SoA Forums

I was glancing back through Episode 7 of Simon's Tactica2 battle reports and pondered about the organisation of a Republican Roman legion (not something I do that often :-[ .

Simon has his legions organised with 12 hastati, 12 principes and 12 triarii. I had always thought that there were less triarii than each of hastati or principes (in theory) in the early legions and so producing a 12-12-6 formation. This seemed to be confirmed by a quick skim through my reference books.

But as most of these are a bit dated now, I wondered if I had nodded off and missed something.

I was prompted to a similar thought by the puff piece for 'Hail Caesar : Epic Battles' in the latest Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy.  The box for Republican Romans vs Carthage comes with 12 bases each of Hastati, Principes and Triarii, each base of 30 figures, so exactly equal numbers for each type.

While it does seem that the size of the Republican Legion could vary, I am not aware of anything suggesting that the proportions of 2 parts each of Hastati and Principes to one part of Triarii changed significantly.  Am I too in ignorance of advances in scholarship?

Indeed I remember reading somewhere years ago that Triarii were often left behind to guard the camp and they didn't drag the old lads out to  fight in the battle   8)

But it is interesting that when we see Polybius's camp design, the camp was built for a smaller number of Triarii

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Castra.html

Quote from: dwkay57 on July 21, 2024, 09:00:24 AMI had always thought that there were less triarii than each of hastati or principes (in theory) in the early legions and so producing a 12-12-6 formation.

You are quite correct, that's what Polybios explicitly says:

QuoteThey divide them so that the senior men known as triarii number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, the rest, consisting of the youngest, being velites.

In larger legions the proportion of triarii would be even lower:

QuoteIf the legion consists of more than four thousand men, they divide accordingly, except as regards the triarii, the number of whom is always the same.

But if, when converting to a wargame, your hastati and principes form up one figure deep, it must be tempting to use more triarii figures just to get a solid line; don't know if that explains it.

Quote from: dwkay57 on July 21, 2024, 09:00:24 AMSimon has his legions organised with 12 hastati, 12 principes and 12 triarii. I had always thought that there were less triarii than each of hastati or principes (in theory) in the early legions and so producing a 12-12-6 formation.

How to represent Republican legions in a wargame is something that rules have found problematic over the years. A number of factors need to be balanced and these will differ depending on the mechanisms adopted by the individual rule sets in use. This makes it difficult to generalise when comparing various sets.

Dissatisfaction with the way commercially available rules dealt with these issues caused me to tread my own independent path many years ago. How I solved the problem, at least to my own satisfaction, is largely irrelevant to this thread but I have given this quite a bit of thought.

One question to consider is "How 'strong' should the third line be?". In organisational terms it would seem obvious, from the account of Polybios, that the third line should be half the strength of the first and second lines. How one represents that with model figures depends very much on your preferred rule set and how it and you suspend your disbelief when considering what your wargame units actually represent.

I would suggest that representing the third line as the same strength in terms of wargames figures as the first and second is not necessarily as left-field as it may initially seem. From my perspective the point of the Republican Roman system is that tired troops in the forward lines are relieved by fresh reserves before they are truly 'beaten'. When the hastati are withdrawn they retire to form up behind and reinforce the triarii. In this way, what seems like a rather thin line of 'half-strength' maniples of triarii would in reality be a much 'thicker' line by the time it may have had to be engaged. In addition, the withdrawn velites may also have possibly reinforced the third reserve line.

I do not know what the design intention of Simon's Tactica2 formation may be but it might arguably not be as 'unrealistic' as it might appear.

Adrian.


 

The thing is, if you represent a 60 man unit, how big are your phalanxes and warbands going to be?

I have always used the same number of bases for hastati, principes, and triarii for my Republican legions. What I do is reduce the number of figures on the triarii bases to differentiate them from the hastati and principes. Since I'm currently focused on 6mm figures the first two lines have three ranks of eight figures and the triarii have two ranks of eight figures. It's not a perfect solution, but it works for me. All figures are on 40 mm square bases.

My phalanxes are mounted on the same size base with six ranks of eight figures. I haven't done any "warband" yet, but I'm thinking of three ranks of eight figures with a four rank with a variable number of figures, four to six figures, to represent the less uniform size of the warbands.

Obviously, I'm not using a set figure ratio of figures to actual soldiers. I decided a while back that going for a exact figure to soldier ratio was a rabbit hole that I didn't want to go down. Each base will represent an approximate number of soldiers, say around 400-500 men, just like in real life that any unit will have a variable number of men despite the paper strength for the unit.

This gives me a pleasing visual representation of ancient armies without the headaches of trying to recreate "exact" units.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 21, 2024, 09:44:03 AMIndeed I remember reading somewhere years ago that Triarii were often left behind to guard the camp and they didn't drag the old lads out to  fight in the battle   8)

I don't think there is actually any historical evidence for this. Would be somewhat odd given the formation of the legion is based around 3 lines of fighting men so why leave part of it behind and so remove an integral part.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 21, 2024, 08:34:03 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 21, 2024, 09:44:03 AMIndeed I remember reading somewhere years ago that Triarii were often left behind to guard the camp and they didn't drag the old lads out to  fight in the battle  8)

I don't think there is actually any historical evidence for this. Would be somewhat odd given the formation of the legion is based around 3 lines of fighting men so why leave part of it behind and so remove an integral part.

I suspect the notion of the triarii being used as camp guards comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 8.86.4 where he describes the triarii (Loeb translation):

"These are the oldest soldiers, to whom they commit the guarding of the camp when they go out to give battle, and they fall back of necessity upon these as their last hope when there has been a general slaughter of the younger men and they lack other reinforcements."

This comes from a description of a battle against the Volscians in the 5th century BCE where the appearance of triarii would generally be considered anachronstic.

Adrian.

Quote from: Adrian Nayler on July 21, 2024, 02:37:05 PMHow to represent Republican legions in a wargame is something that rules have found problematic over the years. A number of factors need to be balanced and these will differ depending on the mechanisms adopted by the individual rule sets in use. This makes it difficult to generalise when comparing various sets.

One question to consider is "How 'strong' should the third line be?". In organisational terms it would seem obvious, from the account of Polybios, that the third line should be half the strength of the first and second lines. How one represents that with model figures depends very much on your preferred rule set and how it and you suspend your disbelief when considering what your wargame units actually represent.

I would suggest that representing the third line as the same strength in terms of wargames figures as the first and second is not necessarily as left-field as it may initially seem. From my perspective the point of the Republican Roman system is that tired troops in the forward lines are relieved by fresh reserves before they are truly 'beaten'. When the hastati are withdrawn they retire to form up behind and reinforce the triarii. In this way, what seems like a rather thin line of 'half-strength' maniples of triarii would in reality be a much 'thicker' line by the time it may have had to be engaged. In addition, the withdrawn velites may also have possibly reinforced the third reserve line.

I do not know what the design intention of Simon's Tactica2 formation may be but it might arguably not be as 'unrealistic' as it might appear.

Adrian.


