Marian legion formations

[iamroot]

I'm aware that the pre-marian legions used the "chessboard" formation with gaps and three lines. However, which formation did the marian legions utilise?

[I of the Storm]

Not the same?

[konny]

The gaps were only there to let other units pass threw the formation without throwing it into disorder. When engaging the enemy the Republican Legions did from closed lines (at least the front line). Otherwise they would had been cut to pieces in no time.

The post Marian Legions are usually displayed as a fromation of two closed lines. Because all units were equipped and armoured the same way, there was no need to exchange the lines. The second line was certainly used as generell reserve. If needed, it was still possible to step back every even maniple to let exhausted units from the first line pass threw.

[iamroot]

So I take it that the default Marian formation is not realistic then.

[Zaknafien]

Konny, thats actually incorrect, and is a misconception popularized by some historians in the 19th century. The triplex acies formation was utilized by the Roman army for centuries, which was basically designed around the purpose of feeding fresh troops into battle at each stage of the conflict, whereas more static formations, like those used by the Successors, were hard to manage especially over difficult terrain.

The quincux, or checkerboard, allowed each maniple (and later, cohorts), to move indpendently and kept them from bunching up over uneven terrain, as even exceptionally drilled armies tend to veer to one side or another when marching on line for any distance.

[I of the Storm]

So they did stick to the quincunx + ad-hoc modifications according to the battlefield?

[konny]

The quincux, or checkerboard, allowed each maniple (and later, cohorts), to move indpendently and kept them from bunching up over uneven terrain, as even exceptionally drilled armies tend to veer to one side or another when marching on line for any distance.

Lines tend to veer left or right because the men are moving in the direction they are looking, and that's always their neighbour for alingement, I know. That's the reason why the Barbarians and Mediavel knights used the wedge for advancing.

Now, back to the Romans: The checkerboard was an advantage when moving troops around and bring in heavyer units from the rear and let exhausted units pass threw the lines. But I can not imagine any situation, expect for very broken ground, in which a main combat line with gaps gives any advantage in close encounter. Other armies maintained expensive corps of chariots to create such gaps in the enemy line. In addition, I cannot imagine any infantry, appart from Successor Phalanx, that would not immediatly slip into that gap, block off the second line with a handfull of men and starts cutting down the maniples in the first line from both flanks.

[konny]

You mean the default Pre-Marian formation? It is realistic as long as you have your Velites or Leves skirmishing before the lines. As soon as they are withdrawn, the Hastati will form a closed line. The Principes will remain in "chessboard" formation.

But for RTW/EB it's usless because with skirmish mode on, the skirmishers will most of the time run right to your lines and don't care about any "gates" you have left them open. So use three lines instead and you do not have to bother so much with micro-managing, but have the same effect.

[Zaknafien]

in RTW terms yeah its pretty useless as theres no way for the lines to withdraw between one another accurately.

However, the whole point of manipular warfare was that these small groups of soldiers were fluid and would operate indpendently of one another with no real battle-line. the triarii, or "pilani" were the line that stood around the standards, forming a line to which the maniples could withdraw to if needed.