Mons Graupius Cavalry Question

[antiochus]

Crastinus wrote:
I don't know what edition of Cassell's you have, but mine doesn't define equitum as a turma or ala.

Cassell’s Latin Dictionary Latin-English, English Latin, by D. P. Simpson, M. A. Published by Wiley, Page 837…..squadron, of cavalry, (equitum) turma or ala: of ships, classis.

Duncan wrote:
"Squadron" is just the standard translation of ala, just as "troop" is the standard translation of turma.

Well that is going to cause confusion to anyone trying to calculate the exact numbers of the cavalry involved. Historians should be better disciplined and use ala to represent a body of 500 cavalry and a squadron to represent 30 cavalry.

Duncan wrote:
You really need this book.

I have a copy but your study of the battle lacks information I as a reader would like to see discussed. ad:

Macedon wrote:
As for ala, I would love it if they just wrote 3 alae/3 ala units/3 ala squadrons. Any of these translations would make it clear that these were alae and not turmae, for example.

I wholly agree. Thanks everyone for the input, four alae it is. :grin:

[D B Campbell]

I have a copy (of Mons Graupius AD83) but your study of the battle lacks information I as a reader would like to see discussed. ad: ... Thanks everyone for the input, four alae it is. :grin:

On p. 78 of my book, I notice that I have translated the passage of Tacitus which has caused you such torment. (I usually make my own translations, so that I can emphasize key facts and assist the reader with problematic terms.) I was amused to see that, on this occasion, I translated it as "four regiments of cavalry"! Surely that ought to keep everyone happy? ;-)

[antiochus]

Duncan wrote:
On p. 78 of my book, I notice that I have translated the passage of Tacitus which has caused you such torment. (I usually make my own translations, so that I can emphasize key facts and assist the reader with problematic terms.) I was amused to see that, on this occasion, I translated it as "four regiments of cavalry"! Surely that ought to keep everyone happy?

No it’s not about the four squadrons or four regiments. The lack of detail I’m referring to is explaining how the ranks were opened. :unsure: Who did the chariots create panic in? :unsure: Was it the front line auxiliary infantry? If so then how is it you have the Romans gradually bringing the chariots under control when the “the battle itself had begun with the traditional shower of missiles.” Who are these Roman bringing the chariots under control before the traditional shower of missiles begins? :unsure: Are the troops starting the traditional shower of missiles being hindered by the Romans bringing the chariots under control? Someone here has to be getting in the way of the other. :unsure:

[D B Campbell]

No it’s not about the four squadrons or four regiments.

:dizzy: Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

The lack of detail I’m referring to is explaining how the ranks were opened. Who did the chariots create panic in? Was it the front line auxiliary infantry? If so then how is it you have the Romans gradually bringing the chariots under control when the “the battle itself had begun with the traditional shower of missiles.” Who are these Roman bringing the chariots under control before the traditional shower of missiles begins? Are the troops starting the traditional shower of missiles being hindered by the Romans bringing the chariots under control? Someone here has to be getting in the way of the other.

You've made a few assumptions that aren't really warranted by Tacitus' description.

On p. 75, I wrote: "Tacitus makes no explicit mention of how the Caledonian chariots were dealt with ..." He does claim that the charioteers "had at first created panic" -- perhaps amongst "the other cohorts" (Agr. 36.2, meaning the non-Batavians/Tungrians, who needed the example of the Batavians/Tungrians to follow).

I have assumed, in my interpretation of the battle, that the opening shower of missiles brought the chariots under control. It can't be pleasant driving around while men are trying to kill you with spears. After reading Tacitus' account, you may want to make a different assumption. That's up to you.

[M. Demetrius]

It can't be pleasant driving around while men are trying to kill you with spears

Well, Duncan, that ranks up there with the Best of Understatements! Flying spears swishing by one's head might just be a reasonably discouraging time.

:-D

[antiochus]

Duncan wrote:
You've made a few assumptions that aren't really warranted by Tacitus' description.

No that is incorrect. I am following your sequence of events regarding the battle. I have outlined events given by you that lack detail. For example you claim that the Romans opened their ranks in order to deal with the chariots but although you discuss Gaugamela and Alexander’s men breaking ranks you do not detail how the Romans opened their ranks and how extending the line the auxiliaries tackled the chariot problem. So here we are with the supposed chariot counter measures in place and next we are told the Romans gradually bought the chariots under control. This is an anti climax. If as you say the chariots at first created panic then how did this impact on the chariot counter measures? The above questions have nothing to do with making assumptions about Tacitus’ account. The questions are generated by your account of the battle which unfortunately lacks detail.

