I was interested by Justin Swanton's take on Roman 'line relief' in Slingshot 305. I know this is a topic that has been done to death (the article seems to have risen from a 20 page, two year thread in this forum) and there's no point the same half dozen people chewing over the same few hundred words of evidence over and over again, so I don't really want to re-open that debate. I also know that meta-discussions about historical method tend to get nowhere either so approach this with some trepidation - but I did just want to comment on the translation issues touched on in the article.
I agree with Justin that it's wise not to trust translations entirely - especially on specific technical terms (particularly weapons - pike, lance, dart etc). It's always good to look at the original language and make sure the translation represents it fairly. But in the case of this article there were a couple of unwarranted departures from the usual translations.
One was the treatment of 'inter' - the distinction made between 'between' and 'among' was wrong (IMHO) - 'inter' can mean 'among' in the sense of 'in the midst of' but that wouldn't make sense in the context of 'standing apart in the midst of themselves a small space' - the usual translation has always been 'between' for the simple reason that it is correct. Now I agree it could be ambiguous as to whether the 'between' is 'between maniples' or 'between (individual) Hastati' but the context makes it clear enough to me that 'between maniples' is meant - as every translator has always agreed. Justin's conclusion (on the following two extracts, 'in intervalla ordinum') that "It is just about possible to stretch the sense of these two extracts to mean gaps between one maniple and the next, but that goes against the primary and most obvious meaning of the Latin" is, at the least, overstating the case. The most that could be said is that it is ambiguous.
The second point was 'diastema' in Polybius' account of Zama - this is quite a common word in Polybius and though I haven't checked every occurrence, I believe it's true to say it always means 'interval' or similar (in Polybius). That it might exceptionally mean 'dimension' on this one occasion, just a sentence after it is used in its normal sense, seems to me exceedingly unlikely.
So interesting article but I thought the case on these two points was overstated which tended to undermine rather than strengthen the overall argument.
But has the conventional rendering of these terms (usually by people with no real idea of classical military practice) been self-perpetuating through inertia rather than accuracy? To assert that dictionaries have always maintained that a word means something does not mean the dictionary interpretation is necessarily correct - or necessarily wrong - and is not in itself any form of proof.
I would look instead for contextual evidence, especially from re-creating the deployments and manoeuvres in question. If one attempts this, it is quite plain that the traditional maniple-gap-maniple or century-gap-century approach is fraught with problems which an aggressive opponent would rapidly render insoluble. Justin's solution may or may not have the answers, but it is at least an attempt to address rather than ignore the problems, and to my mind has a solid basis in military feasibility.
I wasn't involved in the original discussion so hopefully I can bring a new dimension to the subject ;)
The whole Triple Line/checkerboard thing has always struck me as highly bizarre, for many of the logistical reasons mentioned in Justin's article. (Equally bizarre was this supposed division of troop types by age. Why by age? Why put the least experienced troops in the front line? Did a soldier get an entire new panoply when he hit 25 and another one when he hit 35? Who provided the equipment? What if there were a few decades of peace and therefore no one qualified to act as Triarii or Principes?)
Anyway back to the Quincunx, regardless of the nuances of translation, Justin's model just seems to make more logical sense, both from the point of view of ease of manouvre and not leaving huge gaps for the enemy to exploit.
I do think, however, that the passage on Zama is more difficult to explain away and I'm not sure I buy Justin's explanation, or maybe just didn't understand it.
Hello Patrick:
Quote
But has the conventional rendering of these terms (usually by people with no real idea of classical military practice) been self-perpetuating through inertia rather than accuracy?
No :o
Quote
To assert that dictionaries have always maintained that a word means something does not mean the dictionary interpretation is necessarily correct - or necessarily wrong - and is not in itself any form of proof.
No, but the dictionary definitions have been worked out by people who a) have a very good command of the language and b) know a lot about ancient history. If you are going to throw them away, you have to be very very certain you can do better, and in this case I don't think that is the case. Anyway I don't think Justin is changing the dictionary interpretation, but using the wrong dictionary interpretation. It's easy to look up a word on Perseus, see a list of meanings, and pick one that fits your own theory - easy, but a bad idea.
Quote
I would look instead for contextual evidence, especially from re-creating the deployments and manoeuvres in question. If one attempts this, it is quite plain that the traditional maniple-gap-maniple or century-gap-century approach is fraught with problems which an aggressive opponent would rapidly render insoluble. Justin's solution may or may not have the answers, but it is at least an attempt to address rather than ignore the problems, and to my mind has a solid basis in military feasibility.
Well, it is self-evidently not 'quite plain', or it wouldn't have fuelled a 20 page discussion in the first place (and a 100+ year discussion in the real world beyond SoA). Sure, Justin's solution may be feasible and I have nothing against his theory (though I'm not convinced by it) - we don't have any sure way to judge feasibility is such cases. To me Justin's model seems little more probable than the 'standard model' (which I agree is full of problems - I have my own theories which I expounded in a 2011 Slingshot (276?)). So construct theories by all means and compare and contrast and find feasible or otherwise, but don't rewrite the evidence in order to match the theory. That way madness lies.
I say all this with some reservations as I have an article forthcoming rewriting the interpretation of - oh yes - othismos, and doing some of the things I'm lecturing against here, so that should be fun.
Quote from: eques on May 04, 2016, 11:31:28 AM
(Equally bizarre was this supposed division of troop types by age. Why by age? Why put the least experienced troops in the front line?
There are a number of age division recruitment systems, so it clearly wasn't considered particularly odd in the past. However, I believe the Roman one is about fitness and endurance. The young may be less skilled but they have the energy either smash the enemy or blunt their frenzied attack. If needs be, older skilled men are on hand to continue the fight when the youth are spent in a more deliberate, grinding fashion. If it really comes down to it, a bunch of seniors who have done it all before will crush the now exhausted foe, who didn't have the sense to plan the long game.
Quote from: RichT on May 04, 2016, 12:44:32 PM
It's easy to look up a word on Perseus, see a list of meanings, and pick one that fits your own theory - easy, but a bad idea.