 

While I tend to like the thought of the figures put out on the table-top being proportionate to the 'real' manpower, so far as we know it, I think you are putting your finger on the real issue here.  It is not the number of figures that matters but whether the rules allow the Legion (or phalanx or war band) to operate as a system that is comparable to the historical counterpart.  A Republican Legion that is divided up into separate units of Hastati, Principes and Triarii that fight as separate units is not operating in a manner reflective of a real Republican Legion.  If they fight as an adaptable, supportive whole, with the flexibility and depth to absorb punches and exploit opportunities then it seems to me they are achieving much greater historical reality. 

FYI The Hail Caesar Army Lists book follows the orthodox view suggesting the 2,2,1 organisation as an alternative to the much easier to field block of generic 'Legionaries'. It would be interesting to know if there is any new advise on fielding them than was already there.

Not placing importance on the number of figures on a base but concentrating on their "fighting value" instead is an interesting approach but might mean a lot of classifications if you have a lot of armies. I assume Chuck that your triarii have less of an impact or strength than the preceding ranks?

The A for Abstraction also plays a role. If your legion is the tactical / command / manoeuvre / morale / fighting strength "blob" then you have other options compared to those representing more detailed structures. As long as both sides are at the same level of abstraction and grouping then it should work.

I will be interested to see how the Strength & Honour rule set abstracts the early legions, given that its playing scale is one tabletop unit representing a legion. The rule set does skirmishers well, and toughens up veteran Imperial legions.

As someone who only has 6mm figures, I have long felt there to be a serious flaw in many rule sets, written with 25/28 or 15 in mind, pushing towards overly deep formations.  Bonuses for pike phalanxes four bases deep to get questionable melee bonuses are perhaps the most egregious example.  With 6mm, even on a simple 40x20mm base, one can easily have sixteen figures in two ranks of eight.  Two bases deep gives four ranks of figures; if one assumes a scale of 1 figure for 30 men, then those four ranks of figures roughly equate to twenty real ranks...  At 1:20, they represent perhaps 16 ranks.

My point is that a set of rules that penalises a row of single bases of triarii probably misses the point.  That is before one even starts to consider the nightmare of modelling a legionary disposition and mechanics that we do not fully understand.  If Polybius is correct, then the Romans clearly found value in a not very deep rear last-ditch line; were not worried about it being continuous or stretching across the whole of the frontal width of the legion; or were confident that it would be acting merely as the lynchpin for hastati and principes (and even velites) who had fallen back to muster on them.

I am reminded of recent discussions prompted by Justin about "manouevre units".  Should our focus be on modelling the individual parts of a legion or its function as a whole?  Modelling as a whole doesn't need to put all the figures on one base and you could still have individual parts, like triarii represented, but the legion would function in a joined up, mutually supporting , way.  But don't ask me how to do it  :-\

Quote from: Erpingham on July 22, 2024, 05:13:08 PMShould our focus be on modelling the individual parts of a legion or its function as a whole?

This really is the crux of the discussion and falls to the 'A' for Abstraction category that David mentions.

For Impetvs (and Basic Impetvs), a legion is represented by the 2-2-1 proportion that Ian shows for Hail Caesar.  BI offers players a choice in the way in which Hastati and Principes carry out line relief before battle begins.  One method is more abstract than the other.  To me, both are satisfactory representations on the gaming table. 

In Optio I abstract the Triarii out, leaving just two lines of Hastati and Principes. My rationale is that Triarii were rarely used in actual battles. The only example that comes to mind is the Battle of Vesuvius, where both sides reached their Triarii, the Latins first.

Wargaming always involves a degree of abstraction. My take is that you want the substance of line relief but can dispense with the details. Line relief allows the legion to return to full morale, hence giving it greater staying power than an opponent who doesn't do line relief. It's more effective than line depth since it switches fresh and better troops into the fight whereas depth just means the best troops of the line are more concentrated in front from the start; if they are worn down there's no remedy.

It's true that many rulesets exaggerate depth. A pike phalanx was shallower than a legion: typically 16 deep for the phalanx (probably contracting to 8 deep in close order) versus 6 Hastati + 2 Velites + 6 Principes + 2 Velites + 3 Triarii + 1 Velites = 20 ranks. But 16 or 20 ranks isn't that deep. In Optio I settle for 1 infantry base = 8 - 10 ranks deep, so 2 bases deep for a typical phalanx or legion.

Well spotted!

The Triarii are indeed 'over-represented' in terms of model numbers relative to the Hastati and Principes. However, the aim of the organisation in the game is to deliver a viable set of plavable 'game' rules which are broadly 'representative' of the the Roman 'multiple line' system as compared with their historical opponents.

In this respect therefore, it is a compromise between game playability and numerical 'simulation'.

Pe4rsonally, I believe that the rules and army organisation do indeed deliver a  good game 'feel' which is also a fair representation of the Roman historical 'original'.

I don't believe that such 'numerical compromises' are unique to this scenario. many if not most games have far too many cavalry in relation to infantry numbers, as well as an over-representation of elephants and chariots and in many cases an under-representation of skirmisher numbers. As for Light Medium Infantry, well it's arguable that that category of troop type didn't exist at all as depicted in wargames.

Then there's the issue of actual ratios between formation depth and battleline length. These are almost invariably 'out' by orders of magnitude.

There are so many 'compromises' in our wargaming that I hope that players won't feel too discomfited by this particular one. I think that the visual impact of the Roman Deployment in the multiple lines has a uniqueness about it wrt. other armies, that it engenders a particular Roman Republican 'empathy' in both players and viewers such that they can enjoy the spectacle and game play.

Cheers

Simon

This is primaraly due to wargaming units/stands/bases all being far too deep...

The most likely formation of a cohort was circa 60 men wide and 8 men deep so roughly 60m frontage 16m depth (5:1 ratio). We just don't field the pretty chaps in these sort of formations.   :)

And also Marathon for example; a Phalanx of 10000 men in 8 ranks on a frontage on 1 metre/man is 1250 metres whereas the depth of the formation (generously assuming 1 metre/man) is 8 metres. This gives a ration of over 150/1. That's a piece of string!

For standard 25/8mm basing depth for HI of 20mm, the table would have to be 3 metres long with no flank sectors and assuming the Phalanx is depicted as a single model in depth.

For Plataea, multiply the problem times 3.

Of course, if using 6mm or 2mm scale figs, then more 'realistic' Deployments are more possible.

But most of us (including dinosaurs like me) are accustomed to using 25/8mm (or 15mm scale) figs and we are therefore 'conditioned to' the our on-table depictions of battles; even though usually, they are way off-kilter' in terms of battleline length.

Even our best efforts at shows still fall somewhat short of 'reality' e,.g. our Paraitakene scenario from Claymore a few years back (see photo).

