Quote:Mark.
That 60 did throw me a bit for as you can see from my earlier posts I am woring around the later period of 1st to 2nd century, with of course my long held belief of just how the pilum throw at the start of battles might have been carried out for it is a more easier way to get all troopers to throw at exactly the same time for shock effect.
The Pilus Prior would be forward at the right with all troopers watching him waiting for his throw whilst the Pilus Posteria might be at the rear with the second century making up the maniple, for indeed the maniple would appear to not only fight together but also lived together in their barrack accomodation.
Brian,
Understood - but (as you will hopefully see shortly) I'm still plumping for the 60-man 'fighting century'.
Given I would probably be suggesting that a centurion doesn't have a pilum himself, why not have him simply shout (which the century would be quite familiar with) 'prepare' - 'release'? He can even vary it by changing the number of ranks that throw...
Quote:About the battle duty of the centurion, one could assume that it was his role to "aim" his century during the movement to contact.
Which is not as simple as simply going forward or backward. If he deviates to the right or left, he's gonna mess with the order of the unit to his right or left.
............... Assuming there are small intervals between centuries/maniples which would leave a little room to maneuver, .............
Tim,
Thank you, some good points. But why leave gaps that an enemy can exploit?
Both/All,
Because it fundamentally affects my views on where the centurion might be standing (at least some of the time), could I ask you to re-read the final two posts (a refresh of the thread may possibly be worth it) of this thread:
....for no one disagreed with it at the time when I argued those points.
For several hundred years prior organised warfare had emphasized the battle line and the need to hold it. Is anyone arguing that it has gone entirely?
If so, then large and small gaps, ideas of centurions happily being on their own, being able to see left, right, and backwards and every Roman a whirling, leaping super-gladiator are in the mix..... :evil:
But it's fundamental to the idea that our 60 legionaires are most probably set in a 10 x 6 box shape; essentially similar to that which had gone before. In which case, they haven't left room for the centurion as standard.
Given I would probably be suggesting that a centurion doesn't have a pilum himself, why not have him simply shout (which the century would be quite familiar with) 'prepare' - 'release'? He can even vary it by changing the number of ranks that throw...
Read Caesar, DBG, 5.44; the centurion Titus Pullo uses a pilum to kill an enemy.
And to quote Raffeale D'Amato's Roman Centurions: 31 BC - AD 500, "The pilum and hasta are also attested among the weapons of centurions by gravestones and figurative monuments of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD."
....for no one disagreed with it at the time when I argued those points.
I think everyone got tired of arguing each other after eight pages. Frustration killed that topic.
If so, then large and small gaps, ideas of centurions happily being on their own, being able to see left, right, and backwards and every Roman a whirling, leaping super-gladiator are in the mix...
Polybius and Vegetius both specifically describe a individual fighting style that is independent in nature and nothing like a hoplite'esque shield wall. Not too mention Arrian (CW, 3.68, Battle of Forum Gallorum)
Gaps were described by Livy and multiple threads exist in RAT that pretty definitively prove that small gaps between units existed in nearly every battle line in the ancient, medieval, Renaissance battlefield, though larger maniple sized gaps are still debatable.
No, they look more like shields - I was simply asking, for the previous picture showed them being held strangely. If signifers/aquilifers had small shields (so the unit is identified?) then they were not 3ft diameter parmas.
Here is another signifer with an undoubted shield tucked under his left arm:
I don't think that we need get too hung up on the idea that a parma must have a diameter of 3 ft. Polybius may have described such a parma but, in the same way that scutum is actually a generic term for a shield, so parma need mean no more than a small circular shield of no specific dimensions.
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)
No, they look more like shields - I was simply asking, for the previous picture showed them being held strangely. If signifers/aquilifers had small shields (so the unit is identified?) then they were not 3ft diameter parmas.
Here is another signifer with an undoubted shield tucked under his left arm:
I don't think that we need get too hung up on the idea that a parma must have a diameter of 3 ft. Polybius may have described such a parma but, in the same way that scutum is actually a generic term for a shield, so parma need mean no more than a small circular shield of no specific dimensions.
To add to that, the scutum/thureos description by Polybius is 2.5 feet by 4 feet. But the fayum scutum was a bit longer and thinner too if I remember. And judging by the gross dimensions of the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, their scuta were certainly taller than 4 feet unless the soldiers were ridiculously short. I doubt the size of any weapon or piece of equipment made by different shops was standardized in the ancient period.
