"Punic War era Roman infantry formations" Topic

Warlord Games states their reason for their structure of a 3-rank organization for Roman heavy infantry units bases in their new Epic game is that the Romans used a tight formation. Yet when I read history on the formations I read that Romans actually opened up their formations in the manipular organization compared to their previous phalangite organization so they could use their sword (Simon Elliott – Romans at War). I have read little on ancients and wonder what others think? Thank you for your input.

This might help:
link

Though I fear you may be opening a can of worms …

Thanks for the article MajorB. Interesting. I have taken a quick overview of it and will come back and read it carefully.

I am afraid you are probably right when you state, "Though I fear you may be opening a can of worms …" The reason for this is that there is so much about how the Roman system worked that we don't understand. How did the three acies actually operate? I notice that the author claims "that the intervals between the maniples were never fully close up.." I completely disagree with this assertion and find it hard to imagine the Roman Hastati battleline moving forward with gaps in the maniples.

I agree that I may have opened a can of worms and I do not want to disparage anyone. That is too easy to do here. I merely want to know the prevaling thought on the subject. I have studied enough on the Roman Republic and Empire and ancients in general (and many other eras, for that matter) that I feel nothing we know we really know for an absolute certainty. It could be a relative matter of closed versus open formations. The Romans were trained and drilled much more than other ancient armies. Relatively open versus relatively close maybe too difficult to differentiate. I appreciate input from members but not argument. MajorB, thanks for the link. It is interesting.

At Cannae the Romans were tightly packed once surrounded and unable to effectively use their weapons. To me, and I hasten to add, my opinion only, a legionary was trained to use their weapons offensively which would need wriggle room. As tightly packed as the lovely Epic figures are reminds me of a phalanx or a dark age shield wall not an offensive unit.

We could open the can of worms. I covered this topic in my book on battle formations in Antiquity, and we've touched on it recently (yet again!) on the SoA forum. Let me replicate a forum post:

I had a closer look at Livy 8:8. It's clear from the Latin that he is describing in layman's terms (he didn't have a military background) infantry in open order (the tacticians describe it more technically), with 4' wide gaps between the shoulders of the men in each file. This would allow men in the line in front to filter through the line behind them to the rear. Once the process was complete the line would immediately double files to intermediate order (the tacticians describe that too) and present a solid front to the enemy.

Deploying maniples in units with maniple-wide gaps between them would be suicide. Infantry always deployed in continuous lines, the one exception being squares/circles with all-round frontage, like the pike squares at Magnesia or the mediaeval/post-mediaeval pike blocks or the round Scottish schiltroms.

Here's the crucial passage from Livy, which is mistranslated and misunderstood by every single author I've read on the subject:

Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium. – History: 8.8.5.

The popular translation:

The first line, or hastati, comprised fifteen maniples, with short distances between [inter] them.

A word-for-word transliteration gives:

First line hastati were, maniples fifteen, standing-apart between/ among themselves small space.

First of all, the 'small spaces' are between/among the hastati, not the maniples, as the hastati are the subject of the sentence. Secondly, and more importantly, the word translated as 'between' – inter – has as its primary sense 'among" or 'within'. It's the root of the word 'internal'. So you have small gaps (not huge maniple-wide spaces) among the hastati, i.e. between the individual hastati files. It's obvious Livy is giving an amateur's description of open order which, as the tacticians describe, could be used to allow other infantry formations to move through an infantry line or even remain within it: 'interjection' or 'intercision'.

To clarify about the hastati being the subject of the sentence (easier just to copy posts and I'm lazy):

'Hastati' is the subject since 'distantes' applies to the hastati (plural) and not to the first line (singular). You could render the sentence as "The hastati were the first line and were composed of fifteen maniples, standing (the hastati) a small distance apart from each other." 'Fifteen maniples' qualifies 'hastati' so is not the direct subject though is part of it.

Incidentally, close order (which I suppose is what is meant by 'tight formation') was practised in that era only by the pike phalanx. Close order had 18" per file – the men being virtually shoulder-to-shoulder. Shields would overlap locking the men into place. They could move individually neither forwards nor backwards and they didn't need to since the phalanx operated as a solid block, advancing slowly with its hedgehog of spearpoints.

Legionaries deployed in intermediate order, 3 feet per file, which was wider than their shields (about 2 feet wide, perhaps a little more). This allowed the individual legionary to move back and forth, essential for his style of combat which involved swordplay with advances and recoils. Arrian affirms that when the pike phalanx deployed in close order, one legionary would fight two phalangites. Naturally he wouldn't do very well. The legion never defeated the phalanx provided the latter kept order.

