Roman Quinquirex (or however its spelled) question

[JeffSteel]

Now, the unit description of the hastati, princepeis, and triarii talk about how the Roman armies marched in three rows with gaps in between, and I was just wondering if I'm picturing it correctly. To illustrate what I'm thinking, I quicky came up with an (admittedly craptastic) diagram:

https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/JeffCSteel/Misc/crappyromanform.jpg

H=Hastati, P= Princepeis, T= Triarii

Is this basically what was going on?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, basically, bear in mind Hastati and Princepes have the same size maniples and there are the same number of maniples of each in the legion.

[Maeran]

That is how I interpret it too. Except I tend to form the Hastati as a slightly thinner, but solid line.

This is because I've read about Scipio's (I think?) order to 'open' up the maniples as a counter for elephants, plus the gaps are only needed in the posterior ranks to allow the safe withdrawal of the Hastati.

You could argue for the velites retreating though the line I suppose, but a solid line is better in my opinion for the initial clash.

Does anyone know of any sources that support or disprove this possibility?

Also, what of the flanks? Assuming (and I know it's an assumption) that the allied soldiers are arranged as the Romans are, isn't there a Principe strong and Principe weak side? And the same for the Hastati?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's an open first line. If it isn't then the princepes will have trouble passing through the Hastati as well.

I don't understand what you mean about a strong and weak side. The velites and cavalry covered the flanks though.

[Rilder]

And didn't the romans sort of feign retreat to give the idea that there enemies were advancing but were actually just moving forward into fresher troups.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't think it was a formal 'feigned retreat,' more of a tactical withdraw for the part where the both the Hastati and Principles withdrew behind the Triarii to push them forward ala Hoplite tactics.

[Boyar Son]

Does ANY historian know how this tactic functions?

Drawn from other RTR and my own conclusions, the hastati would join together and advance on the enemy ( i know "how does the princapes get in?"):dizzy2:

[Zaknafien]

by the way, it would be the triplex acies.

[Shigawire]

It's called "quincunx" - QVINCVNX - the pattern is taken from the side of a dice that says "5"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think it was a formal 'feigned retreat,' more of a tactical withdraw for the part where the both the Hastati and Principles withdrew behind the Triarii to push them forward ala Hoplite tactics.

You're thinking of a routed legion, which cowers behind it's Triarii and, yes, basically forms a phalanx. That's if the lily livered currs remain on the field.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

:laugh4:

Seriously though, the no one knows how it worked. Either the Hastati charge with gaps and as they begin to be enveloped the princepes charge into the gaps, or the Hastati turn and run.

A withdrawal wouldn't really accoumplish a great deal, the Hastati would draw the enemy off but the casualties would be very high I would think and that might cause a real rout. However, if they began to withdraw just as the Princepes hit the enemy that might work.

[L.C.Cinna]

This is the initial deployment. Of course the gaps are closed before engagement to form a solid line.

The 2 centuries of each maniple are deployed behind each other. After the velites pass through the gap. the posterior century moves forward to the right of the prior maniple to close the gap. When switching with the Principes, which takes place during one of the MANY breaks occuring in ancient battles, the prior hastati century moves backwards while the prior principes century moves forward. then the posterior centuries of hastati do the same. Of course the Romans formed a solid and closed front. everything else would be stupid. What the special thing about Scipios deployment at Zama was, was that he place the principes in line with the hastati to make even wider gaps.still after the elephants had passed the frontline was closed.

I painted a little graphic for you because this makes thing easier:

https://img67.imageshack.us/img67/8712/romansysyw1.png

A very nice graphic explanation of the system can be found in John Warry: " Warfare in the Classical World". For further descriptions check Junckelmann(if you understand German). There are several others where you can find this. I don't remember reading any modern historian who thinks the gaps were left open during the actual combat. this would be suicidal.

[Zaknafien]

the triplex acies the standard formation, the quincunx was what the formationw as known as--it looks like a checkerboard, or the number 5 like was previously mentioned on a die.

Polybius tells us that each legionary occupied a frontage and depth of 6 feet, although later sources make it more likely the frontage was only 3 feet and the depth 6 feet. the distance between the ranks was necessary to allow the legionaries to throw their pila.

assuming a frontage of 3 feet per man and a depth of 6 ranks for the unit, then a maniple of hastati or principes would occupy a frontage of about 20 yards and a depth of just over 12. the entire legion would have formed up in around 400 yards, allowing for intervals between the maniples, and the infantry of a consular army occupied something like a mile, assuming, (which seems most likely) that the alae formed up in the same way.

the main advantage of this formation was its flexibility for movement cross country, since it allowed sections of the line to flow around obstacles without losing too much order.