Cheers

SimonParatakene- Deploiyment Eumenids on left.jpg

To return to a well-worn path, what does the footprint of the unit represent in our game?  Is it at accurately defined area of ground? Are our figures based more in connection with their size and our need to be able to manipulate them in-game?  These are both valid approaches, IMO, as are some hybrids (e.g. frontage significant but depth not).  But having made our design decision, we need to be consistent.  For example, on what (if any) effect base depth has on manouevre or flank attacks.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 24, 2024, 06:08:05 PMTo return to a well-worn path, what does the footprint of the unit represent in our game?  Is it at accurately defined area of ground? Are our figures based more in connection with their size and our need to be able to manipulate them in-game?  These are both valid approaches, IMO, as are some hybrids (e.g. frontage significant but depth not).  But having made our design decision, we need to be consistent.  For example, on what (if any) effect base depth has on manoeuvre or flank attacks.

Phil Sabin's Legion has several ground scales, depending on the battle being refought. The assumption of course is that an army behaves in pretty much the same way whether its frontage is a few hundred metres or several kilometres. Is that assumption founded? I suppose enough not to have to introduce special rules (except perhaps for missile ranges).

My take is that manoeuvring consisted exclusively of lines advancing or forming column and moving around with 90 degree wheels if necessary. Lines never wheeled. So ground scale is irrelevant.

The huge width to depth disproportion of miniatures stands is a problem though. Most of the rulesets I know equate a flank attack to a rear attack, but in real life if a stand represents unit with a frontage of 100m and a depth of 10m then a flank attack hits 1/10 of the unit (perhaps a bit more with overlap) whilst a rear attack hits the entire unit. In Optio I make rear attacks more devastating than flank attacks.

Justin,

All true.

That's why personally, I try not to get too 'hung up' on the details and accuracy of (battle) simulation; particularly as I use larger scale (25/8mm) models. Rather, it's good to  simply just to enjoy the spectacle of and enjoyment of playing a game with lovingly researched and prepared scale models; and play a game  based on broad (ancient) military considerations including of the various troop types, their relative combat effectiveness (based on  equipment, training and morale criteria), army and unit deployments  and relative troop concentrations, (limited) manoeuvre capability and command and control restrictions.

Such a relatively (shallow and)simplistic approach can still engender a escapist sense of role-play taking on the part of an ancient General and the associated emapthy with the ancient world.

It's not necessarily all about the accuracy of the simulation. I find that much of the joy of engaging in research is  helping to define the 'rules' context of the game that's played to enhance the enjoyment of the ('escapist') gaming experience.

Happy gaming everybody!

Cheers

Simon

P.S. Peter Connelly's book of Warfare in Greece and Rome has an excellent summary (with diagrams and artwork) of the Roman Republican army and its line relief system (et. al.).

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 10:28:36 AMP.S. Peter Connelly's book of Warfare in Greece and Rome has an excellent summary (with diagrams and artwork) of the Roman Republican army and its line relief system (et. al.).

Thanks for the recommendation but do you mean Peter Connolly's own book 'Greece and Rome at War' or 'Warfare in the Ancient World' illustrated by Peter Connolly and Edited by Gen.Sir John Hackett?  or do they both have the same illustrations?

Greece and Rome at War. Quite right. I had 2 copies but I've loaned them both out and I don't think that I'm getting them back (anytime soon).

 :)
Cheers
Simon

I think it better to say Connolly gives a version of the line relief system.  Others have been suggested.  Justin's, IIRC, is radically different.

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 10:28:36 AMJustin,

All true.

That's why personally, I try not to get too 'hung up' on the details and accuracy of (battle) simulation; particularly as I use larger scale (25/8mm) models. Rather, it's good to  simply just to enjoy the spectacle of and enjoyment of playing a game with lovingly researched and prepared scale models; and play a game  based on broad (ancient) military considerations including of the various troop types, their relative combat effectiveness (based on  equipment, training and morale criteria), army and unit deployments  and relative troop concentrations, (limited) manoeuvre capability and command and control restrictions.

Such a relatively (shallow and)simplistic approach can still engender a escapist sense of role-play taking on the part of an ancient General and the associated emapthy with the ancient world.

It's not necessarily all about the accuracy of the simulation. I find that much of the joy of engaging in research is  helping to define the 'rules' context of the game that's played to enhance the enjoyment of the ('escapist') gaming experience.

Entirely agree. Wargaming is about the game more than about the history.

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 10:28:36 AMP.S. Peter Connelly's book of Warfare in Greece and Rome has an excellent summary (with diagrams and artwork) of the Roman Republican army and its line relief system (et. al.).

We've had quite a few arguments discussions on line relief here on the forum. Not sure if there's any point in resurrecting the topic. I cover it in my book (https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Battle-Formations-Justin-Swanton/dp/1526740060) BTW.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 25, 2024, 11:22:01 AMI think it better to say Connolly gives a version of the line relief system.  Others have been suggested.  Justin's, IIRC, is radically different.

Since you raise it....

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'.

For anyone interested, I do an examination of the primary source evidence for line relief on pp264-274 of my book. Not too long, with plenty of diagrams. ;)

Thanks Justin.  I didn't mean us to restart a conversation on this - as you say we've discussed before.

Interested parties might wish to view this epic http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=652.0

If anyone is tempted to go for a restart, I'd suggest posting in the Weapons and Tactics section of History or Rules Discussions, depending on whether you are interested in the history or the game mechanics.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 25, 2024, 12:09:18 PMThanks Justin.  I didn't mean us to restart a conversation on this - as you say we've discussed before.

Interested parties might wish to view this epic http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=652.0

If anyone is tempted to go for a restart, I'd suggest posting in the Weapons and Tactics section of History or Rules Discussions, depending on whether you are interested in the history or the game mechanics.

That thread is 12 years old and I did quite bit of rethinking on line relief since then.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 25, 2024, 11:49:38 AMHere'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'.

Justin, while my formal Latin education was a long time ago, I still have vague recollections of sentence structure and grammar.

"First line" is the subject of the sentence and not hastati (individuals as you suggest).  Similarly, it is these maniples that are separated by a short distance, not the individuals.  How you arrived at "maniple-sized gaps is a puzzle.  Perhaps Latin is taught differently in different times and in different places?

Possibles v Probables.  :) 

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 01:12:34 PMPossibles v Probables.  :) 

I call 'em as I translate 'em.

Quote from: Jon Freitag on July 25, 2024, 12:46:59 PMJustin, while my formal Latin education was a long time ago, I still have vague recollections of sentence structure and grammar.

"First line" is the subject of the sentence and not hastati (individuals as you suggest).  Similarly, it is these maniples that are separated by a short distance, not the individuals.  How you arrived at "maniple-sized gaps is a puzzle.  Perhaps Latin is taught differently in different times and in different places?

Strictly-speaking '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.

Maniple sized gaps is required by the checkerboard theory, allowing the maniples in front to retire between the maniples behind them, though how that can be effectively be done whilst engaging the enemy is never satisfactorily explained.

Although it's 12 years since the earlier debate, it all comes flooding back  :) Exactly this argument about translation featured then I recall.

As suggested earlier, we could certainly return to Roman line relief, given the big scrap discussion was so long ago, but suggest it has its own topic, rather than be bolted on here.

