No reforms at all?

[paramedicguyer]

Isn't Scipio credited with transforming the Roman Legion from a pretty rigid 3-line manipular formation with a strict straight-ahead attack vector into a more flexible force based around the cohort capable of outflanking, double envelopments and semi independent maneourvre and engagement?

Also didn't he increase the standard size of his legions by about 10%?

Also didn't he introduce spanish cutlery? I mean thats pretty epoch defining isn't it?

I have just read a book called Scipio Africanus : Rome's greatest general by Richard A. Gabriel. Its a bit of hero worship: he ranks Scipio above Marius, which I can't swallow, although his criticism of Julius Caesar as (self-)over-rated is quite cogent.

For a lightweight work it makes a good case: Scipio's reform of the army in Spain is the biggest single step the Roman army took before Marius. He didn't invent the cohort (its first mentioned being employed by his uncle, so its still Scipionic) but he employed it to detach rear elements for independent manouevre, something not possible with the army at Cannae or Trasimene or Trebia. His system was adopted by political rivals like Flamininus (sp?) and seems to have beome SOP for the legions.

Scipio did not reform the roman army before he went to africa (battle of the great plains/zama). Whilewaiting in sicily he simply drilled his army hardcore. Additionally he had in his possession in sicily the two "exile" legions also known as the cannae survivors, these soldiers had therefore seen active service for at least ten years (actually longer). The term "cohort" during scipio's time was a term applied simply to a group of maniples/centuries. A Goldsworthy in his book "the fall of carthage" theorizes that a cohort duing polibious's day consisted of 3 maniples (likely 1 of each Hastati, principes, triarii). The cohort you speak of is generally attributable to C. Marius. However, it is unlikely that he himself devised the system, rather he formalized a preexisting formula. The "polybian legion" as it is called actually became defacto obsolete when C. Tiberius passed his law whereby the state was responsible for the purchasing of arms and armor for its soldiers. This law in effect removed any class equipment differences, thus the three "classes" became more of a honor level or one based solely on experience.
As even during Caeser's gallic wars mention is made of hastati. Thus this is eveidence that the manipular formation had not gone away even by Caesars' day.

The reason flexibility was not possible at trasimene is because it was a complete ambush. Really nothing could be done, to manuever out of a situation like that. Flaminius was an able general (with a triumph under his belt) with a well organized army. Trebbia was a loss because sempronius chose to marhc his soldiers without breakfast and pushed them thru a freezing river, oh yes and again they were ambushed. At cannae, the romans were so confident in their numbers that they simply arranged their army as a giant horde (more complex actually but yet a horde relative to their normal formation), additionally the triarii were left in camp. Oh, and I would like to place the blame of the disaster on Lucius Aemilius Paullus, not varro. The patron of polybios was aemilianus africanus. who was in fact a blood relative. We have hear one of the first documented cases of a cover up in history.

Also scipio did not begin a wholescale introduction of the iberian gladius, it is unlikely, that for the duration of the second punic war that any other army except scipio's employed this weapon. Indeed even after, it is likely to have made only a steady increase in its usage. The key to remember is that the blades were made by iberian blacksmiths, post war these blacksmiths would still have to train others, and this would take time. And no the sword wasn't epic, the tactics remained the same, the only difference was the quality of the sword (resulting from a superior forging process).

The manipular legion was just as flexiple as a "cohort" legion, if not more so.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I would like to see your sources. The book you mentioned, the author is Richard A. Gabriel, he is an expert on warfare not roman history. I have read his book or at least wat I could swallow, his conclusions are wrong and not in context with actuality.

[Cyclops]

Thank you for the thorough response.

Scipio did not reform the roman army before he went to africa (battle of the great plains/zama). Whilewaiting in sicily he simply drilled his army hardcore. Additionally he had in his possession in sicily the two "exile" legions also known as the cannae survivors, these soldiers had therefore seen active service for at least ten years (actually longer).

Scipio also drilled his army hardcore in Spain, both before and after the capture of New Carthage.

The term "cohort" during scipio's time was a term applied simply to a group of maniples/centuries. A Goldsworthy in his book "the fall of carthage" theorizes that a cohort duing polibious's day consisted of 3 maniples (likely 1 of each Hastati, principes, triarii). The cohort you speak of is generally attributable to C. Marius. However, it is unlikely that he himself devised the system, rather he formalized a preexisting formula.