You also have open order – 6 feet per file – but this wasn't a combat formation. It was used when a line was marching, enabling the files to work around terrain obstacles. It also allowed one body of men to insert itself within another and for one body of men to pass through another – which is how line relief worked.

I hadn't seen Justin's book for the simple reason that it wasn't available when I was building my republican Roman army but I find his comments above insightful, persuasive and sensible. They are a reminder of the axiom, 'History repeats itself, historians repeat historians.' There are no short cuts in writing good history; you must read the sources as originally written, translate them for yourself and justify the translation. If you can't do that you shouldn't be writing on the subject.

@Brunanburh

Ta for the thumbs up and I utterly agree with everything you say. Ancient military history is hard since you have to have a minimal grasp of at least Latin and Greek.

As an aside, sooner or later somebody is going to cite Zama as a refutation of my hypothesis. I'll reply to that when the time comes.

Are there any similar studies on Carthaginian formations?

Wow! Thank you all for your input, but especially Bolingar for your detailed information. You have all shown me how little I know but now have learned. Thank you!

I must say this finally (seems to) make sense of this topic; what he (Livy) is really saying then is that the Hastati fought in a somewhat "looser" order, which makes sense both for better use of their weapons, and the vexing "exchange of ranks".

Not really "Open Order", at least in the modern sense, but not in a very tight like a Hoplite or Phalangite. Was there any similar statement on the spacing of the men in the Triarii?

Thanks!

What is current thinking on hoplite formations when it comes to footage per man? I am thinking it is probably closer to Roman frontage than it is to pike formations.

I'm just getting into this – could someone please tell me the difference between hastati (I remember hasta as the Latin for spear). triarii, princeps and velites? Thanks in advance!

@Tomsurbiton
Velites – Skirmishers. Young and/or poor. Known for their wolf pelts. Screen the advancing army, then fall back.
Hastati – 1st rank of the Roman battle line. Youngest warriors. Typically armed with Pilum despite what the name implies.
Princeps – 2nd rank of the battle line. Warriors in the prime of life with best equipment. Originally armed with the long spear, but eventually moved over to the Pilum like the Hastati.
Triarii – 3rd rank, half the size of the Hastati/Princeps. Aging, veteran warriors. Last line of defense for the army. Armed with the long spear. Last remnant of the Greek style Hoplite.

@rustymusket:

Ta for the thumbs up. :-) I may as well warn you that my hypothesis doesn't accord with most authors on the topic since it rules out the quincunx in any form.

@Marcus Brutus:

Hoplites deployed in intermediate order, about 3 feet per file or the width of their shields. When they advanced they tended to contract to the right as each man sought protection behind the shield of the man on his right. This left a typical phalanx hundreds of meters shorter by the time it reached the enemy. It also meant that the right wing of a phalanx found itself encountering fresh air since its opponent had contracted away from it. This is how phalanxes generally won by outflanking the enemy's left.

@Tomsurburton:

Velites were lightly-armed troops: several javelins, a shield and a sword. They acted like peltasts, i.e. they were missile skirmishers but could fight in hand-to-hand combat at a pinch. They were the youngest men in the legion.

Hastati and Principes were armed with pila but also swords and shields, hence were capable of ranged combat but excelled in hand-to-hand fighting. Hastati were younger and less experienced than Principes.

Triarii were equipped with shields and spears and were meant to cover the retreat of the legion if the battle was lost. They were the oldest and most experienced men in the legion. Originally they were camp guards and later formed the third line of the Republican legion that was rarely required to fight in an actual battle.

Edit: Ran the Cid beat me to it.

As a precision, Velites didn't necessarily form the first line of a legion. They were attached to the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, which suggest they supplied missile support to the heavy infantry from the rear ranks (Livy doesn't mention them engaging the enemy before the Hastati did). They would deploy all in front only if facing a missile-heavy enemy like the Carthaginians at Cannae.

@Bolingar thanks your response in this thread has reminded me that I have your book in my Amazon wish list, and I have just one clicked it onto my Kindle! Cheers!

As to the topic I think Warlord is following what paints up easily and looks good on the table formula vs. historically accurate formations! Not really a criticism as some of their Epic lines do look really good on the table.

As an aside, sooner or later somebody is going to cite Zama as a refutation of my hypothesis. I'll reply to that when the time comes.

Zama totally refutes your hypothesis!

I have no idea how, I just want to see what you have to say about Zama.

@Yellow Admiral:

Nah, let them start quoting Polybius. Then I'll get stuck in.

As a precision, Velites didn't necessarily form the first line of a legion. They were attached to the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, which suggest they supplied missile support to the heavy infantry from the rear ranks (Livy doesn't mention them engaging the enemy before the Hastati did). They would deploy all in front only if facing a missile-heavy enemy like the Carthaginians at Cannae.

