"Roman unit frontages" Topic

I have been looking at a few sources and in particular at Wallace McLeod and "The Range of the Ancient Bow" (1965). It's mostly about what you'd expect, but he talks about frontages in relation to archery ranges quite a bit.

What McLeod is trying to do is work out bow ranges from unit frontages using primary sources to do so:

…the evidence suggests that bowmen were quite accurate up to 50-60 metres; that their effective range extended at least 160-175 metres, but not as far as 350-450 metres; and that 500 metres was an exceptional flight shot….the same interval [160 to 175 metres] is described first as a bowshot, and then as equivalent in frontage to 150 horsemen. A horseman occupies a space three feet broad and eight feet long (Strat. 9.5 pp. 227-228). Thus the bowshot corresponds to 450 feet (133 metres). This distance is far below what one would expect from the ancient evidence. In fact the reliability of the figure has been impugned on the ground that a knight needs more room than three feet. Something like 1.50 metres is more reasonable; the [something in Greek; from the context, "standard bowshot", probably] would accordingly rise to 225 metres.

He also says:

…according to the Syll. Tact., 150 horsemen are equivalent to 50 fathoms (46.4, 15); again, an infantryman or a cavalryman occupies 1 fathom of frontage while on the march, ½ fathom when an attack is expected, and only 1/3 fathom when battle is joined (43.6-7; cf. 47.6)….depending on the value chosen for the fathom, the [effective range] will vary between 290 metres and 335 metres…

(In the above extracts, he cites three sources. One, abbreviated to Syll. Tact, is either Leo's 'Tactica', aka Sylloge Tactica Graecis – "Greeks' Tactical Principles", or the later 'Sylloge Tacticorum quae olim ‘inedita Leonis tactica' dicebatur' – "Principles of Tactics, formerly called Leo's unpublished ‘Tactics'". I am having a bit of trouble tracing exactly what these are. The other source is Strategemata, which is Frontinus).

I am to some extent trying to do the opposite to McLeod – to figure out from bow ranges what frontage and depth would be occupied by a footsoldier with a shield and a sword who may need to chuck a pilum while in rank. My thinking is that if one deems a Roman army to be about four legions plus similar numbers of auxiliaries, then one's tabletop needs to accommodate the equivalent of eight legions, so this would give you a ground scale.

On this the sources he cites are very interesting. Frontinus reckons 150 horsemen occupied a yard each. Leo reckons 150 horsemen occupy 50 "fathoms", i.e. one fathom each on the march, two-thirds closed up for battle and one-third of a fathom in combat. But notably, he also says these frontages are the same for infantry.

In a way this figures. A swordsman's frontage could surely have been not a lot less than a horseman, otherwise how does he swing his sword? Or is it more likely that the frontage would have about the same as the width of his shield?

What do other sources say, does anyone have any good ones?

A 'standard' Republican Roman army was two legions, plus the equivalent of two more of Italian Allies etc.

I could be wildy off the mark, but I believe the gladius was intended for stabbing, not waving about, so space to 'swing a sword' wasn't required.

If a fathom here was similar to a modern fathom, then a legionary would per Leo have a two-foot frontage in battle. This is shoulder to shoulder and also close to modern estimates of the width of a scutum.

The other source is Strategemata, which is Frontinus

I don't think so – his "Strat." is Maurikios' Strategikon, not Frontinus' Stratagemata. See link for the Dennis translation.

The two classic sources for the space occupied by a Roman infantryman are of course Polybius and Vegetius.

I always thought the Roman fighting technique was open order for throwing pilum prior to contact then close order for contact,(attempting to unbalance opponent, punching with the boss of the scutum) once in melee, the Legionary crouches down, lifts up with his scutum, raising his opponents arms and sword leaving his chest area vulnerable and then stabs with the gladius. Move forwards and repeat…

The Imperial meat grinder..

The pilum chucking is an interesting one. I would be surprised if the average person today could throw one further than maybe ten yards (based on plausible range for throwing a modern hand grenade). A trained soldier might manage more, but then again, encumbered by armour and by being in a formation, maybe not much more. Even if we take a very generous twenty yards as the maximum pilum range, then the rear ranks of an eight-deep formation must have been throwing their pila into the backs of their own front rank.

The only way I can see this working is if the front ranks threw their pila and closed with the enemy and the back ranks threw theirs after this had occurred, i.e. they threw missiles forward into the melee in front of them.

For those that haven't seen this, it's a video from several years ago showing riot training by the South Korean Police.

The way they swap out the front ranks for the rear and also open up gaps for charges from the rear ranks is a glimpse into what Roman legionary tactics could have been like.

YouTube link

Missiles were thrown at the start of battle so I would imagine the front ranks threw theirs and either they then rotated out so the rear ranks could move up and throw theirs or the rear ranks held onto theirs for a volley later when the front ranks were more compressed and so a volley could be thrown over the top of them relatively safely.

One thing in regards frontages, I would think that the flat shields carried by the Celts and others when overlapped creating a shield wall would create a more compressed space than the Romans with their curved shields standing alone and not overlapping. So the Romans possibly had more room to move compared to their Celtic adversaries who were more bunched up.

"This video is restricted" ….

It's probably one of the better videos on YouTube , too.

I didn't notice that, it's age restricted. I wonder why? Maybe it's flagged that way because riot is used in the title.

The Greek tactical manuals have frontages of 6, 3, and 1/1/2 feet for infantry with 3 feet the normal for close order infantry. Cavalry is on a six foot frontage per horse and rider. Polybius in describing the difference between the Macedonian phalanx and the Roman Legion in his Histories notes that five ranks of sarissa would be projecting in front and that there were two files facing each Roman infantryman. He does not state whether the Macedonians were on a 3 foot or 1 1/2 foot frontage

Thanks, that's interesting.

My thinking here is that if I were developing a set of rules for this era, I would want the table to be able to accommodate a multi-legion army in the correct frontage and depth.

So something like

Century: one figure, representing 80 men in 10 files and 8 ranks
Cohort: 6 of the above abreast, taking up probably 9 to 12cm of width using 20mm figs
Legion: in 3/4/3 formation, 84cm wide

So on an 8-foot table, you could line three such legions up abreast, and the depths would also be correct.

The cohort's 60-man frontage would be 60 yards. Whatever that comes out as with the figures chosen, that distance becomes 60 yards and is also about what the unit would have covered in a minute. Bowshot is then one Cohort Width…and so on.

I'm deliberately trying not to read any ancients rules….