[Vindex]

I am not really sure how Duncan can add any further detail to the account of the battle if it isn't in the sources already?

One can interpret what the ancient author may mean (and we are getting perilously close to the dreaded Boudica thread) but one cannot elaborate with any confidence if there is no supporting evidence. One can assume, once can draw parallels, as Duncan has, but unless one was at the battle, no one can give any more detail than the original author who was Tacitus and not Duncan!

[antiochus]

Vindex wrote:
I am not really sure how Duncan can add any further detail to the account of the battle if it isn't in the sources already?

A historian should be able to provide details to his own reconstruction of a battle. How is it a historian can add further details to a battle account that is not mentioned in the sources but omit other details mentioned in the primary sources. For example, Tacitus does not tell us that the “legionaries were traditionally drawn up in close order…auxiliaries…were more naturally open-order troops,” Duncan tell us that. So if Duncan can provide this detail then why couldn't he then use this detail to describe how the Romans tackled the chariots. Yet he chooses to brush over it by stating the chariots were gradually bought under control. After all Duncan established the premise.

I think Duncan has avoided doing this because he is not sure how the Romans opened their ranks or extended the line. It's not a case of being wrong or right if he did make an attempt at describing how this was done, it's the fact he bought this detail to the reader's attention then ignores it.

[Macedon]

Steven, is there a point to all this or are you just trying to attack Duncan's reconstruction of the said battle? I remind you that the OP is not how Duncan described it and now it awfully sounds like an unnecessary personal attack. This is NOT a review of his book, nor does anyone have the right to force answers from any member or judge their ability to answer. If you have specific questions that you want to discuss ask them. If you find accounts of the battle with more details feel free to use them, present them, discuss them. Please, keep it civil.

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
Steven, is there a point to all this or are you just trying to attack Duncan's reconstruction of the said battle?

It was Duncan who told me I really needed his book. Up to that stage I had no intention of entering into a discussion about his book. I am puzzled as to why Duncan thinks I need his book.

Macedon wrote:
I remind you that the OP is not how Duncan described it and now it awfully sounds like an unnecessary personal attack.

It is not a personal attack regardless of how you or anyone reads it. Years ago I was involved in scriptwriting. I would present a script to a script editor and if there were any shortcomings raised about the script I learnt over time not to take it personally because it wasn’t a personal attack on my ability. I had learnt to separate myself from my work and realised any negative comments about my script was not aimed at me as a person. However, many new scriptwriters do take it personally but as they mature as a writer they soon learn through experience someone questioning their work is not making a personal attack.

Macedon wrote:
This is NOT a review of his book, nor does anyone have the right to force answers from any member or judge their ability to answer.

I am not forcing Duncan to do anything. And how is it other members of this group over the years have been permitted to outline the shortcomings of an author’s work, who is not a member of this group and therefore cannot defend his/her work?

Macedon wrote:
If you have specific questions that you want to discuss ask them.

Ok, would Duncan explain how the counter measures for the chariots taken by the auxiliary troops who are open order troops were implemented? I don’t know of any other way to ask it and if it is perceived to be uncivil, well I give up.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I suppose that Duncan may have made the not unreasonable assumption that those reading the description of the battle and how he describes it in his book may have some knowledge of Roman battle tactics, based on existing battle descriptions or within the surviving manuals. I have read much of Duncan's material and I have found no issues with it. I am sure if you read any book written about an ancient battle then you will find similar idea's put forward that may well leave the reader with some questions, but then I genrally take this as the author pointing us in the direction of both the orginal sources and reference works they themselves relied on when writing their book.

[D B Campbell]

It was Duncan who told me I really needed his book. Up to that stage I had no intention of entering into a discussion about his book. I am puzzled as to why Duncan thinks I need his book.

I will just make one comment here. Your initial question related to Agricola's reserve cavalry. You said that you were puzzled by the numbers. I pointed you to the Osprey book, where, as we have now established, I wrote (with perfectly clarity, even if I say so myself) "four regiments of cavalry". That seems to be the answer to your "Mons Graupius Cavalry Question".

[antiochus]

Duncan wrote:
I pointed you to the Osprey book, where, as we have now established, I wrote (with perfectly clarity, even if I say so myself) "four regiments of cavalry". That seems to be the answer to your "Mons Graupius Cavalry Question".

Before posting here I searched your book and found on page 78 “four regiments of cavalry, then again on page 78 “four squadrons of cavalry.” Therefore, because your book didn’t answer the question, but added to the confusion I made this posting on RAT which I am very grateful to Crastinus for clearing up the confusion. So there are four alae and when combined with the legions, using Pythagorean geometry I have calculated Agricola’s second line as having a frontage of 4800 feet.