Most scholars do not believe the legion fought like this, and like to think the gaps in the line closed when battle was joined. but we dont know how the triplex acies interacted each rank with the other. clearly it makes sense that each line was supposed to support each other. the principes and triarii were able to join combat in some way, but how did they do this when the battle was pressed?

you have to think of what combat was like in the period in order to visualize how this worked. once battle was joined it was not like in RTW where everyone fought until one side fled or died.

there were rests and pauses between combats, taunts, jeers, displays of prowess, short bouts of unit on unit combat, then limited retreats as each side regained their composure for the next fight.

[Maeran]

It's an open first line. If it isn't then the princepes will have trouble passing through the Hastati as well.

I don't understand what you mean about a strong and weak side. The velites and cavalry covered the flanks though.


What I meant by a weak and strong flank is this

Assuming a chequerboard formation

Velite_______ H__________H_________Velite
Cav_____P_________P_______________Cav
Alae?_______________T (spread out)___Alae?

The left here is strong in Principes but weak in Hastati, the right is the opposite.
This is a result of equal quantities in a strict chequerboard arrangement. Which is why I think the line closed formation into a solid line.

[Boyar Son]

This is the initial deployment.

I painted a little graphic for you because this makes thing easier:

https://img67.imageshack.us/img67/8712/romansysyw1.png

.


THX L.C.Cinna! Now I know what a certain biography from a Roman soldier meant when he said there were TWO centurians, one on the left and one on the right.

[antisocialmunky]

Has anyone found a way to make the rotation work in the RTW engine?

The closest I've come to a decent version is to have the first line of Hastati engage in defense. When the Hastati tire, I move the Principles in in attack. When the Principles start to physically engage the enemy, I flip the Hastati into attack and the Principles into defense. Then I order the Hastati to run out and rest.

[Quilts]

I don't remember reading any modern historian who thinks the gaps were left open during the actual combat. this would be suicidal.
Actually there are (at least one anyway :sweatdrop: ), and I tend to agree with him. If need be I'll track down the names for you.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a 20 yard gap between Maniples, that gap being covered by the Principis behind.

If it's deemed to be suicidal to leave the gap because you can be flanked, then I imagine the reverse would also be true ie- entering that very gap allows you to be flanked by the Principis, if you engage the Hastati in their flank, or by the Hastati, you are apparently flanking, if you faced up against the Principis. It works both ways.

Once the Principis were engaged, one would imagine that the Hastati would slowly back-water and switch places with the Triarii, if things were looking bad, or take a much needed rest before returning to replace the Principis and give them a breather.

My main reason for prefering this interpretation is simple.....it's simple. No requirement for troops to carry out complicated maneouvres during the din of battle etc.

Cheers,

Quilts

[L.C.Cinna]

Actually there are (at least one anyway :sweatdrop: ), and I tend to agree with him. If need be I'll track down the names for you.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a 20 yard gap between Maniples, that gap being covered by the Principis behind.

If it's deemed to be suicidal to leave the gap because you can be flanked, then I imagine the reverse would also be true ie- entering that very gap allows you to be flanked by the Principis, if you engage the Hastati in their flank, or by the Hastati, you are apparently flanking, if you faced up against the Principis. It works both ways.

Once the Principis were engaged, one would imagine that the Hastati would slowly back-water and switch places with the Triarii, if things were looking bad, or take a much needed rest before returning to replace the Principis and give them a breather.

My main reason for prefering this interpretation is simple.....it's simple. No requirement for troops to carry out complicated maneouvres during the din of battle etc.

Cheers,

Quilts

But then the hastati wouldn't be able to give too much forward pressure if they would have to fight on more sides at once.

2nd thing is that it is mentioned by the sources several times that the hastati fought first and THEN where rotated with the principes.and if the principes fill the gap you have a very strange front of lighter troops next to heavier ones next to light ones and so on.

3rd like Zaknafien said, there were pauses during the battles. It was more like taunting, provoking a charge, retreating and so on. Of course no one can exchange troops while they are engaged.

4th the gaps have the same size as the front of each prior century, so the posteriores can fill the gap easily.

