How the Maniple Formation worked?

[Ravenic]

Hullo. I consider myself an amateur historian to all things Roman, and certainly I've fought with Roman troops in any number of mods, including EB and I always try to be as historically accurate as possible.

I find myself wondering though, just how did the manipular formation work? I realize that Hastati fight, retreat, then the Principes come to fight, and the gaps in the line are meant to make it easy for men to retreat behind one another. But isn't that just a vulnerability? When an enemy line attacks don't they just storm through the gaps and the Hastati end up being flanked on three sides?

Also, I'm unclear as to whether or not the later Legionnaires of Marius and Augustus fought in the maniple formation, or if they just formed one solid line that was, say, ten men deep, or if they actually held on to the maniple.

[cmacq]

As a formation the Manipular Legion was replaced, however in its heyday, I don't think it was used as many think. Each unit within this formation had a certain strength and weakness. I believe the Romans used the three tiered Maniple to force an enemy to fully deploy, using light and medium infantry, before they had reached their heavy infantry. In this way the Roman heavy infantry could engage an enemy on a facing that was to their advantage, plus their light infantry, after withdrawing could reengage on the flanks. Overall, this follows the general trend in the tactical development of Hellenistic Period armies designed to counter professional heavy infantry and conduct operation in uneven and/or rough terrain.


CmacQ

[oudysseos]

I have to point out that the manipular system of the Romans, just as the phalanx or any other 'system', was not an abstract method of tactics developed by a fore-sighted Roman General Staff and War College. There was no such thing. The maniples developed over time, due to many factors, few of which could be expressed in the stats. It was deeply rooted in the roman notion of virtus and the importance of single combat, and although it was successful for the Romans, it would be a mistake to apply it to anyone else. Read Lendon for the best discussion of this, but remember, a real live roman Triarius didn't know what his AP rating was or how many hit points he had.

[cmacq]

I have to point out that the manipular system of the Romans, just as the phalanx or any other 'system', was not an abstract method of tactics developed by a fore-sighted Roman General Staff and War College. There was no such thing. The maniples developed over time, due to many factors, few of which could be expressed in the stats. It was deeply rooted in the roman notion of virtus and the importance of single combat, and although it was successful for the Romans, it would be a mistake to apply it to anyone else. Read Lendon for the best discussion of this, but remember, a real live roman Triarius didn't know what his AP rating was or how many hit points he had.

Actually the Romans did have a General Staff with a fore-sighted eye on survival and it was called 'the Senate.' Additionally, they had two War Colleges, and these were called 'the School of Hard Knocks, and 'the Battle Field.' Also with their homestead in the middle of a very bad neighborhood, their Senate's abstract method of tactical development was called, 'adapt or die.' Otherwise the Romans developed very little themselves, instead they took nearly everything they had from others, even the concept of single combat. One may want to look more at the move to medium and light infantry to combat Hellenistic type heavy infantry, as well.


CmacQ

[Ravenic]

Hm...I must say that I still don't understand how the maniple actually 'worked' when it was basically a line of men with wide gaps between each segment against a line of men without these gaps - that sounds like a textbook bad thing to do since you're always supposed to hold the line and not allow breakthroughs. If men began to pour into the gaps between Hastati Maniple 1 and Hastati Maniple 2, would Principe Maniple 1 pick up the slack (and in that way three-way encircle the guys in the gap)? My impression was that the Principes didn't engage until the Hastati turned and retreated back through the gaps of the Principes...at which point the gaps in the second and third lines would seem useful.

[Celtic_Punk]

I've used the maniple formation as the casse. they excell with it... so I don't know what you are on about there oudysseos

It was deeply rooted in the roman notion of virtus and the importance of single combat, and although it was successful for the Romans, it would be a mistake to apply it to anyone else. Read

[cmacq]

Hm...I must say that I still don't understand how the maniple actually 'worked' when it was basically a line of men with wide gaps between each segment against a line of men without these gaps - that sounds like a textbook bad thing to do since you're always supposed to hold the line and not allow breakthroughs. If men began to pour into the gaps between Hastati Maniple 1 and Hastati Maniple 2, would Principe Maniple 1 pick up the slack (and in that way three-way encircle the guys in the gap)? My impression was that the Principes didn't engage until the Hastati turned and retreated back through the gaps of the Principes...at which point the gaps in the second and third lines would seem useful.

Now I think I understand your question a bit better. But there are three levels to the question; the actions of the Manipular Legion, individual maniples, and individual soldiers on both offense and defense?



CmacQ

[Cbvani]

Oddly enough I saw the AI, of all things, using a manipular formation. I would've taken a screenshot, but I was busy.

It was pretty sweet.

[SwissBarbar]

well, when the enemy storms in the gaps the hastati are outflanked on three sides.... but the enemy as well. behint the hastati are even heavier infanterists waiting