To be fair, he didn't really do that, because he provided some other examples from Classical texts of where "inter" was used to express "among"
When it comes to the feasibility of battle lines with sizeable gaps between its component parts I do not think we should be so sceptical as to its practicality. The chequerboard formation was common in the 17th century, as shown by de Gomme's and Lumsden's battle plans from the ECW. There have been many discussions as to the size of these gaps, but little questioning their existence. They have a number of advantages, not least the ease with which front line units, formed or broken, can retire behind their supports. They are particularly of value against armies which are organised and drilled, where breaking the line is frowned on for the opportunities it offers ones enemies. What the chequer board provides is a potent threat against any unit which might penetrate the gaps in the front line, that it would itself be hit in the flank.
I found the article interesting, and have spent some time pondering it. At present I would put it in the Scottish category of "not proven"!
It's been a while since we had a good old debate, and some topics are perennial, so why not?
Quote from: RichT on May 03, 2016, 10:55:30 PMOne was the treatment of 'inter' - the distinction made between 'between' and 'among' was wrong (IMHO) - 'inter' can mean 'among' in the sense of 'in the midst of' but that wouldn't make sense in the context of 'standing apart in the midst of themselves a small space' - the usual translation has always been 'between' for the simple reason that it is correct.
I agree that the usual translation has always been 'between' - as I mention in the article - but this I suspect is due to a vicious circle: academic opinion has favoured 'between', which has prompted translators to use 'between', which has reinforced academic opinion, and so on.
The point about line relief is that one doesn't need a vast amount of academic erudition to resolve it, just a good grasp of Latin and a willingness to think outside the box.
Re the Latin sentence:
Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium, the subject of the sentence is the hastati, not the maniples, hence the
distantes - a present participle that agrees in case with the subject - would in the most natural reading refer to the hastati. The sentence is thus best rendered: "The first line were the hastati, in fifteen maniples, who stood a small distance apart from each other." Translating the
inter se as maniple-wide gaps between one maniple and the next not only forces the Latin IMHO but also makes nonsense of the "
small space."
Quote from: RichT on May 03, 2016, 10:55:30 PMJustin's conclusion (on the following two extracts, 'in intervalla ordinum') that "It is just about possible to stretch the sense of these two extracts to mean gaps between one maniple and the next, but that goes against the primary and most obvious meaning of the Latin" is, at the least, overstating the case.
Not really.
In intervalla ordinum means exactly what it says: "in the gaps of the companies". If the gaps were meant to be between one company and the next then one would expect the writer at least to use an expression like:
in intervalla inter ordines presuming
inter means "between" (which it may not thus still leaving the corrected phrase ambiguous). As it stands, the expression refers to gaps belonging to the companies themselves, not gaps that are outside the internal structure of the companies. To opt for the latter sense is to force the Latin.
Quote from: RichT on May 03, 2016, 10:55:30 PMThe second point was 'diastema' in Polybius' account of Zama - this is quite a common word in Polybius and though I haven't checked every occurrence, I believe it's true to say it always means 'interval' or similar (in Polybius). That it might exceptionally mean 'dimension' on this one occasion, just a sentence after it is used in its normal sense, seems to me exceedingly unlikely.
Diastema does not in its overarching and generic sense mean 'interval'. It means a distinct and separate extension in space which may or may not be occupied by an object. It comes from διίστημι - "diistemi" - meaning to set apart, to place separately, to separate. Here is the complete entry from LSJ:
I.to set apart, to place separately, separate, Thuc., Dem.
2.to set one at variance with another, τινά τινος Ar., Thuc.; δ. τὴν Ἑλλάδα to divide it into fractions, Hdt.
II.Mid. and Pass., with aor2, perf., and plup. act., to stand apart, to be divided, Il.; θάλασσα διΐστατο the sea made way, opened, id=Il.; τὰ διεστεῶτα chasms, Hdt.
2.of persons, to stand apart, be at variance, Il., Thuc.; διέστη ἐς ξυμμαχίαν ἑκατέρων sided with one or the other party, id=Thuc.:—simply to differ, be different, Xen.
3.to part after fighting, Hdt.
4.to stand at certain distances or intervals, id=Hdt.; of soldiers, δ. κατὰ διακοσίους Thuc.
III.aor1 mid. is trans. to separate, Plat., Theocr.
Taking a closer look at Polybius:
proton men tous hastatous kai tas touton semaias en diastemasin, epi de toutois tous prinkipas, titheis tas speiras ou kata to ton proton semaion diastema, kathaper ethos esti tois Romaiois, alla katallelous en apostasei dia to plethos ton para tois enantiois elephanton.Word for word this gives:
'First then the hastati and of them the maniples in separated entities [pl.], behind them the principes, placed their companies not conforming to [kata is a very flexible word] of the first maniples the extension/dimension [sing.] according as the custom is of the Romans, but corresponding [to the hastati maniples] a distance [away] because of the multitude of near them opposing elephants.'
To clarify: the hastati's companies are organised into
diastemata, i.e. not gaps or intervals, but units that are distinct one from another. Polybius then uses the same word
diastema in the singular to describe the whole hastati line as a distinct unit that the principes traditionally conformed itself to, i.e. whose width it matched. In this case however they are corresponding to the maniples, with the implication that they too are organised into separate entities, with the further implication that they are physically separated from each other as are the maniples of the hastati. Strictly speaking,
diastema is not really used in two separate senses in this passage.
If one tries to make this passage say that the hastati traditionally deployed in intervals, then Polybius is saying that the principes did not conform to the arrangement of the hastati following Roman custom, but did conform to it because of the elephants, which is nonsense.
Quote from: Agrippa on May 04, 2016, 03:12:46 PM
When it comes to the feasibility of battle lines with sizeable gaps between its component parts I do not think we should be so sceptical as to its practicality. The chequerboard formation was common in the 17th century, as shown by de Gomme's and Lumsden's battle plans from the ECW.
The Tercio (http://forum.milua.org/archive/TactiqueUk.htm) was very different from the Roman checkerboard formation, and worked in a different way. I don't think it is possible to compare the two.