[Quilts]

But then the hastati wouldn't be able to give too much forward pressure if they would have to fight on more sides at once.
6 ranks can apply more pressure than 3, even if flanked.

2nd thing is that it is mentioned by the sources several times that the hastati fought first and THEN where rotated with the principes.and if the principes fill the gap you have a very strange front of lighter troops next to heavier ones next to light ones and so on.
True, that was the plan. There are however many things that can't be modelled by a game system, like a Centurion of the Principis leading the front rank forward in a feigned charge to make those naughty flankers think twice and retreat from the gap. There's an element of psychology in the mere threat of this happening, and the enemy can in all likelihood see those Principis just waiting there to do that very thing. And remember, the gaps only 20 yards wide.

"Sidenote"
One could almost imagine that where an enemy was audascious enough to just steam through that gap, may very well have been what led to some of the Romans defeats to 'warband style madly charging' armies. A more cautious (which doesn't imply lack of aggression) enemy probably would not, knowing they may face the same fate as what they were trying to inflict on the poor old Hastati.

"Back to the point....."
Most historians have agreed on the opinion that once a Legion was engaged it became a Corporals battle, with Centurions making the calls about where his troops went, and when. Just because the 'plan' was for the Hastati to fight for five minutes before the Principis engaged would not mean that a Centurion of the Principis would sit idly by whilst the Hastati were surrounded. Instead he would see an opportunity to flank the enemy who were trying to flank said Hastati, and lead a charge, feigned or real depending, I imagine, on the determination of the enemy to exploit that gap.

3rd like Zaknafien said, there were pauses during the battles. It was more like taunting, provoking a charge, retreating and so on. Of course no one can exchange troops while they are engaged.
The 'gaps' between fighting apply to a line with gaps as much as they do to a solid line. So same same.

4th the gaps have the same size as the front of each prior century, so the posteriores can fill the gap easily.
Not really. They have to do some weird-assed 45 degree angled march to replace the 1st century of Hastati? What if the guys on the left didn't move over enough and the guys on the right can't get past the left hand side of the 2nd century of Hastati? Utter chaos, that's what.

Anyways. This could be debated for a long time, so let's agree to disagree (unless I've convinced you that is :book: ). I've merely expressed my opinion after reading many many historians opinions.

Cheers,

Quilts

[L.C.Cinna]

6 ranks can apply more pressure than 3, even if flanked.


Cheers,

Quilts


Where do you get the 6 ranks from? usual deployment of a century would be 8 to 10. So if the century has 10 men in front the ranks are 8 men deep (a contubernium). you can easily deploy the 2 centuries of a maniple next to each other and keep 8 ranks.like this you get a 20men front. If we take polybius numbers that would be 60 feet per maniple and still 8 ranks deep. Not too bad I would say. If needed you could still change to 5 deep to 16 wide for example.


Nice discussion. I will comment on the rest later. Have to go now to hand in a paper lol

[JeffSteel]

This is the initial deployment. Of course the gaps are closed before engagement to form a solid line.

The 2 centuries of each maniple are deployed behind each other. After the velites pass through the gap. the posterior century moves forward to the right of the prior maniple to close the gap. When switching with the Principes, which takes place during one of the MANY breaks occuring in ancient battles, the prior hastati century moves backwards while the prior principes century moves forward. then the posterior centuries of hastati do the same. Of course the Romans formed a solid and closed front. everything else would be stupid. What the special thing about Scipios deployment at Zama was, was that he place the principes in line with the hastati to make even wider gaps.still after the elephants had passed the frontline was closed.

I painted a little graphic for you because this makes thing easier:

https://img67.imageshack.us/img67/8712/romansysyw1.png

A very nice graphic explanation of the system can be found in John Warry: " Warfare in the Classical World". For further descriptions check Junckelmann(if you understand German). There are several others where you can find this. I don't remember reading any modern historian who thinks the gaps were left open during the actual combat. this would be suicidal.

Well, that explanation does seem to make a lot of realistic sense. As far as RTW goes, I doubt I could ever get it to work, the enemy never "takes a break" unless the unit gets routed, and typically will just chase after your unit if your try to fall back, leading to mass casualties. On the other hand, when experimenting with implementing this formation using Selukid units (Theouphori, Thorakitai, and Thorakitai Agryspidai) leaving gaps in the front line wasnt all that dangerous. The Theouphori in the front units got enveloped to some degree by the enemy infantry, but once the Thorakitai threw their javelins and charged into the enemies exposed flanks, they started feeling the hurt. Of course thats just one battle, but it seems to me that leaving gaps in the front line could work at least in game. Historically speaking, I wouldn't know.