I'd like to know more about this 10x6 formation, in strict rank and file. What evidence is there for either?
Quote:....................
I'd like to know more about this 10x6 formation, in strict rank and file. What evidence is there for either?
If you have no wish to re-read or debate the 'steps' I used to set out my stall in that other thread - then that's kind of difficult.
Two things:
- Please give me a reasonable explanation of another practicable formation that the triarii could form, that allows them to perform their function (that they would act as a reserve and line behind which the army could reform or reorganize and/or to carry out a controlled retreat - that is not a (practicably) phalanx-like 200x3 contiguous formation (for each legion - side-by-side). For that defines the frontage of a legion.....
- which leads to a comfortable idea that the hastati or principes to the front are most probably 6-deep (8 with velites and others later if that's relevant)) - given the general consensus (and I am under the same belief) that contubernia form files in similar way to the Greeks (sic) before and that their sub-units are double the size.
Given the structure of the detailed Polybian legion - that's the basis of my train of deduction. If you fundamentally don't agree with it (and I would certainly like to debate), then that's fine. For me it's the triarii (and the apparent fact that they always number 600) that has become key.
Quote:our 60 legionaires are most probably set in a 10 x 6 box shape... In which case, they haven't left room for the centurion as standard.
Although if we consider that the optio stood apart and behind the formation, then there is a spare place, which could be filled by the centurion in the front rank...
Quote:If you have no wish to re-read or debate the 'steps' I used to set out my stall in that other thread - then that's kind of difficult.
Two things:
- Please give me a reasonable explanation of another practicable formation that the triarii could form, that allows them to perform their function (that they would act as a reserve and line behind which the army could reform or reorganize and/or to carry out a controlled retreat - that is not a (practicably) phalanx-like 200x3 contiguous formation (for each legion - side-by-side). For that defines the frontage of a legion.....
- which leads to a comfortable idea that the hastati or principes to the front are most probably 6-deep (8 with velites and others later if that's relevant)) - given the general consensus (and I am under the same belief) that contubernia form files in similar way to the Greeks (sic) before and that their sub-units are double the size.
Given the structure of the detailed Polybian legion - that's the basis of my train of deduction. If you fundamentally don't agree with it (and I would certainly like to debate), then that's fine. For me it's the triarii (and the apparent fact that they always number 600) that has become key.
What happens if there are only 47 men in a triari maniple instead of the paper strength 60? How do they form then? Or did legions often go into battle with their full compliment? There would never be 60 men in a triari maniple exept maybe on the first day it formed. Also you keep bringing up centuries and Polybius who never used that term. It wasn't until later writings that evidence emerges of a subunit called a century.
You're making a broad assumption that there is a consensus that contubernia fought in files. We've discussed this already in this thread and zero evidence exists to prove that. In fact most historians who written books that I've read, as well postings from RAT archives, state the consensus is the opposite of your theory. Please provide some evidence of contubernia serving as files, in the form of something substantiated.
Furthermore, there was no standard Greek tactical system as there wasn't a unified Greece. If you picked three hellenic city states at random each would probably have its own way of fighting that varied substantially from the next. The phalanx of the Spartans was different than the phalanx of the Athenians, lets alone the Thebans or Macedonians (pre Philip II). And thats not even with the assumption that the Romans went out and copied some Greek city state's military system which also there is no evidence of. By the time of Polybius, I don't think any Greek city states were still fighting in the old hoplite style and during the time when Rome commonly interacted with them (war), the Greeks weren't using hoplite methods. The Romans borrowed near nothing tactics wise from the Hellenic armies they faced, minus an appreciation for elephants and the benefit of fortifying a marching camp.
The frontage of a legion is dictated by many factors including terrain and the enemy. Look at pharsalus as an example. In order for Caesar's understrength cohorts to equal Pompey's, Caesar's ranks were four deep to Pompey's ten.
What historical or archaeological evidence do you have for your theories? You seem to mostly be using Polybius but then discounting him at every turn when his writings disagree with your theories. Your desire to find a standardized battle template might be flawed, as the legions were never standardized. Even legions existing during the same time periods differed in tactics.
