An argument for the pace and not the cubit

[Mark Hygate]

As an adjunct to the organisational research and having come up in discussions here, I thought I might make a case for the 'pace' and not the 'cubit' in Roman drill.

Note: I intend to use 'pace' to mean a Roman single-pace of 2.5ft (Roman feet) to keep things simple, and use 'double-pace' (5ft) as an expression for the Latin pace/passus against the 'double-cubit' or standard 3ft separation that the Greeks and ancient authors seem to use. In this context, therefore, the Roman mile is 1,000 double-paces (5,000ft).

The Greek manuals are clear, in the phalanx each man occupies 3ft. Polybius (having trained as a Greek soldier - states that each legionary stands 3ft apart) uses this and Vegetius certainly echoes this (each legionary occupies 3ft and has 6ft of depth between ranks). I have no concerns accepting both situations as part of the same family of drill movements - except for the 3ft part!

In the closest phalanx formation of sarissa-armed (itself a weapon measured in cubits) pikemen a 3ft distance is necessary, both to hold the shield across the body and then allow the man's own sarissa and 4 others from behind to pass between him and the next man.

The Roman's, however, seem not to use the cubit in their measurements:

- As noted, it is not used in the way the Roman military move around, nor I suggest in how they measure out battlefields

- Their camps (cf Polybius) are laid out using paces and, most probably, with the aid of the standard 10ft measuring stick that is attested. The inner camp roads are 10 and 20 double-paces wide, as are the camping areas of the turmae and maniples and the separation of the Tribunes and Prefects. A standard 4 legion camp is 2,000 ft wide plus a 50ft road. The camps are prepared with the infantry deployed in front

- Most importantly the Roman scutum is exactly one pace wide

- Finally standard drill is still performed to this day and the standard gap between troops (a gap is required for marching easily) is one pace; normally approximated by dressing-off by a full arms length, which is almost exactly a pace for a man

The kicker for me, however, in believing that it is the pace and not the cubit which dominates, has been gained in a most likely understanding of why the Roman maniple was conceived and how it was used. The manipular organisation came into being to defeat Greek phalanxes; thus I am of the opinion that the Roman heavy infantry maniple (of two centuries) is deployed 20-men wide by 6 deep to directly oppose a Greek syntagma deployed 16x16.

I will note that I do not accept that Roman troops formed 3ft apart (cf Polybius) can have any hope of stopping an advancing syntagma, but firmly believe that even similar gaps (of a pace) are merely transitional stages in drill movements when so described). But 20 men deployed shield-to-shield and with 5 ranks behind them supporting them with equally wide shields and bracing them could.

I believe, therefore, that the maniple, deployed shield-to-shield edge in the closest (phalanx-style) formation and thus the battlefield delimiter, occupy 50ft to oppose the syntagma's 48ft (the one foot either side being negligible and leaving 'no room' for extra men). Given the intent to stop and subsequently attempt to 'manipulate' and break up the individual syntagma or its place in the phalanx, this would make perfect sense.

At 50/100ft wide, this means the centuries/maniples are the perfect size to march down their camp streets. That a legion deployed 10 maniples-wide will occupy 500ft (exactly 1/10th of a Roman mile). That a standard consular army of 4 legions will occupy exactly the frontage of their own camp with a 50ft road down the centre and each legion will construct 2,000ft of rampart.

That's why, in related posts, I maintain that a full-size Roman legion of the manipular period occupied 500ft of frontage; and this quite probably continued thereafter for it is gloriously simple. A turma of period cavalry deployed 10x3 occupies the same frontage as a maniple (50ft) as a horse requires twice the frontage and thus a standard 300 (10 turmae) cavalry ala also occupies 500ft frontage. With each 'unit' occupying 500ft (1/10th of a mile) it is pretty easy to measure and divide battlefields and deploy troops.

Hence my belief in the pace and not the cubit...... :wink:

[Mark Hygate]

After a week, I thought I'd just ask if there was any comment?

Is the idea sound, is it unreasonable, could it be so?