Another eccentric view Bolingar. Do you ever cease being a contrarian? The attachment of Velites to the battle infantry was likely administrative in the same way as the cavalry. But the broad evidence is that the Velites were deployed as an independent line during battle. Another clear example of this is the Battle of the Trebia. But with that said, can you give us an example of Velites providing missile support to the battle line?

Gentlemen, thank you for your kind and informative answers. Despite having studied Classics to degree level a half-century ago, I'm ashamed at my ignorance of Roman warfare! It was actually a bonus sprue of Roman auxiliaries included in an order of Napoleonic figures from Warlord that sparked an interest. Well, all roads lead to Rome, as they say…

@Brutus
Another eccentric view Bolingar. Do you ever cease being a contrarian?

So, what's next Brutus? Do we now cancel Bolinger because he does not conform to the views of the masses? Is your real name Hanny?

@Brutus
The attachment of Velites to the battle infantry was likely administrative in the same way as the cavalry.

Ok, if that is so, can you please provide proof.

Now, let's not get heated, please. Questions, OK, but not accusations, please! Remember: there is so little we concretely know about ancient history compared to later historical times and it is even hard to know about current times.

@The Trojan

It's a general rule that if an author from Antiquity describes a detail of a deployment it is probably something unusual, as the standard dispositions would already be known to their readership (not us unfortunately!) and hence wouldn't need any elaboration.

The Trebia and Cannae are two examples. In both the light-armed troops are all deployed in front, but it's made clear this is for a specific reason.

Trebia:
The Roman General Tiberius sent his cavalry and light foot ahead of the main army to engage Hannibal's Numidians. The cavalry eventually fell back since they couldn't close with the Numidian light horse, but the velites remained ahead to engage with Hannibal's own light troops:

As soon as Tiberius saw the Numidian horse approaching, he immediately sent out his cavalry by itself with orders to engage the enemy, and keep them in play, while he despatched after them six thousand foot armed with javelins, and got the rest of the army in motion
……..
Hannibal waited for the right moment to strike, and as soon as he saw that the Romans had crossed the Trebia, throwing out eight thousand spearmen [actually peltasts] and slingers to cover his advance, he led out his whole army.
……..
When the two forces came within distance, the lightarmed troops in front of the two armies closed with each other. – Polybius, 3:72

Cannae:
Livy describes the Roman deployment. Notice that he says where the Roman and Allied cavalry go and the slingers and lightarmed infantry, adding that the Roman infantry were deployed on the right and the Allied infantry on the left. This last was unusual since Roman legions normally deployed in the centre and Allied legions on the flanks. He doesn't describe where the hastati, principes and triarii go. Their deployment was standard and didn't need elaboration, whereas the placing of the cavalry, the Allied and Roman legions and the light foot – slingers together with velites – was specific to this battle.

Once across, they joined to their own the forces which they had kept in the smaller camp, and marshalled their battle-line as follows: on the right wing — the one nearer the river — they placed the Roman cavalry, and next them the Roman foot; the left wing had on the outside the cavalry of the allies; and nearer the centre, in contact with the Roman legions, the infantry of the allies. The slingers and other light-armed auxiliaries were formed up in front.

Follow? Standard stuff doesn't get mentioned. Unusual stuff does. The Romans concentrate their light troops ahead of the heavy infantry because the Carthaginians do it first:

As soon as it grew light Hannibal sent forward the Balearics and the other light infantry. – Livy, 22.46

The battle begins with the lights engaging each other:

When the battle shout was raised the auxiliaries ran forward, and the battle began with the light infantry. – Livy, 22.47.

The Romans have to screen their heavy foot from the Carthaginians slingers and peltasts and so use their slingers and velites to do the job.

Bolingar, you are responding to the wrong person.

Oh, right. Sorry.

To recap Polybius' description of the legion. The hastati, principes and triarii are organised into subunits with centurions, but the velites are simply attached to the units of heavy infantry:

The principes, hastati, and triarii, each elect ten centurions [ταξίαρχος – taxiarchos] according to merit, and then a second ten each. All these sixty have the title of centurion alike, of whom the first man chosen is a member of the council of war. And they in their turn select a rear-rank officer each who is called optio [οὐραγός – ouragos]. Next, in conjunction with the centurions, they divide the several divisions into ten companies [μέρος – meros] each, and appoint to each company two centurions and two optiones; the velites are divided equally among all the companies – Histories, 6:24

When Livy describes the functioning of the legion in battle, he goes into detail on how the hastati, principes and triarii fought, but never once mentions the velites. The battle begins with the hastati, not the velites:

