Roman Battle Formations Mid Republic to Late Rep.

[Bryan]

On the topic "Use of whistles to relay commands in battle" a few of us have gone off topic and have created a separate discussion. So I opened this thread so we can stay on the topic matter.
Discussion will be about the set piece battle formations of the Mid Republic (start of 2nd Punic War) to the Later Republic (Caesar's Civil War era) I think it would be instructive and entertaining to post our ideas of how the Romans fought down to the individual level up to the Legion/Army.

I think we should have some rules so this topic doesn't just turn into a discussion that goes no place. So here they are:
1. Include documented evidence from an ancient source. Not "I read" or "I heard" but actual written quotes. Documentation!
2. Since a lot of what we are discussing is based on conjecture or personal ideas/ assumptions state reasons why. They could be that someone else did it and it worked, the psychological nature, etc. Reenactments, watching video's of riots on youtube, etc.
3. Please do not participate just to disprove other theories. Have the courage to put your own out there as well and why you believe it possible.
4. Be courteous, polite and professional. If neither party debating are willing to except that they are wrong, be the bigger man and shift topic.
5. Make illustrations if you can. When you write something down it might make total sense to you because you also are picturing it already it your head. When you write it down the readers might not get it.
6. This shouldn't turn into a personal discussion among a few people. Please don't just highlight what someone else wrote and then argue it. Everyone read it already, just keep going and state your own argument about how YOU think they were organized and fought. Keep it flowing and interesting.

For those that want to get caught up, read the Topic about the whistles and the quotes from myself, Brent Nielson, Macedon and a few others.

[Macedon]

Of course the "relief system" question is critical to any discussion on Roman Battle formations and tactics, so I guess that my answering to Crispvs here is not off topic.




To Crispus (to continue the discussion started in the Whistle thread):

Of course Crispvs, I'd be glad to comment on your model.

I may be mistaken in this, but doesn't the detail of exchanging lines to put fresh soldiers in the front line come from Polybius, meaning that it is a practice of the second century BC and one which may not have been in use later, useful as it might seem. Caesar, nearly a century later, on one occasion mentions deciding to put his men into the the traditional three line formation, which recalls Polibius' description but at the same time suggests that other formations (and possibly practices) were in use by this time. What that might mean for formations a century after this is anyone's guess.

The suggested retreat of the front lines through gaps in the second (assistant) line is not limited to the Romans of the 3rd century BC. It was commonplace throughout the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) era too (I know I speak too much of these manuals, but I truly think that their study is critical to any such discussion. Of course, I also mean the works of Aelian, Arrian, Onasander and Asclepiodotus too). How something like that could work is illustrated in these manuals and we have no reason absolutely to believe that the mechanics they present were that different. This serving as an argument that such maneuvers were possible, what is interesting in the Polybian Roman army is that whenever we have the first line suffering in battle we instead see the second line RUSHING to its support instead of the first line retreating as is theoretically (but not practically in battle) described by Polybius. If one studies the descriptions even more carefully, one would see that there is even evidence of (my theory) selective support where it was needed instead of exchanging the whole line (again Zama). This is very interesting, because it is the logical thing to do, the easiest thing to do and the thing least supported by scholars preferring lines exchanging either with a front movement of the second line or with the Polybius supported retreat of the first line through the second to the rear. On the other hand, this seems to be the Greek way of support, so it is always possible that Polybius describes what he thinks happened instead of what actually happened.

If I remember well, in Caesar's work multiple lines are often mentioned. Livy I do not trust at all. His descriptions remind me of later eras, not of the 3rd century BC. If I recall well, he often talks about whole legions in reserve or lined behind each other which resembles Caesar's descriptions but are very far from what Polybius suggests and what is generally accepted as the traditional formation of the 3rd century, that is that ALL legions arrayed next to each other, each one providing both the fighting line and its support.

Regarding the actual practice of exchanging men, I would prefer to try and build a reconstruction of how it might be done on the basis of things we already know rather than things which are little more than theory. To witt: we know the Roman army used trumpets; we know they could be formed into three lines, the front two of which could in some way be exchanged; we know they had large numbers of projectile weapons in the form of pila and probably slings and arrows; as well as knowing that they trained intensively (which was probably the case in Polybius' time as well, at least during periods of service).

Not just the front two. They supposedly would also be able to exchange places with the Triarii too. The rest I of course agree with.