[antiochus]

I'm waiting to see if you answer any of my questions I presented to you on the Cannae thread first.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Is there - besides speculations - any sensible reason (historical critical method) to suggest that Polybius and Vegetius are wrong in regard of the "3 ft. apart"?
If the Romans were positioned shield to shield they would not be able to use their swords properly, I think. How would you solve this problem?

[Sean Manning]

Mark,

We can invent all the theories we want, but at the end of the day Polybius is very clear about how Roman infantry fought in open order, and he was there. He gives a number of hints as to why a Macedonian phalanx did not just run over the Roman line.

Do you have any evidence whether a Polybian scutum was 2.5 feet wide measured over the hollow of the shield, or 2.5 feet wide measured along the face of the shield? I believe that the Fayum scutum is 63.5 cm wide by the former measure.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Late Roman shield was 36-40 inches, which is 3-3.33 feet.

[Ariovistus]

Is there - besides speculations - any sensible reason (historical critical method) to suggest that Polybius and Vegetius are wrong in regard of the "3 ft. apart"?
If the Romans were positioned shield to shield they would not be able to use their swords properly, I think. How would you solve this problem?

I agree, without proper spacing the legionary's primary mode of attack is drastically limited. Unless deployed in some sort of defensive shield wall, i.e. testudo. On the other hand, a phalangite is able, if not supposed to strike overhand with hoplons overlapping. Therefore not requiring much more room than the breadth of their shield which, if I'm not mistaken, an aspis/hoplon is typically 3ft, a cubit. I think your conclusion is sound, but without any historical sources to back it up, we may never know for sure the exact spacing used by legionaries. But if it were up to me, I'd say double-pace.

[Robert Vermaat]

I go with the classical 6 feet for marching order, 3 feet (pyknosis) for offensive, 1.5 feet (synaspismos) for defensive.

[Mark Hygate]

Thanks all for responding.

Steven,

There were a number of things in the Cannae thread and I wondered how best to answer - and this subject area I thought best covered here (it leads directly to why I now believe a Roman legion's standard deployed frontage was 500ft) in a separate thread.

I can return to the Cannae thread to answer the other questions, however, I already know that we will never agree on numbers and structures for we are coming at them from utterly different bases: you have a theory that Roman military Organisation(s) are based upon assumed tribal relationships and cosmological alignments along with Pythagorean numerics; whilst I come from a firm structural and logical approach based upon military and management theory and practice and believe in Darwinian evolution and managed change, not 'whims' and 'wishes' of ancient beliefs. We will probably have to agree to disagree forever; for whilst I would never dismiss your theory out of hand, I can probably never accept it as I am simply convinced in a more pragmatic and military necessity approach; especially if I can make sense of it.

That, however, will appear in the 'little thesis' whenever I can finish it, but this belief in the 'pace' is now a part of it.


Christian,

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the 'historical critical' method, but yes, I do believe there is a need to suggest (hence leading to the thread) that the 3ft spacing is not, in fact, correct. One is firmly the focus that the Roman scutum is indeed 2.5ft/one pace across for a particular reason - for which, see below.

Secondly that (see above) I then see no evidence at all anywhere in related military thinking (layout of camp, road size and measuring) that shows that Romans thought in 3ft elements. In addition, when you look at formations of soldiers formed up and marching past in what is, today, termed 'close order' (and I believe has existed for all these years historically) and someone simply looks at them and 'guesses' how far apart they are it can easily look like 3ft (as a round number), but is in fact 'one pace'.

I have been taught and have taught drill myself. Open order, close order, shoulder-to-shoulder, marching are all done in paces and by using the arm length and the width across the shoulders (just about one pace) to make separations. Because the Roman shield is particularly constructed to be 2.5ft I feel there is a need to question.

As to then using the sword 'properly', then that is indeed key to understanding. Roman soldiers standing 'shoulder-to shoulder' forming an unbroken 'shield-to'shield' phalanx and facing a pike phalanx (as, above, I now believe was intended vs the syntagma) do not need their swords (still scabbarded) at all! They cannot reach the pikeman some 15ft away and they are firmly secure behind their shields pushing and shoving and can devote all their efforts, and both hands, to maintaining their mutually supporting and firm formation, with the simple intention of holding and breaking up the pike phalanx - at which point they then draw swords (and hence why it's on the right).