Another interesting topic hinted out earlier is how did the triarii operate?  Were they glorified camp guards?  Or were they an effective last line of defence (as per their proverbial reputation)?

And just for good measure, I'm thinking of raising modelling flank attacks elsewhere.  Yes, we've done it before but not for a while.

Something about those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it ...  ;)

Quote from: dwkay57 on July 22, 2024, 08:24:03 AMNot placing importance on the number of figures on a base but concentrating on their "fighting value" instead is an interesting approach but might mean a lot of classifications if you have a lot of armies. I assume Chuck that your triarii have less of an impact or strength than the preceding ranks?

The A for Abstraction also plays a role. If your legion is the tactical / command / manoeuvre / morale / fighting strength "blob" then you have other options compared to those representing more detailed structures. As long as both sides are at the same level of abstraction and grouping then it should work.

I apologize David, I Missed your question earlier when I was catching up on the thread. I generally follow the rules that I'm currently using to decide on the capabilities of the triarii. For example, the for the Battle of the Trebia river in Age of Hannibal, the triarii are listed as "elite" and have the same combat factor as the hastati and princepes. The trriarii do suffer a loss of one combat factor in unfavorable terrain and the other two lines don't. it seems reasonable to me so I let it stand.

QuoteAnother interesting topic hinted out earlier is how did the triarii operate?  Were they glorified camp guards?  Or were they an effective last line of defence (as per their proverbial reputation)?

Or were they the veterans held in reserve to commit in a battle winning / saving role?

Which would be much more in line with standard military practice of keeping your best troops to commit at the point when the battle can be won, and culturally more in line with an era when seniority brought respect.

And it fits much more with the overall structure of ages in this army from its original set up.

That the hastatii and principes often proven enough doesn't make the triarii any less significant.

Quote from: Mark G on July 26, 2024, 06:42:18 AM

QuoteAnother interesting topic hinted out earlier is how did the triarii operate?  Were they glorified camp guards?  Or were they an effective last line of defence (as per their proverbial reputation)?

Or were they the veterans held in reserve to commit in a battle winning / saving role?

I had a look at the history of the Triarii in my book. Here's the relevant passage. It does seem egocentric quoting from one's own work but it's what I have on hand.

Triarii were an old institution, as old, according to Dionysius, as the Roman Republic itself. During Rome's first battle as a Republic against Tarquinius in 509 bc – when it still used the hoplite phalanx – the triarii were older veterans who guarded the camp.

... the sons of King Tarquinius put the left wing of the Romans to flight, and advancing close to their camp, did not fail to attempt to take it by storm; but after receiving many wounds, since those inside stood their ground, they desisted. These guards were the triarii, as they are called; they are veteran troops, experienced in many wars, and are always the last employed in the most critical fighting, when every other hope is lost. – Dionysius: 5.15.4.

During the battle between the Romans and the Volscians in 482 bc quoted earlier, the triarii again appear as camp guards. After defeating the army of Lucius Aemilius, the Volscians attempted to storm their camp.

But when, after attacking the hill and surrounding the camp, they endeavoured to pull down the palisades, first the Roman horse, obliged, from the nature of the ground, to fight on foot, sallied out against them, and, behind the horse, those they call the triarii, with their ranks closed. These are the oldest soldiers, to whom they commit the guarding of the camp when they go out to give battle, and they fall back of necessity upon these as their last hope when there has been a general slaughter of the younger men and they lack other reinforcements. – Dionysius: 8.86.4.

They are still camp guards in 480 bc when the consuls Gnaeus Manlius and Marcus Fabius gained a hard-fought victory against the Etruscans. After driving back the Roman right wing, the Etruscan infantry take the first and then the second camp of the Romans.

In the meantime the Tyrrhenians who had possessed themselves of the camp abandoned by Manlius, as soon as the signal for battle was given at headquarters, ran with great haste and alacrity to the other camp of the Romans, suspecting that it was not guarded by a sufficient force. And their belief was correct. For, apart from the triarii and a few younger troops, the rest of the crowd then in the camp consisted of merchants, servants and artificers. – Dionysius: 9.12.1 (see also Livy: 2.47.4).

This battle is also interesting as it shows how the second line could be used to counter an envelopment of a wing.

When Marcus Fabius, the other consul, who commanded in thevcentre, was informed of this [the envelopment of the Roman left wing], he took with him the best of the maniples, and summoning Caeso Fabius, his other brother, he passed beyond his own line, and advancing a long way, till he had got beyond the enemy's right wing, he turned upon those who were encircling his men, and charging them, caused great slaughter among all whom he encountered. – Dionysius: 9.11.3.

The 'best of the maniples' were evidently not those of the first line already locked in combat with the Etruscan centre, but were part of the uncommitted maniples of the second line.

The last time triarii are mentioned as camp guards is in 437 bc when they are used to repel an attack by the Veientian troops of Lars Tolumnus at Fidenae.

In 350 bc they have a more active role, constructing field works near a Gallic army in Latium whilst the two infantry lines stand guard. The Gauls attack the lines – now called hastati and principes by Livy – who repel them whilst the triarii continue working.

On the side of the Romans neither the works were interrupted, (it was the triarii who were employed at them) but the battle was commenced by the hastati and the principes, who stood in front of the workmen armed and prepared for the fight. – Livy: 7.23.7.

It is possible the triarii were engaged in this same occupation 40 years earlier in 394 bc, when Camillus entrenched the high ground above a Faliscan army, but the crucial word in Livy (History: 5.26.7) is rendered as either triarii (Weissenborn, Müller) or trifariam (three places/sides: Foster, Conway, Walters).

I suspect our figure size and basing have distorted our gaming ideas of how Republican legionaries operated and have led to tabletop truisms. I wasn't brought up on a diet of 25mm figures, so the clunkiness of these on undersized tables wasn't part of my mispent youth. This doesn't mean that 15mm scale elements work any better either.

Do maniples operate independently of each other or in groups? Who decides when "line relief" happens and in what quantity? Is it legion-wide or up to independent Centurions and how do they communicate their maniple is under stress? What figure scale do we play games that make any sense to playing a battle so that we are not micro-managing the game? Do you want to be making Scipio decisions, Tribune decisions or Centurion decisions? In other words, in the scale of your game are you commanding legions or maniples?

I've always regarded the Triarii as an elite social grouping, an exclusive club of relatively wealthy veterans who are keen not to lose their shiny kit or their lives. They will fight if they absolutely have to but our sources don't reflect their battlefield combat ability or effectiveness. Was there a morale advantage to the Principes & Hastati knowing these elite "heroes" had our backs? Why put them on the tabletop at all if their only value was to cover a retreat?

What an old chestnut this is!

I think Steve's middle paragraph is quite key. The most likely answer is that we probably don't know and how we replicate this on our model battlefields is down to the 4 A's (ambition, abstraction, authenticity, and aesthetics) of wargaming. The result is dependent upon where we are in our individual four-dimensional matrix of those factors.

