which I suppose would fit with Josephus's march pattern, and maybe the 60-man century of the Republic.
 
I’d question Josephus’ 6 men abreast in march column. Arrian has the cavalrymen belonging to their infantry units being arrayed in a single file on both flanks of the infantry, which are four men wide. This would increase the frontage of the column from four men to six men.
 
At the Muthul River in 109 BC, as a counter measure against being attacked from Numidian cavalry, Metellus stationed on the flanks of the tribunes, auxiliary cavalry intermixed with light infantry. Sallust (The Jugurthine War 46 6-7)
 
Another thing is I have never found the Romans to work in rank of odd numbers, so three ranks is definitely out for me.
 
Nathan wrote:
Plus, as I mentioned above, Arrian specifies eight men deep.
 
Arrian also specifies four men wide when marching. Polybius and Tacitus have the Roman army changing from march order to battle order in one movement. That is important to keep in mind.
 
When Metellus at the Muthul River became aware that he was walking into a trap, Metellus halted his army, and changed its march order formation. The right flank, which was nearest the Numidian army, Metellus strengthen with three lines of reserves (subsidia). Sallust (The Jugurthine War 49 4-6) Here we find Metellus had to halt his army in order to change his order of march, and it is a vital clue as it is the opposite to Polybius and Tacitus. What Metellus is doing has been written about by other ancient authors and totally ignored by modern scholars.
Reply
#26
(08-27-2018, 07:28 AM)Steven James Wrote: For me, a 120 maniple has a frontage of 60 men and a depth of 2 men. Therefore, a century is arrayed 30 men wide by 2 men deep. In this manner, the centurion and optio can do their job and be where they need to be, when they need to be.

Without wanting to go too deeply into complex issues, I'm wondering why you are suggesting such a long thin line? Surely the centurion would find it a lot harder to give orders and even see what his men were doing when they were so stretched out; advancing would cause difficulties too, as a thin line would bow a lot more than a deeper formation.

If we assume that the century trained together and generally acted together, surely arraying them deeper would have been more effective than having to rely on men from other centuries drawn up (presumably) behind them?


(08-27-2018, 07:28 AM)Steven James Wrote: Arrian has the cavalrymen belonging to their infantry units being arrayed in a single file on both flanks of the infantry, which are four men wide. This would increase the frontage of the column from four men to six men.

I know we've discussed this before - a horse takes up a lot more space than a man, so it would be hugely impractical to have your infantry marching abreast with cavalry, if that's what you're suggesting here! Besides, if we're assuming that the column could deploy from line of march, having infantry mixed up with cavalry like this would cause problems.

What Arrian means, I think, is that two separate flanking lines of cavalry paralleled the main infantry column. They would not be part of the main infantry column.



(08-27-2018, 07:28 AM)Steven James Wrote: Arrian also specifies four men wide when marching... changing from march order to battle order in one movement.

Exactly. This is why I would consider that Josephus's six-wide column (if he was right about that) implies a six-deep formation, which might in turn imply a change from a 60-man to an 80-man century at some point. But that's another question entirely!


(08-27-2018, 07:28 AM)Steven James Wrote: Metellus halted his army, and changed its march order formation... with three lines of reserves... (The Jugurthine War 49 4-6)

Yes. This seems to be a good description of changing from march to battle formation, and I don't see anything controversial about it. We don't know whether the 'lines' (acies, I think) that Metellus brought up were lines of maniples, or individual men, or what - I suspect maniples. It would be interesting to know how wide his march column was before that!

But what he's doing is massing his men into a thicker column and wheeling them round to form a battle line, so his vanguard and rearguard are now on the flanks.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#27
I suspect that Roman units were almost never two deep. I advocate the analysis, put forward by Goldsworthy and others, that the fact that the handful of references to unit depth tend to be in multiples of 3 or 4 (e.g. 3,4,6,8). This must suggest a drill based around contubernia of 6 or 8 men, deploying either by the file or half file.
Reply
#28
Nathan wrote:

Without wanting to go too deeply into complex issues, I'm wondering why you are suggesting such a long thin line? Surely the centurion would find it a lot harder to give orders and even see what his men were doing when they were so stretched out; advancing would cause difficulties too, as a thin line would bow a lot more than a deeper formation.
 
