The Quincux Formation video explanation!!!

[||Lz3||]

I don't think the video is actually correct. Sure that's one possible interpretation of manipular tactics, but disengaging while in contact with the enemy is difficult bordering on almost impossible. Even in the lulls between combat, it's a recipe for men fleeing.

look the second video -in the same page-

The problem

The formation presents a problem. Many argue that the legion could not have gone into battle with such large gaps because the enemy would have used them to penetrate the Roman position. Against phalanx formations this tactic could work, but against (Celtic) war bands this tactic would certainly be a disaster; the Celts would pour into the gaps and attack the manipul that stayed in the flank, and would make if almost impossible for the retreating manipul to retreat in order.

In the flash movie at the top of this page I deliberately did not let the phalanx move up. Down here you can see the Celts breaking through.

[Rilder]

I've noticed that the openings don't hurt much in the RTW engine, the enemy will pour through and pretty much get flanked by 3 units.

[Che Roriniho]

Same here. I just keep the openings, well, open, but don't actually attavck them, just stay in guard mode, and let them get completely boned on 3 sides.

[QuintusSertorius]

look the second video -in the same page-

I saw that, which immediately struck me as "that's not the problem". Gaps in your formation isn't an issue; everyone fought with them because otherwise individual bodies of men would turn into an unwieldy mass that can't be controlled. Only difference was the Romans fought with larger intervals than would have been normal to retain the cohesion of individual formations.

Hell, the Romans developed a looser, more open formation precisely to combat fast-moving Gauls, the idea that it would be a disaster is patently wrong. The Gauls don't swarm in and overwhelm, they're broken up and become disheartened through isolation.

No, my problem is this rather complicated looking movement whereby units disengage, march backwards and shift to one side to place themselves behind other units who are now engaging. I really can't see all that dancing around in contact with the enemy being feasible.

[||Lz3||]

then how did the transition worked?

[QuintusSertorius]

then how did the transition worked?

That is the big debate.

[CBR]

then how did the transition worked?

It would be much simpler to let the front units about face and run back. They would not be doing it while in direct contact with enemy units anyway.


CBR

[konny]

then how did the transition worked?

I think, we can exclude any model that would require the entire line of Hastati to move back in the middle of hand-to-hand combat and the enemy patiently waiting until the Principes had proper alinged themselves.

One possiblity would be that the Hastati would be pushed back by the enemy and retreated through the gaps of the Principes. They would be anchored on this second line with the front echolons of the Principes acting as some kind of pillars and the rear echolons as reserves ready to jump into the line where ever the Hastati could not be brought to a halt when passing on the Principes.

Another possibilty would be that the Principes were advanced maniple by maniple replacing single Hastati maniples that had been exhausted or hacked to pieces by the enemy. This might also happen when the Hastati had been able to force the enemy to fall back and the short break in the fighting was used to exchange maniples, either one-by-one or the entire line.

I also think the Romans did not fight with gaps in their line and that the usual display of a deployed Legion is wrong:




As you can see the most left column of the Hastati is not supported by Principes while the Principes on the most right are isolated from the rest of the fromation. It also takes to many manouvers to get the rear echolons into the front line:

1. "Maniple, turn right!"
2. "Forward march!"
3. "Maniple, halt!"
4. "Maniple, turn left!"
5. "Forward march!"
6. "Maniple, halt!"

That way each maniple of Hastati is supported by a maniple of Principes and each maniple of Principes is covered by a maniple of Hastati. And forming lines is way eayser:



1. "Forward march!"
2. "Maniple, halt!"

[AlexanderSextus]

The Quincunx is the ONLY formation i use if playing with romans (pre-marian) it works quite well, because once the enemy gets tired from fighting the hastati, they get charged by fresh principes while the hastati withdraw. this causes many a rout. Even more so when i upgraded to polybian.

Only thing i am wondering about is what to do with the hastati once they have withdrawn, done an about face to fill the place where the principes were, and get all rested up. do i rotate the princs back and re-charge with the Hastati, or Flank? I dont really use my triarii, because from what i read, triarii were only used in bad situations. Most battles where i did use the triarii i had Extrordinarii to support them, so the combo of both units usually ended up RIPPIN SHIT.

[Reno Melitensis]

In EB Roman manipular tactics work fine if used correctly. As Konny very well illustrated each Hastati maniple must be supported by a Principe maniple. If we today are correctly deploying this tactic, each Hastati is supported by two Principe maniples. The Romans always made used of reserves and the Principe where deployed first to critical points in the Hastati line and to add more pressure on the front line. In ancient warfare enemy soldiers fought at intervals, moving to hand to hand combat then retreating back, and again and again until one panics and flees. In this way the tired Hastati where withdraw from the fighting and rested, quite impossible in Eb and my highest casualty rate is among my four Hastati maniples. Also the hastati where supported by the Velites in the initial rounds of combat, then gradually retreated. The Triari where only used in very dire situations. hence the Roman said that where a situation was critical, it was resolved by moving forward the third line " It come to the triari".