Quote from: stevenneate on July 26, 2024, 02:42:42 PMWas there a morale advantage to the Principes & Hastati knowing these elite "heroes" had our backs?

I think I recall attending a talk by Marian Helm (possibly at King's College London in 2019 or online in 2023) where he spoke about "Creating 'natural fighters': Age and social expectations in the Roman republican army." I don't think his ideas have yet made it into print.

If I remember correctly, one of his arguments was that the triarii, as established married heads of families, had an important social function within the army. The younger legionaries, the bulk of the fighting men, operated under the watchful (and watching) eyes of their social superiors who were in a position to assess, judge, and validate their performance both within the army and to their families back home. With such peer pressure the younger men were likely thereby encouraged to greater acts of virtus and thus the overall fighting ability and moral resilience of the army were enhanced.

Adrian.

Quote from: dwkay57 on July 26, 2024, 05:49:25 PMI think Steve's middle paragraph is quite key. The most likely answer is that we probably don't know and how we replicate this on our model battlefields is down to the 4 A's (ambition, abstraction, authenticity, and aesthetics) of wargaming. The result is dependent upon where we are in our individual four-dimensional matrix of those factors.

This is one of the questions that keeps coming to me and I'm sure I've raised it before. Who on earth gave the order for line relief, and what was the mechanism for relaying it to the centurions?
Did the legate decide and have a signal blown so the whole front line replaced the whole second line. It would make sense in that he could spot a lull and have it happen then.
Or was it done 'locally' where two centurions communicated with each other and did it quickly when their bit of the 'front' was quiet.
I must admit I lean towards the first. It seems more practical especially if you assume that the Western Med way of way was one where lulls in the fighting as men caught their breath wasn't unusual

It also begs the question that within this theatre of warfare was it relatively common to swap lines forward, say among other Italians, Spanish, even Gauls who'd settled in these areas but they never got to write about it?

Marian Helm

Now there is a name to have when researching ancient military history - as would Gladys Spatha

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 27, 2024, 07:43:50 AMThis is one of the questions that keeps coming to me and I'm sure I've raised it before. Who on earth gave the order for line relief, and what was the mechanism for relaying it to the centurions?
Did the legate decide and have a signal blown so the whole front line replaced the whole second line. It would make sense in that he could spot a lull and have it happen then.
Or was it done 'locally' where two centurions communicated with each other and did it quickly when their bit of the 'front' was quiet.

Perhaps the best way to answer the question is to ask why line relief took place. My own take is that there were never lulls in the action. Once two lines engaged each other they remained engaged until one line broke. The actual fighting however was not Hollywood. Most of the time the protagonists kept up their guard, occasionally switching to sudden brief strikes before reverting to guard again. Something like like this (https://youtu.be/JOBTFfHJjV8?t=29) or this. (https://youtu.be/ERmM5l2ceoY?t=62) But with less action. So fatigue wasn't an issue.

What was an issue was the file leaders getting killed. The file leader was the best fighter of the file, with man behind him being second best. If the file leader's opponent could kill him and the second man then he owned the rest of the file. It would be only a matter of time before he killed them all or panicked them into running.

Another factor was the need in any form of hand-to-hand combat to be able to recoil from an enemy's blows. If you can't do this you are at a critical disadvantage. In an even fight between two lines, an outfought file leader could momentarily pull back, knowing his opponent would not follow up into the file and be surrounded on three sides. After a moment or two he could advance and renew the engagement. But if too many file leaders gave way, those still up front would also have to fall back so as not to be surrounded themselves. The entire line would hence fall back. If a hastati line began sagging in this way, it is inevitable the entire line would have to retire otherwise sections of it would be left exposed by the retreating segments. So the tribune would judge how many file leaders he had lost and how far back portions of the line were retreating and then give the order for a general retreat of the line - again, a general retreat was necessary so that the line would not fragment and be cut to pieces.

In the earlier Republic the Rorarii would move up to strengthen sections of the forward line was were giving way. No idea how exactly this was executed. Rorare means to refresh or renew. Giving new strength to something without actually replacing it. Just taking up position behind outfought files shouldn't do a thing for them as the front men of the files would still be outfought. But clearly sending the Rorarii up did boost those outfought sections.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMIn the earlier Republic the Rorarii would move up to strengthen sections of the forward line was were giving way. No idea how exactly this was executed. Rorare means to refresh or renew.

Quote from: Varro, De lingua latinarorarii dicti ab rore qui bellum committebant, ideo quod ante rorat quam pluit.

Rorarii [were those] named from the ros 'dew-drop', who started the battle, because it rorat 'sprinkles' before it really rains.

Ah, so the triarii were for those battles when they forgot to turn on the sprinklers?   ???

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMIf a hastati line began sagging in this way, it is inevitable the entire line would have to retire otherwise sections of it would be left exposed by the retreating segments. So the tribune would judge how many file leaders he had lost and how far back portions of the line were retreating and then give the order for a general retreat of the line - again, a general retreat was necessary so that the line would not fragment and be cut to pieces.

According to ROMAN INFANTRY TACTICS IN THE MID-REPUBLIC: A REASSESSMENT Michael J. Taylor
Abstract
This article explores two questions about the tactical mechanics of the Roman manipular legion. First, what frontages did the Roman legion field in set-piece battle? Given that Hellenistic forces deployed in standardized formations, the length of Hellenistic infantry lines can be used to calculate the opposing Roman formation. This in turn permits consideration of the nature and tactical function of the gaps between the maniples. The paper deduces that Roman legions presented fronts between 320 and 570 meters in five set-piece battles. The range of frontages suggests that modest inter-manipular gaps were maintained even as the heavy infantry lines clashed.

The problem I have with the Tribune giving orders based on "how many file leaders he had lost" is how on earth he would know?
If he's in the front rank he's too busy staying alive.
If he's in the space between first and second line, he could perhaps see the standards of various centuries falling back, or advancing, but I cannot see how on earth he would know how many men had died, never mind file leaders.



Indeed when the action could be a third or half a kilometre from him, in conditions where there could be dust or whatever he is going to struggle.
Similarly if the enemy aren't swordsmen but men with long spears or pikes, if a file leader goes down, they don't have to step forward into the gap to continue fighting, they can stay where they are and just use their spear/pike to hit the man next to the dead guy, in the front rank, who is now overwhelmed as he's facing a lot of adversaries.

(The problem with the sword fight examples is that the protagonists aren't wearing armour, carrying a damned big shield, and are hemmed in by their comrades (who might even be able to help them if they see an opening.)

The originals would also be using a shorter sword with less emphasis on the point and a damned sight better edge)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMSo the tribune would judge how many file leaders he had lost and how far back portions of the line were retreating and then give the order for a general retreat of the line - again, a general retreat was necessary so that the line would not fragment and be cut to pieces.

Throwing my two pence in here...
This would actually be nicely covered by Phil Barker's old contention that a commander would see if his men were advancing cheering, backing up nervously looking over their shoulders or breaking in panic to the rear.
So a Tribune would not need to take a headcount but merely see that a maniple was giving ground and *looked* shaky to order the next line (or part of it) to move up in support.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 27, 2024, 04:04:45 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMIn the earlier Republic the Rorarii would move up to strengthen sections of the forward line was were giving way. No idea how exactly this was executed. Rorare means to refresh or renew.

