"Hail Ceasar Punic Battle Part 1 Roman army" Topic

This is my first game using the Army List for the Rep Romans using the small units specified, and we are interested to see how they work. The RR army is represented by 4 units each of velites ( as light inf), hastati ( which I made MI) and princeps ( heavy inf with pila), and 2 units of Triari. To complete the army I added 2 Roman/latin MC, and 2 Italian LC ( list requires 50% OF cav to be LC). All the above are small units. We play a standard unit as 120 mm wide ( 2 60mm 'stands') and 2 deep. The rules say a small unit is 1/2 width of standard, so small units are 1 stand wide by 2 deep. One uit of Italian MI ( standard) was added to complete the list, totaling 369 points.
The army is organized into 4 commands:
1) 2 velites and 4 hastati; 2) 4 princeps and 1 triari; 3) 1 velite, 2 Roman MC and 1 triari; and 4) 1 velite, 2 Italian LC and the Italian MI. The rules call for a division or command to be a minimum of 4 units.
Deployment: the velites and hastati are the front line, with the princeps behind as a second line. Units are separated and look like a 'checkerboard formation'. Placing the small units side by side would resul in a very narrow front. Command 3 covers the right flank, and connand 4 the left.
roman center:

roman right
roman left:

Is there any hard evidence for the "checkerboard" formation?

Yes, why?

Yes, why?

If you are answering my question, please could you indicate where such evidence might be found?

There's some interesting discussion on the subject here:
link

Hard information as in what video evidence? Nope. We have information from writers at the time who articulate such matters in their own words. Hard evidence as in written yes. See Caesars memoirs, etc See Goldsworthy – The Roman Army at War OUP 1996, where he discusses the numerous issues around forming a solid block and then having to try and move a solid block i.e. a line of units, hence the best solution for the Roman Generals was to have gaps between units in a line, hence when the Roman Generals utilised the triplex acies it would have consisted of 3 lines with units in ecah line having gaps between them giving the effect as illustrated quite accurately in the above gamers game.

Remember the Romans were an agressive force, and with agressive tactics mobility is key, hence the move away from the Hoplite block / line of units to smaller, manageable, controllable units with gaps between them to allow flexibility of deployment both in attack and defence.

The best sources for evidence can be found in Caesars Commentaries on the Civil War and Gallic Wars. I would also look at Livy, Polybius, Tacitus, Josephus, Arrian…..

Modern works: Goldsworthy, Le Bohec, Webster, as a starter for 10. Sorry I am rushing, but I have a paper to wade through for court and trying to make dinner at the same time not easy with two little 'uns at ones ankles as well……I hope this helps.

Remember the Romans were an aggressive force, and with aggressive tactics mobility is key, hence the move away from the Hoplite block / line of units to smaller, manageable, controllable units with gaps between them to allow flexibility of deployment both in attack and defence.

But that flexibility does not imply the presence of gaps, merely that the Romans trained to fight in smaller blocks.

Hi margard thanks for the link I will review later tonight. But with a quick look I can see some rather worrisome remarks being stated without any evidence and I suspect these are just thoughts / ideas and not what actually happened.

To be honest the Roman General would have drawn up his forces (if he was competent) in such a way that he wasn't outflanked and that he was secure in his knowledge of his enemy and of their intentions and would draw up his formation to meet said threat – for e.g. See Caesars tactics at the Battle of Ruspina compared to say Arrians formation against the Alan, compared to say Scipio's formation at Illipia and Zama.

"But that flexibility does not imply the presence of gaps, merely that the Romans trained to fight in smaller blocks."

Not quite. Ok. What do you think the Gauls and the Germanic warriors formations were like? single units or one huge mass? Gaps or no gaps? I think people will be surprised by what is out there. The Gauls and the Germans were at times tactically astute…….

Oh and I'm sure Caesar states gaps somewhwere I will try and find the reference…..

The gaps are most clearly attested to by Polybius (200 – 118 BC) writing about 50 or so years after the 2nd Punic War.

However, each maniple was split into two centuries – one was called the prior and the other was the posterior (loosely translating as front and back). From this, many assume that posterior century was drawn up behind the prior with a gap between the maniples. Just before contact the posterior would side step and move up into the gap, thus creating a solid line.

However, virtually everything I have found on the subject of maniple gaps and how it all worked is supposition and theory. As far as I am aware, apart from Polybius, all of the 'Roman' writers were not contempory with this kind of deployment; even Polybius was probably more familiar with the cohortal system which began to be developed by Scipio A. in Spain during the 2nd Punic War.

That's my pennies worth. My book list for sources is here:
link

Personally, I don't do the gaps because it's, wargame wise, a pain. I prefer them in solid lines, representing posteriors up – so to speak.

Most of the folks I know who have played Republican Romans seem to think that the checkerboard formation was used for manoeuvre while outside engagement distance, and then "snapped" into line for fighting. Having said that, the fact that the Romans trained with the checkerboard's relatively smaller units (and later cohorts) as standard made them potentially more flexible than a "normal" line of battle; hence the Triarii move at Cynoscephalae for example. If they were hemmed in they couldn't do this (Cannae, anyone?).

And yes, there are several suppositions here, and they are all based on wargamers' perspectives. For what it's worth, I'd agree with James on this one – ordinarily, by the time you get to an army deployed ready for fighting, the maniples are already in the familiar multiple lines of battle.

And of course you also have tactical innovators who use the triplex acies as a baseline concept for more imaginative deployments – Scipio at Ilipa?

