Marian legion formations

[iamroot]

I'm aware that the pre-marian legions used the "chessboard" formation with gaps and three lines. However, which formation did the marian legions utilise?

[I of the Storm]

Not the same?

[konny]

The gaps were only there to let other units pass threw the formation without throwing it into disorder. When engaging the enemy the Republican Legions did from closed lines (at least the front line). Otherwise they would had been cut to pieces in no time.

The post Marian Legions are usually displayed as a fromation of two closed lines. Because all units were equipped and armoured the same way, there was no need to exchange the lines. The second line was certainly used as generell reserve. If needed, it was still possible to step back every even maniple to let exhausted units from the first line pass threw.

[iamroot]

So I take it that the default Marian formation is not realistic then.

[Zaknafien]

Konny, thats actually incorrect, and is a misconception popularized by some historians in the 19th century. The triplex acies formation was utilized by the Roman army for centuries, which was basically designed around the purpose of feeding fresh troops into battle at each stage of the conflict, whereas more static formations, like those used by the Successors, were hard to manage especially over difficult terrain.

The quincux, or checkerboard, allowed each maniple (and later, cohorts), to move indpendently and kept them from bunching up over uneven terrain, as even exceptionally drilled armies tend to veer to one side or another when marching on line for any distance.

[I of the Storm]

So they did stick to the quincunx + ad-hoc modifications according to the battlefield?

[konny]

You mean the default Pre-Marian formation? It is realistic as long as you have your Velites or Leves skirmishing before the lines. As soon as they are withdrawn, the Hastati will form a closed line. The Principes will remain in "chessboard" formation.

But for RTW/EB it's usless because with skirmish mode on, the skirmishers will most of the time run right to your lines and don't care about any "gates" you have left them open. So use three lines instead and you do not have to bother so much with micro-managing, but have the same effect.

[Zaknafien]

in RTW terms yeah its pretty useless as theres no way for the lines to withdraw between one another accurately.

However, the whole point of manipular warfare was that these small groups of soldiers were fluid and would operate indpendently of one another with no real battle-line. the triarii, or "pilani" were the line that stood around the standards, forming a line to which the maniples could withdraw to if needed.

[CBR]

However, the whole point of manipular warfare was that these small groups of soldiers were fluid and would operate indpendently of one another with no real battle-line.
What do you base that on? There are AFAIK no sources saying they fought with gaps. A maniple of two sub components doesnt make much sense unless such components were used for different formations (line and column) which is also what is implied by Livy's description of line replacement.

Polybius talks of how Romans used reserves but nothing about gaps in the actual battleline, when he describes the main difference between the legion and Macedonian phalanx. Surely he would have mentioned gaps as it would have been very different.


CBR

[konny]

The quincux, or checkerboard, allowed each maniple (and later, cohorts), to move indpendently and kept them from bunching up over uneven terrain, as even exceptionally drilled armies tend to veer to one side or another when marching on line for any distance.

Lines tend to veer left or right because the men are moving in the direction they are looking, and that's always their neighbour for alingement, I know. That's the reason why the Barbarians and Mediavel knights used the wedge for advancing.

Now, back to the Romans: The checkerboard was an advantage when moving troops around and bring in heavyer units from the rear and let exhausted units pass threw the lines. But I can not imagine any situation, expect for very broken ground, in which a main combat line with gaps gives any advantage in close encounter. Other armies maintained expensive corps of chariots to create such gaps in the enemy line. In addition, I cannot imagine any infantry, appart from Successor Phalanx, that would not immediatly slip into that gap, block off the second line with a handfull of men and starts cutting down the maniples in the first line from both flanks.

[Zaknafien]

Alot of people have a wrong idea of classical warfare from games like RTW. The idea of two lines of opposing armies clashing and meting it out in hand to hand combat rarely happened. In actuality groups of combatants would surge forward and fight for a time then withdraw to recoup and catch their breath regain formation. This is where manipular fighting was a benefit to the Romans, because each maniple would operate as its own unique 'army' with indpendent leadership, sending fighters forward fluidly to fight and retreat every so often. The spacing between the maniples allowed them room to maneuver and react to tactical situations which needed the senior centurion's decision.

[konny]

In actuality groups of combatants would surge forward and fight for a time then withdraw to recoup and catch their breath regain formation.

Would be interessing to learn how this stile of combat was fought with a Phalanx, either classical or Makedonian.


EDIT: And no, my knowledge on warfare does not come from computer games. Even so I must admit that I am more "at home" with Early Modern warfare than with classical Ancient.

[Zaknafien]

What do you base that on? There are AFAIK no sources saying they fought with gaps. A maniple of two sub components doesnt make much sense unless such components were used for different formations (line and column) which is also what is implied by Livy's description of line replacement.

Polybius talks of how Romans used reserves but nothing about gaps in the actual battleline, when he describes the main difference between the legion and Macedonian phalanx. Surely he would have mentioned gaps as it would have been very different.


CBR


I'm glad you asked, I've been looking for a reason to discuss this on the forums for awhile. Delbruck was the first to describe Manipluar warfare as "the phalanx given joints", which is a pretty good description of how it worked.

Maniples (literally, "handfuls") of men were organized in such fashion as to operate on their own in the midst of battle, a method copied by the Romans from the Samniti. The presence of two centurions and two optiones indicates the increasing militray control strucutre of this period, and small units able to combine or to operate independently of one another.

Maniples gave the battle-line far greater resilience and flexibility than larger, seemingly more solid formations.

Plutarch claimed that the Achaeans in the third century were effective fighting at a distance, but once battle was closed, because they fought in a phalanx rather than maniples, were easily forced back. Livy reported that the Etruscans at Sutrium (311 BCE) who were deployed in a single mass, became exhausted fighting the Roman front line and were defeated when the second line engaged.