"The manner of fighting of those soldiers was to run forward with great impetuosity and boldly take a post, and not to keep their ranks strictly, but to fight in small scattered parties: if hard pressed they thought it no disgrace to retire and give up the post, being accustomed to this manner of fighting among the Lusitanians and other barbarous nations; for it commonly happens that soldiers are strongly influenced by the customs of those countries in which they have spent much time. This method, however, alarmed our men, who were not used to such a description of warfare. For they imagined that they were about to be surrounded on their exposed flank by the single men who ran forward from their ranks; and they thought it their duty to keep their ranks, and not to quit their colors, nor, without good reason to give up the post which they had taken. Accordingly, when the advanced guard gave way, the legion which was stationed on that wing did not keep its ground, but retreated to the next hill."
Caesar DBC, 1.44
Quote:Given the structure of the detailed Polybian legion - that's the basis of my train of deduction. If you fundamentally don't agree with it (and I would certainly like to debate), then that's fine. For me it's the triarii (and the apparent fact that they always number 600) that has become key.
It would be odd if the triari were indeed the key. (I did read your steps on the other thread) From my limited knowledge of the literature, they barely seem to take part in the battles and weren't they even left behind in camp at Cannae ? It seems to me, that they didn't matter much unless things were going really bad (or good and a fresh force of infantry was needed to take the enemy camp).
I don't see them being the constraint for the legion frontage. Especially when the number of legions per army was fixed while the enemy battle line frontage wasn't.
So far the best explanation I've seen on that topic is a paper by MJ Taylor: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1775...PUBLIC.pdf
From memory, his conclusion is that the frontage of a legion had to be variable to match enemy battle lines and since centuries/ maniples were probably always the same front (Cannae being an unfortunate exception then ?), then the only way was to have variable gaps. I think his results point at gaps anywhere between 5 to 20 meters large.
Anyway I do agree with the century being 10 files of 3/6 or 8 men depending on type of troops/periods and all. That just seems the most reasonable way to see it. Although, the absence of a fill leader will always puzzle me. So maybe they didn't fight at all in a file the way greeks did, but surely they would at least maneuver that way till they reach the enemy. And having a file leader would be invaluable to do so in the most efficient manner. Having just a centurion, optio and standard bearer doesn't seem much to keep 60 to 80 men moving in the right direction in the appropriate formation.
Out of curiosity, what would be the latin for file and file leader ? How would a roman author writing in latin call a greek/macedonian/.. front ranker ?
I don't buy into the idea that in a triplex acies, the Triari line had to be the same width as the other two lines. Considering they were much further back in the formation and didn't move in battle to keep up (they knelt until they were called up), they didn't need to be the same length. If you planted them between the main battle line (hastati and principes) and between the camp, a thinner thin and shorter line could still screen the retreat of the former lines should things not go well, giving time to reinforce the camp or try to reorganize the retreating maniples into a cohesive unit capable of defending themselves in an semi organized manner. In warfare in general, reserve units are rarely the same size of the front line units in contact; the 2 up, 1 back rule is generally used for reserves.
Think of what I am describing as an equilateral triangle, with the base being the hastati and principes fighting lines and the vertex angle being the camp, with the Triari somewhere in between, at a position parallel to the base, but shorter in length. Below is a quick illustration to describe my point.
[attachment=10227]battleline.png[/attachment]
At Pharsalus, Caesar's third line (reserve) was made up of two cohorts, as his usual 4-3-3 formation was disrupted when he pulled one cohort in the third line from each legion to form a forth line protecting his right flank. With his front rank cohorts fighting four ranks deep, I don't see how two cohorts could cover down on the same territory that four cohorts covered.
Out of curiosity, what would be the latin for file and file leader ? How would a roman author writing in latin call a greek/macedonian/.. front ranker ?
I'm far from an expert but every source I've read pertaining to the Republican and early Imperial period don't describe specifically an individual position pertaining to file leaders or front rankers. Numerous sources do mention the front ranks in a general way and many sources mention evocati (veterans) fighting in them (Sallust De Bello Catalina, Caesar's DBC battles of Pharsalus and Ruspina).
Additionally, there is the theory by some that the antesignani (those who fought in front of the standards) actually refers to the front ranks of a fighting century, those who literally stood in front of the unit standards that would be buried somewhere in ranks two or three by the theory. Others believe the antesignani were light armed infantry, similar to velites. Unfortunately, too little info exists to definitively state one way or another.
Mark Hygate post=356611 Wrote:our 60 legionaires are most probably set in a 10 x 6 box shape... In which case, they haven't left room for the centurion as standard.
Although if we consider that the optio stood apart and behind the formation, then there is a spare place, which could be filled by the centurion in the front rank...
Not, as I believe the numbers would appear to show - that there are 60 'legionaries' + centurion + signifer + optio (ie the 3 'officers' are in addition).