When the battle formation of the army was completed, the hastati were the first to engage. If they failed to repulse the enemy, they slowly retired through the intervals between the companies of the principes who then took up the fight, the hastati following in their rear. The triarii, meantime, were resting on one knee under their standards, their shields over their shoulders and their spears planted on the ground with the points upwards, giving them the appearance of a bristling palisade. If the principes were also unsuccessful, they slowly retired to the triarii, which has given rise to the proverbial saying, when people are in great difficulty "matters have come down to the triarii." When the triarii had admitted the hastati and principes through the intervals separating their companies they rose from their kneeling posture and instantly closing their companies up they blocked all passage through them and in one compact mass fell on the enemy as the last hope of the army. – Histories, 8:8

Which clearly suggests that the velites (usually) operated as missile support for the heavy infantry lines. This missile support continued into the later Roman legion, with plumbarii showering the enemy with weighted darts from the rear ranks whilst the legionaries fought them from the front.

Incidentally, I don't mind in the least being told I'm a contrarian. For controversial discussions like this it's the name of the game.

I could be a stirrer and say that when someone starts getting personal I take it as a sign I'm winning since my interlocutor has run out of good arguments and has to try something else. But that would be a wicked thing to do. So I won't do it.

It's a general rule that if an author from Antiquity describes a detail of a deployment it is probably something unusual, as the standard dispositions would already be known to their readership (not us unfortunately!) and hence wouldn't need any elaboration.

Recognize that even if we accept your general rule that it can cut many ways. I would argue that the deployment of Velites as a skirmish line in front of Legion troops was standard operating procedure. It only got noted when it played a noteworthy feature in a battle. At Trebia the failure of the Velites in their battle against the Carthaginian skirmish line was part a general trend of Roman failure that included the cavalry, Allied Italian flanks and Mago's ambush and it was contributing factor to Roman defeat. That is why it is likely included in the narrative. In other battle skirmish lines engaging may have had no direct impact on the outcome.

Your analysis of Cannae is incorrect because you assume that "the slingers and the other light-armed auxiliaries" having anything to do with the Velites and related Italian skirmish infantry. Why do you presume this? I believe that there was small detachment of Cretan archers at Cannae. Would not they be the kind a light troops imagined in this description?

Which clearly suggests that the velites (usually) operated as missile support for the heavy infantry lines. This missile support continued into the later Roman legion, with plumbarii showering the enemy with weighted darts from the rear ranks whilst the legionaries fought them from the front.

I read through your quotes and find no evidence to support your claim that the Velites provided any kind of missile support to the front line battle infantry. In fact your quotes make no mention of the Velites. That means you assertion is a complete conjecture on your part.

On pg. 39 in "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" by Duncan Head he states, "The remaining 1,200 men are light infantry called velites, divided for administrative purposes among the manipuli." [that also answers Trojan's query]. Head states on pg.58, "Each legion (and probably each ala) deployed in three lines – four including the velites skirmishing in front." I use Duncan Head because he is probably an easy resource to access for many reading this discussion. I could have provided many others including Peter Connolly alongside scholarly work in this area.

As far as being a contrarian I mean it as descriptive marker. I remember asking one of my history profs whether a certain interpretation was possible and he responded by saying, "anything is possible. It is likely. No!" Is it possible that Bolingar is correct on this matter? Yes. Is it likely? No. I say that because what I am articulating here has broad agreement within the world of Roman military studies. His position stands against this opinion.

I am thinking, based on the above, I will base my light infantry 2 per small (2 hole base in Warlord's Epic world). That way I can put them (velites) between maniples for the Romans and as needed otherwise, also. I had always questioned the notion of the "checkerboard" formation since I thought the enemy would pierce the Roman line too easily. Since it is so widely stated, I assumed I did not fully understand it, which could be true based on what I have read here. Still, the velites as missile support to the hastati rather than a separate line, makes sense. Maybe both ways depending on tactical needs of the time makes the most sense. Is a resolution of this possible? …….

@Brutus:
"The remaining 1,200 men are light infantry called velites, divided for administrative purposes among the manipuli." [that also answers Trojan's query].

Sorry, it does not. Many modern historians use the term, "administrative" but I have yet to have this explained to me in detail as to what it actually means. Scholars also claim that the cohort is for administrative purposes, so how does this administrative purpose work in relation to the reference below?

In 298 BC, during the Third Samnite War, Frontinus (Stratagems 1 6 1) writes that in order to ambush his opponents, Fulvius Nobilior arrayed five cohorts of his bravest legion on the right side of the road, and five cohorts on the left.

My conclusion is the velites operated in many different ways. They could be arrayed in one body in front of the whole army, or they could be allocated to their centuries, or part of them worked in coordination with the cavalry. There are 60 centuries in a legion and when divided by the 1,200 velites, each century is allocated 20 velites. Therefore, the 10 centuries of triarii would be allocated 200 velites, bringing the total to 800 men (600 triarii and 200 velites). During the First Punic War, the consul Caius Junius Pullus' left a garrison of 800 men while he attacked Eryx. (Diodorus 24 1 10-11) Something to think about.