I am not talking about the tercio, but about infantry formations post tercio in the English Civil War. However, regardless of what infantry formation we are talking about, the ability to conduct passage of lines, and the placing of units opposite gaps in the preceding line, seem to raise the same question. Do gaps in a line make it unusable against a line which has no gaps? Experience in later wars would seem to indicate that this is not necessarily so. Indeed they clearly deployed their lines in order to achieve precisely this coverage. The importance of gaps in the second line is self evident if you wish units to retire behind their supports. Their placing opposite gaps in the front line clearly also serves as a means of preventing those units from being outflanked.
In later periods the idea of interpenetration of units through gaps within other units is anathema, the fear is that the units will simply dissolve into an uncontrolled mass. The Romans must have been supremely disciplined indeed if they could allow such interpenetration in any circumstances other than an entirely voluntary and unpressured retirement.
None of this, of course, addresses the question of whether or not the front line, whichever it was, ha state or principles, closed ranks before engaging the enemy, only that it seems entirely possible that the line behind them retained its gaps until called upon to take the role of the front line.
I should emphasise that I am not in any way qualified to comment on the linguistic issues, only on whether or not it is feasible for lines with significant gaps between their component parts to engage in combat effectively. I think later history shows quite clearly that it is.
Quote from: Agrippa on May 04, 2016, 10:36:00 PM
I am not talking about the tercio, but about infantry formations post tercio in the English Civil War.
Ones, it may be worth noting, that were a result of developments by the Dutch at the end of the C16th which, we are told, were inspired by Roman formations 8)
You have to first grasp the concept that men in formation will remain acting in formation.
So long as you visualise the dude on the end nipping around the other end dude, you will never get past a Greek conception of a solid line of battle, and you then have to start jumping through hoops to get that gap filled in a Roman context.
And you need to understand formed men breaking off frontally by mutual consent without breaking.
What would be really interesting would be either Goldsworthy it Sabin to add something on this. I haven't seen ( or looked for) anything new from them for some years now.
Quote from: Agrippa on May 04, 2016, 10:36:00 PM
I am not talking about the tercio, but about infantry formations post tercio in the English Civil War.
I'm in no way an expert on infantry formations in the 17th century, but from what I've read the Tercio and its variants as developed by the Dutch and Swedes and adopted by the English were essentially designed to maximise the firepower of the shooters whilst giving them a refuge in the pike blocks from enemy cavalry. In other words the Tercio and variants were not developed as a line relief mechanism. From a cursory glance at some sources it doesn't seem clear how exactly the infantry handled melee fighting once the shooting phase of a battle was over. I get the impression that the pike blocks just shoved against each other without having to worry about their flanks since pikes are clumsy formations not suitable for outflanking manoeuvres. Line relief did not seem to have taken place.
Does anyone know more about this period?
Quote from: eques on May 04, 2016, 11:31:28 AM
(Equally bizarre was this supposed division of troop types by age. Why by age? Why put the least experienced troops in the front line? Did a soldier get an entire new panoply when he hit 25 and another one when he hit 35? Who provided the equipment? What if there were a few decades of peace and therefore no one qualified to act as Triarii or Principes?)
Age made sense to the Ancients. Having your younger, fitter men in the Hastati is a little similar to the Spartans having their younger fitter men run out from the ranks of the phalanx to chase down light infantry.
As for panoply. Remember that at some point in your thirties you acquire your father's panoply because he has decided it doesn't fit any more ;D
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 05, 2016, 06:35:17 AM
Does anyone know more about this period?
As a matter of fact, yes. English Civil War infantry was organised in regiments under a loose development of the Swedish system, in essence consisting of companies of musketeers and pikemen who were 'converged' into regiments consisting of musketeers on the wings and pikes in the centre, all deployed six deep. The ideal ratio (often achieved by Parliamentarians but rarely by Royalists, especially in the West Country) was 2 musketeers to each pikeman. Several regiments were often brigaded together under a senior officer, and this arrangement was often referred to, somewhat misleadingly, as a 'tercio'.
Although woodcuts of the period often show what appears to be a staggered initial deployment, accounts of battles indicate that by the time the infantry lines collided they were combined into a solid front with no gaps. Also, I do not know of a single instance of line relief, actual or attempted, during the English Civil War - although I do remember one occasion on the tabletop when an exhausted first line of Parliamentary infantry was driven into a fresh second line by a Royalist charge, with catastrophic results for the Parliamentarians!
I think comparing 17th century 'chequerboard' deployments, allegedly Roman-inspired or otherwise, with the Roman Republican army is a case of comparing apples with oranges. One might incidentally note that as the 17th century wore on, the norm became a continuous three-rank line with two ranks of musketeers and one of pikemen, which developed into a three-rank musketeer line once confidence in and practice with the bayonet had become established. For the next two centuries, lines would fight without gaps, which suggests that any 'gapping' during the Renaissance and pre-Enlightenment period was not found to be beneficial, even with, or perhaps because of, troops of increasing mobility and discipline.
Quote from: Agrippa on May 04, 2016, 10:36:00 PM
I am not talking about the tercio, but about infantry formations post tercio in the English Civil War. However, regardless of what infantry formation we are talking about, the ability to conduct passage of lines, and the placing of units opposite gaps in the preceding line, seem to raise the same question. Do gaps in a line make it unusable against a line which has no gaps? Experience in later wars would seem to indicate that this is not necessarily so. Indeed they clearly deployed their lines in order to achieve precisely this coverage. The importance of gaps in the second line is self evident if you wish units to retire behind their supports. Their placing opposite gaps in the front line clearly also serves as a means of preventing those units from being outflanked.
I think we need to be a bit careful here: 'later wars' presumably means those in the gunpowder era, in which anyone entering a gap can expect a volley from a unit posted to cover it, followed by another volley by another rank a few later, and then another - or a continuous ripple fire from the platoon firing system, at which point the 'gap' becomes obscured in smoke and even finding an exposed flank can be something of an achievement (think of Culloden, where Barrel's and Munro's regiments were forced apart by the Highland charge and the resultant gap was shot into by Bligh's and Sempill's, to dreadful effect on both friend and foe).
The enduring problem with trying to force the Romans into a 'chequerboard' system is that you do not get line relief - you get a single line of hastati and principes combined because the second line has to fight at the same time as the first in order to plug, or somehow ameliorate the effects of, the gaps.
You also get an impossibly stretched line of triarii.
