'Holes in the Checkerboard'

[Patrick Waterson]

And you need to understand formed men breaking off frontally by mutual consent without breaking.

Could you give an example of this from a historical Roman battle, please, Mark?

[Erpingham]

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.

Not sure I agree this covers the traditional position.  As I understand it, the Romans don't normally fight with holes in the line, just deploy that way.  They then close the gaps with posterior centuries to fight.  When they change over, they re-open the gaps, move up/fall back through the gaps, reclose.  This happens at a point of lull in combat.  I think Justin explains this well enough.  One of the key issues is sufficient "lull" to allow this happen.  Wouldn't the enemy instantly react?  Did lulls occur at all?  I think these questions are the main ones that the trad model has to struggle against - the actual manoeuvering would be within the capabilities of an army trained to perform it.

Justin's file relief system is quite interesting and potentially might work, especially if carried out in a lull (it would need far less time exposed to the enemies reaction than the trad, I think).  My major concern with it is it does seem to require some tricksy translations, substituting alternatives for the obvious.  Would two writers in two languages do exactly the same thing?  Someone must have studied their stylistic foibles to know whether this was likely.

[Tim]

17th Century post-Tercio formations were largely firing by introduction or (more commonly perhaps) extroduction.  In this individuals are moving up and down files rather than specific bodies moving back and forth in a line relief mechanism.  The staggered lines seen on deployment woodcuts and prints MAY relate to a combined arms approach where it is required to either allow Horse in and out of the formation and/or turn to flank if the horse/ally is beaten (occurred far more often than might be expected - and with far more devestating consquences the less experienced the infantry were).

Not sure that helps this discussion much.

[RichT]

Hi Justin:

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

Lots of reasons why not! But OK, a little one...

I agree that the usual translation has always been 'between' - as I mention in the article - but this I suspect is due to a vicious circle: academic opinion has favoured 'between', which has prompted translators to use 'between', which has reinforced academic opinion, and so on.

This can happen (though not quite in the way you express it) - translations are inevitably coloured by the prevailing mental model of combat etc, as I believe and will argue has happened in the case of othismos/shoving - and as happens with your alternative translations also, which are coloured by your, slightly different, model of combat. But in this case I think you are just wrong, details below.

The point about line relief is that one doesn't need a vast amount of academic erudition to resolve it, just a good grasp of Latin and a willingness to think outside the box.

If it were that easy, we would not be having this discussion, would we?

Re the Latin sentence: Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium, the subject of the sentence is the hastati, not the maniples, hence the distantes - a present participle that agrees in case with the subject - would in the most natural reading refer to the hastati. The sentence is thus best rendered: "The first line were the hastati, in fifteen maniples, who stood a small distance apart from each other." Translating the inter se as maniple-wide gaps between one maniple and the next not only forces the Latin IMHO but also makes nonsense of the "small space."

But it doesn't force the Latin in the opinion of everyone who has ever translated this passage. You can't just put everything down to 'academic fashion'.

Look at Livy 30.33 (Zama - using Polybius as a source which is especially nice as it means we can compare the Latin and the Greek):


non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quamque signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.

However, he did not form cohorts in close contact, each in advance of its standards, but rather maniples at a considerable distance from each other, so that there should be an interval where the enemy's elephants might be driven through without breaking up the ranks.

The similarity of the expressions - "manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium" and "manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes" is apparent. If nothing else, this rules out your objections to the translation of 'inter'.

but also makes nonsense of the "small space"

Interesting you set such store by the translation of a 'small' space - 'modicum' (as when it is used in English) can mean small, or moderate, or suitable, or various sizes according to context - as can 'aliquantum' in the Zama passage, which is translated above as 'considerable' (the dictionary definition covers "little, some, a considerable amount, something".

See also Livy 30.33.6 (Zama) -


Modico deinde intervallo relicto subsidiariam aciem Italicorum militum

Then, leaving a moderate interval, he drew up a reserve line of Italic soldiers


According to Polybius 15.11.2 this 'modico intervallo' was more than a stade. "A certain distance" might be a better, non-committal translation - but you can't draw any strong inferences from it.

You might also note the the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval - the English could express it just the same - "he left gaps between the maniples so as to leave a space for the elephants" or "the maniples of the principes not covering the interval of the maniples in front" - perfectly fine and the meaning clear in English, Greek and Latin.

Not really. In intervalla ordinum means exactly what it says: "in the gaps of the companies". If the gaps were meant to be between one company and the next then one would expect the writer at least to use an expression like: in intervalla inter ordines presuming inter means "between" (which it may not thus still leaving the corrected phrase ambiguous). As it stands, the expression refers to gaps belonging to the companies themselves, not gaps that are outside the internal structure of the companies. To opt for the latter sense is to force the Latin.

No it isn't. Livy is spectacularly loose in his use of 'ordines', as you know. It doesn't simply mean 'companies' (maniples, centuries or whatever) - it means, more or less, 'formation' (as in the example above 'qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent'. It all depends on context. In Livy 8.8 the context is clear enough, and we have Livy/Polybius on Zama to back it up, which is why the standard translation has been universally accepted. You could argue that the gaps are not the gaps between maniples but some other gaps (such as between files) but at the least, at the very least, the 'orthodox view' is NOT 'forcing the Latin'.