Yes the term cohort seems to describe a group of maniples the first time it occurs (I believe in Livy) describing a Scipionic army in Spain. So connecting the use of cohorts with the Scipios seems legitimate.

The "polybian legion" as it is called actually became defacto obsolete when C. Tiberius passed his law whereby the state was responsible for the purchasing of arms and armor for its soldiers. This law in effect removed any class equipment differences, thus the three "classes" became more of a honor level or one based solely on experience.

I agree that the Marian reforms are the single greatest change in Roman military tradition up to and perhaps including Adrianople. They are rightly named after their instigator, as he confirmed and crystralised several prexisting trends as well as initiating something new.

Perhaps Scipio's changes amount to something if not as important as Marius, then at least as significant as the Imperial "reforms" (developments).

As even during Caeser's gallic wars mention is made of hastati. Thus this is eveidence that the manipular formation had not gone away even by Caesars' day.

Absolutely.

The reason flexibility was not possible at trasimene is because it was a complete ambush. Really nothing could be done, to manuever out of a situation like that.

Especially since the Roman legion prior to the Scipios only fought forwards and was not trained to detach heavy (manipular) elements to the flank (argues Gabriel).

Flaminius was an able general (with a triumph under his belt) with a well organized army.

I think you are confusing with Gaius Flaminius Nepos (defeated at Trasimene using a pre-Scipionic army) with Titus Quinctius Flamininus (defeated the Macedonians with a post Scipionic army). I sometimes confuse the two.

There's no confusing their armies' perfomances though. Flaminius was beaten by a better led more flexible enemy. Flamininus' forces included Scipionic veterans (argues Gabriel) who may have won the battle at Cynoscephalae with independent action typical of Scipio's battles in Spain.

Trebbia was a loss because sempronius chose to marhc his soldiers without breakfast and pushed them thru a freezing river, oh yes and again they were ambushed.

Yes a straightforward snafu, Gabriel would put an emphasis on the "straightforward" once again.

At cannae, the romans were so confident in their numbers that they simply arranged their army as a giant horde (more complex actually but yet a horde relative to their normal formation), additionally the triarii were left in camp. Oh, and I would like to place the blame of the disaster on Lucius Aemilius Paullus, not varro.

Also the Romans inability to redeploy their ranks to the flanks, typical of pre-Scipionic Roman armies but something Scipio was able to overcome by retraining men (even veterans of Cannae).

The patron of polybios was aemilianus africanus. who was in fact a blood relative. We have hear one of the first documented cases of a cover up in history.

The Aemeliae were also part of the Scipionic faction, so the army Polybius describes is that of his Roman patrons. Gabriel mentions Scipio was probably at Cannae, which the ancient sources seem to de-emphasise: perhaps more of a cover-up.

Also scipio did not begin a wholescale introduction of the iberian gladius, it is unlikely, that for the duration of the second punic war that any other army except scipio's employed this weapon. Indeed even after, it is likely to have made only a steady increase in its usage. The key to remember is that the blades were made by iberian blacksmiths, post war these blacksmiths would still have to train others, and this would take time. And no the sword wasn't epic, the tactics remained the same, the only difference was the quality of the sword (resulting from a superior forging process).

I must take issue here, the gladius was adopted wholesale by the Romans, and Polybius mention (argues Gabriel) that Scipio re-armed his entire force before invading Italy. The form may have evolved but Scipio is universally aknowledged as the instigator of this iconic and vaunted weapon.

The manipular legion was just as flexiple as a "cohort" legion, if not more so.

Not according the perfomance at Cannae, Trasimene, Trebia, or any Roman battle we have a detailed description of prior to Baecula. After Scipio retrains his men at Nova Carthage we hear of outflanks and independent actions, prior to that we have a straight-ahead chopping machine.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I would like to see your sources. The book you mentioned, the author is Richard A. Gabriel, he is an expert on warfare not roman history. I have read his book or at least wat I could swallow, his conclusions are wrong and not in context with actuality.

You are not being rude, and you have seen my source (Gabriel).

I take your point he is one source but he is an experienced military man and identifies some "civilian" errors that have crept into the story of Hannibal and Scipio. No doubt he makes some errors in his adulation of Scipio.