Quote
In later periods the idea of interpenetration of units through gaps within other units is anathema, the fear is that the units will simply dissolve into an uncontrolled mass. The Romans must have been supremely disciplined indeed if they could allow such interpenetration in any circumstances other than an entirely voluntary and unpressured retirement.
Not so much 'supremely disciplined' as being the only culture I know which actually practised such a manoeuvre - at least until other people started raising imitation legions. Troops do what they are trained to do, and Roman armies tended to come apart if something interfered with their line relief arrangements (e.g. being surrounded), not if they were able to perform them.
Quote from: Mark G on May 05, 2016, 06:31:43 AM
And you need to understand formed men breaking off frontally by mutual consent without breaking.
Could you give an example of this from a historical Roman battle, please, Mark?
QuoteThe enduring problem with trying to force the Romans into a 'chequerboard' system is that you do not get line relief - you get a single line of hastati and principes combined because the second line has to fight at the same time as the first in order to plug, or somehow ameliorate the effects of, the gaps.
Not sure I agree this covers the traditional position. As I understand it, the Romans don't normally fight with holes in the line, just deploy that way. They then close the gaps with posterior centuries to fight. When they change over, they re-open the gaps, move up/fall back through the gaps, reclose. This happens at a point of lull in combat. I think Justin explains this well enough. One of the key issues is sufficient "lull" to allow this happen. Wouldn't the enemy instantly react? Did lulls occur at all? I think these questions are the main ones that the trad model has to struggle against - the actual manoeuvering would be within the capabilities of an army trained to perform it.
Justin's file relief system is quite interesting and potentially might work, especially if carried out in a lull (it would need far less time exposed to the enemies reaction than the trad, I think). My major concern with it is it does seem to require some tricksy translations, substituting alternatives for the obvious. Would two writers in two languages do exactly the same thing? Someone must have studied their stylistic foibles to know whether this was likely.
17th Century post-Tercio formations were largely firing by introduction or (more commonly perhaps) extroduction. In this individuals are moving up and down files rather than specific bodies moving back and forth in a line relief mechanism. The staggered lines seen on deployment woodcuts and prints MAY relate to a combined arms approach where it is required to either allow Horse in and out of the formation and/or turn to flank if the horse/ally is beaten (occurred far more often than might be expected - and with far more devestating consquences the less experienced the infantry were).
Not sure that helps this discussion much.
Hi Justin:
Quote
It's been a while since we had a good old debate, and some topics are perennial, so why not?
Lots of reasons why not! But OK, a little one...
Quote
I agree that the usual translation has always been 'between' - as I mention in the article - but this I suspect is due to a vicious circle: academic opinion has favoured 'between', which has prompted translators to use 'between', which has reinforced academic opinion, and so on.
This can happen (though not quite in the way you express it) - translations are inevitably coloured by the prevailing mental model of combat etc, as I believe and will argue has happened in the case of othismos/shoving - and as happens with your alternative translations also, which are coloured by your, slightly different, model of combat. But in this case I think you are just wrong, details below.
Quote
The point about line relief is that one doesn't need a vast amount of academic erudition to resolve it, just a good grasp of Latin and a willingness to think outside the box.
If it were that easy, we would not be having this discussion, would we? :)
Quote
Re the Latin sentence: Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium, the subject of the sentence is the hastati, not the maniples, hence the distantes - a present participle that agrees in case with the subject - would in the most natural reading refer to the hastati. The sentence is thus best rendered: "The first line were the hastati, in fifteen maniples, who stood a small distance apart from each other." Translating the inter se as maniple-wide gaps between one maniple and the next not only forces the Latin IMHO but also makes nonsense of the "small space."
But it doesn't force the Latin in the opinion of everyone who has ever translated this passage. You can't just put everything down to 'academic fashion'.
Look at Livy 30.33 (Zama - using Polybius as a source which is especially nice as it means we can compare the Latin and the Greek):
non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quamque signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.
However, he did not form cohorts in close contact, each in advance of its standards, but rather maniples at a considerable distance from each other, so that there should be an interval where the enemy's elephants might be driven through without breaking up the ranks.
The similarity of the expressions - "manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium" and "manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes" is apparent. If nothing else, this rules out your objections to the translation of 'inter'.
Quote
but also makes nonsense of the "small space"
Interesting you set such store by the translation of a 'small' space - 'modicum' (as when it is used in English) can mean small, or moderate, or suitable, or various sizes according to context - as can 'aliquantum' in the Zama passage, which is translated above as 'considerable' (the dictionary definition covers "little, some, a considerable amount, something".
See also Livy 30.33.6 (Zama) -
Modico deinde intervallo relicto subsidiariam aciem Italicorum militum
Then, leaving a moderate interval, he drew up a reserve line of Italic soldiers
According to Polybius 15.11.2 this 'modico intervallo' was more than a stade. "A certain distance" might be a better, non-committal translation - but you can't draw any strong inferences from it.
You might also note the the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval - the English could express it just the same - "he left gaps between the maniples so as to leave a space for the elephants" or "the maniples of the principes not covering the interval of the maniples in front" - perfectly fine and the meaning clear in English, Greek and Latin.
Quote
Not really. In intervalla ordinum means exactly what it says: "in the gaps of the companies". If the gaps were meant to be between one company and the next then one would expect the writer at least to use an expression like: in intervalla inter ordines presuming inter means "between" (which it may not thus still leaving the corrected phrase ambiguous). As it stands, the expression refers to gaps belonging to the companies themselves, not gaps that are outside the internal structure of the companies. To opt for the latter sense is to force the Latin.
No it isn't. Livy is spectacularly loose in his use of 'ordines', as you know. It doesn't simply mean 'companies' (maniples, centuries or whatever) - it means, more or less, 'formation' (as in the example above 'qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent'. It all depends on context. In Livy 8.8 the context is clear enough, and we have Livy/Polybius on Zama to back it up, which is why the standard translation has been universally accepted. You could argue that the gaps are not the gaps between maniples but some other gaps (such as between files) but at the least, at the very least, the 'orthodox view' is NOT 'forcing the Latin'.