The game works in such a way that small units can engage a larger unit and you can imagine the rear ranks move into position to close the gaps (ala Connelly) while the princepes remain apart to leave space for retreating hastati. Alternatively, the princepes can close the gaps or move in for rear support.

I have a sneaky suspicion, based on nothing but imagination, that the 6 foot – 3 foot spacing between files might be important. What I don't get are how the side stepping posterior centuries allow reinforcement by the maniples in the supporting lines without creating gaps in the front line. So here is that imaginative thought.

The maniples manoeuvre in close order (3 foot per man) with prior up front and posterior behind and gaps between maniples. This spacing makes marching in cadence easier and less tiring. On reaching 'combat distance' the prior century doubles its frontage by dressing (to the left?) to 6 foot per man, thus closing the gaps between maniples. The posterior century does likewise and advances, weaving itself up the open files. Both centuries are now 3 foot per man with alternate files of posterior and prior

When it comes time to relieve the front maniples of hastati with maniples of principes (for example) the posterior hastati withdraw thus opening the files but keeping the front in position. The prior principes advance up the open files to the front. Once at the front the prior hastati century withdraws. Then the posterior principes advance up the open files in the prior principes. The hastati are relieved and the line of scrimmage is maintained.

NOW THAT IS SUPPOSITION!!!!! But it makes as much sense as Conolly's suposition (perhaps?).

So the line would be composed of men from alternating maniples, rather than units alternating by maniple. Makes sense to me, James, mainly because I can picture in my mind how that would work in practice. Your idea also suggests how line relief might have operated. Now if this were the Napoleonics board, someone with re-enactor experience would chime in at this point to say whether or not it's feasible as well as practical…

IIRC Ross Cowan has a very interesting take on the way the prior and posterior co-operated, in Osprey Elite 155 Roman Battle Tactics, albeit for later republican roman armies and there is some interesting material in Nic Fields in his Osprey Battle Orders of the Roman Armies in the Punic Wars.

Also there is a POSSIBILITY that the century (two to each maniple) were further broken down into contubernia aka tent parties of six men each, however this may have been an administrative function rather than a tactical function. (The jury is still out on this one).

The maniple had a number of officers namely: two centurions, senior on the right and junior on the left, two optiones (rear left and rear right) and two signiferi. Although the pairing was to ensure command was retained over the maniple during battle conditions, I believe this may have had a significance too with regards manoeuvring in battle.

Does anyone remember the very first battle scene in the show Rome? I thought it was interesting, the way they had a guy fight up front for a short while, then move back to the rear of the unit and have the next guy in line take over.

Caesar I think what they are trying to simulate, was the ability of the Romans to relieve front lne units / men. This was done during a pause during a battle because many ancient battles were along the lines of "pulses" that is there will be some hard fighting for around 10 to 20 minutes then both sides would draw away from one another for a period of time to recover then after a short "breathing space" the opposing forces would close the gap between themselves to fight again. This could go on for several hours. Therefore during one of these periods of a "pause for breadth", the Romans would replace units / men from the front line to enable frsh fighting troops to continue the fight during the next phase of melee.

then both sides would draw away from one another for a period of time to recover

Although the pulses must have occurred (because men would need to rest and build up the courage to re-engage) I'm not sure that the pull back would have been more than a few yards. The enemy would be close enough to the Roman front to take advantage of a 'block' withdrawal before the reserves were able to take their place in the line. The front line must have been maintained somehow during the process.

Having said that, I guess we will never know for sure. I don't wholly accept the 'battle process' put forward by Goldsworthy, who agrees with you – was he your source?

There are a number of modern-Goldsworthy, Cowan, Sabin, and some others IIRC there is evidence of such "pulses" from our primary sources but I'm mobile at the moment so no access to my books.

The Romans were not only ones to pause, there is evidence that other armies did as well.

The distance is speculative until further evidence is / if ever unearthed (it would be great for Polybius tacticus to be found as that would be most illuminating).

I would surmise a distance of around 30plus metres (myy thoughts) for opponents to back off as we know that during these pauses we find that missiles such as javelins etc would be hurled whilst units recovered.

TBH opponents don't continually fight in hand to hand for hours, the human body, spirit and mind cannot take it. They have to pause, recover etc sometimes, morale can sometimes ve recovered sometimes it didn't and the opponent would retreat backwards and the other would advance and possibly cause retreat in to rout, with diehards fighting as the weaker run. Got to go!

Marcus, I know what we are discussing.
There are various opinions, but nobody knows how this was done.
Pick one you like, realize that it isn't definitive, have fun discussing it.

Caesar I apologise if you felt as though I came across as "teaching you to suck eggs" I certainly wasn't trying to do this at all. I was merely trying to be helpful as others reading may not know what we are on about.

And I know what Olicana is talking about, but I have not taken offense, far from it. I have learnt something new today from Olicana and will be looking into it with some diligence and careful reading. (thank you Olicana for the idea of file rotation).

And yes there are many points that are not definitive, but the beauty is discussing, sharing, expressing ones ideas freely and helping others – can't be bad things surely?

I think this has been an interesting discussion, so thanks to cytaylor's interesting post that sparked it off, and thanks to everyone else for the civilised tone of the comments.

No offence taken by me and none intended, I'm sure.

This has been a good discussion. The thing is, is that we have probably all read the same books. We have looked at the fence and the ground looks pretty shaky on both sides! So I, for one, am staying close the fence – just in case I want to hop over to the other side.

Marcus, no problem.