@Brutus:
I say that because what I am articulating here has broad agreement within the world of Roman military studies. His position stands against this opinion.

Have you ever thought that the whole of academia could be wrong? Just because the masses follow the same rhetoric, does not mean they are right. The Wright brothers, after many failures, came to the conclusion that everything written about aerodynamics was wrong, and went in their own direction. How did that end up?

Millions followed Hitler, were they right? Catholics think their god is the true god, other religions disagree. Having millions follow a particular religion does not mean their religion is the right one. Much of humanity are just followers, they follow the doctrine with the most supporters. Most people need to be told what to think and how to act. They cannot act alone and have no critical thinking ability, which also applies to many modern academics, whom follow the beliefs of the generation of historians before them. Lipsus wrote the first book on the Roman legion in 1596, and nothing has changed to this day. The same theories given by Lipsus are still in circulation to this day. Academia claims that Polybius is the most reliable of the ancient historians, but where is the conclusive study that proves this? There isn't one, it's just another unsupported claim followed by the masses. Academia has failed to understand the ancient historians and that is why today, nobody truly understands what a cohort is.

Varro (The Latin Language 5 88) defines a cohort as a grouping of maniples. Notice that Varro does not state how many maniples are in a cohort. That is because it varies, as shown in these examples:

In 464 BC, during an engagement between the Romans and the Volscians, Dionysius (9 63) mentions that two cohorts not exceeding 1,000 men made a sortie against the Volscians.

In 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69-71) states that four cohorts numbering 600 men were stationed in front of Rome.

In 446 BC, Dionysius has a cohort of 800 volunteers.

So, we have around 500 men in a cohort, or 600 men or 800 men. All academics do is see these as contradictions and because they do not understand what is going on, Dionysius gets castigated. However, during the principate, those varying cohorts get mentioned by their correct name, and that is vexillation, ordo, and numerus. Later, tagmata and arithmoi.

Also, you will find no academic study that tries to determine what those varying cohorts consisted of. In fact, to all those who only read scholarly works, there is tonnes of data that academics pass over. Has any academic tried to explain why the Romans describe their history in the life of a man? The Romans claim that in their infancy they fought their neighbours, in their youth they conquered Italy, in their manhood they conquered the world, and in their old age, they gave the expire to the Caesars to maintain. I have found only one academic who spoke of this, and all he said was it was "cryptic."

Academics cannot understand Vegetius' numbers, but fail the realise that Vegetius is describing the legion when in camp, and when in camp, the legion's camp organisation has 12 cohorts, and not 10 cohorts, so academia ends up with the stupid double first cohort theory. Oh no, you say, how could the Romans change from 10 cohorts to 12 cohorts? Why would they do such a thing? Well, for one, the Romans are not interested in conforming to your sensibilities. They did what was right for them.

In 406 BC, in defiance of senate's pressure for a declaration of war against Veii, Livy (4 58) has the tribunes of the people asked the veterans how many campaigns they had undertaken and what blood was still left for them to shed for the State. Livy Polybius also discusses military service, so why haven't academics written about how men of varying military service are arrayed in the centuries, maniples and cohorts of the legion?

@Brutus:
I use Duncan Head because he is probably an easy resource to access for many reading this discussion. I could have provided many others including Peter Connolly alongside scholarly work in this area.

I give Bolingar a pat on the back for studying the works of the ancient historians and questioning them. In doing so, Bolingar has placed himself in a better position to arrive at a more informed understanding rather than digesting the views of a modern scholar, whom is only looking for information to support his precise theory, while rejecting any information that refutes his precise theory. One has only to read through all the academic journals to know this.

I remember one paper (Sumner I think) that claimed in 366 BC, the Roman army amounted to 6,000 men, and was then divided into two legions each of 3,000 men, which later increased to 4,200 men with the addition of the 1,200 velites. Well, there is enough evidence to refute this theory, including the mention of four legions of 4,000 men being levied in around 380 BC, which the author fails to mention. There are so many examples like this, if information gets in the way of your theory, you ignore it or claim the ancient author has made a mistake, or were incompetent. Oh no, it couldn't be that your theory was wrong.

Because poor Bolingar does not confirm to popular opinion does not make him wrong. And that is the problem with the masses, confirm or be stoned. Is Bolingar right or wrong? For me, he is right in many aspects and wrong in many others. But alas, I won't be able to show all the evidence until I am published.

Thanks for the support, Trojan. Personal criticism really doesn't bother me as I think it inevitable in a controversial discussion.