Take for example Livy 39.29.4:
caetrati ita, quantum latitudo vallis patiebatur, instructi sederant, ut facile per intervalla ordinum fugientes suos acciperent.
The caetrati had been resting in formation, so far as the width of the valley permitted, so that they easily permitted the fugitives to pass through the intervals in their ranks
These caetrati are Achaean peltasts. What sorts of gaps are these? Not in 'ranks' at any rate, but files? Speirai?
Or Livy 10.5.6
sed reliquerat intervalla inter ordines peditum
but the dictator had left intervals between the files of the infantry
You should be pleased to see this translated 'files' (wrongly I suspect) - though as it is 'inter ordines' not 'in ordinum', by your argument it should be 'between companies'.
In short, Livy's language is too vague to draw the sort of inferences you are attempting - but the context of 8.8 and Zama is clear enough that there has never been any uncertainty over it. You would have to take up with Livy why he might choose to write 'In intervalla ordinum'...
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument about diastema in Polybius' Zama at all. You might also consider some of the other examples in Polybius, such as:
Pol 11.22.10
He (Scipio) withdrew his skirmishers through the intervals of the maniples,
Dia ton diastematon en tais semaias
Pol 12.8.3
At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep, and between each squadron a clear space must be left in the line to enable them to turn or face about.
Kai metaxu ton ilon ekastes ison huparchein dei diastema tois metopois
Also don't lose sight of the fact that diestema occurs three times more just in Pol 15.9 (Zama). So in Shuckburgh's translation, slightly tweaked for literalness:
the hastati first, their maniples in intervals [ en diastemasin]; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the interval [diastema] of the leading maniples as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because of the numbers of the enemy elephants.... The intervals [diastemata] between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples [ dia ton diastematon] , which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces [ diestemata] between the maniples.It is perverse to try to translate the second diastema differently just because it is singular - c.f. Livy. The Greek, and the meaning, are as clear as they come.
On the wider question of line relief I'm with Andrew - I think 16th/17th/18th C practice is important not least because they, unlike us, had practical military experience so could judge what was feasible, and because they were deliberately copying what they understood was Roman practice. This was the thrust of my 2011 Slingshot article. If the Romans did do what the 'orthodox' view has them do, or what Justin's alternative has them do, then they are unique in military history, and unique things are uncommon (if you see what I mean). Passage of lines was at all periods we know anything about considered difficult and risky - to do it in contact with the enemy, or even at a file level, lacks military feasibility in my (admittedly purely academic) view.
Whether or not there were gaps in the line when it made contact with an opponent, if there were, the depth of the formation would only be a little over seven paces for a six rank formation or a little under 10 paces for an eight rank formation. To visualize this take seven (and/or ten) steps away from a wall and see how close it actually is. If there were gaps and the second line was covering them at the above distance(s) it would be highly unlikely that an opponent would be willing to break formation in order to attack the exposed flank of a unit in the first line.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 05, 2016, 10:49:36 AM
Although woodcuts of the period often show what appears to be a staggered initial deployment, accounts of battles indicate that by the time the infantry lines collided they were combined into a solid front with no gaps.
Could you give any examples of this from historical English or European battles, please Patrick?
While I know very litte about the warfare of the 18th Century, there is an enjoyable set of Marlburian rules called Twilight of the Sun King that is heavily dependent on the line infantry and the heavy cavalry simply disengaging and then withdrawing through the unit behind, either voluntarily or as a recoil result. In either case there is no negative consequence to the withdrawing unit or the one it goes through, other than the initial combat damage.
I am not sure what this is based on historically speaking, but assume the designers were basing it on historical practice?
(I did work up an Ancients version, as it happens, "Twilight of the Druids" but it wasn't very successful owing to problems adding skirmishers to the mix)
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PM
Hi Justin:
Quote
It's been a while since we had a good old debate, and some topics are perennial, so why not?
Lots of reasons why not! But OK, a little one...
Thanks for this post Richard - no, seriously. You brought to my attention a couple of things I hadn't seen before. I really think it a very good idea for Slingshot writers to toss their articles onto the SoA forum for a thorough once-over (or even twice-over). I wish I had done it with this one...
1. INTER
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMQuote
Re the Latin sentence: Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium, the subject of the sentence is the hastati, not the maniples, hence the distantes - a present participle that agrees in case with the subject - would in the most natural reading refer to the hastati. The sentence is thus best rendered: "The first line were the hastati, in fifteen maniples, who stood a small distance apart from each other." Translating the inter se as maniple-wide gaps between one maniple and the next not only forces the Latin IMHO but also makes nonsense of the "small space."
But it doesn't force the Latin in the opinion of everyone who has ever translated this passage. You can't just put everything down to 'academic fashion'.
Look at Livy 30.33 (Zama - using Polybius as a source which is especially nice as it means we can compare the Latin and the Greek):
non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quamque signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.
However, he did not form cohorts in close contact, each in advance of its standards, but rather maniples at a considerable distance from each other, so that there should be an interval where the enemy's elephants might be driven through without breaking up the ranks.
The similarity of the expressions - "manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium" and "manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes" is apparent. If nothing else, this rules out your objections to the translation of 'inter'.
Actually, no.
Inter can mean either "between" or "among", and the correct sense comes from the context. In the first example:
| Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium |
the most probable subject to which
inter refers are the hastati, not the maniples. It is therefore better (though I concede not absolutely necessary) to have the individual hastati standing apart a small distance from each other rather than the maniples being separated by gaps.
In the second example:
| manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes |
distantes clearly refers to the maniples, and the context of the passage also makes clear that they are separated as units from each other, rather than having small gaps within their files.
2. MODICUM
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMQuote
but also makes nonsense of the "small space"
Interesting you set such store by the translation of a 'small' space - 'modicum' (as when it is used in English) can mean small, or moderate, or suitable, or various sizes according to context - as can 'aliquantum' in the Zama passage, which is translated above as 'considerable' (the dictionary definition covers "little, some, a considerable amount, something".
See also Livy 30.33.6 (Zama) -
Modico deinde intervallo relicto subsidiariam aciem Italicorum militum
Then, leaving a moderate interval, he drew up a reserve line of Italic soldiers
According to Polybius 15.11.2 this 'modico intervallo' was more than a stade. "A certain distance" might be a better, non-committal translation - but you can't draw any strong inferences from it.