[Quilts]

Where do you get the 6 ranks from? usual deployment of a century would be 8 to 10. So if the century has 10 men in front the ranks are 8 men deep (a contubernium). you can easily deploy the 2 centuries of a maniple next to each other and keep 8 ranks.like this you get a 20men front. If we take polybius numbers that would be 60 feet per maniple and still 8 ranks deep. Not too bad I would say. If needed you could still change to 5 deep to 16 wide for example
It's explained in Zaknafiens post that you refered to earlier.

So, if there are 1200 Hastati per Legion (the normal size at the start of our period), divided into 10 Maniples of 2 Centuries, that equals 60 men per century.

With each man occupying a frontage of 1 yard (3 foot), and 6 ranks deep, the Maniple occupies a frontage of 20 yards. Then a 20 yard gap before the next Maniple in line etc.

So if the Maniple were to 'occupy' the gap they have halved their depth from 6 to 3 ranks.

I guess it all depends on whether you think a Maniple initially deployed 10 ranks wide and 12 deep, or 20 ranks wide and 6 deep.

Alot also depends on whether you believe the interpretations of a Maniples Centurions was 'Left and Right' or 'Front and Rear'.....

Cheers,

Quilts

[L.C.Cinna]

The thing is that if you leave such gaps and the principes sooner or later have to enter the gap to attack enemies which tried to attack the hastati on the flanks the system with hastati as first line and a 2nd line of principes to release the 1st from combat when tired doesn't work anymore because you'd have both lines engaged at the same time sooner or later. So what would be the use in building 3 lines of infantry if the first 2 are engaged at the same time? that doesn't justify the different armament as well becausew you'd have a mixed line of heavy and lighter troops forming one line as soon as the battle started. makes no sense imho.

Here's a quote from Junkelmann which might satisfy both of us lol:

(excuse my bad and hurried translation)

"During combat with heavy infantry it would have been a miserable sitation without doubt to have vast gaps which the enemy can try to exploit to attack the units from the flanks. As a result the units of the 2nd line would have had to advance into the gaps to throw the enemy out of there, or the first line units would have been forced backwards until they reach the 2nd line. In both cases the result would be that we would sooner or later end up with a closed phalanx but under much more dangerous circumstances then if the front would have been closed before the engagement.

If confronted with an enemy fighting in loose and open formations, which are not able to create mass pressure, like the barbarians often used, it would be possible to keep the intervals during combat. It would even be quite useful because it would help to cooperate with the auxiliae. A mobile enemy evading the front was hard to catch for the heavy legionaries. Here it would be practical to use the cohorts or maniples as strongholds on the battlefield and use the lighter troops and cavalry to fight the enemy."

My translation sucks but I hope it's clear what he means.

One more thing I'd like to add> it is said that the Romans rotated their troops and exchanged tired with fresh units during combat. If the Principes have to engage to fill the gap you have no units left to rotate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cinna, the problem with your system is it requires the units to make 2 manuvers when retreating, one of which will see them moving sideways before the Princepes can engage.

It's so complicated and dangerous it would have been abandoned. As Zak will tell you, manuvering a small squad in a confined space is difficult, manuvering companies past each other on a parade square requires practice and an eye, I can't imagine pulling it off in a battle.

[Wodeson]

I tend to deploy like this:

https://img102.imageshack.us/img102/613/ploybianromanuc2.th.jpg (https://img102.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ploybianromanuc2.jpg)

[adishee]

I leave gaps in my line when i'm fighting Hellenistic factions, it confuses their phalanx and lets me hit their flanks from the front line while sending the Velites up the side.
For barbarians, I close the front line up defensive. When the Hastati get tired, I move the Principe up where I want the line to be, and simultaniously order the Principe (not in defensive) to throw their Pillum and have the Hastati run back through them behind the Triarii. By the time the Hastati are through, the Principe are charging a usually a broken enemy. After the Principe are spent just retreat them through my defensive Triarii and have rested Hastati watch the flanks (by this time the Velites are sword fodder).

[alatar]

I find gaps agaist greek factions are exremely usefull, but agaist barbarians it's asking for trouble.
I read once that the romans used gaps historical the same way.

[adishee]

Then I guess... EB is quite historically accurate :jawdrop: