typical depth of four?

Advanced search

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 22, 2013, 03:25:41 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Macedon]

I read the Tactica you guys compiled and along with many lauds for your great effort I have to object to your conclusion regarding the depth of the typical Roman formation as well as the interpretation of the sources you gave. First of all, I want to ask you if you support that a four man deep line was possible (which of course it was) or the norm (as you seem to maintain). I actually think that all the examples you gave as supporting bibliography (Asclepiodotus, Arrian, Vegetius and Maurice) are wrongly interpreted and actually all these writers do not support this thesis.

[Red]

Hummm, ok, in which case, please show us "where" and "how" the primary sources were misunderstood and where in point of fact, not opinion, the document is incorrect. Support your case with additional sources / facts.

Red

[Macedon]

So, then I guess the answer to my question is that you deem the depth of four as typical in Roman deployments.

1. Asclepiodotus

You have very freely translated "peltasts" as "medium infantry, soldiers armed with shorter spears", so that they may be equated with legionaries which of course is fundamentally wrong. Asclepiodotus' peltasts have nothing to do with legionaries. It is especially clear when in the 6th chapter (where he mentions the depth of eight) he places them with the psiloi in the various positions relevant to the phalanx light infantry was posted.

Regarding the depth of his phalanx, which could be used as an analogy to the Roman tactics if we maintain that such an analogy can be made he clearly states :

"δι’ ὃ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ λόχου οἱ μὲν ὀκτώ, οἱ δὲ δέκα, οἱ δὲ δυοκαίδεκα ἀνδρῶν πεποιήκασιν, ἕτεροι δὲ ἑξκαίδεκα πρὸς τὸ συμμέτρως ἔχειν τὴν φάλαγγα εἴς τε τὸ διπλασιάσαι πρὸς τὰς ῥηθησομένας χρείας ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριάκοντα ἄνδρα καὶ εἰς τὸ συναιρεῖσθαι εἰς ἥμισυ ἐπ’ ἄνδρας ὀκτώ" Ascl.2.1.6

Here Asclepiodotus talks about how different generals used different depths in their phalanx mentioning the numbers 8,10,12,16 and 32. He does not even mention 4 (remember that I DO support that a phalanx could under circumstances be arrayed 4 men deep, as Caesar did against Pompey, I am just challenging your (to my understanding) very bold conclusion)

2. Arrian

Arrian mentions that the marching column should be four wide and not the phalanx. On the contrary, where he talks about the depth of his phalanx, he gives the number eight for all legions (phalanges in his terminology) and this in close order (not a possible 8 open - 4 close).

"τετάχθων δὲ ἐπὶ ὀκτώ, καὶ πυκνὴ αὐτοῖς ἔστω ἡ ξύν<ταξις>." Arr. Acies Contra Alanos, 15.6

This number he gives for the whole legionary line.

3. Vegetius

The four ranks he mentions while describing the training formation in which he has the whole line first deployed by single man, then doubling and redoubling to four. But this is not the fighting formation which he clearly gives in his 3rd book in the "Proper Distances and Intervals" chapter where he advises against making the line too shallow. 6 is normal to him, 9 or more is "better than extending your line too much", 3 is ill-advised (he works in multiples of 3 instead of 2). Of course 3 (as the Triarii did in the Polybian years) is offered as an option, but certainly not as a norm.

4. Maurice

Both quotes are also misleading as to the advice given in the Strategikon of pseudo-Mauricius. The 12th chapter is about the mixed formation "Περὶ τάξεως συμμίκτου". He suggests the infantry line be four (or five) deep IF the cavalry outnumbers the infantry. This is a very specific condition that makes this proposal all but typical, especially in Roman armies which did not even fulfill it, such as the average Republican or Imperial Roman army of the first centuries. (there were reasons for this advice but are not proper to discuss here)

Your second mentioning of Maurice read in full :

"Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ σφίγγεσθαι ἤτοι πυκνοῦσθαι πρὸς τὸ ἁρμοῦσθαι καὶ πλατύνεσθαι συντομώτερον καὶ ἀσφαλέστερόν ἐστιν, οὐ χρὴ ἀπὸ δεκαὲξ τὸ βάθος τῶν ἀκιῶν τάσσεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τεσσάρων, ἵνα καὶ  
κομπωτέρα φαίνεται τοῖς πολεμίοις ἡ παράταξις καὶ ἀνεκτότεροι γένωνται οἱ ὁπλῖται ἐν τῷ περιπατεῖν μάλιστα ἐπὶ διάστημα. εἰ γὰρ χρεία ἢ ἀπὸ ὀκτὼ ἢ ἀπὸ δεκαὲξ γίνεσθαι τὸ βάθος, ἐν τῷ περιπατεῖν συντόμως γίνεται καὶ σφίγγεται. εἰ μέντοι σφιγκτῆς καὶ κονδῆς οὔσης τῆς παρατάξεως, χρεία τοῦ ἐκταθῆναι τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς, πολλῆς ὥρας δεῖται εἰς τοῦτο καὶ οὐκ ἔστι χρειῶδες τῶν πολεμίων ἐγγιζόντων ἐκτείνειν παράταξιν.

Οἱ δὲ βανδοφόροι μέχρι μὲν τῆς παρατάξεως καβαλλάριοι μετὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν, ἐν δὲ τῇ τάξει πεζοὶ ὀφείλουσιν
ἵστασθαι, ὥστε μήτε τῶν δεκαὲξ πλέον τὸ βάθος τῶν ἀκιῶν γίνεσθαι, κἂν εἰ τῶν ἐναντίων βαθυτέρα ἐστί, μήτε τῶν τεσσάρων ἔλαττον, κἂν εἰ λεπτοτέρα ἐστὶ τῶν ἐναντίων.  ὥστε τὸ μὲν πλέον τῶν δεκαὲξ ἄχρηστον, τὸ δὲ ἔλαττον τῶν τεσσάρων ἀσθενές• μέση δὲ τάξις τῶν ὀκτὼ σκουτάτων ἐστίν."  

Here Maurice indeed suggests that the march against the enemy can be made four deep BUT the whole paragraph is about how making the files deeper is a quick maneuver and so upon nearing the enemy it could easily be made into another depth while the opposite is inadvisable, thus making it clear that marching in an extended line to appear stronger does not mean fighting in one. This notion is further enhanced in the next paragraph "Οἱ δὲ βανδοφόροι..." where he discusses depths again saying that a line should not be deeper than 16 nor shallower than 4, median depth being 8. Again he does not offer 4 as a norm, only as an option, whose advantages I will not discuss here (as I already mentioned, 4 WAS an option but not the norm). Of course in the rest of his work Pseudo-Maurice many times discusses depths and never offers 4 as a norm, let alone 2 as you also suggest.

Furthermore, 4 men deep in open order means 2 men deep in close, fighting order, if the line is to occupy the same ground.  Else, in order to close the ranks a line needs to half its front (either to one of the flanks or the center - of course such evolutions were common too, this is partly what the Strategikon is suggesting), which is in itself a risky evolution. On the other hand 8 men deep files in open order can quickly close up to a formation 4 deep in close order, which would be more appropriate even for a scenario such as the one you are suggesting.

I am looking forward to a reply concerning the said references. If you would like a further discussion on proper depths and their utilization on the battlefield, we could open up a relevant discussion.

[Mark Graef]

I read the Tactica you guys compiled and along with many lauds for your great effort I have to object to your conclusion regarding the depth of the typical Roman formation as well as the interpretation of the sources you gave. First of all, I want to ask you if you support that a four man deep line was possible (which of course it was) or the norm (as you seem to maintain). I actually think that all the examples you gave as supporting bibliography (Asclepiodotus, Arrian, Vegetius and Maurice) are wrongly interpreted and actually all these writers do not support this thesis.

We don't state or intend to imply that Roman infantry used only 4 man deep formations for all tactical purposes, although the numerous illustrations in the current edition of the Tactica may inadvertently give that impression. In the commentary on initial formations on pg. 40 we note that ranks of up to 32 deep are attested in ancient armies, but the sources we used mentioned formations of four or eight deep for legionary infantry or their equivalents. We suggested an initial formation of four deep, and cited the passages in Arrian, Vegetius, and Maurice that show that four ranks are evidenced at least in certain circumstances. That the circumstances cited were for training, marching, or pre-battle formations fits in perfectly with the scope of the first release of the Tactica.

Please remember that our Tactica is meant to be practical handbook for use by reenactors, and is an ongoing work with more extensive research in progress. An expanded version is in the works, with certain sections becoming separate sub-manuals. You probably noticed that the combat part of the current edition of the Tactica is rather sparse; we didn't have the time to fully develop it before the first scheduled release. The first sub-manual will be a much expanded combat section that will include attack and defense formations in 4 and 8 ranks, and how to quickly form from one to another other, and how to deploy and use integral missile-armed infantry.  At Lafe we have field tested formations of 4 and 8 ranks in open and close order — both from standing and on the march — as well as light infantry tactics. The basics of tactica are easy to learn, and once learned, the next step, learning formations of differing depths and mixed arms, is also easy.

I think if we had released the Tactica fully complete with illustrations of full sized centuries maneuvering and deploying in 8 ranks it might not have gone anywhere. It was a tough enough "sell" to convince Roman reenactors to drill in four ranks and use both open and close order. Most Roman units in North America were used to drilling in two ranks only with a very close interval of about 24 inches, similar to the 18th and 19th cent. drills they were familiar with from reenacting other periods. There were quite a few skeptics who didn't believe the Tactica would work.

It is worth noting that scholar/author Ross Cowan wrote an article for the 2010 special issue of Ancient Warfare magazine that proposed (and illustrated) a typical legionary formation of four ranks, with the signum posted in the center (similar to that in the Tactica) based on much of the same evidence we used. The Tactica was finished in March 2010 and released publicly in May; the issue of AW didn't become available until July, so we didn't use his article; it was an interesting coincidence.

I have noticed a tendency among scholars to believe that the scant evidence of different numbers of ranks used by Roman units in the imperial era are an indication of different systems of drill or drill regulations. I believe there was only one general system of drill but that it was not regulated or completely uniform, being perpetuated by oral tradition, small handbooks written by private concerns for junior officers, and copies of expensive theoretical works in Greek (e.g. the tactica) that were produced for and read by the Roman senatorial class. Formations of different depth noted in the late Republic and imperial eras are most probably due to each senior commander's tactical decision to balance the steadiness of a deeper formation with the need to cover a broad front, adjusted for certain factors such as understrength units, the ratio of "green" and veteran troops, terrain, and the characteristics and modes of fighting of the enemy. For battle I don't think there was such a thing as a "normal" depth. The ancient tactica was flexible and simple enough to enable the average soldier to form up and maneuver in any depth formation that was ordered.

I have a hunch, however, that as a rule a imperial Roman century would form up in its camp or fort in four ranks, based on the dimensions of the tent layout and spacings given by pseudo-Hyginius, and the surviving foundations of legionary barrack blocks in permanent forts. An 80-man century could form up in their own area and march out in four ranks; wider columns would not be able to clear all the bottlenecks and other units and  the pack animals. I would have to do a scale illustration with all the intervals diagrammed in order to show this. Another project for a later date!

Mark

[Macedon]

As I stated Mark,  I congratulate you on your work on the Tactica. It is remarkable. In the said passage you seem to imply that 4 deep was the norm and this is why I felt obliged to ask exactly what you meant. For reenactment purposes four is of course fine, many train in less... heck even in single ranks... I just want to know your exact position on that matter, since tactical details like that form my primary interest in history.

[M. Demetrius]

If only we had enough men in most units to drill/practice 8 deep!  Sadly, we would be 8 deep and 1 wide at most gatherings. 

• Recently found this inter... by JKALER48 [August 09, 2012, 06:07:36 PM]
• Sheltering attached troop... by M. Demetrius [September 28, 2011, 07:28:55 AM]
• Employment of Individual ... by JKALER48 [September 03, 2011, 10:19:05 AM]
• Legion Medical Officers a... by JKALER48 [July 21, 2011, 12:19:42 PM]
• typical depth of four? by M. Demetrius [June 10, 2011, 03:50:17 PM]
• Sacramentum or Ius Iurand... by Macedon [June 07, 2011, 09:25:58 PM]
• Cadence by Mark Graef [May 23, 2011, 06:29:01 PM]
• Ancient Sources Quotes on... by M. Demetrius [May 20, 2011, 02:56:45 PM]
• Ancient Sources on the Ma... by JKALER48 [April 20, 2011, 10:41:08 AM]
• Breadmaking from Scratch by M. Demetrius [April 05, 2011, 08:15:37 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 82
• Latest: Bronco_6

Stats

• Total Posts: 582
• Total Topics: 135
• Online Today: 6
• Online Ever: 34
• (April 07, 2011, 01:35:12 PM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 8
Total: 8