Using these factors I would propose the following as a possibility for Caesar's time, using one cohort of 480 men as my example:

The three maniples are stood next to each other, with prior centuries in open order in front, posterior centuries in closed order behind. I assume the frontage to be ten men for each century/maniple, with the most experienced and best equipped men in the front two ranks.

We know that when Caesar talks of subsequent lines, he always gives different cohorts forming them. That is, cohorts x, y and z would form the first line, a, b and c the second line etc. That means that each cohort was viewed to be part of its line. In your model, you have each cohort forming two "lines" by having them separated and arrayed as separate units which demands a good interval between them. The reason is that in battle, a part of a line may advance or retreat (what Polybius describes as "snakelike"). If a unit is too close to the advanced unit then they run the risk to get mixed up and lose order. If you want the "posterior maniple" to be linked with the one in front, you should array them in the same (open or close) order, in normal files and ranks. Of course that would beat the whole idea of doing so in the first place instead of just use each one at double depth which would be more logical and practical for command and cohesion reasons. So, instead of having each maniple array 8 deep you can have each one array 16 deep to have the same effect. If you instead have them as separate units then a three line formation would effectively become one with six lines.

During the fighting the front thirty men do the bulk of the fighting. As they are more experienced and better equipped they stand far more chance of surviving than many of the more inexperienced and more poorly equipped men behind them, who are there largely to give the formation depth and staying power if the enemy try to push forward. Some of the men in ranks three four and five might throw javelins over the heads of the men in front from time to time if space was available and they were not tightly compacted. Those in ranks six, seven and eight (assuming an eight man depth) could not do so due to the possibility of hitting their own men. Any serious casualties in the front rank would be replaced by experienced well equipped men from the second rank, with the wounded men being withdrawn from the front line in an ad hoc but well practice way. Men who had fallen might be able to be dragged back by men in ranks behind, as is described several times in the Iliad (which of course might not be relevant as it describes warfare several centuries before).

True, the first two (or three) ranks bear the main brunt of the battle. But file-closers have been traditionally viewed as among the best, since they were responsible to keep the file in order, to relay orders, to report and fix problems as well as turn around if the enemy should appear in the rear. So, in your models you should count them among the "good" soldiers.

Regarding the javelins, according to the manuals, javelins could be used even over 16 man deep formations but that was considered the maximum. They often used light infantry to do exactly that, so we can safely assume that they would have trained for that. So, it is true that back ranks would possibly hurl javelins, stones or anything they had on them on the enemy, but most possibly, they would be on guard watching rather than opening their bodies to attack and random missile throwing. So, I would be reluctant to accept that the back ranks would keep a constant volley. I would suggest that most possibly, light infantry in the rear would do that.

Of course, the wounded would have been dragged or helped crawl behind (most possibly they simply would have walked behind, since the majority of the wounds, even if fatal in the long run would not have immediately impeded movement). There there would have been medics to take care of them.

After a given time (perhaps five minutes) the posterior centuries replace the now tired prior centuries. At a signal from a trumpet, the front ranks of the prior centuries intensify their efforts for a short burst which which cannot be sustained for long but which drives the enemy back slightly, allowing the prior centuries to contract into closed order. This would start in the rear ranks , allowing the posterior centuries to move forward through the gaps being created by the contracting prior centuries. As the posterior centuries move forward the contracted rear ranks of the prior centuries begin to fall back, allowing the posterior centuries to begin to expand towards open order.

Five minutes is too early. A battle would normally last a couple of hours but could last for many hours. If every other army was able to keep fighting for hours, so why wouldn't the Romans be up to the task? I do not see such difficult and potentially dangerous maneuver happening 12 times in an hour. Not even half that. I would suggest that any relief would have happened when its officers deemed it necessary. Might be after 10 brutal minutes or after three hours.

Intensifying their efforts would by no means drive any enemy back. Even the word "back" is relative. They could be 2 yards apart and this would be quite far. Of course, there is a problem here since your model demands to drive the enemy back in order to relieve a fatigued and possibly disordered unit! But their inability to get the upper hand would have been the reason for relieving them! I guess you could propose that by doing that in often intervals, the Romans would be able to keep pressure while wearing the enemy down, but I cannot even imagine running the danger to cause disorder in the line in maybe 20 places every 5 mins, that is 240 such maneuvers per hour... A single mistake would have created huge problems and potential disaster.

You might consider contraction and expansion as evolutions that could be done during combat relatively safely, but (again the manuals) they were considered unsafe and dangerous and their use close to the enemy (let alone during fighting) was strongly discouraged.

