08-27-2018, 02:11 PM
Nathan wrote:
Without wanting to go too deeply into complex issues, I'm wondering why you are suggesting such a long thin line? Surely the centurion would find it a lot harder to give orders and even see what his men were doing when they were so stretched out; advancing would cause difficulties too, as a thin line would bow a lot more than a deeper formation.
Well if that was the case then an army commander would only have an army that was extremely small in size and the space it occupied. As for the centurion, with a maniple having a frontage of 180 feet, and when divided with the optio, both have only 90 feet to transverse (30 men frontage). So how big were Napoleonic battalions? And what was their frontage?
Nathan wrote:
If we assume that the century trained together and generally acted together, surely arraying them deeper would have been more effective than having to rely on men from other centuries drawn up (presumably) behind them?
What period are you referring to about a century training together? In 462 BC, a levy was called at midnight, and by early morning light, about 5,000 men were marching to the battlefield. Not much time for training together, let alone getting to know each other.
Nathan wrote:
What Arrian means, I think, is that two separate flanking lines of cavalry paralleled the main infantry column. They would not be part of the main infantry column.
It can still add up to six if the infantry was four wide. I always took the time to explore various concepts, rather than dismiss them out of hand, and this has paid off for me.
Polybius mentions at Ilipa the cavalry and their allocated velites. All Roman infantry units have technically an allocated number of cavalry. In Arrian’s case (4) the interpretation I have does state “on both sides their own horses should protect the formation’s flank.” The mentioning of “their own horses” are those cavalry allocated to the units, and when in march column, with the infantry four wide and the cavalry in a single line on either flank of the infantry, the allocated number of cavalry matches the unit’s depth, so no problems. The extraordinarii had a set number of cavalry allocated to the infantry, so the information is out there.
Nathan wrote:
Yes. This seems to be a good description of changing from march to battle formation, and I don't see anything controversial about it. We don't know whether the 'lines' (acies, I think) that Metellus brought up were lines of maniples, or individual men, or what - I suspect maniples. It would be interesting to know how wide his march column was before that!
Four deep infantry for me, and four legions.
Nathan wrote:
But what he's doing is massing his men into a thicker column and wheeling them round to form a battle line, so his vanguard and rearguard are now on the flanks.
On this we differ greatly. In fact what Metellus is doing I have found to be much simpler and discussed in some battle accounts.
Robert wrote:
I suspect that Roman units were almost never two deep.
Which makes me happy as no one is travelling to same road as me. And when driving, I do love a country road all to myself.
Robert wrote:
I advocate the analysis, put forward by Goldsworthy and others, that the fact that the handful of references to unit depth tend to be in multiples of 3 or 4 (e.g. 3,4,6,8). This must suggest a drill based around contubernia of 6 or 8 men, deploying either by the file or half file.
I find Goldsworthy’s analysis highly flawed and deceptive. I followed conventional thinking many years ago and went for the 6 deep depth. It worked for awhile but then it hit a brick wall, and too much was left unexplained. So I shifted to eight deep, and this worked for awhile, until again it hit a brick wall.
Arrian’s expedition against the Alani has most of the answers to many questions. Arrian has the army going from march column to battle formation with one military doctrine occurring. He provides the number of men in the fifteenth legion simply by mentioning the five centurions of the first cohort. He then has the army in battle formation arrayed eight deep, and this information now confirms that a number of legionaries were allocated to protecting the baggage camp, and also how many were in the battle line.
Understanding the proper organisation and size of the Roman legion unlocks Arrian.
Without wanting to go too deeply into complex issues, I'm wondering why you are suggesting such a long thin line? Surely the centurion would find it a lot harder to give orders and even see what his men were doing when they were so stretched out; advancing would cause difficulties too, as a thin line would bow a lot more than a deeper formation.
Well if that was the case then an army commander would only have an army that was extremely small in size and the space it occupied. As for the centurion, with a maniple having a frontage of 180 feet, and when divided with the optio, both have only 90 feet to transverse (30 men frontage). So how big were Napoleonic battalions? And what was their frontage?
Nathan wrote:
If we assume that the century trained together and generally acted together, surely arraying them deeper would have been more effective than having to rely on men from other centuries drawn up (presumably) behind them?
What period are you referring to about a century training together? In 462 BC, a levy was called at midnight, and by early morning light, about 5,000 men were marching to the battlefield. Not much time for training together, let alone getting to know each other.
Nathan wrote:
What Arrian means, I think, is that two separate flanking lines of cavalry paralleled the main infantry column. They would not be part of the main infantry column.
It can still add up to six if the infantry was four wide. I always took the time to explore various concepts, rather than dismiss them out of hand, and this has paid off for me.
Polybius mentions at Ilipa the cavalry and their allocated velites. All Roman infantry units have technically an allocated number of cavalry. In Arrian’s case (4) the interpretation I have does state “on both sides their own horses should protect the formation’s flank.” The mentioning of “their own horses” are those cavalry allocated to the units, and when in march column, with the infantry four wide and the cavalry in a single line on either flank of the infantry, the allocated number of cavalry matches the unit’s depth, so no problems. The extraordinarii had a set number of cavalry allocated to the infantry, so the information is out there.
Nathan wrote:
Yes. This seems to be a good description of changing from march to battle formation, and I don't see anything controversial about it. We don't know whether the 'lines' (acies, I think) that Metellus brought up were lines of maniples, or individual men, or what - I suspect maniples. It would be interesting to know how wide his march column was before that!
Four deep infantry for me, and four legions.
Nathan wrote:
But what he's doing is massing his men into a thicker column and wheeling them round to form a battle line, so his vanguard and rearguard are now on the flanks.
On this we differ greatly. In fact what Metellus is doing I have found to be much simpler and discussed in some battle accounts.
Robert wrote:
I suspect that Roman units were almost never two deep.
Which makes me happy as no one is travelling to same road as me. And when driving, I do love a country road all to myself.
Robert wrote:
I advocate the analysis, put forward by Goldsworthy and others, that the fact that the handful of references to unit depth tend to be in multiples of 3 or 4 (e.g. 3,4,6,8). This must suggest a drill based around contubernia of 6 or 8 men, deploying either by the file or half file.
I find Goldsworthy’s analysis highly flawed and deceptive. I followed conventional thinking many years ago and went for the 6 deep depth. It worked for awhile but then it hit a brick wall, and too much was left unexplained. So I shifted to eight deep, and this worked for awhile, until again it hit a brick wall.
Arrian’s expedition against the Alani has most of the answers to many questions. Arrian has the army going from march column to battle formation with one military doctrine occurring. He provides the number of men in the fifteenth legion simply by mentioning the five centurions of the first cohort. He then has the army in battle formation arrayed eight deep, and this information now confirms that a number of legionaries were allocated to protecting the baggage camp, and also how many were in the battle line.
Understanding the proper organisation and size of the Roman legion unlocks Arrian.