Modicum, as you point out, is flexible in all its possible meanings, and you need the context to fix the correct meaning. It is a relative term, meaning that there is a benchmark by which it measures something. When that benchmark is physical size it always means "small", "short" or "little". In the moral sense it can have the idea of thrifty, i.e. not wasteful or excessive, hence "moderate". Here, it is qualifying physical distance, but physical distance compared to what? No other benchmark is given other than the units themselves (hastati, third line of Italian veterans). So a
modicum spatium would have to be a small space as far as the hastati files were concerned or, if applied to the maniples, a small space too - certainly something less that the width of a maniple. A maniple-wide gap would have a breadth of at least 8 yards. I measured it out just now, in my passageway. No way one could, from the POV of a maniple, call that a 'small interval'.
When Livy speaks of Zama he uses
modicum relative to the size of the entire third Carthaginian line. A stade is about 200 yards, which would be a fraction of the width of the entire line hence, relative to it, quite small.
BTW
aliquantum in this context is used as an adverb with the sense of an indefinite amount or degree.
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMYou might also note the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval
Yes it does. The
spatium is a single gap or space between the front lines of the Carthaginians (whose own gaps are considered negligible and hence not worth mentioning) and the third line of Italian veterans. There are not two of them.
3. IN INTERVALLA ORDINUM
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMQuote
Not really. In intervalla ordinum means exactly what it says: "in the gaps of the companies". If the gaps were meant to be between one company and the next then one would expect the writer at least to use an expression like: in intervalla inter ordines presuming inter means "between" (which it may not thus still leaving the corrected phrase ambiguous). As it stands, the expression refers to gaps belonging to the companies themselves, not gaps that are outside the internal structure of the companies. To opt for the latter sense is to force the Latin.
No it isn't. Livy is spectacularly loose in his use of 'ordines', as you know. It doesn't simply mean 'companies' (maniples, centuries or whatever) - it means, more or less, 'formation' (as in the example above 'qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent'. It all depends on context. In Livy 8.8 the context is clear enough, and we have Livy/Polybius on Zama to back it up, which is why the standard translation has been universally accepted. You could argue that the gaps are not the gaps between maniples but some other gaps (such as between files) but at the least, at the very least, the 'orthodox view' is NOT 'forcing the Latin'.
That's fine but with all due respect, beside the point. The point is that the Latin leans towards gaps
within the companies/formations/whatever, not gaps
between them. Your following examples only serve to underscore this.
4. DIASTEMA
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMI'm afraid I don't follow your argument about diastema in Polybius' Zama at all.
Let me try to make it clearer.
Diastema - as I understand it after reading all its meanings with the examples given - means an area/surface/spread of ground that is distinct from everything around it. This area/surface/spread of ground is not necessarily empty - as in the case of an interval - but may be occupied by an object that in consequence is distinct/separate from everything around it. So Polybius's maniples are
in diastemata, meaning they occupy areas of ground in such a way that they are distinct/separate from each other, i.e. there are empty spaces between them, but
diastemata in this context does not refer primarily to the empty spaces - though, yes, it can do so in other contexts as you show in your examples.
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMAlso don't lose sight of the fact that diestema occurs three times more just in Pol 15.9 (Zama). So in Shuckburgh's translation, slightly tweaked for literalness:
the hastati first, their maniples in intervals [ en diastemasin]; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the interval [diastema] of the leading maniples as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because of the numbers of the enemy elephants.... The intervals [diastemata] between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples [ dia ton diastematon] , which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces [ diestemata] between the maniples.
It is perverse to try to translate the second diastema differently just because it is singular - c.f. Livy. The Greek, and the meaning, are as clear as they come.
It's not perverse - it's necessary. As you show in this example, Polybius uses the plural when the plural is required, and the one case in which diastema is in the singular stands out like a sore thumb. It cannot refer to the multiple gaps in the hastati line - not when Polybius so clearly uses a plural form to indicate plural gaps in the rest of this passage. It must refer - if one doesn't want to do violence to the Greek - to the area/spread/extend of ground occupied by the hastati
as a whole.
5. AND ONE OTHER LITTLE THING
I have to confess I didn't pay much attention to Livy's account of Zama when writing up the article. But notice this:
| non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quamque signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes,
However, he did not form cohorts in close contact, each in advance of its standards, but rather maniples at a certain distance from each other |
In other words the
default deployment of the cohorts or maniples was a
solid line, with the cohorts packed one next to the other. At Zama Scipio did something exceptional: separate the maniples with gaps between them to let the elephants through. This was highly unusual and Livy (and Polybius with him) go to some lengths to describe it. I
wish I'd read it earlier!
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 02:07:23 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 05, 2016, 10:49:36 AM
Although woodcuts of the period often show what appears to be a staggered initial deployment, accounts of battles indicate that by the time the infantry lines collided they were combined into a solid front with no gaps.
Could you give any examples of this from historical English or European battles, please Patrick?
The infantry action at Marston Moor in 1644 seems to be a case in point: the Royalists lined the hedge in front of their line with musketeers, the Parliamentary first line crashed through it and engaged the Royalist first line, which was drawn up with gaps, but then Eythin flung in the Royalist second line (through the gaps in the first) and staggered the Parliamentary first line to the extent that some Scots units behind them broke and fled.
It would seem that Eythin's counterattack, launched through the gaps in the Royalist first line, hit something solid - it is hard to see the Parliamentary first line being disarrayed by an attack on empty air. This suggests that the Parliamentary first line had solidified on its way to contact. If one maintains that the Parliamentary first line kept its gaps, then one needs to account for Eythin's success by concluding that he exploited the gaps between the Parliamentary units to cause them serious harm and that much of the Parliamentary second line took one look at the rapidly filling Royalist gaps and decided that their own gap-filling duty was an optional extra. The latter may be plausible, but if so it suggests the first infantry line to fill its gaps would be a winner so why tempt providence by advancing with a gapped line against a coordinated defender?
Contrast this with the earlier battle of Edgehill in 1642, where a Parliamentary cavalry reserve, emerging through gaps in the Parliamentary infantry line, caught several Royalist infantry regiments - which presumably also had gaps in their line - and mauled them, almost turning the course of the battle. One suspects lessons were learned from this occasion.
Quote from: willb on May 05, 2016, 01:07:58 PM
Whether or not there were gaps in the line when it made contact with an opponent, if there were, the depth of the formation would only be a little over seven paces for a six rank formation or a little under 10 paces for an eight rank formation. To visualize this take seven (and/or ten) steps away from a wall and see how close it actually is. If there were gaps and the second line was covering them at the above distance(s) it would be highly unlikely that an opponent would be willing to break formation in order to attack the exposed flank of a unit in the first line.
If.
The problem is this: draw up the principes line ten paces behind the first and there is no room for posterior centuries of the hastati to deploy. They will be at double depth (12-16 men) until deployed, so initial deployment and even more so subsequent 'undeployment' to pass between the maniples of principes when hard pressed is going to be a bit crowded in the most inconvenient locations. Put simply, half the second line will be quite literally breathing down the necks of the first line.
Hence if the principes are covering gaps at a distance of, say, 10 paces, they effectively prevent the unfolding model in which the posterior centuries fill the gaps (which in any event is inapplicable to Livy's legion of 340 BC, which did not have centuries). This forces both hastati and principes to start with gaps between fully deployed maniples, which would make for overlong frontages (400 yards per legion), a single line formation of hastati and principes with 10-pace indentations every other maniple which does not allow for any sort of meaningful line relief and some extremely overstretched triarii (600 triarii per legion on a frontage of 400 yards). How the indented hastati-principes line is going to manage to fall back through these triarii is a further question.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 05, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
Thanks for this post Richard - no, seriously. You brought to my attention a couple of things I hadn't seen before. I really think it a very good idea for Slingshot writers to toss their articles onto the SoA forum for a thorough once-over (or even twice-over). I wish I had done it with this one...
You're welcome! I agree, in the unavoidable absence of any peer review for Slingshot, putting ideas up for comment on this forum is a good idea - the article could be the end, not the beginning, of the process.
You clearly remain unshakable in your convictions, and I'm just as convinced that Walbank, Paton, Gomme, Briscoe, Oakley et al are unlikely to be doing much violence to the Greek or Latin, and that line relief itself is a bigger problem than both of us, so I think we should leave it at that. Hopefully there is enough information in this thread for readers to make up their own minds.
One small point of fact to clear up though:
2. MODICUM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 05, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMYou might also note the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval
Yes it does. The spatium is a single gap or space between the front lines of the Carthaginians (whose own gaps are considered negligible and hence not worth mentioning) and the third line of Italian veterans. There are not two of them.
The singular spatium I was referring to here is the 'space for the elephants', ie the spatium between the maniples.
manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.Maniples standing a certain distance apart so that there might be a space through which the elephants of the enemy could be driven without disordering the formations.
Thanks Patrick - that sounds to me like just as good evidence for gaps as it is for no gaps - at best, it is as unclear as it is for the Romans. So the question isn't resolved just yet.
This is a subject I have thinking about for a long time, and I think I have reached something, at least for the roman legions battle mechanics. More digging is still needed for confirmation though.
I'll get back later on with the proposed model (don't have the time for it rifgt now)
Quote from: adonys on May 06, 2016, 10:22:55 AM
This is a subject I have thinking about for a long time, and I think I have reached something, at least for the roman legions battle mechanics. More digging is still needed for confirmation though.
I'll get back later on with the proposed model (don't have the time for it rifgt now)
Your thoughts will be welcome, Dan. Do not worry if discussion has moved on in the meantime: there is no time limit on knowledge!
Quote from: RichT on May 06, 2016, 09:35:37 AM
Thanks Patrick - that sounds to me like just as good evidence for gaps as it is for no gaps - at best, it is as unclear as it is for the Romans. So the question isn't resolved just yet.
The Romans are a rather different matter as they are not manoeuvring blocks of pikes sleeved with musketeers, formations which are unhandy to say the least. In the 17th century, once the bayonet replaces the pike, infantry lines become continuous, which suggests that the drawbacks of having gaps were now understood. The Romans, who were usually up against fairly handy opponents, would have good reason to keep their lines cohesive whereas the musket-sleeved pike blocks of the Renaissance could wander about independently with little risk to their flanks from similar clumsy behemoths - at least until the Swedes brought in handier formations.
One might also note that
non confertas autem cohortes is not a description applied to 17th century armies. ;)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson
The Romans are a rather different matter as they are not manoeuvring blocks of pikes sleeved with musketeers, formations which are unhandy to say the least. In the 17th century, once the bayonet replaces the pike, infantry lines become continuous, which suggests that the drawbacks of having gaps were now understood.
IIRC at the start of the C18th infantry were drawn up with battalion sized gaps between the individual battalions and the 2nd line of infantry would be about 200 yards behind the first (think the info is in Chandler, et al). No idea how long into the C18th this lasted. Significant gaps seem to have been quite persistent.
I am normally not capable of adding much to the facts or interpretation of these well worn discussions of the western classical period. The sources are just too well known.
But the discussion reminds me of a potential historiographical issue and that is we may be insisting on a source's level of precision that this type of literary source just can't bear.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 06, 2016, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson
The Romans are a rather different matter as they are not manoeuvring blocks of pikes sleeved with musketeers, formations which are unhandy to say the least. In the 17th century, once the bayonet replaces the pike, infantry lines become continuous, which suggests that the drawbacks of having gaps were now understood.
IIRC at the start of the C18th infantry were drawn up with battalion sized gaps between the individual battalions and the 2nd line of infantry would be about 200 yards behind the first (think the info is in Chandler, et al). No idea how long into the C18th this lasted. Significant gaps seem to have been quite persistent.
It is not so easy to tell from diagrams of Blenheim etc. but the impression I get from the accounts is that brigades kept their component units together unless they were accompanying cavalry, and commands tended to form continuous lines where possible. Have a read through anything about Marlborough's battles and see whether one can read significant gaps into the various attacking or defending lines. Malplaquet in particular strikes me as a continuous line affair.