By this stage the prior and posterior centuries would look like interlocking triangles from above. As the middle ranks of the prior centuries contract, the still contracted front ranks of the posterior centuries rapidly move forward between them and release a volley of pila over the heads of the still expanded front ranks of the prior centuries, causing a momentary confusion in the enemy ranks which allows the front ranks of the prior centuries to contract and withdraw while the front ranks of the posterior centuries move forward and expand into open order. With a frontage per century of only ten men, the expansion to open order would take only a second or two, giving a new cohort frontage of thirty fresh well equipped men. While this was going on the middle ranks would throw a further volley over the head of the men in front to cause more discomfort to the enemy while the front line was compromised. As the contracted front ranks of the prior centuries withdraw, the ranks of the posterior centuries would fully expand to open order, closing the gaps between the centuries again to produce a cohesive thirty man wide, eight man deep formation.

I think that with a few days' training, such an operation would be relatively easy to achieve and would possibly take about a minute to carry out.

Meanwhile the three prior centuries would draw back a little way to spend five minutes catching their breath and sorting themselves out, before exchanging back to the front again.

I don't think that many trumpet blasts would be required to carry out this operation once the men were used to doing it.

I think that your model is very complex to be a valid option in battle. How would anything like that be done if the cohort was actually in trouble? As a mechanism it contains a lot of uncertain variables that makes the whole endeavor very dangerous. For example, it relies on the speedy execution of the maneuver, but what would happen if the enemy was not forced to act as you described? You cannot wait for a confirmation, since then you would not have enough time to complete the maneuver and if the enemy instead pushed forward at that very moment or if the front rankers were unable to perform that well, you would have men pushing forward, men trying to move along the front, men expecting to expand but no room to do so... this is a tactical nightmare. And remember the scale. Doing it once might work, twice, all right, but 240 times an hour? One mistake, a single miscalculation, bad luck could bring disaster.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think if you remember the checker board formation...the task of lines moving forward to take the place of the forward units is not so hard to figure out.

[Macedon]

I think if you remember the checker board formation...the task of lines moving forward to take the place of the forward units is not so hard to figure out.

What do you mean?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The century's positioned in the line up are in three lines, ie the triple ascis. They are spaced out with gaps between them.
To move forward the rear centuries simply move into the spacesin front of them.
these will have been kept relatively clear by the skirmishers and the fear of cross fire.

[Macedon]

The century's positioned in the line up are in three lines, ie the triple ascis. They are spaced out with gaps between them.
To move forward the rear centuries simply move into the spacesin front of them.
these will have been kept relatively clear by the skirmishers and the fear of cross fire.

So, you propose that the checkerboard formation was used during the actual melee. I see it as highly unlikely and this is what we can actually not find any mention of in any texts.

First I would like to understand how exactly do you suggest it would have worked :

A. Where would the centuries be posted during melee? One behind the other or in a checkerboard formation just behind the gaps? Normally when we are talking about the quincunx formation we mean that the principes maniples are posted behind the gaps at a certain distance and not the maniples of the hastati (of course in the Polybian era). Or are you addressing Caesar's deployment of his cohorts?

B. Do you mean that one century joins battle by marching into the gap while the one fighting slowly retreats? But then, how is the enemy weakened? The enemies that these will be fighting will also be fresh. So, the Romans again take on all the risks of having undefended sides, while offering the enemy all the advantages of having half of their line fresh? Or do you think that it served like some kind of trap? If so, then it would only have been a rare stratagem, since if maintained as a system, it would be known to the enemy and dealt with accordingly (if not to enemies that had never dealt with Romans before surely to Greeks, Carthaginians, Gauls, Iberians, Germans etc).

C. As for the fear of crossfire, there is no such thing as I see it. What crossfire could be made from men striving to keep formation and forced to form a square looking at every side, much like a Napoleonic square? Why not just employ skirmishers to fire at the unprotected sides of these little squares while keeping your lines straight. It seems that it is the Roman squares which are vulnerable to crossfire at all times while the enemy chooses whether, how and when he will create such opportunities for the Romans.

D. An army deployed thus is full of opportunities for the enemy to exploit even in melee. The right side of each century/maniple would be defenseless and an easy target to an enemy attack or to enemy missiles if the enemy did not want to just march in the gap in a predetermined orderly fashion or just surge through if the numbers are in his favor. There are a number of stratagems one could employ against such weaknesses and none are ever reported, nor any countermeasures. Why not posting more men in a certain only part of the battle line and with them overwhelm only one or two centuries/maniples instead of the whole line? Just poking with 15 foot pikes at the sides of unshielded legionaries would be enough for a line to crumble.