It's that detail - that the 60 are most probably formed up within a regular box shape (notwithstanding any ideas on how they are formed up individually), but not including any of the 'officers' - so any or all of them can be outside the 'box' unless there is a reason at the particular time for them not to be; but if (and yes, of course, if the 'unit' is at full strength) they are, then one or more legionary must be displaced.
For me, that there would be a fairly 'standard base' from which all these things are based (and suggested by Polybius in his description of selecting soldiers for the army that the process is standardized) - the implication is that a centurion (and the others) is not intended from the outset to be a fixed part of the formation. That he could be is self-evident.
Quote:.............
You're making a broad assumption that there is a consensus that contubernia fought in files. We've discussed this already in this thread and zero evidence exists to prove that. In fact most historians who written books that I've read, as well postings from RAT archives, state the consensus is the opposite of your theory. Please provide some evidence of contubernia serving as files, in the form of something substantiated...............
Yes I was - and if my impression of that consensus is wrong, then I most certainly apologise - I genuinely thought it was. That it remains a part of my theory is still just fine - I just won't expect you to believe it.
Thinking of that theory and your 'triangle' example, however - the attached is the graphic from my draft thesis on the layout of the Polybian Camp and its relation to the Consular Army that inhabits it.
As it suggests that the dimensions of the camp and the frontage of the entire infantry complement (both Roman and Allied legions) formed in the triplex acies are all directly related (and are practicably the same) - would that change your example? The graphic is drawn to scale (the camp is 2,050ft frontage - and the soldiers would form a line 2,000 ft wide (the gaps are just for show in this case) - I have indeed used my previously argued for 2.5ft per man).
My view is that the frontages are the same - otherwise there are massive gaps through which any enemy may pass and roam at will, which would spell disaster. For the same reason I also do not believe in significant gaps in a 'battle line' - a gap is just an opening to be exploited (and which could be used very carefully like at Zama). That's just fundamental to me (perhaps not to everyone).
A note on 'century' - yes, I am guilty of linking Polybius' construct to the later legions (where I believe there is direct linkage) - am I wrong (when it comes to explaining as simply as possible) in calling a half-maniple a century? Or would you prefer I over-complicate the discussion by using 120 men instead of 60 and a total of 6 'officers' instead of 3? I can, but I don't think it helps.
[attachment=10228]PolyCamp.jpg[/attachment]
Quote:Yes I was - and if my impression of that consensus is wrong, then I most certainly apologise - I genuinely thought it was. That it remains a part of my theory is still just fine - I just won't expect you to believe it.
Thinking of that theory and your 'triangle' example, however - the attached is the graphic from my draft thesis on the layout of the Polybian Camp and its relation to the Consular Army that inhabits it.
As it suggests that the dimensions of the camp and the frontage of the entire infantry complement (both Roman and Allied legions) formed in the triplex acies are all directly related (and are practicably the same) - would that change your example? The graphic is drawn to scale (the camp is 2,050ft frontage - and the soldiers would form a line 2,000 ft wide (the gaps are just for show in this case) - I have indeed used my previously argued for 2.5ft per man).
My view is that the frontages are the same - otherwise there are massive gaps through which any enemy may pass and roam at will, which would spell disaster. For the same reason I also do not believe in significant gaps in a 'battle line' - a gap is just an opening to be exploited (and which could be used very carefully like at Zama). That's just fundamental to me (perhaps not to everyone).
A legion's frontage would reflect the terrain, enemy, overall strength, individual spacing, gap size. Since no two battle accounts contain any of the same variables from the next, there is no standard frontage. It would always vary, as would the size of the camp. Maniples would be detached to garrison captured towns, additional allies and auxiliaries from the local area would augment the army's strength, casualties and deserters would also thin the ranks of army. Not to mention the baggage train of sutlers, slavers, whores, cooks, servants, etc. Additionally, the terrain itself would dictate the shape, size and construction of the camp, as the camp grounds aren't generally flat and bear of trees, shrubs, etc., especially considering high ground was often chosen for the camp. I highly doubt a marching camp would be dress right dress as the graphic you provided.
It seems from your graphic that you chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion. Why do you not believe him when it comes to gaps? (Pol. Hist. 3.113) That's called cherry picking.