There's a current thread on this topic over at the SoA forum including Duncan Head and myself, which has obliged to change my mind somewhat.

First, velites only started existing at the siege of Capua in 211, when they were equipped with shields as well as javelins. Before that they were the more lightly-armed iaculatores, pretty much the same thing as the earlier leves. The iaculatores were ahead of the lines at Cannae and supported the cavalry in their pursuit of the Numidian LH at the Trebbia. They also fought with the Roman cavalry at the Ticinus. Velites effectively were leves/iaculatores upgraded to peltasts, able to fight in hand-to-hand combat at a pinch.

Duncan mentioned Telamon, and reading through Polybius I came across this interesting passage:

"But when the javelineers [ἀκοντιστής] advanced, as is their usage, from out of the Roman legions [ἐκ τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν στρατοπέδων κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν] and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament." – Histories, 2:30.1

ἐκ means "from out of", i.e. that the javelineers were originally within the legions and advanced out of them to engage the Gauls. This ties in neatly with Polybius' affirmation that the velites (or earlier iaculatores) were split among the three lines of a legion, however they could advance ahead of the legion (or join up with the cavalry) as circumstances dictated. But their default deployment was not a separate line ahead of the HI.

However, Polybius states that advancing ahead of the HI was a customary thing for the LI. So they start up within the ranks of the HI but move ahead of them once the battle starts as a standard practice. This looks like a classic case of parentaxis – the insertion of LI files between the files of HI:

"Sometimes they [the light infantry and peltasts] are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites; but the incorporation of like arms, such as hoplites beside hoplites or light infantry beside light infantry — the reason for this will be discussed later — is not called insert-position, but rather interjection (parembole)." – Asklepiodotus, Tactics: 6.1.

"Doubling of men, then, takes place by length when we interject or insert between the original files other files of equal strength, maintaining all the while the length of the phalanx, so that a compact order arises only from the doubling of the men; doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth. The difference between insertion and interjection has been explained before." – Ibid. 10.17

The reason for parentaxis is clear: it permits the LI to form up with the HI in such a way that they can advance ahead of the HI and later fall back quickly and with order through the file spaces of the HI behind them, then take up position behind the HI files to supply rear-rank missile support. The manuals in action!

First, velites only started existing at the siege of Capua in 211, when they were equipped with shields as well as javelins.

That is not exactly accurate. This is Livy's claim. That seems to me not likely at all. But in any event Velites obviously were an evolution from an earlier form of skirmisher. A new improved version so to speak.

"But when the javelineers [ἀκοντιστής] advanced, as is their usage, from out of the Roman legions [ἐκ τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν στρατοπέδων κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν]

I question your interpretation of this passage. I will have to review the full context but στρατοπέδων does not refer typically to Roman legions specifically but most likely to the Roman camp or perhaps the Roman deployment. In that case it would completely expected that the skirmish line would move out from the deployed battleline as the battle began to unfold. The army would deploy and then the skirmish line would advance out from it to engage the enemy.

But their default deployment was not a separate line ahead of the HI.

I don't think you can make any inference from this feature of deployment exactly the relationship between the LI and the HI. I think it is quite reasonable to argue that the LI deployed with the the army and then moved out as a separate line as the battle began. The phrase κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν which means "according to custom/practice" is quite decisive in this. This was not a one off decision. The LI moving out from the initial deployment to become a new line of battle was the standard operating procedure of Roman tactics of the time.

@Marcus Brutus

That is not exactly accurate. This is Livy's claim. That seems to me not likely at all.

That is exactly accurately Livy's affirmation. If you want to discount Livy go ahead, but it would help to have some primary source evidence for doing so.

I question your interpretation of this passage. I will have to review the full context but στρατοπέδων does not refer typically to Roman legions specifically but most likely to the Roman camp or perhaps the Roman deployment.

Polybius uses στρατόπεδον in the sense of a legion:

ἔστι δὲ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις τὰ πάντα τέτταρα στρατόπεδα Ῥωμαϊκὰ χωρὶς τῶν συμμάχων

"The Romans have four legions of Roman citizens in all apart from the allies" – Histories, 1:16.2

I don't think you can make any inference from this feature of deployment exactly the relationship between the LI and the HI. I think it is quite reasonable to argue that the LI deployed with the the army and then moved out as a separate line as the battle began. The phrase κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν which means "according to custom/practice" is quite decisive in this. This was not a one off decision. The LI moving out from the initial deployment to become a new line of battle was the standard operating procedure of Roman tactics of the time.

Sure. This is what I said. I go to the tacticians to try and form a clearer idea of exactly how it was done.