What do you think?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes I see you have fully analyzed this and the idea of the checkerboard formation, which you have so readily grasped, was never used in any battles.

So where was the Roman advantage from? They are simply formed up in one battle line exactly like their foes? No manouverable smaller blocks?

The idea the men in the blocks behind the fron row would just stand there like sheep amuses me. Of course they would cover the gaps, as would the skirmishers.

But I will withdraw from this conversation as I obviously have never understood any of the sources available to me, and all the modern reinterpretation is obviously correct!

Bye!

[Macedon]

Yes I see you have fully analyzed this and the idea of the checkerboard formation, which you have so readily grasped, was never used in any battles.

So where was the Roman advantage from? They are simply formed up in one battle line exactly like their foes? No manouverable smaller blocks?

The idea the men in the blocks behind the fron row would just stand there like sheep amuses me. Of course they would cover the gaps, as would the skirmishers.

But I will withdraw from this conversation as I obviously have never understood any of the sources available to me, and all the modern reinterpretation is obviously correct!

Bye!

So, in order to discuss an issue, you need me to readily agree with whatever you say? Did I advertise any self-proclaimed expertise? Did I anywhere say anything else than my own opinion or am I not entitled to one? Did I say you were wrong? Did I not end my post with a "What do you think?" question so that you can of course present how you propose that these problems were dealt with? Or is it you whose opinion should be taken as universal truth? I do not understand... do you think that I have no right to pose questions?

Come on! I was very civil and I am open to discussion. I did not aggressively criticize your poorly presented proposal, even though you made no effort to make it understandable... For example, what Roman army are you referring to? Where are your posterior centuries arrayed? How far from the ones in the front line? Did you see any model that has the centuries of the same line arrayed in quincunx formation in any sources (since you mentioned that in your self-critisism)? I always thought that what Polybius suggested as the (to me non-engaged) Roman army of HIS era was that it was the maniples of the Hastati, the Principes and the Triarii that were posted so... What does this have to do with centuries from the same cohort? Or didn't you mean that? And how could I know what you mean if you do not analyze it more?

If you think that the "centuries" are posted right behind the gaps, effectively closing them then say so, but then... where lie the advantages to the Roman line? Do they now protect their flanks from enemy missiles or sarissas? I made many explicit questions you could try to address before resorting to red herring ironies of how we unschooled peasants do not worship the four lines of unexplained (probably to you self-explanatory) wisdom you deigned share.... Well... humor me... consider me an aloof buffoon and do explain your position to help me understand it, cause I still cannot picture it nor place it in time.

The Romans had an advantage when they won battles because of many factors. When they lost battles they had a disadvantage... I do not say that they fought exactly as everyone else did, the Greeks fought differently when armed with the pike, differently when fighting with the spear, the Illyrians, the Persians, the Indians all still fought differently and all of them mostly in uninterrupted lines. So, I do not have to look for any advantage there, although there might have been one, something I never dismissed as a possibility. Do you dismiss anything that is contrary to your own opinion?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I had taken for granted the checker board formation was a well understood one, and not one I needed to presume to explain again. It has certainly been discussed many times on this forum.

And no, unlike many, it's not my way or the highway! :wink:

I am however, unconvinced by the idea the Roman army of any period except the very early monacrchy and early republic, when the phalanx was still used, lined up in one long line,
sheild to sheild.

The century and Cohorts were manuverable small units within the whole, so why revert to an outmoded formation as soon as the battle joined?

No one, despite their long posts quoting sources, has convinced me!
Doesn't make me right, of course, but I know a lot of people who are good at quoting rules and regulations, but still do not grasp the fundementals of the reality in which they exist.

Not meaning yourself of course, but overall, I am skeptical. Now, I will try and put together a journal to put my argument across in a format acceptable to yourself and the others. When life allows me!

[Macedon]

I had taken for granted the checker board formation was a well understood one, and not one I needed to presume to explain again. It has certainly been discussed many times on this forum.

And no, unlike many, it's not my way or the highway! :wink:

I am however, unconvinced by the idea the Roman army of any period except the very early monacrchy and early republic, when the phalanx was still used, lined up in one long line,
sheild to sheild.

The century and Cohorts were manuverable small units within the whole, so why revert to an outmoded formation as soon as the battle joined?