The Roman soldiers primary weapon is indeed the shield and works just the same way as a boxer 'jabs' and the same way all my martial arts (defensive and using the opponent against himself) training works by 'blocking', before then 'punching/striking' with the short stabbing and cutting sword that the gladius is. Create the gap and then strike. This also works against the wild-swinging strokes of the more 'barbarian' types. I see no difficulty in being able to use swords 'properly'.


Sean,

Yes, Polybius is very clear that the Romans fought with 'gaps' (modern close order, in fact) and this is why I have to doubt him (and this element has been discussed before), let alone noting that Vegetius contradicts and has them next to each other, but with 6ft rank separation.

I would love to get together, train and actually demonstrate with some re-enactors why Polybius' 'reasons' for the phalanx failing are not credible; but unless that can be done I simply am unable to accept (from a purely physical approach) that no realistic amount of rocky, undulating or scrub-ridden land would prevent a well-trained pike phalanx from marching straight over a line of men individually spaced and unsupported, even if each man were a Warrior God. For several hundred years the hoplite and then pike phalanx reigned supreme - it was not subject to such fragility.

For, in understanding Polybius in context, I don't see him as actually 'there'. Polybius (alone, I believe I am right in saying, amongst the sources we have) was trained as a Greek soldier, but not a Roman one, and then writes from a Patrician/Generals' perspective. He saw the Romans in formation, but when they were fighting he can only see from a serious distance. I do not believe we have any sources from a Roman soldiers detailed perspective, all are Patrician or Academics and we have no Roman Drill Manual, nor any detail from even Centurions or Tribunes.

What Polybius uses as 'excuses' simply cannot tell the whole picture, so I believe we have to determine what's missing. Give me a syntagma and a maniple and I'll hopefully get it filmed!

As to the size of the shields (Roman classical to Middle Imperial) we have Polybius' himself (and I know of no reason to query that detail) describing the scutum and I do not see the Fayum scutum contradicting that, given the march of time and the processes involved in drying wood and delamination over the centuries. As to the measuring, it's the final actual width.

[Bryan]

Mark wrote:
For several hundred years the hoplite and then pike phalanx reigned supreme - it was not subject to such fragility.
Until they met the Romans...

Mark, why are you so focused on Romans fighting Macedonian phalanxes? They were an occasional enemy opponent at best, the Roman manipular infantry battle tactics were not designed to fight them. The traditional Roman enemies were Latins, Etruscans, Samnites, Lusitanians, Gauls, Carthaginians, etc. When Pyrrhus came to Italy and fought the Romans, did the Romans change their tactics to fight him or did Pyrrhus end up adopting some Roman tactics/organizational methods for his own army? What about Philip, Perseus or Mithridates? Did Roman consuls reform their armies to defeat these adversaries or did these opponents end up attempting to mimmick the Roman fighting style?

An interesting representation of the Battle of Pydna, where small groups of Roman infantry fighting in the loose order Polybius describes are exploiting rough terrain to fight their way into the Macedonian phalanx.
[img width=700]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GHWcjaVextI/UXGlLcjslBI/AAAAAAAABTc/T_-4oj_Idyg/s1600/20100506114558212_0007+-+copia.jpg[/img]

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have to agree, just because the Terrain is rough doesn't mean that the Phalanx is ineffective. Look at Marathon, or Thermopylae, where they were fighting on rough terrain.

The problem arises when the Phalanx is not facing another Phalanx.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
I can return to the Cannae thread to answer the other questions, however, I already know that we will never agree on numbers and structures for we are coming at them from utterly different bases: you have a theory that Roman military Organisation(s) are based upon assumed tribal relationships and cosmological alignments along with Pythagorean numerics; whilst I come from a firm structural and logical approach based upon military and management theory and practice and believe in Darwinian evolution and managed change, not 'whims' and 'wishes' of ancient beliefs. We will probably have to agree to disagree forever; for whilst I would never dismiss your theory out of hand, I can probably never accept it as I am simply convinced in a more pragmatic and military necessity approach; especially if I can make sense of it.