Well if that was the case then an army commander would only have an army that was extremely small in size and the space it occupied. As for the centurion, with a maniple having a frontage of 180 feet, and when divided with the optio, both have only 90 feet to transverse (30 men frontage). So how big were Napoleonic battalions? And what was their frontage?
 
Nathan wrote:
If we assume that the century trained together and generally acted together, surely arraying them deeper would have been more effective than having to rely on men from other centuries drawn up (presumably) behind them?
 
What period are you referring to about a century training together? In 462 BC, a levy was called at midnight, and by early morning light, about 5,000 men were marching to the battlefield. Not much time for training together, let alone getting to know each other.
 
Nathan wrote:
What Arrian means, I think, is that two separate flanking lines of cavalry paralleled the main infantry column. They would not be part of the main infantry column.
 
It can still add up to six if the infantry was four wide. I always took the time to explore various concepts, rather than dismiss them out of hand, and this has paid off for me.
 
Polybius mentions at Ilipa the cavalry and their allocated velites. All Roman infantry units have technically an allocated number of cavalry. In Arrian’s case (4) the interpretation I have does state “on both sides their own horses should protect the formation’s flank.” The mentioning of “their own horses” are those cavalry allocated to the units, and when in march column, with the infantry four wide and the cavalry in a single line on either flank of the infantry, the allocated number of cavalry matches the unit’s depth, so no problems. The extraordinarii had a set number of cavalry allocated to the infantry, so the information is out there.
 
Nathan wrote:
Yes. This seems to be a good description of changing from march to battle formation, and I don't see anything controversial about it. We don't know whether the 'lines' (acies, I think) that Metellus brought up were lines of maniples, or individual men, or what - I suspect maniples. It would be interesting to know how wide his march column was before that!
 
Four deep infantry for me, and four legions.
 
Nathan wrote:
But what he's doing is massing his men into a thicker column and wheeling them round to form a battle line, so his vanguard and rearguard are now on the flanks.
 
On this we differ greatly. In fact what Metellus is doing I have found to be much simpler and discussed in some battle accounts.
 
Robert wrote:
I suspect that Roman units were almost never two deep.
 
Which makes me happy as no one is travelling to same road as me. And when driving, I do love a country road all to myself.
 
Robert wrote:
I advocate the analysis, put forward by Goldsworthy and others, that the fact that the handful of references to unit depth tend to be in multiples of 3 or 4 (e.g. 3,4,6,8). This must suggest a drill based around contubernia of 6 or 8 men, deploying either by the file or half file.
 
I find Goldsworthy’s analysis highly flawed and deceptive. I followed conventional thinking many years ago and went for the 6 deep depth. It worked for awhile but then it hit a brick wall, and too much was left unexplained. So I shifted to eight deep, and this worked for awhile, until again it hit a brick wall.
 
Arrian’s expedition against the Alani has most of the answers to many questions. Arrian has the army going from march column to battle formation with one military doctrine occurring. He provides the number of men in the fifteenth legion simply by mentioning the five centurions of the first cohort. He then has the army in battle formation arrayed eight deep, and this information now confirms that a number of legionaries were allocated to protecting the baggage camp, and also how many were in the battle line.
 
Understanding the proper organisation and size of the Roman legion unlocks Arrian.
Reply
#29
(08-27-2018, 02:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: an army commander would only have an army that was extremely small in size and the space it occupied.

Not that small, surely. A legion drawn up eight men deep, with every man occupying a square metre and no gaps between units, would have a frontage of 600-700 metres (depending on legion size). Not inconsiderable on the pre-modern battlefield, and most armies would comprise more than one legion, plus auxiliaries etc.

In any case, we know from Arrian that 8 men deep was possible - all we are discussing is whether it was usual. Or, indeed, whether there was a usual...

Are you saying that the entire legion, or entire army, would be drawn up 2 men deep in a long line - or that the army/legion formed perhaps a triple acies, with each line (acies) two men deep? That would give you six men deep in all, plus gaps between the lines, and you'd probably end up occupying almost the same amount of depth, or more, than a single 8-deep formation and no greater amount of frontage overall.