Quote from: Varro, De lingua latinarorarii dicti ab rore qui bellum committebant, ideo quod ante rorat quam pluit.

Rorarii [were those] named from the ros 'dew-drop', who started the battle, because it rorat 'sprinkles' before it really rains.

Old chestnut. The only instance where the rorarii are mentioned in a specific battle is Vesuvius, where their role seems very much supporting heavy infantry - in the role of heavy infantry:

QuoteAt the same time the Romans — their spirits relieved of religious fears —pressed on as though the signal had just then for the first time been given, and delivered a fresh attack; for the rorarii were running out between the antepilani and were joining their strength to that of the hastati and the principles, and the triarii, kneeling on the right knee, were waiting till the consul signed to them to rise." - Livy, History: 8.9.1-14

It seems they mutated into the role of light infantry before eventually being absorbed into the velites.

We covered this before (or rather Patrick did) in the thread on the Proto-Manipular legion (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1304.msg12672#msg12672).

Quote from: Chilliarch on July 29, 2024, 04:52:13 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMSo the tribune would judge how many file leaders he had lost and how far back portions of the line were retreating and then give the order for a general retreat of the line - again, a general retreat was necessary so that the line would not fragment and be cut to pieces.

Throwing my two pence in here...
This would actually be nicely covered by Phil Barker's old contention that a commander would see if his men were advancing cheering, backing up nervously looking over their shoulders or breaking in panic to the rear.
So a Tribune would not need to take a headcount but merely see that a maniple was giving ground and *looked* shaky to order the next line (or part of it) to move up in support.

I would guess that the tribune could see the centurions going down - their distinctive helmet crests would make that obvious. That plus a sagging line would tell him time to pull back and send the next line in.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 29, 2024, 11:31:51 AM

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 27, 2024, 04:04:45 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMIn the earlier Republic the Rorarii would move up to strengthen sections of the forward line was were giving way. No idea how exactly this was executed. Rorare means to refresh or renew.

Quote from: Varro, De lingua latinarorarii dicti ab rore qui bellum committebant, ideo quod ante rorat quam pluit.

Rorarii [were those] named from the ros 'dew-drop', who started the battle, because it rorat 'sprinkles' before it really rains.

Old chestnut. The only instance where the rorarii are mentioned in a specific battle is Vesuvius, where their role seems very much supporting heavy infantry - in the role of heavy infantry:

While Varro is by no means perfect, I would prefer his etymology to one you've made up.

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 29, 2024, 12:53:41 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 29, 2024, 11:31:51 AM

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 27, 2024, 04:04:45 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 27, 2024, 03:14:28 PMIn the earlier Republic the Rorarii would move up to strengthen sections of the forward line was were giving way. No idea how exactly this was executed. Rorare means to refresh or renew.

Quote from: Varro, De lingua latinarorarii dicti ab rore qui bellum committebant, ideo quod ante rorat quam pluit.

Rorarii [were those] named from the ros 'dew-drop', who started the battle, because it rorat 'sprinkles' before it really rains.

Old chestnut. The only instance where the rorarii are mentioned in a specific battle is Vesuvius, where their role seems very much supporting heavy infantry - in the role of heavy infantry:

While Varro is by no means perfect, I would prefer his etymology to one you've made up.

I won't argue with Varro :), but it seems the rorarii could multi-task despite their name.

Edit: actually, thinking about about it, Varro's etymology seems strange. Sprinkling with dew as an image of skirmishers doing some light skirmishing is distinctly odd. Rorare is a beneficial activity which skirmishing is not. Benefitting one's own side rather than degrading the other seems more in line with the sense of the word. My 2c which - since I'm a nobody - feel free to ignore.

A quick look at the etymology of the word online gives this

The fight was commenced by the Rorarii, so called because the light missiles which they sprinkled among the foe were like the drops which are the forerunners of the thunder shower

William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

So, if you put less emphasis on the dew and more on the Romans having a word meaning "light rain before a storm", Varro (or Festus' epitome) makes sense.  Doesn't necessarily make it right, but does make it a Roman as opposed to modern interpretation, as Duncan points out.

There is quite a lot of argument for the term being derived from running in academic and dictionary circles online.  This seems to need more advanced knowledge of linguistics than I possess.  This would fit with them being described as rorarii velox perhaps?

Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2024, 03:32:09 PMA quick look at the etymology of the word online gives this

The fight was commenced by the Rorarii, so called because the light missiles which they sprinkled among the foe were like the drops which are the forerunners of the thunder shower

William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

So, if you put less emphasis on the dew and more on the Romans having a word meaning "light rain before a storm", Varro (or Festus' epitome) makes sense.  Doesn't necessarily make it right, but does make it a Roman as opposed to modern interpretation, as Duncan points out.

There is quite a lot of argument for the term being derived from running in academic and dictionary circles online.  This seems to need more advanced knowledge of linguistics than I possess.  This would fit with them being described as rorarii velox perhaps?

In pretty much all the dictionaries I can find (including the hard copy one I have) rorare is given only a literal meaning: to provide moisture, to fall in drops, to drip, to sprinkle, to moisten with drops, etc. Wictionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rorare) also give the figurative sense of to revive, to renew, but I'm not sure what that's based on. So it's up for grabs whether the rorarii got their term from being strengtheners of their own men or just scatterers of javelins on the enemy. But they certainly seem to have fulfilled both roles.

Wiktionary only gives the meaning "renew" or "refresh" in modern Italian as far as I can see.  At a guess, it's originally a poetic form from refreshing rain or dew.  None of the other online dictionaries give this as a Latin meaning, though, given the Roman's poetic tendencies, it's possible somebody somewhere said it.  Safer perhaps, like Varro, to stick with the primary meaning.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2024, 05:07:34 PMWiktionary only gives the meaning "renew" or "refresh" in modern Italian as far as I can see.  At a guess, it's originally a poetic form from refreshing rain or dew.  None of the other online dictionaries give this as a Latin meaning, though, given the Roman's poetic tendencies, it's possible somebody somewhere said it.  Safer perhaps, like Varro, to stick with the primary meaning.

Sure (though keeping in mind the primary sense is also used figuratively).

Taking another look at that passage from Livy, it is possible the rorarii were acting as skirmishers at Vesuvius. How exactly were they "joining their strength to that of the hastati and the principles"? Just thickening the line wouldn't achieve anything as that does nothing for the front rank fighters. But if the rorarii supplied rear-rank missile support that would help the men in front. So Varro ties in nicely with Livy. Are we all friends? :)

 I cannot vouch for Italy, but here Dew is entirely different to rain.
You have have dew on the grass in the morning and it tells you very little about how the day is going to progress

If the name is related to Dew, then I would suggest that it happens before everything starts, and might happen  even if there is no battle (rain)

I will weigh in with my own etymological spin...