My questions on the Cannae thread has nothing to do with Pythagorean numerics and cosmological alignments. Far from it Mark! Most of the assumptions you made about Cannae can be answered or proven one way or the other by using the army numbers given by Appian, Livy Polybius and Plutarch. If Plutarch claims there were 88,000 men in battle array at Cannae, is he wrong or right? If Appian allocates 1000 cavalry to each of the three Roman commanders at Cannae, is he wrong or right? If Polybius tells us two legions attacked Hannibal’s camp, are they both Roman legions, or allied legions, or one of each. It’s a pity you didn’t answer the Cannae questions because I was prepared to, by only employing the primary sources regarding Cannae, that you do not have to base your assumptions on guesswork. You lost the moment.

Mark wrote:
The manipular organisation came into being to defeat Greek phalanxes; thus I am of the opinion that the Roman heavy infantry maniple (of two centuries) is deployed 20-men wide by 6 deep to directly oppose a Greek syntagma deployed 16x16.

With what do you support your claim “the maniple organisation came into being to defeat Greek phalanxes?” Before the Romans adopted the maniple legion, Livy (8 8-12) states that the Roman formation had been similar to the Macedonian phalanx. This was supposed to occur after the troops received pay in 406 BC. Your logic would have this event occurring when the Romans faced Pyrrhus in 280 BC.

Mark wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the 'historical critical' method, but yes, I do believe there is a need to suggest (hence leading to the thread) that the 3ft spacing is not, in fact, correct. One is firmly the focus that the Roman scutum is indeed 2.5ft/one pace across for a particular reason.

First Mark, what makes you think the Romans worked in fractions and not whole numbers? Why can’t a Roman soldier occupy a space of 3ft? This would give a small amount of room (6 inches) between shields? I’ve made my decision that Polybius 3ft is correct based on a comprehensive study of a number of battles. Polybius’ comment a Roman soldier faced 10 sarissa I also found to be correct. There was no need to fudge anything to make it work. The Roman military system during Polybius’ time is a sexagesimal (base 60) system. Although you have an aversion to my Pythagorean research, as the number 10 is the most important Pythagorean number, a legion deployed 200 men wide has a frontage of 600 feet and by following your maniple being deployed 20 men wide, each of the 10 maniples of hastati has a frontage of 60 feet, or one tenth of the legion’s frontage. All this conforms to a sexagesimal system, whereas your legion frontage of 500 feet with a maniple having a frontage of 50 feet, is more akin to the decimal system.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Christian,

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the 'historical critical' method, but yes, I do believe there is a need to suggest (hence leading to the thread) that the 3ft spacing is not, in fact, correct. One is firmly the focus that the Roman scutum is indeed 2.5ft/one pace across for a particular reason - for which, see below.

Secondly that (see above) I then see no evidence at all anywhere in related military thinking (layout of camp, road size and measuring) that shows that Romans thought in 3ft elements. In addition, when you look at formations of soldiers formed up and marching past in what is, today, termed 'close order' (and I believe has existed for all these years historically) and someone simply looks at them and 'guesses' how far apart they are it can easily look like 3ft (as a round number), but is in fact 'one pace'.

I have been taught and have taught drill myself. Open order, close order, shoulder-to-shoulder, marching are all done in paces and by using the arm length and the width across the shoulders (just about one pace) to make separations. Because the Roman shield is particularly constructed to be 2.5ft I feel there is a need to question.

As to then using the sword 'properly', then that is indeed key to understanding. Roman soldiers standing 'shoulder-to shoulder' forming an unbroken 'shield-to'shield' phalanx and facing a pike phalanx (as, above, I now believe was intended vs the syntagma) do not need their swords (still scabbarded) at all! They cannot reach the pikeman some 15ft away and they are firmly secure behind their shields pushing and shoving and can devote all their efforts, and both hands, to maintaining their mutually supporting and firm formation, with the simple intention of holding and breaking up the pike phalanx - at which point they then draw swords (and hence why it's on the right).