@Bolingar:
Thanks for the support, Trojan. Personal criticism really doesn't bother me as I think it inevitable in a controversial discussion.

There are so many examples in history of the lone voice being right and the masses being wrong. People need to remember that.

@Bolingar:
There's a current thread on this topic over at the SoA forum including Duncan Head and myself, which has obliged to change my mind somewhat.

And that is what makes a good historian, one who can see that they could be wrong. I like to think that my understanding of the Roman legion is in a state of flux, forever changing and fluid, and not stuck in concrete, which alas, is the problem with many.

This impacted on me this week when I had to rethink some aspects of the Roman legion relating to property class and each property classes age bracket. In 450 BC, Livy comments on a citizen serving for 27 years, or more correctly, participated in 27 campaigns. This reference has been a thorn in my side for some time. The military age from 18 to 46 years spans 28 years, so Livy's soldier fits such a span. With each property class allocated a specific age bracket, I could not work out how this worked. Then I worked out the Roman stipulation in wealth for each property class must be different from the property stipulations of the legion's property class system. The citizen property class is based on size of property ownership, the legions is based on the fiscal wealth of the property class in relation to the war tax, and not the property value. After 312 BC, this left the door open to the aerarii to enlist in the army.

@Bolingar:
First, velites only started existing at the siege of Capua in 211, when they were equipped with shields as well as javelins.

Polybius (1 33) makes a reference to velites in his account of the battle of Bagradas in 255 BC. If memory serves me correctly, does not Livy use the term velites at the battle of the Trebbia in 218 BC, in Spain in 216 BC and during the siege of Syracuse in 214 BC.

In 207 BC, in an engagement against Hannibal, Livy (27 41) has the Roman commander Nero, order five cohorts and five maniples to take up position on the reverse slope in order to set a trap against the Carthaginians. During this action, the cohorts occupying the crest of a hill and charging downhill. At Zama, in 202 BC, Polybius (15 13) mentions cohorts of hastati. Returning to 207 BC, those five cohorts charging downhill are most likely hastati, accompanied by five maniples of velites. I have dug up more examples of the velites being organised into their own maniples and even cohorts. After all, Polybius does say the velites had their own officers, which I believe are the optiones taken from those specific troops types the velites belong to (hastati, princeps or triarii).

Vegetius (3 16) states that if the Roman cavalry were outnumbered, it was custom to mix the velites with the cavalry by placing one veles (singular) between two horses. I have found that there are two types of velites, of which some are trained to operate with cavalry. During the battle of Cirta in 203 BC, in order to prevent Syphax's numerical cavalry from overwhelming the Roman cavalry and the cavalry of Masinissa, Livy (30 11 9) has the Roman light infantry ran out between the Roman cavalry who had made way for them.

At Ilipa in 206 BC, Polybius (11 23 1-9) has Scipio's outflanking forces consist of "three troops of horse…the usual number of velites and three maniples (this body of infantry the Romans call a cohort)." Polybius' reference to the usual number of velites indicates a prearranged number of velites per troop of cavalry had been established, with Scipio following the Roman military doctrine in this situation.

@Bolingar:
Before that they were the more lightly-armed iaculatores, pretty much the same thing as the earlier leves.

I have found a period in which the Roman legion did not have any light infantry capability. This function was left to the youngest of the hastati. However, overtime, the Romans found this arrangement was not satisfactory, and introduced a true skirmish infantry.

@Bolingar:
ἐκ means "from out of", i.e. that the javelineers were originally within the legions and advanced out of them to engage the Gauls.

Yes, I agree, within the legion, but also operated out of the legion, depending on the tactical situation. Each troop type was allocated their own number of velites, so those velites that were first to engage belonged to the hastati. Therefore, those velites that belonged to the princeps and triarii could be fed in when needed. Personally, I believe the velites allocated to the different troop types were also used to protect their troops during line relief.

@Bolingar:
This ties in neatly with Polybius' affirmation that the velites (or earlier iaculatores) were split among the three lines of a legion, however they could advance ahead of the legion (or join up with the cavalry) as circumstances dictated.

The three lines of the legion! Imagine if that was just a writer's description, and was not actually historical. Think about that for a moment. There is a lot of material that scholars have not questioned, and just accept at face value.

@Bolingar:
However, Polybius states that advancing ahead of the HI was a customary thing for the LI. So they start up within the ranks of the HI but move ahead of them once the battle starts as a standard practice. This looks like a classic case of parentaxis – the insertion of LI files between the files of HI……Asklepiodotus, Tactics: 6.1.

I have found that involving Greek military doctrine as a method to understand Roman military doctrine to be disastrous. For me, the Roman infantry operate by rank, and not file, and the Roman cavalry operate by rank and by century. However, forming column of march, it could be debated that the cavalry operated by file.