I agree that the term is likely figurative.  Like the morning dew evaporates when the temperature rises, lightly-armed rorarii tend to "evaporate" once the battle heats up.  Using "ros" as a root suggests these troops were light with little substance.

Gotta love the Romans and their use of language.

Quote from: Jim Webster on July 29, 2024, 07:11:49 PMI cannot vouch for Italy, but here Dew is entirely different to rain.

Certainly in the UK but not it seems to Romans or modern Italians. ??? The ros droplet root is probably the key.

QuoteIf the name is related to Dew, then I would suggest that it happens before everything starts, and might happen  even if there is no battle (rain)

I think the "beginning" element of the figure could be significant.  Dew at daybreak, light rain before the proper storm begins.  Skirmishers begin the battle.
If the rorarii begin by skirmishing, then fall back through the ranks to add support if needed later in the battle, how would that parallel/differ from later velite behaviour (question for the Romanists there)?

Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2024, 07:48:35 PMIf the rorarii begin by skirmishing, then fall back through the ranks to add support if needed later in the battle, how would that parallel/differ from later velite behaviour (question for the Romanists there)?

I am not a Romanist, but it seems to me that if the rorarii look like velites, act like velites and curse like velites then one might as well call them velites and be done with it.

Quote from: Keraunos on July 31, 2024, 12:26:07 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on July 29, 2024, 07:48:35 PMIf the rorarii begin by skirmishing, then fall back through the ranks to add support if needed later in the battle, how would that parallel/differ from later velite behaviour (question for the Romanists there)?

I am not a Romanist, but it seems to me that if the rorarii look like velites, act like velites and curse like velites then one might as well call them velites and be done with it.

Velites were by default split between the hastati, principes and triarii according to Polybius, and it seems clear enough from Polybius that they were really split among the heavy infantry and didn't form a separate line in front with some sort of notional administrative link to the other lines:

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

That being the case, if they were ever mentioned as being deployed ahead of the heavy infantry then that was for a special reason, as for example at the Trebia where they supported the Roman cavalry's drive against the Numidian LH.

At Cannae interestingly enough it seems they weren't deployed ahead of the heavies as it was the lightly-armed auxilia and the slingers who were put there. Was 'lightly-armed auxilia' ever used to describe velites? Even granted it was, the light troops were there to screen the legionaries from Hannibal's own slingers and peltasts, i.e. an unusual deployment dictated by circumstances.

With this in mind, it seems the rorarii certainly appear to have behaved as velites. They could initiate combat with missile volley (possibly though not necessarily from in front of the hastati) and supplied overhead missile support after that. Overhead missile support does seem to have been a feature of the legion all the way to the late empire, since all legionaries from Marius were supplied with missile weapons and late-imperial battlelines explicitly had missile troops in the rear ranks.

Company means a group of H, P and T with V in front of the whole.

Not V in front of H and in front of P and in front of T

Quote from: Mark G on July 31, 2024, 01:13:58 PMCompany means a group of H, P and T with V in front of the whole.

Not V in front of H and in front of P and in front of T

No. We are told that the hastati, principes and triarii each appoint a total of 20 centurions, so 60 centurions altogether (as Polybius states). Each company has two centurions so there are a total of 30 companies, i.e. 10 of hastati, 10 of principes and 10 of triarii. The velites are split among these companies therefore distributed among the hastati, principles and triarii. They don't form a separate line of their own.

Or not.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 31, 2024, 12:59:26 PMAt Cannae interestingly enough it seems they [that is, the velites - DJH] weren't deployed ahead of the heavies as it was the lightly-armed auxilia and the slingers who were put there.

Don't forget that this is Livy, who claimed (26.4) that the velites were first made part of the legions only in 211, so you'd hardly expect him to mention them in 216. At least, not if he had any claim to consistency.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 01, 2024, 01:56:18 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 31, 2024, 12:59:26 PMAt Cannae interestingly enough it seems they [that is, the velites - DJH] weren't deployed ahead of the heavies as it was the lightly-armed auxilia and the slingers who were put there.

Don't forget that this is Livy, who claimed (26.4) that the velites were first made part of the legions only in 211, so you'd hardly expect him to mention them in 216. At least, not if he had any claim to consistency.

Livy seems to be referring to an adaptation of legion's light troops for cavalry support, since they use the javelins of the 'velitares' but now have shields to boot:

inita tandem ratio est ut quod viribus deerat arte aequaretur. ex omnibus legionibus electi sunt iuvenes maxime vigore ac levitate corporum veloces; eis parmae breviores quam equestres et septena iacula quaternos longa pedes data, praefixa ferro quale hastis velitaribus inest.

"out of all the legions were picked young men who by reason of strength and lightness of build were the swiftest. these were furnished with round shields of smaller size than those used by cavalry, and seven javelins apiece four feet long and having iron heads such as are on the spears of the light-armed troops [velitaribus]."

The same velitares accompanied the Roman cavalry at the cavalry fight at the Ticinus. Here they are called iaculatores - "throwers" - and they don't fight the Carthaginian horse hand-to-hand but retire through their own cavalry.

"Scipio stationed his darters [iaculatores] and Gallic horse in front, holding in reserve the Romans and the best of the allies; Hannibal put the cavalry who rode with bridles in the centre, and made his wings strong with Numidians. Hardly had the battle-cry been raised, when the darters fled through their supports to the second line."

It seems that the strictly skirmishing leves/iaculatores were upgraded to peltasts at Capua, accompanying the cavalry and fighting the enemy cavalry toe-to-toe which implied the ability to engage them in hand-to-hand combat as well as by missile fire.

And yes, the iaculatores were stationed in front at Cannae. The word is translated as "slingers" in the Perseus translation - I keep forgetting not to trust translations:

iaculatores ex ceteris leuium armorum auxiliis prima acies facta.

"The slingers [iaculatores] and other light-armed auxiliaries were formed up in front."

My original point was that if the iaculatores (equivalent to the old leves) were always stationed in front then Livy wouldn't have had to mention it - as he doesn't mention the deployment of the hastati, principes and triarii. Making a point of it implies it was unusual, but made sense as a LI screen for the Roman HI against the Carthaginian LI. Gauls - the habitual enemy of the Romans - didn't use lots of LI so no need for a screen against them.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 01, 2024, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 01, 2024, 01:56:18 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 31, 2024, 12:59:26 PMAt Cannae interestingly enough it seems they [that is, the velites - DJH] weren't deployed ahead of the heavies as it was the lightly-armed auxilia and the slingers who were put there.

Don't forget that this is Livy, who claimed (26.4) that the velites were first made part of the legions only in 211, so you'd hardly expect him to mention them in 216. At least, not if he had any claim to consistency.

Livy seems to be referring to an adaptation of legion's light troops for cavalry support, since they use the javelins of the 'velitares' but now have shields to boot:

inita tandem ratio est ut quod viribus deerat arte aequaretur. ex omnibus legionibus electi sunt iuvenes maxime vigore ac levitate corporum veloces; eis parmae breviores quam equestres et septena iacula quaternos longa pedes data, praefixa ferro quale hastis velitaribus inest.