No one, despite their long posts quoting sources, has convinced me!
Doesn't make me right, of course, but I know a lot of people who are good at quoting rules and regulations, but still do not grasp the fundementals of the reality in which they exist.

Not meaning yourself of course, but overall, I am skeptical. Now, I will try and put together a journal to put my argument across in a format acceptable to yourself and the others. When life allows me!

Thank you for being the bigger man and lower the tone. Believe me I do not and never have intended to belittle any proposal or theory. I just love discussing mechanics...

I thought that what you proposed was not following the traditional checkerboard formation model in the first place. A checkerboard formation formed by subunits of the same cohort or maniples of Hastati is what I pictured when I first read your post. Isn't that what you propose?

I do not think that any formation was or could be outdated. They were made to fit circumstances. If conditions changed, so would armament and formation. Didn't the Romans later use uninterrupted lines (I intentionally do not call them phalanxes) for certain? I have not studied Roman sources extensively though and I am really sad I do not (yet) read latin... Do we have more information in them that could shed more light?

I am looking forward to looking into your position.

[Crispvs]

I think that the flexibility of the Polybian model lies in the ability to move different troop types into the front line of battle, replacing the troops who were previously fighting at the front.
How they did this though is surely the thing which has vexed us. Polybius gives us the checkerboard model but exactly how this worked in relation to the front line of battle is still open interpretation.
Personally I doubt that there would ever be any gaps along the front line, as this would instantly mean the edges of the gaps would be outflanked. If you had a four legion consular army, consisting of forty cohorts of infantry, arrayed for battle with a gap between each cohort, you would end up with as many as forty one cases of being outflanked, which is surely a good way to lose a battle very quickly and not a mistake you would wish to repeat.
The question therefore remains of exactly what method was used to withdraw units and replace them with new units without the front line being compromised in the process. Obviously the answer to this lies both in what the men were trained to do and in how their units were arranged prior to battle being met. We can never do any more than guess at the former, but by analysing what sources we have for the latter, as Macedon is trying to do can only lead us closer to reconstructing how it might have been done. What exactly was the utility of the checkerboard formation in facilitating changes of lines without compromising the fighting line? Let that be the question we are trying to answer rather than being distracted by other things.

One caveat which occurs to me though in trying to extend any possible solutions past the so-called Marian reforms is the disappearance of velites. Surly that would suggest a general change in tactics in the late second century BC. Caesar's mention of his three lines being traditional need not be a long tradition. Sixty years is ample time for a novel concept to become a traditional certainty.

Macedon, thanks for your detailed analysis of my proposal.

Crispvs

[Q Rutilius]

Dodge in his book Caesar describes a concept of three arrays: open, closed and phalangical. He describes three lines in the checkerboard pattern. They manuver into line in closed array (say each soldier 3 feet apart)while maintaining the checkerboard pattern. When in place the first line changes to open array (say 6 feet apart). The gap is closed. I realize that this was written over a century ago, but it still seems to me to be quite logical. But, such a manuver as far as I know is not described in Polybius or any where else. Or is it? Does anyone know?

[Crispvs]

I would treat three feet between each man (ie: six feet of fighting space for each man, shared with the man on either side) as open order. Closed order would be much closer, such as what would probably be used when marching along a road.

Crispvs

[Bryan]

[attachment=1881]1Cohortlegion.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1882]2Cohortlegion.jpg[/attachment]

[Bryan]

I have spend some time detailing a whole list of sources and illustrations to support my theory of the evolution of the Roman legion from maniple organization to cohort.

THE MANIPLE SYSTEM


I will start with the legion as organized during the 2nd Punic War period which probably carried over to a great extent until the reforms of Marius in 107-100 BC.

Start with the basic building block of the Legion. The Maniple (not century)
According to Polybius, after the levied men were separated into lines tribunes would next select ten officers for each of the hastati, principes and triarri. These men are called Prior Centurions, another ten are chosen, these are the Posterior Centurions. The ten formations for each of the three lines are called Maniples.
Polybius says this:
“It is natural that they should appoint two commanders for each maniple; for it being uncertain what may be the conduct of an officer or what may happen to him, and affairs of war not admitting of pretexts and excuses, they wish the maniple never to be without a leader and chief.” (6:24,7)

This line implies that maniples are the basic unit of the legion, not centuries. Battles are fought by maniples, not centuries. Only for administrative purpose at this point do centuries exist, mainly to make organization outside of battle easier, ie. less men for each centurion to command.