@Bolingar:
The reason for parentaxis is clear: it permits the LI to form up with the HI in such a way that they can advance ahead of the HI and later fall back quickly and with order through the file spaces of the HI behind them, then take up position behind the HI files to supply rear-rank missile support. The manuals in action!

I am a strong believer in those velites allocated to their specific troops type (hastati, princeps or triarii), throwing missiles over the ranks of their allocated heavy infantry. It would certainly make melee rather stressful; I would imagine.

But how many velites are there in a legion? Polybius' numbers for the hastati, princeps and triarii add up to 3,000 men, and when deducted from his figure of 4,200 infantry for a legion, this would mean there were 1,200 velites. But is this right?

Polybius (21 7-8) claims that "they choose the youngest and poorest to form the velites; the next to them are made hastati; those in the prime of life principes; and the oldest of all triarii, these being the names among the Romans of the four classes in each legion distinct in age and equipment."

Taking Polybius literally, four property classes make a legion of velites, hastati, princeps and triarii. Let's look at this with a different approach, that is using the Servian constitution, which has 85 centuries of juniors:

40 centuries Class I
10 centuries Class II
10 centuries Class III
10 centuries Class IV
15 centuries Class V

Therefore, Classes I to IV have 70 centuries, or 7,000 men. Now if we divided the Servian constitution by 100, a century should have 70 men, consisting of:

40 men Class I
10 men Class II
10 men Class III
10 men Class IV

The 70 men divided by 4,200 infantry in Polybius' legion means there are 60 centuries in the legion each of 70 men. According to Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 16 4) a legion had 60 centuries. This would break down to:

40 Class I x 60 centuries = 2,400 men
10 Class II x 60 centuries = 600 men
10 Class III x 60 centuries = 600 men
10 Class IV x 60 centuries = 600 men

If the velites are suppose to be the youngest and the poorest, and with Class IV being poorer than Classes I to III, then we only have 600 velites. My conclusion is Polybius has made a major mistake somewhere within his legion calculations.

Polybius uses στρατόπεδον in the sense of a legion:
ἔστι δὲ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις τὰ πάντα τέτταρα στρατόπεδα Ῥωμαϊκὰ χωρὶς τῶν συμμάχων

"The Romans have four legions of Roman citizens in all apart from the allies" – Histories, 1:16.2

I see Bolingar that you are using the Loeb English translation. Loeb is notorious for mistranslations. With that said, you've raised an interesting matter that I want to research further. I have Walbank's 3 volume commentary on Polybius Histories which I will consult and get back to you on.

"If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door"

Nah, if you can provide video evidence of Roman military formations and tactics (and shield insignia while we are at it) the wargame world will anoint you.

A very interesting series of responses/questions/arguments.

Having looked at various sources I am satisfied that Bolingar is correct is asserting that when Polybius uses στρατόπεδα in reference to Roman forces he means the legions. I am curious about why he chose this term rather than say tagmata or using a Latin loan word like "legon". Is it possible that the actual term "legion" has not yet come into Roman use? Don't know but maybe someone else does.

With that said, I don't think it really impacts one way or the other on how to understand Roman skirmish practice during the 3rd century but it is another interesting learning moment for me.

If the velites are suppose to be the youngest and the poorest, and with Class IV being poorer than Classes I to III, then we only have 600 velites. My conclusion is Polybius has made a major mistake somewhere within his legion calculations.

Don't know about whether Polybius made a mistake but I do know, from gaming experience, that the Romans have too much LI if we go with 1200 Velites per legion. I always cut it in half from a practical point of view.

I play a miniatures ruleset called Magna Acies! written by an Italian author Stefano Izzo. The battles are at the grand tactical level, but the way skirmishers are used seems to coincide with Bolingar's views on the topic. Skirmishers are typically paired with an infantry division (or in certain armies, a cavalry division). They are usually positioned in front of the infantry division before melee with the ability to shoot as opportune. When melee commences, the skirmishers move to the rear of the division and provide missile support during the melee.

Stefano has written a few books on ancient military tactics (all in Italian), and in the big scheme of things, has come to the same conclusion as Bolingar regarding the manner in which skirmishers were generally used, starting at the end of the third century BCE. My games using his ruleset do not typically involve lines of infantry skirmishers running independently around the battlefield, like one might see with other rulesets.

Wow! Love the back and forth and find it very interesting the depth of discussion. Which versions of Livy and Polybius would you guys recommend for someone wanting to get into the weeds like you?

Can you read Koine Greek. If so then the Loeb edition is probably what you are looking for. There is Greek on one side and English on the other. This is a multi-volume set and you can probably get a used copy through bookfinder.com

link

If the answer is no then I think any English translation will probably work like the one below.

link