Take for example Livy 39.29.4:


caetrati ita, quantum latitudo vallis patiebatur, instructi sederant, ut facile per intervalla ordinum fugientes suos acciperent.

The caetrati had been resting in formation, so far as the width of the valley permitted, so that they easily permitted the fugitives to pass through the intervals in their ranks


These caetrati are Achaean peltasts. What sorts of gaps are these? Not in 'ranks' at any rate, but files? Speirai?

Or Livy 10.5.6


sed reliquerat intervalla inter ordines peditum

but the dictator had left intervals between the files of the infantry


You should be pleased to see this translated 'files' (wrongly I suspect) - though as it is 'inter ordines' not 'in ordinum', by your argument it should be 'between companies'.

In short, Livy's language is too vague to draw the sort of inferences you are attempting - but the context of 8.8 and Zama is clear enough that there has never been any uncertainty over it. You would have to take up with Livy why he might choose to write 'In intervalla ordinum'...

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument about diastema in Polybius' Zama at all. You might also consider some of the other examples in Polybius, such as:

Pol 11.22.10

He (Scipio) withdrew his skirmishers through the intervals of the maniples,

Dia ton diastematon en tais semaias


Pol 12.8.3

At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep, and between each squadron a clear space must be left in the line to enable them to turn or face about.

Kai metaxu ton ilon ekastes ison huparchein dei diastema tois metopois


Also don't lose sight of the fact that diestema occurs three times more just in Pol 15.9 (Zama). So in Shuckburgh's translation, slightly tweaked for literalness:


the hastati first, their maniples in intervals [ en diastemasin]; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the interval [diastema] of the leading maniples as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because of the numbers of the enemy elephants.... The intervals [diastemata] between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples [ dia ton diastematon] , which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces [ diestemata]  between the maniples.

It is perverse to try to translate the second diastema differently just because it is singular - c.f. Livy. The Greek, and the meaning, are as clear as they come.

On the wider question of line relief I'm with Andrew - I think 16th/17th/18th C practice is important not least because they, unlike us, had practical military experience so could judge what was feasible, and because they were deliberately copying what they understood was Roman practice. This was the thrust of my 2011 Slingshot article. If the Romans did do what the 'orthodox' view has them do, or what Justin's alternative has them do, then they are unique in military history, and unique things are uncommon (if you see what I mean). Passage of lines was at all periods we know anything about considered difficult and risky - to do it in contact with the enemy, or even at a file level, lacks military feasibility in my (admittedly purely academic) view.

[willb]

Whether or not there were gaps in the line when it made contact with an opponent, if there were, the depth of the formation would only be a little over seven paces for a six rank formation or a little under 10 paces for an eight rank formation.   To visualize this take seven (and/or ten) steps away from a wall and see how close it actually is.   If there were gaps and the second line was covering them at the above distance(s) it would be highly unlikely that an opponent would be willing to break formation in order to attack the exposed flank of a unit in the first line.

[RichT]

Although woodcuts of the period often show what appears to be a staggered initial deployment, accounts of battles indicate that by the time the infantry lines collided they were combined into a solid front with no gaps.

Could you give any examples of this from historical English or European battles, please Patrick?

[eques]

While I know very litte about the warfare of the 18th Century, there is an enjoyable set of Marlburian rules called Twilight of the Sun King that is heavily dependent on the line infantry and the heavy cavalry simply disengaging and then withdrawing through the unit behind, either voluntarily or as a recoil result.  In either case there is no negative consequence to the withdrawing unit or the one it goes through, other than the initial combat damage.

I am not sure what this is based on historically speaking, but assume the designers were basing it on historical practice?

(I did work up an Ancients version, as it happens, "Twilight of the Druids" but it wasn't very successful owing to problems adding skirmishers to the mix)

[Justin Swanton]

Hi Justin:

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

Lots of reasons why not! But OK, a little one...

Thanks for this post Richard - no, seriously. You brought to my attention a couple of things I hadn't seen before. I really think it a very good idea for Slingshot writers to toss their articles onto the SoA forum for a thorough once-over (or even twice-over). I wish I had done it with this one...

1. INTER

Re the Latin sentence: Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium, the subject of the sentence is the hastati, not the maniples, hence the distantes - a present participle that agrees in case with the subject - would in the most natural reading refer to the hastati. The sentence is thus best rendered: "The first line were the hastati, in fifteen maniples, who stood a small distance apart from each other." Translating the inter se as maniple-wide gaps between one maniple and the next not only forces the Latin IMHO but also makes nonsense of the "small space."

But it doesn't force the Latin in the opinion of everyone who has ever translated this passage. You can't just put everything down to 'academic fashion'.

Look at Livy 30.33 (Zama - using Polybius as a source which is especially nice as it means we can compare the Latin and the Greek):


non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quamque signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.