By about 1740 continuous straight lines seem to have taken over entirely: quite apart from the possibly indicative detail of battle map cartographers starting to use continuous lines instead of the staggered dashes which represented deployments of a century or so earlier, illustrations (from the 19th century but detailing this period) show continuous lines of infantry like this (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prussian_Army_during_battle_of_Mollwitz_1741.jpg). The different colours down the line seem to indicate a directly adjacent regiment.
Quote from: Dangun on May 06, 2016, 04:11:26 PM
But the discussion reminds me of a potential historiographical issue and that is we may be insisting on a source's level of precision that this type of literary source just can't bear.
Sources do have their limitations, though in this case it is not so much that we are relying upon the precise wording of the source as attempting to get a coherent picture of what the source describes, and in the process we seem to be prising apart an over-rigid interpretation that has held our thinking about the Republican Roman army in irons and unable to proceed. Justin's new tack may appear to some to be sailing close to the wind in a few respects, but I think he has set us a course on which we can make progress.
Quote from: RichT on May 06, 2016, 09:26:23 AM
One small point of fact to clear up though:
2. MODICUM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 05, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2016, 12:23:37 PMYou might also note the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval
Yes it does. The spatium is a single gap or space between the front lines of the Carthaginians (whose own gaps are considered negligible and hence not worth mentioning) and the third line of Italian veterans. There are not two of them.
The singular spatium I was referring to here is the 'space for the elephants', ie the spatium between the maniples.
manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.
Maniples standing a certain distance apart so that there might be a space through which the elephants of the enemy could be driven without disordering the formations.
Sorry, yes, got that wrong. There is also the singular
modicum spatium of the hastati.
Unlike Greek and English, Latin doesn't have the article - 'the', 'a' - which makes it clear if one is speaking of 'space' in a indefinite or abstract way or of a particular space.
The space for the elephants is indefinite: "so that there might be space through which the elephants..."
The 'small space' of the hastati is also indefinite in the sense that it is not a particular space. In English one uses an article when translating it: 'a space', but that does not mean a single, definite space (obviously).
The 'interval/extension' of Polybius's maniples is however specific. It is an interval/extension -
to diastema,
the space - that belongs to the hastati maniples. To say that Polybius in this context is using a definite singular noun in a plural sense - having used the same noun in the plural elsewhere in this passage - IMHO strains the Greek too much.
But I'm waiting for a real Greek scholar to come along and shoot me down in flames. :)
While we wait for the said entity to assume attack position, we might benefit from running through how we think the Polybian legion functioned in battle, with particular reference to line relief.
Let us start with the just-post-skirmishing phase: once the velites have finished their mutual target-practice with enemy skirmishers and the trumpets have sounded the recall, where do the velites go and what (if anything) do they do? I refer to standard practice rather than Scipionic innovation, though we can also look at the latter if people wish.
I would propose something else as the proper starting point for tackling the (roman) ancient armies formations, line relief and tactics: a summary of all relevant primary sources quotes having even the slightest relation with the subject.
Only then a true good model might be conceived.
Excellent approach, Dan: have you done this?
No, I really do not have time for something like this. But a collective effort in which each of us adds all the relevant quotes he knows (and were not posted yet) would quickly build it up to something like 80-90% of all current existent data.
I myself have some not so known/used quotes/interpretations which helped me develop my own model (which is rather different than all the others) yet I haven't checked it against/refined it using all relevant knowledge, mainly due to my lack of time to dig all the relevant primary sources quotes all by myself.
Very good - to start with, we need:
For the Livian Legion (c.426-311 BC): Livy VIII chapters 8-10
For the Polybian Legion (c.311-107 BC): Polybius VI chapters 19-42 and VIII chapters 28-32
For the early legion, we need Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
Book IV chapters 14-22 covers the army of Servius Tullius (cf. Livy ), but chapters 43-58 indicate that Tarquinius Superbus made some alterations to Tullius' arrangements, although not enough to prevent the treaty with the citizens of Gabii being written on the hide covering of an aspis (IV.58.4). Book V chapter 15 describes a battle between the Republican rebels and Tarquin's loyalists, with each side's right defeating the opposing left ( a characteristic hoplite battle result), with the battle against Lars Porsenna in V.23 again seeing both armies more successful on the right then the left. However in the Republic's war against the Sabines (505-503 BC) Dionysius records a prodigy in which the Romans' pila (hussois) gleamed with light (V.46.2) in 503 BC, suggesting that the Romans had converted to their characteristic weapon rather earlier than is generally thought. He also notes that "... the citizens received back the amount of the contributions [eisphoras] which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition." This is critical for interpreting Livy's statement that Romans adopted scuta after they became stipendiarii (Livy VIII.8.3). The campaigns of the very early Republic were, on Dionysius' evidence, financed by contributions which would be returned in the event of a successful campaign - and this ties in with the change from aspis-type clipeis to thureos-type scuta. Most of this is covered in Rodger Williams' article on the Proto-Manipular Legion several Slingshots ago.
Dionysius is actually a goldmine for the development of the early legion.
Plutarch's Lives include a number of by-the-way references to legions and the way they operated, but not much useful detail.
Livy VIII.8.9 and Polybius II.33 provide a key clue about how Roman line relief was conducted: Livy says the hastati fell back ('retro cedentes') through the intervals between the 'ordines' (apparently files, because although Livy uses 'ordo' as a subunit of the rear-line vexilla he does not use it of the troops of the first two lines) of principes. Polybius notes that owing to the consul's poor tactical positioning the Roman army in its 223 BC fight against the Insubrian Gauls had no room for its characteristic epi poda (backwards) manoeuvres, meaning line relief. From these quotes, we learn that line relief was conducted by retreating backwards through the next line - an arrangement which allowed the falling-back troops to continue fighting without taking their eyes off their opponents.
Caesar (Gallic War, Civil War) provides us with a view of the Marian Legion (or Late Republican Legion) in operation, although he never explicitly describes its organisation.
The Early Imperial legion is described in some detail by Josephus (see Jewish War Book III chapters V and VI) and Tacitus drops numerous hints in his Histories and Annals.
For everything else, there is Vegetius.
That is a start of sorts ... if we are to create a more or less complete source database we shall probably need to open a new thread.