On the checkerboard formation

[TWFanatic]

Good question. Very good question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer, so I'll have to wait with you.

[Spoofa]

I think they've talked about this before, they dont know exactly how it worked.

[Sand]

Im not an expert by any means but I understand that the reason enemies did not flood through gaps between the maniples was because of the style of warfare the Romans encountered and practised.

Fighting in armour, carrying a shield and weapons was extremely tiring physically and draining emotionally - It must have taken hours to butcher the Romans at Cannae after they devolved into a mob. It was also quite a challenge to persuade citizen levies [Roman troops in the early Republic were farmers, not professional soldiers though obviously experience came with time] to risk charge into a mass of enemy, and vice versa.

Because of the above combat was not a single charge and melee, but an extended bout of skirmishing [hence all the missile weapons carried by Roman, Carthaginian and barbarian troops], rallying by the officers to charge, a short bout of melee, and then parting to rest whilst rallying for the next charge. Victory came when one side or the other was exhausted or disheartened and turned to flee. Then the mass of casualties would occur.

The army that could feed in rested men, with aggressive leadership tended to carry the day. The Roman system allowed them to pull back the first line and advance the second in good order and Roman commanders practically by default were extremely aggressive. The Roman system seems odd but it was suited to the type of warfare the Romans encountered - skirmishing/short spells of melee where morale and stamina were decisive factors. At least, thats my understanding of it.

[The Internet]

With the enemy they faced (barbarians mainly) they faced an enemy that charged in groups (tribal groups mainly) so the Romans never had to deal with their entire front line being over-run. To deal with these tribal groups they had their own "groups" to combat them (their groups obviously being the maniples of hastati and principes) and then they added their own twist on it by giving the army a system where they were able to rotate and refresh the front ranks to keep the frontline fresh, unlike the barbarians who got tired out and over-powered.


Thats my take on their military layout anyway, it can never really be confirmed or denied unfortunately.

[KuKulzA]

fortunately in my Aedui campaign i have some veteran gaesatae, botroas, gaeroas in an army so I usually just... charge...
shock and awe tactics... an army of naked ferocious barbarians chargin down on you Camillian farmers...

but rambling aside I think Sand is right. Also, the Greeks and Phoenicians tended to fight in conventional field combat with front ranks advancing, etc. so the Romans being able to rotate fresh men would allow them to constantly pit fresh troops against gradually tiring hoplite-types

[pezhetairoi]

Yeah, I could see the sense in the Roman formation against the Greek, because the Romans only fought on segments of the line but the Greeks couldn't exploit the gaps in between since they were largely phalangites and to do so would have broken their formation. But the barbarians... Surely they did not always charge in small tribal groups? If what we are looking at is a thirst for glory, loot, renown, etc, then once the first courageous groups starting running forward, wouldn't the rest also have gone forward, not wanting to be see to be hanging back?

Furthermore, as devil's advocate, let me offer a weakness to the short bouts of warfare point: Granted that such was the style of warfare in those days, it does not seem that the enemy would have stood by while the Roman brought up fresh troops. Their chiefs would have been able to see that for what it meant, and would have done his best to disrupt the passage of lines by possibly charging, even if his soldiers were out of juice, in an effort to catch the hastati and principes while they were still passing through, and induce confusion.

I realise there probably isn't an answer to this, but let's see how creative we can get with the answers :) Since the experts don't know either, the truth is fair game for us people. Let's postulate.

[KuKulzA]

I think the maniple tactic is perfect for long frontal attacks, since it rotates fresher and more experienced troops regularly and many soldiers are equipped with javelins to whittle down enemy numbers and morale. But if a Gallic chieftain had all his warriors charge at once and got the cavalry attacking their flanks... I mean that kinda throws the whole frontal engagement system off balance...

I mean in general those Celts were good warriors... taller, muscular, with longer swords and spears and fearsome and confident...
from what I understand the Romans had the efficiency going for them... the shorter swords and large shields and rotation of troops allowed them to be efficient and almost mechanical in a sense... very disciplined... but seemingly very linear

i mean you look at times when others have been victories against early Rome, they usually disorganized the tactic with flanking or a very determined charge with a lot of momentum....


just some thoughts

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yeah, I could see the sense in the Roman formation against the Greek, because the Romans only fought on segments of the line but the Greeks couldn't exploit the gaps in between since they were largely phalangites and to do so would have broken their formation. But the barbarians... Surely they did not always charge in small tribal groups? If what we are looking at is a thirst for glory, loot, renown, etc, then once the first courageous groups starting running forward, wouldn't the rest also have gone forward, not wanting to be see to be hanging back?

Furthermore, as devil's advocate, let me offer a weakness to the short bouts of warfare point: Granted that such was the style of warfare in those days, it does not seem that the enemy would have stood by while the Roman brought up fresh troops. Their chiefs would have been able to see that for what it meant, and would have done his best to disrupt the passage of lines by possibly charging, even if his soldiers were out of juice, in an effort to catch the hastati and principes while they were still passing through, and induce confusion.

I realise there probably isn't an answer to this, but let's see how creative we can get with the answers :) Since the experts don't know either, the truth is fair game for us people. Let's postulate.

I can see a good way of using the checkerboard vs barbs: if the barbs swarm into the holes, push the principes forward a bit and compress the barbarians (against the men behind them), so they can't get enough room to swing their swords. If the barbs didn't swarm the holes, just switch between hastati and principes pushing forward/falling back in good order. The risk is of course that the entire line will be fighting at the same time at some points, and that the barbs will skirmish: threatening to enter the gap, then falling back, repeatedly, to tire the principes who would go backwards and forwards a lot (with heavier armor than the barbs wear).

But perhaps it's possible to counter this as well, by alternating between pushing the principes forward, then pushing them beyond the hastati, and the enemies in the gap would be compressed by a following (short) hastati advance. Or the principes/hastati formations could be deep enough to be able to present a deep enough front while still having men behind them move sideways into the gaps and hit the enemy flank harder than the enemy can hit the roman flanks.

In any case, by default the checkerboard doesn't give you any greater outflanking penalty than the opponent because where you are flanked, he is also flanked. Only if one side has equipment or training better suited to this kind of situation, would there be any difference. My guess is that the romans (and the samnites which they copied the checkerboard from) had made sure their equipment and training made them superior at this kind of fighting.

Anyway, I've had some fun experimenting with schemes of this type in EB