"out of all the legions were picked young men who by reason of strength and lightness of build were the swiftest. these were furnished with round shields of smaller size than those used by cavalry, and seven javelins apiece four feet long and having iron heads such as are on the spears of the light-armed troops [velitaribus]."

"velitaribus" is surely an adjective from veles/velites; not from the non-existent noun velitares. Hasta velitaris, the spear of the light infantry, might simply derive from velox, as does veles itself - in which case, the velites might be named after the spear, not the other way round. This would neatly resolve some of the difficulties of the Capua 211 passage.

(I'm sure I have somewhere seen the theory that hasta velitaris originally denoted the socketed pilum, of which the classic velites' spear is a sort of miniature version.)

QuoteIt seems that the strictly skirmishing leves/iaculatores were upgraded to peltasts at Capua, accompanying the cavalry and fighting the enemy cavalry toe-to-toe which implied the ability to engage them in hand-to-hand combat as well as by missile fire.

That is more or less my interpretation of the Capua passage, yes, as primarily an equipment change, though others have come up with several different interpretations. Nonetheless, Livy does explicitly say institutum ut velites in legionibus essent (and cf Valerius Maximus 2.3.3) - so he's hardly likely to mention them five years earlier, which was my point.

QuoteMy original point was that if the iaculatores (equivalent to the old leves) were always stationed in front then Livy wouldn't have had to mention it - as he doesn't mention the deployment of the hastati, principes and triarii. Making a point of it implies it was unusual, but made sense as a LI screen for the Roman HI against the Carthaginian LI. Gauls - the habitual enemy of the Romans - didn't use lots of LI so no need for a screen against them.

Yet Livy also explicitly mentions the Roman cavalry being on the right, the allied cavalry being on the left, and the heavy infantry in the middle - so Livy probably didn't need to mention them, either. Saying that the light infantry were in front doesn't imply that it was unusual any more than saying the the heavies were in the centre.

And if you think there's no need for a LI screen against Gauls, then I suggest you re-read Telamon.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 01, 2024, 03:38:37 PMAnd if you think there's no need for a LI screen against Gauls, then I suggest you re-read Telamon.

Damn that history stuff  ;)

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 01, 2024, 03:38:37 PM"velitaribus" is surely an adjective from veles/velites; not from the non-existent noun velitares. Hasta velitaris, the spear of the light infantry, might simply derive from velox, as does veles itself - in which case, the velites might be named after the spear, not the other way round. This would neatly resolve some of the difficulties of the Capua 211 passage.

(I'm sure I have somewhere seen the theory that hasta velitaris originally denoted the socketed pilum, of which the classic velites' spear is a sort of miniature version.)

Sure. That makes sense.

QuoteThat is more or less my interpretation of the Capua passage, yes, as primarily an equipment change, though others have come up with several different interpretations. Nonetheless, Livy does explicitly say institutum ut velites in legionibus essent (and cf Valerius Maximus 2.3.3) - so he's hardly likely to mention them five years earlier, which was my point.

Fine. It wasn't velites that fought at Cannae, Trebia or the Ticinus.

QuoteYet Livy also explicitly mentions the Roman cavalry being on the right, the allied cavalry being on the left, and the heavy infantry in the middle - so Livy probably didn't need to mention them, either. Saying that the light infantry were in front doesn't imply that it was unusual any more than saying the the heavies were in the centre.

Livy describes the heavies in the centre as being deployed in an unusual manner. Instead of putting the Roman legions in the middle and the Allied legions on the wings, as was customary, Terentius deployed the Roman legions on the right and the Allied legions on the left. He affirms that the Roman cavalry deployed on the right and the Allied cavalry on the left, but this seems partly to make clear to the reader that the cavalry deployment was normal, and partly to make clear who the Gallic and Spanish horse and the Numidians faced, since the battle was decided by the action on the wings hence the players there were important. Adding that the iaculatores deployed in front along with the Auxilia lights also looks like something exceptional. If it wasn't, why not say that the hastati deployed behind them in the first HI line, the principes in the second and the triarii in the third? Why mention the standard deployment of the skirmisher line and not the others?

QuoteAnd if you think there's no need for a LI screen against Gauls, then I suggest you re-read Telamon.

Polybius mentions an interesting detail from that battle:

"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.


Edit: thinking about it, 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!

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 01, 2024, 06:59:35 PMBut when the javelineers [ἀκοντιστής] advanced, as is their usage, from out of the Roman legions

As a non-Romanist who knows no Greek, the obvious reading of this is that the normal practice of the "javelineers" was to advance out from their deployment among the heavy infantry and form a skirmish line.  This would have been true if they were with the triarii (which the rorarii were said to be) or mustered with their administrative units across the three lines (as the velites were supposed to be).  What am I missing?

Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2024, 07:19:19 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 01, 2024, 06:59:35 PMBut when the javelineers [ἀκοντιστής] advanced, as is their usage, from out of the Roman legions

As a non-Romanist who knows no Greek, the obvious reading of this is that the normal practice of the "javelineers" was to advance out from their deployment among the heavy infantry and form a skirmish line.  This would have been true if they were with the triarii (which the rorarii were said to be) or mustered with their administrative units across the three lines (as the velites were supposed to be).  What am I missing?

I modified my post. Looks like Polybius is describing parentaxis.

One interesting detail on the number of velites. Polybius gives 4200 men as the standard size of the legion (6.20) but also implies that 4000 men was the minimal size (6.21). With the latter he affirms there were 1200 hastati, 1200 principes and 600 triarii, which meant that in a budget legion there were 1000 velites. Livy twice mentions legions of 4000 men (History: 21.17 and 28.28) so they were a thing. It's straightforward enough to split 1000 velites between the three lines: 400 (or two ranks) to the hastati, 400 to the principes and 200 (one rank) to the triari.

For legions over 4000 men the number of velites, hastati and principes were to be increased whilst the triarii remained at the same size. This means that the legion of 4200 men didn't necessarily have 1200 hastati, 1200 principes, 600 triarii and 1200 velites.

"They divide them so that the senior men known as triarii number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, the rest, consisting of the youngest, being velites. If the legion consists of more than four thousand men, they divide accordingly, except as regards the triarii, the number of whom is always the same."

The ratios of hastasti to principes hence is always the same but the velites are also increased proportionally for larger legions. What happens for a legion of 4200 men? Do you just add 200 velites? That would be the simplest thing to do as adding, say, 100 men each to the hastati and principes would create files of uneven length as you need 200 men for a complete rank.

Other common sizes for the legion are 5000 (four times in Livy) and 5200 (five times). 5000 would be achieved by adding 400 hastati (2 ranks), 400 principes (2 ranks) and 200 velites (one rank) to a 4000 man legion, so 1600 hastati (8 deep), 1600 principes (8 deep) and 1200 velites (2 deep per line). 5200 would be achieved by adding an extra 200 velites - the additional rank going perhaps to the hastati.