"Basing EIR Legionaries" Topic

I am about to base units of the above on multiple bases. Most gamers seem to have them closely packed. I'm aware that in earlier periods there was a 3 foot gap between each swordsman, on either side. Did this continue into 1st century AD?

What size figures?

It all depends on the rules you will be playing.

I use 40 mm bases, with 4 "15mm" figures to a base. To me this looks right and it means shields overlap a little, which would represent the " locking" of a shield wall. The gladius was a thrusting weapon, not a slashing one, so would be used in an "in/out" fashion for the most part (perhaps some side to side if attacking lower legs of opponents).

( above post deleted, as it had my name but not my words- got the good old " Lockfile" error when I posted.)

In my experience, it would be very difficult to thrust a gladius when your's and your adjacent ranker's shield overlapped more than an inch or two, you'd have to angle the shield inward on that side to thrust out.

I re-eanacted as an EIR legionaire for a while, and we usually aimed to just stlightly touch shields when we had what was termed "needlefelt" tactical combat with "nerfed" weapons. Our opponents were 1st century Briton re-enactors, who used to run and throw themselves on our shield wall to try and break our ranks. Then it would devolve into a thrust and shove with the shields kind of affair, that we inevitably won until they defeated us on the flanks (they "recycled" their dead after a minute or two of "dead time" and we did not). It was always just a matter of how long we could hold out. We only had a couple of dozen guys max per side, sometimes only a dozen or so per side.

We couldn't fight effectively with gaps between shields of more than an inch or two to either side, We usually tried to align as closely as possible with no significant overlap.

Cary Hocker

Thanks for responses so far. I wanted info based on historical actuality rather than gaming or basing compromises. So the consensus seems to be a a 'shield wall' type arrangement for EIR rather than each swordsman having his own 'space' in which to fight..?

Vegetius wrote about the 3 foot space didn't he (not sure whether it was a Roman or 'modern' foot)? He was 4th century although there was a suggestion that he rehashed earlier works;

"In the battle line, each man should have three feet of space, while the distance between the ranks is given as six feet.
Thus 10'000 men can be placed in a rectangle about 1'500 yards by twelve yards, and it was advised not to extend the line beyond that."

link

Some interesting comments in this regarding Polybius' calculations against a phalanx;

link

And finally, if I am not outstaying my welcome, I like this as a catch all of a number of opinions about the Roman army.

link

My take on that "3 foot" distance is that it is not BETWEEN 2 legionaries, but rather measured to either side with the center being on the man's head. In other words, it's length extends 18" from the center of the soldier's helmet to the shoulder edge of the man to either side of him.

In the 19th century (and to either side) it was calculated that a soldier took up 2 feet of space in line of battle. That was also measured side to side, and allowed for the soldiers to form and maneuver/fight at "touch of elbow". Now this was for men armed with muzzle-loading weapons. The men still had room to fight, especially if they rotated (as they did) partly to one side for loading and firing.

It should be the same with a Cohort, with that extra 6" to either side allowing for the left side of the shield, and for room to use the gladius. It is inferred that the legionary turned partly to one side as well, since even up to the EIR (and later) periods, some men and officers had a single greave on the left leg.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject. A soldier took up 24" from shoulder to shoulder, which leaves 12", divided into 6" on either side of his shoulders.