How the Maniple Formation worked?

[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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The honest answer is that we actually don't know how it really worked. Methods to advance in line, retreat and then open gaps are very complicated and look particually risky when the form of combat is close-quarters. Polybius tells us there were 5 feet between each legionary in the manipule, that's 50 modern inches, or there abouts. So one possibility is that the formation was constantly fluid, the much later description by Tacitus in the Agricola indicates a constantly advancing formation where the ranks moved through each other. such a formation would actually move foward or back by rotating through its own ranks so that the enemy was never actually facing a completely static or completely mobile line. Once the Hastati had retreated and disengaged though the ranks could close, the Princeps avance, move into open order and engage.

That's one possibility based on my own experience with military drill, which is admittedly a ritualised form of Napolionic musket drill.

[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

[Ravenic]

I'm most concerned with how the 'manipular' legion was able to fight effectively and win battles with what was basically a line broken up in segments against lines which were not broken up in segments. I think that I understand the movements of individual maniples fairly well, and the actions of individual soldiers very well.

[cmacq]

If appropriate, prior to contact with the OpFor the lead Maniples simply closed ranks to form a continuous front.

[Gais]

Adrian Goldsworthy addresses this issue in The Fall of Carthage:

The main difference between the Roman and other systems was that the intervals between maniples was especially large, not that the gaps existed at all. Charging enemies, even 'wild barbarians', did not sweep through these gaps and swamp the maniples in the first linebecause the charges delivered in reality appear to have been far less concerted and rapid than those of popular imagination. Such charges were themselves not delivered by an enemy line that was solid anyway, but one made up of distinct units or groups with small gaps between them. Far more importantly the intervals in the Roman line were covered by the maniples of the next line.

[Ravenic]

Ah thank you, that helps alot. My understanding was that the space between maniples was equal in breadth to another maniple...but that makes alot more sense if the gaps are only 'especially' wide compared to normal.