(08-27-2018, 02:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: What period are you referring to about a century training together? In 462 BC...

Certainly not that early! All my considerations, unless stated otherwise, relate to the army of the Principiate, with men mustered into standing units and remaining in their centuries for perhaps their entire military career. The situation in the militia-style army of the early Republic would be quite different, of course. The majority of our sources on army organisation seem to fall between the two periods!


(08-27-2018, 02:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: when in march column, with the infantry four wide and the cavalry in a single line on either flank of the infantry, the allocated number of cavalry matches the unit’s depth

I do not think that could possibly work. Horses advancing in a line need to have 4 feet between them (half a horse's length; each horse is about 8 feet long, so each occupies c.12 feet of road) - any closer than that and they will kick and shy. You cannot very easily force horses to walk nose to tail.

A marching man, on the other hand, needs only a single pace distance between him and the men ahead and behind. So unless you want to open 12ft gaps between your marching men, to match the spacings of the horses to either side, the cavalry cannot possibly 'match the unit's depth'.


(08-27-2018, 02:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: Four deep infantry for me, and four legions.

This would be a legion in single column marching four abreast, then, with three more legions moving up to form lines on the right flank, each marching four abreast, and then wheeling to form a battle line four deep in four lines?

So the whole army would be drawn up in four lines, each line a single legion arrayed four men deep - sixteen men deep in total, with spacings between the lines?

Would that be about right?


(08-27-2018, 02:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: In fact what Metellus is doing I have found to be much simpler and discussed in some battle accounts.

I don't know - it sounds pretty simple already to me!


(08-27-2018, 02:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: He provides the number of men in the fifteenth legion simply by mentioning the five centurions of the first cohort.

Arrian does not say that there are five centurions in the first cohort. He says nothing about the number of centurions.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#30
Nathan wrote:

In any case, we know from Arrian that 8 men deep was possible - all we are discussing is whether it was usual. Or, indeed, whether there was a usual...
 
You can find the answer in Tacitus.
 
Nathan wrote:
Are you saying that the entire legion, or entire army, would be drawn up 2 men deep in a long line - or that the army/legion formed perhaps a triple acies, with each line (acies) two men deep?
 
You need to reread my previous posting. I mentioned a 120 maniple was arrayed 60 men wide by 2 men deep, and a legion of 30 maniples was arrayed 5 maniples wide by 6 maniples deep. With a maniple having a depth of two men, 6 maniples gives a total depth of 12 men. The legion is then in three lines each of 4 men deep. What Arrian is saying is the pilani are not with the legion.
 
If I left 10 maniples to guard the camp, the legion would have 20 maniples arrayed five maniples wide by four maniples deep. With a maniple having a depth of 2 men, the 20 maniple legion now has a depth of 8 men.
 
Nathan wrote:
All my considerations, unless stated otherwise, relate to the army of the Principiate.
 
Ok, see where you are coming from.
 
Nathan wrote:
I do not think that could possibly work. Horses advancing in a line need to have 4 feet between them (half a horse's length; each horse is about 8 feet long, so each occupies c.12 feet of road).
 
I have 10 feet long calculations. Cavalry placed in the flanks appears to have been done when in open country and not while travelling down a road. Also without knowing how many cavalry are allocated to what unit, how can you be so sure it cannot be done?
 
Nathan wrote:
So the whole army would be drawn up in four lines, each line a single legion arrayed four men deep - sixteen men deep in total, with spacings between the lines? Would that be about right?
 
Read Polybius’ account of the legion on the march and you will answer your own question.
 
Nathan wrote:
I don't know - it sounds pretty simple already to me!
 
Anything is simple in ones mind’s eye. Have you physically tried it with coloured blocks representing every century in the army?
 
Nathan wrote:
Arrian does not say that there are five centurions in the first cohort. He says nothing about the number of centurions.
 
DeVoto translation page 115, The Expedition Against the Alani: “five centurions who {are} rear chiefs of the first cohort.”
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Question Distances and distance measuring in the Roman Army? dcbrown 1 23 03-22-2024, 10:59 PM
Last Post: Arius

Forum Jump: