'Holes in the Checkerboard'

[RichT]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[eques]

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.

[RichT]

Hello Patrick:

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 

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

(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.

[eques]

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"

[Agrippa]

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"!

[Justin Swanton]

It's been a while since we had a good old debate, and some topics are perennial, so why not?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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 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.

[Agrippa]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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 

[Mark G]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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?

[Jim Webster]

(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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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.