Next Polybius says “When both centurions are on the spot, the first elected commands the right half of the maniple and the second the left, but if both are not present the one who is commands the whole.” 6:24,8

I believe this implies where the centurions stood in relation to the formation. As I stated above, maniples were the battle formation, not centuries which few sources give account of them doing anything in battle, it’s always maniples (or cohorts later on).

“…placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front." Polybius, 3:113, Description of Maniples at Cannae

So when the Romans added additional manpower to the Hastati and Principe maniples they added depth with extra ranks because they knew it gave the maniples more hitting power. They evidently liked the idea of depth. Gave them staying power in the fight, allowed them to soak up casualties and replace them and gave them hitting power in the attack.
(see 1st Illustration. Not to scale)

Quincunx Formation for Battle

Both Polybius (6:9,7-9 & 3:113 among others) and Livy (Book 8:8 among others) agree that the maniples in each line had gaps/intervals. Many refer to it as the Quincunx formation.

Now the argument is on whether the Romans chose to close the gaps before battle and form one continuous battle line (articulated phalanx) or whether they chose to keep the gaps. I think there was no reason for Polybius and Livy to mention the intervals if they weren’t used for battle. The only mention of the lines ever closing are from Livy.

“When the triarii had admitted the hastati and principes through the intervals separating their companies they rose from their kneeling posture and instantly closing their companies up they blocked all passage through them and in one compact mass fell on the enemy as the last hope of the army.” (8,8 )

So if the hastati and principes were routed they bolt back through the gaps of the triarri who’d then closed the gaps and fight, giving time for the Hastati and Principe maniples to reorganize on their standards. They could do this by either moving the entire back three rows (posterior century) to the left or just doubling their files by extending prior century files outwards a few feet and the posterior rows moving along side of them.

So why Fight in Gaps?

To understand the usefulness of the maniple formation one first has to look at the enemy that Rome frequently encountered on a battlefield. Celts, Gauls, Africans, Greeks, Latin/Italians, Macedonians. All of these except many of the Latin/Italians generally fought in a shieldwall or phalanx or some kind. (Samnites are said to have fought in Maniple formation, probably were the Romans got the idea)

The phalanx can range from a simple overlapping of shields hedged with spears (Greek and Celtic) to a sophisticated Macedonian sarissa formation where the men must be extremely well drilled to perform it. But the key to both of these formations is that in order for them to be effective they must keep order. That means no one runs away and no one attacks forward. So the key to beating a phalanx is to break their formation. The Romans accomplish this in two ways with their maniple formation.

The key tactic of the Roman attack would have been the massed pilum volleys. Can’t be underestimated what this would do to an enemy formation. Even if most of the pilum didn’t punch through shields or bodies they would have caused some disorder within the phalanx ranks. Since there are 120 men in a Polybian described maniple, each carrying two pilum, that means that the maniple can throw about 240 pilum before they exhaust their supply. Since the maniples only cover a small front all of the javelins would be directed against those men in front and immediately to the sides of them.

Charging with Sword. Why did the Romans fight with swords? Because they are better in tight spots. Close with the enemy, get under his spear and attack him with sword while protecting yourself with a scutum. Don’t slash because the swords aren’t that well made and they might bend or break. Plus it exposes more of your body. A two inch stab might kill but that is in hind sight, piercing the pericardial sac might lead to an infection but it won’t kill immediately unless a major blood carrying artery or organ is pierced. Aim for exposed areas, arms, legs, faces, necks. Whatever flesh you see try to get at it.

So now the Hastati maniple has clashed with the phalanx, throw their initial volley of pilum, charged forward while the men in the side ranks continue throwing more pilum. Men in the back and center pass their extras to the men who need them. The men in the front ranks make contact with the shield wall and start hand to hand contact. Either way it won’t last too long. Casualty stats don’t lend to a long protracted fight, not enough people died in battles to believe that a unit stayed in constant contact with each other until so many people died that the finally cracked. More than likely if the initial assault failed to break the phalanx the Hastati would back off and retreat to lick their wounds while the second line of Principes move up and take their turn. When the Hastati is sufficiently ready they attack again. Attack, rest regroup and attack again. Think pistons in a car engine. Or a see saw.

This continues until one side generally breaks. Since fear is contagious the tide of men running would grow until one side generally broke completely. If it is the Romans they can always fall back on the triarri line (the true reserve) to reorganize. If that doesn’t work, survivors can gather in the camp which is not far and fortified.

[attachment=1883]maniple_2011-10-09.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1884]maniplevsmac.phalanx.jpg[/attachment]