I use these tactics in Eb, by removing the skirmish mod from the Velites, they have more time to launch their javlins, then retreated back as they suffer badly in hand to hand. Then the Hastati are given orders to auto launch their pila, then the Principes. By the time the enemy comes to hand to hand they panic and flee. But I found that massed phalanxes are a pain in the *** to fight with the romans, the hastat are depleted. In my campaign 192 BC, I invaded my client kingdom of Epirus. I lost my first battle, we where outnumbered but in Roman belive there is no retreat. In the second battle I used a consular army commanded by a consul Decimus Valerius Maximus. I had to used exraordinarii to outflank and outmaneuvere the phalanx, but casulaties on my part where as high as 30%, even if i charged them on the rear they keept on figting, with their king butchered.

Cheers.

[Chirurgeon]

In EB Roman manipular tactics work fine if used correctly. As Konny very well illustrated each Hastati maniple must be supported by a Principe maniple. If we today are correctly deploying this tactic, each Hastati is supported by two Principe maniples. The Romans always made used of reserves and the Principe where deployed first to critical points in the Hastati line and to add more pressure on the front line. In ancient warfare enemy soldiers fought at intervals, moving to hand to hand combat then retreating back, and again and again until one panics and flees. In this way the tired Hastati where withdraw from the fighting and rested, quite impossible in Eb and my highest casualty rate is among my four Hastati maniples. Also the hastati where supported by the Velites in the initial rounds of combat, then gradually retreated. The Triari where only used in very dire situations. hence the Roman said that where a situation was critical, it was resolved by moving forward the third line " It come to the triari".

I use these tactics in Eb, by removing the skirmish mod from the Velites, they have more time to launch their javlins, then retreated back as they suffer badly in hand to hand. Then the Hastati are given orders to auto launch their pila, then the Principes. By the time the enemy comes to hand to hand they panic and flee. But I found that massed phalanxes are a pain in the *** to fight with the romans, the hastat are depleted. In my campaign 192 BC, I invaded my client kingdom of Epirus. I lost my first battle, we where outnumbered but in Roman belive there is no retreat. In the second battle I used a consular army commanded by a consul Decimus Valerius Maximus. I had to used exraordinarii to outflank and outmaneuvere the phalanx, but casulaties on my part where as high as 30%, even if i charged them on the rear they keept on figting, with their king butchered.

Cheers.

When I had to fight The Macedonians as the Romans and found myself facing a long line of pikes I set my troops to loose formation. They would wrap around the phalanx and filter inbetween the pikes. I could envelope an entire formation of pikes this way. Casualties were less because many of the pikes were poking empty air. It worked well for me.

[ajdeignan]

How deep you you rank your hastati/principe?

I normally set my troops up 6-man deep. I also have my slingers / archers / velites, a long, long way out the front. As the skirmishers withdraw, I expand the heavy infantry units from 6 ranks to 3 ranks, closing the gaps between hastati. I leave the principe and triarii as is (6 ranks) until they are needed.

The problem I have with a roman 3-lined army, as that is is too deep and easily surrounded.

A question; what is the benefit of rank? Is a 3 ranked unit pushed back more easily than a 4 or 6 ranked unit?

Thanks

[Shigawire]

Aside from being wrong, theres one more important thing the video fails to portray. The preordained gaps in the quincunx formation is especially problematic for phalanxes to face. Phalanxes rely on maintaining the integrity of their line. As soon as a phalanx meets the dynamic manipular quincunx, the sheer discipline of the phalanx is tested. It's very tempting for the various phalanx formations to pursue the enemy into the gaps, but they must try to ignore the temptation because their brothers just a stone throw to the left or right are already in close combat, and they depend on their flanks being covered.

[QuintusSertorius]

How deep you you rank your hastati/principe?

I normally set my troops up 6-man deep. I also have my slingers / archers / velites, a long, long way out the front. As the skirmishers withdraw, I expand the heavy infantry units from 6 ranks to 3 ranks, closing the gaps between hastati. I leave the principe and triarii as is (6 ranks) until they are needed.

You shouldn't be closing up the gaps; certainly not before the enemy even appear.

The problem I have with a roman 3-lined army, as that is is too deep and easily surrounded.

Can't say I've ever had that problem, the AI is pitifully bad at actually arraying a proper line. My line is usually thus by the time the enemy engages:


-----Bru-----Has-------Has-------Bru
Sam-----Pri-------Pri--------Sam
--------------Tri-------Tri--------Ext

And I simply let them filter into the gaps where they are surrounded on three sides (without closing them up). Generally they've got worse morale than my troops anyway, so it's more of a problem for them to be outflanked than me.

Plus my skirmisers and cavalry are now out on the wings, ready to march and outflank. I've won hundreds of battles that way. Sure the front line gets chewed up, but they're easily replaced and rarely rout anyway.