Its been beat to death in RAT and many other forums but here some more evidence about gaps in the fighting line:
To add to those sources provided, I'd add the line from Caesar's DBC 3.89, describing his battleline for Pharsalus:
"Caesar, observing his former custom, had placed the tenth legion on the right, the ninth on the left, although it was very much weakened by the battles at Dyrrachium. He placed the eighth legion so close to the ninth, as to almost make one of the two, and ordered them to support one another."
This is evidence that normally legions were not jammed right next to one another without gaps/intervals separating them. Its called maintaining unit integrity. Same goes for smaller units.
A note on 'century' - yes, I am guilty of linking Polybius' construct to the later legions (where I believe there is direct linkage) - am I wrong (when it comes to explaining as simply as possible) in calling a half-maniple a century? Or would you prefer I over-complicate the discussion by using 120 men instead of 60 and a total of 6 'officers' instead of 3? I can, but I don't think it helps.
If you are using Polybius as your sole source, then yes, you would be wrong for referencing centuries. He specifically is referring to the maniple, though he used different Greek words to describe them. If you bring up centuries, provide the source that specifically describes them as actual subunits. Those sources often provide conflicting numbers for a maniple/century as well. There were more than 3 officers per century/6 per maniple. Centurion, Optio, Signifer, and the Tesserarius. I don't know whether the cornicen should be considered, considering they had their own voting centuries, they might have been specialist troops permanently assigned to the legions.
Quote:...........................
It seems from your graphic that you chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion. Why do you not believe him when it comes to gaps? (Pol. Hist. 3.113) That's called cherry picking.
Its been beat to death in RAT and many other forums but here some more evidence about gaps in the fighting line:
Yes I chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion - I'm not aware (having searched and asked) that there is any other detail for that period that covers the level necessary. I have also not "cherry-picked" in the slightest - I have no problem whatsoever with Polybius' Cannae account - in fact the determination of deployment frontage and the normal gaps produced by the (as I believe it was) deployment procedure, arrangement of the triplex acies and the simple movements between them explain, for me, not only what happened at Cannae, but also the simple and probably sensible Roman battle plan that Hannibal managed to disrupt so well.
But thank you so much for the link to Ross' book and what was on that page - for now I see what the issue is.
For I disagree (I have all the references except Poly 15 to hand - and I can only read what my translations say).
- That there is no suggestion that the gaps closed up (Poly 3.73) doesn't mean they didn't - to me it would be a simple drill (let alone essential)
- Caesar (GW 5.15) does not say that the cohorts - in fact it can be read that it was 2 legions by then - deliberately left a gap - merely that there was one - a gap that was then exploited by the enemy! Which, in a nutshell, happens to be my entire issue with gaps!
- there is nothing at all about gaps in the 'orbis' formation description in those passages; in fact I read into it that there were no gaps (which there are not normally in 'all round defence' formations like 'marching boxes' and 'squares') because the attacking enemy cannot get in and chooses (because the sallies are effective) to harass from a distance
- that gaps (of some size, in some formation, under some drill) are created to allow passage of skirmishers, replacements, centurions - does not mean that they are always there - that's supposition - and there are definitely ways it can be achieved.
And.....particularly for this topic - Polybius does NOT say that the centurion 'fought at the front - at the right of his century' in 6.24. My translation also says the centurion(s) were there to 'command' their halves of the maniple (or the whole if one was absent - so obviously not even anywhere near the century/maniple!)). Is there a different word in Greek for 'command' and 'lead'? :?
I'm sorry if anyone doesn't like it - but I think those passages (translated) are as much up for discussion as anything else - and result there in a published book, but no more than a theory - like mine is. Happy to discuss, with the author, any time at all.
Tesserarius - it's a role and I do not see why it's not one held by the senior soldier of the century (who in fact is nominally the right-marker as 'leader' of the first contubernium) - for then every one from neighbouring units can find him as he sleeps in the first tent. Nothing in the descriptions I have seen suggest it's another 'officer'.
And I must finally ask - that you believe Polybius' camp description (indeed for a 'standard' camp for a 'standard' Consular Army) to be completely meaningless? If so - thanks.
To answer your question then, in simple terms, the centurion can be at the front and he can be at the back, he might not be anywhere near the century (as we see at least written simply in one of our ancient texts).
I'll also throw in that there is no reason for a cornicen/tubicine to be in a century/maniple and I've seen no evidence for one. A likely 2 per cohort - yes. A legion-century - 60 heavy infantry + 20 'lighter troops' + centurion + optio + signifer for quite possibly an 8-900 year period - paired together in maniples, but with a clear century structure.