The Roman soldiers primary weapon is indeed the shield and works just the same way as a boxer 'jabs' and the same way all my martial arts (defensive and using the opponent against himself) training works by 'blocking', before then 'punching/striking' with the short stabbing and cutting sword that the gladius is. Create the gap and then strike. This also works against the wild-swinging strokes of the more 'barbarian' types. I see no difficulty in being able to use swords 'properly'.

Thanks for your reply. I was asking, however, for an argument "besides speculation". All you present is based on assumptions. One example: "Roman standard shield width is 2.5 feet". Where do you have this general information from, I wonder? We´re talking about a period between Polybios and Vegetius... I think there are several examples of Roman shields that do not properly fit in there.

It does not help that you learned or teached drill or do martial arts etc.. It might help to understand things, but it can, as modern practice never be an argument for historic practices, unless you can prove a continuity. The continuity you just assume, but there you make it far too easy for yourself. Also, you should look at more than just "Macedonian" Phalanx as adversary if you want to come up with such a generalisation, I think.

Method: When talking written sources there is a set of methods to judge their credibility. That´s part of learning to be a historian, and one of the reasons why there are universities teaching history. Sort of sets the standard for investigations of written sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

[Sean Manning]

For, in understanding Polybius in context, I don't see him as actually 'there'. Polybius (alone, I believe I am right in saying, amongst the sources we have) was trained as a Greek soldier, but not a Roman one, and then writes from a Patrician/Generals' perspective. He saw the Romans in formation, but when they were fighting he can only see from a serious distance. I do not believe we have any sources from a Roman soldiers detailed perspective, all are Patrician or Academics and we have no Roman Drill Manual, nor any detail from even Centurions or Tribunes.

Mark,

You are forgetting about the mock battles which Roman soldiers commonly fought and which Polybius must have observed at close range on many occasions. Philip Rance has assembled the evidence from Polybius to the tenth century CE into an article in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies. While Polybius probably never saw a Roman army fight a Macedonian phalanx, it is possible that that he observed skirmishes, fighting over city walls, etc. at close range in his time in exile. One can question many things in Polybius 18.28-32, but throwing out his description of Roman fighting based on intuition is not scholarly.

Back in 2000 Peter Connolly suggested (JRMES 11 p. 105) that in the context of tactics two cubits is the length of the arm and hand, which would make your single pace equal to two cubits and three feet in that context. When laying out camps the Romans may have used measuring rods or chains and the Roman foot, but I am not familiar with any ancient sources.

With the width of roads, I observe that Polybius' multiples of 50 feet could easily be rounded, that it is useful to have some space besides the marching column so that messengers can pass a marching unit and to allow for soldiers failing to march in perfect straight lines, and that we don't have much evidence about how many ranks a Polybian century marched in (if it did in fact march in rank and file).

As to the size of the shields (Roman classical to Middle Imperial) we have Polybius' himself (and I know of no reason to query that detail) describing the scutum and I do not see the Fayum scutum contradicting that, given the march of time and the processes involved in drying wood and delamination over the centuries. As to the measuring, it's the final actual width.

But again, is it the final width measured the short way (over the hollow of the shield) or the long way (along the face of the shield)? Is there any uncertainty about that figure in the manuscripts? What do other forms of evidence such as surviving shield rims and Roman art suggest? Doubting Polybius' figures is reasonable, and I think that most of us have a few ideas about ancient warfare which we can't prove, but if you want to make a sound argument you need to give all his numbers equal scrutiny.

[Learningcurve]

I think I would tend towards being careful not to base any theories on how things would work when 100% manned units go toe to toe. My experience with modern day military operations is that just because you have a unit authorized X amount of bodies doesn't mean you get outside the wire/take the field/whatever with that number. (And it actually probably requires truly propitious circumstances or herculean efforts to make it happen.)

I'd tend to assume that Roman successes over Greek formations (and most anyone else, for that matter) tended to be based more on higher level issues -- Roman applications of the operational art, rather than the tactical, essentially.