Maniples facilitated different groups being able to engage at different times, while others rested near the signa (standards) held in place by the triarii.

This is where the term pilani (columnists) and antesignani (antepilani) comes from. Those before and those behind the standards.

Evidence for the fluid nature of the maniples comes from the Roman soldier's oath of the period , the coniuratio, "not to flee the battlefield or to abandon your place in the battle-line", but it had an interesting qualification: "except to recover a weapon, save a friend, or to strike an enemy".

While the first part of the oath fostered group cohesion, the latter part suggests considerable freedom of movement on the battlefield. Such an oath is out of place with phalanx formations, but fits in excellently with the javelin and lightly armed fighters of the Roman and Samnite maniples.

[CBR]

Alot of people have a wrong idea of classical warfare from games like RTW.
That actual fighting consisted of multiple phases and not just one big clash is fine and fits with descriptions of some battles. But there is no need for gaps for such fighting. A maniple does not need gaps for basic forward and rearward movement.

And Polybius mentions how the reserves are used to exploit eventual holes that appears in an enemy phalanx, so how independent the individual maniple really was is debatable. IMO they would more likely be like a company in a battalion of Napoleonic times with the battalion representing the hastati etc etc of one legion.


Plutarch claimed that the Achaeans in the third century were effective fighting at a distance, but once battle was closed, because they fought in a phalanx rather than maniples, were easily forced back. Livy reported that the Etruscans at Sutrium (311 BCE) who were deployed in a single mass, became exhausted fighting the Roman front line and were defeated when the second line engaged.
Both are examples of the advantage of having reserves instead of using the old way of putting all eggs in one basket and form all infantry in one line.


Evidence for the fluid nature of the maniples comes from the Roman soldier's oath of the period , the coniuratio, "not to flee the battlefield or to abandon your place in the battle-line", but it had an interesting qualification: "except to recover a weapon, save a friend, or to strike an enemy".
A front ranker could take a few steps to strike an enemy and be considered out of formation. Polybius describes how Romans fight individually which is no big surprise since they used swords in melee. That again does not provide any evidence that maniples needed any particular room for maneuvering nor that groups of soldiers moved far away from their maniple.


CBR

[Zaknafien]

well, Im sorry you disagree, but recent and ongoing Roman scholarship differs with your opinion.

[CBR]

Well since Im apparently not up to date on current events in the academic world I'd love to see a list of books/articles if you would be so kind. Just sent me a PM if you dont want to spam this thread.


CBR

[Zaknafien]

Do you have access to the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies?

An excellent book containing much of the more recent scholarship is Blackwell's new "Companion to the Roman Army" (Erdkamp editing)

[NeoSpartan]

.... Blackwell's new "Companion to the Roman Army" (Erdkamp editing)

HOLLYS************!!!!

This is book is $174.95!!!

dang Zak... Why do u need to remind me how broke I am? :no: :shame:



p.s the other new book on AS is also expensive as *****, for me

[CBR]

Do you have access to the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies?

An excellent book containing much of the more recent scholarship is Blackwell's new "Companion to the Roman Army" (Erdkamp editing)
I have access to Journal of Roman Studies yes.

A Companion to the Roman Army better be good...oh well maybe I can dig up a rebate somewhere.


CBR

[konny]

Delbruck was the first to describe Manipluar warfare as "the phalanx given joints", which is a pretty good description of how it worked.

Please read the complete passage:

"The Manipular Order completly maintains the way of the Phalanx, but gives it the possibilty to advance on broken ground with much more ease. What ever happens it will not fall into disdorder but will always engage the enemy in closed order without gabs. In stead of a inflexible unit it is a flexible unit. The Phalanx is given joints".*

In the pages before that passage he clearly describes how the gabs and the units in the intervals were used when approaching the enemy. The Principes, and even the Triarii, would have been moved into any gabs that appeared in the line of the Hastati already during the march. It was at no point intended to encounter the enemy line with gabs between single Maniples but always with a closed line of Maniples.



---------------------------------------------------------------


* "Die Manipular-Ordnung hält das Wesen der Phalanx völlig aufrecht, gibt ihr aber die Möglichkeit, sich mit viel größer Leichtigkeit auch durch ungünstiges Gelände zu bewegen. Was auch dazwischen komme, sie gerät nicht in Unordnung, sie wird immer mit geschlossener, lückenloser Front an den Feind gelangen. An die Stelle einer fast starren Einheit ist eine gegliederte Einheit getreten. Die Phalanx hat Gelenke bekommen". Hans Delbrück, Geschichte der Kriegskunst, Vol. 1 P. 315

[Zaknafien]

Yeah, which is why I didnt use the whole quote, because he was wrong in this matter.

[konny]

To proof someone like Delbrück in that point wrong would require a real good argument, what I am so far missing in this discussion (and Delbrück's works were 99% excellent consideration and a lifelong experince with military history, not to mention scholarship on the highest degree).

[Zaknafien]

Delbruck was an excellent historian of course, but like I said, his works are nearly a century old and he was not the end all of Roman scholarship. The study of history goes on, and new understandings are achieved.

[konny]

If those modern scholars end up with the conclusion that the Romans (and only them in history!) prefered to fight with a holey line instead of closed line, I can assure them, that they are sitting on the wrong train.

[abou]

Didn't I post something about the Marian legions somewhere on this board? I honestly can't remember.

As far as the quincunx goes, I prefer Warry's model.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

I've seen a couple of books that show diagrams of Marian legions with the cohorts arranged in 2 or 3 lines. More interestingly, the cohorts are each divided into 3 rows of 2 maniples. The first cohort follows the same pattern with the extra cohort behind the front one.