06-28-2014, 10:23 PM
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:
Roman Legionary: 58 BC - AD 69 by Ross Cowan
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.