However, he did not form cohorts in close contact, each in advance of its standards, but rather maniples at a considerable distance from each other, so that there should be an interval where the enemy's elephants might be driven through without breaking up the ranks.

The similarity of the expressions - "manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium" and "manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes" is apparent. If nothing else, this rules out your objections to the translation of 'inter'.

Actually, no. Inter can mean either "between" or "among", and the correct sense comes from the context. In the first example:

Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium

the most probable subject to which inter refers are the hastati, not the maniples. It is therefore better (though I concede not absolutely necessary) to have the individual hastati standing apart a small distance from each other rather than the maniples being separated by gaps.

In the second example:

manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes

distantes clearly refers to the maniples, and the context of the passage also makes clear that they are separated as units from each other, rather than having small gaps within their files.

2. MODICUM

but also makes nonsense of the "small space"

Interesting you set such store by the translation of a 'small' space - 'modicum' (as when it is used in English) can mean small, or moderate, or suitable, or various sizes according to context - as can 'aliquantum' in the Zama passage, which is translated above as 'considerable' (the dictionary definition covers "little, some, a considerable amount, something".

See also Livy 30.33.6 (Zama) -


Modico deinde intervallo relicto subsidiariam aciem Italicorum militum

Then, leaving a moderate interval, he drew up a reserve line of Italic soldiers


According to Polybius 15.11.2 this 'modico intervallo' was more than a stade. "A certain distance" might be a better, non-committal translation - but you can't draw any strong inferences from it.

Modicum, as you point out, is flexible in all its possible meanings, and you need the context to fix the correct meaning. It is a relative term, meaning that there is a benchmark by which it measures something. When that benchmark is physical size it always means "small", "short" or "little". In the moral sense it can have the idea of thrifty, i.e. not wasteful or excessive, hence "moderate". Here, it is qualifying physical distance, but physical distance compared to what? No other benchmark is given other than the units themselves (hastati, third line of Italian veterans). So a modicum spatium would have to be a small space as far as the hastati files were concerned or, if applied to the maniples, a small space too - certainly something less that the width of a maniple. A maniple-wide gap would have a breadth of at least 8 yards. I measured it out just now, in my passageway. No way one could, from the POV of a maniple, call that a 'small interval'.

When Livy speaks of Zama he uses modicum relative to the size of the entire third Carthaginian line. A stade is about 200 yards, which would be a fraction of the width of the entire line hence, relative to it, quite small.

BTW aliquantum in this context is used as an adverb with the sense of an indefinite amount or degree.

You might also note the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval

Yes it does. The spatium is a single gap or space between the front lines of the Carthaginians (whose own gaps are considered negligible and hence not worth mentioning) and the third line of Italian veterans. There are not two of them.

3. IN INTERVALLA ORDINUM

Not really. In intervalla ordinum means exactly what it says: "in the gaps of the companies". If the gaps were meant to be between one company and the next then one would expect the writer at least to use an expression like: in intervalla inter ordines presuming inter means "between" (which it may not thus still leaving the corrected phrase ambiguous). As it stands, the expression refers to gaps belonging to the companies themselves, not gaps that are outside the internal structure of the companies. To opt for the latter sense is to force the Latin.

No it isn't. Livy is spectacularly loose in his use of 'ordines', as you know. It doesn't simply mean 'companies' (maniples, centuries or whatever) - it means, more or less, 'formation' (as in the example above 'qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent'. It all depends on context. In Livy 8.8 the context is clear enough, and we have Livy/Polybius on Zama to back it up, which is why the standard translation has been universally accepted. You could argue that the gaps are not the gaps between maniples but some other gaps (such as between files) but at the least, at the very least, the 'orthodox view' is NOT 'forcing the Latin'.

That's fine but with all due respect, beside the point. The point is that the Latin leans towards gaps within the companies/formations/whatever, not gaps between them. Your following examples only serve to underscore this.

4. DIASTEMA

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument about diastema in Polybius' Zama at all.

Let me try to make it clearer. Diastema - as I understand it after reading all its meanings with the examples given - means an area/surface/spread of ground that is distinct from everything around it. This area/surface/spread of ground is not necessarily empty - as in the case of an interval - but may be occupied by an object that in consequence is distinct/separate from everything around it. So Polybius's maniples are in diastemata, meaning they occupy areas of ground in such a way that they are distinct/separate from each other, i.e. there are empty spaces between them, but diastemata in this context does not refer primarily to the empty spaces - though, yes, it can do so in other contexts as you show in your examples.

Also don't lose sight of the fact that diestema occurs three times more just in Pol 15.9 (Zama). So in Shuckburgh's translation, slightly tweaked for literalness:


the hastati first, their maniples in intervals [ en diastemasin]; behind them the principes, their maniples not arranged to cover the interval [diastema] of the leading maniples as the Roman custom is, but immediately behind them at some distance, because of the numbers of the enemy elephants.... The intervals [diastemata] between the front maniples he filled up with maniples of velites, who were ordered to begin the battle; but if they found themselves unable to stand the charge of the elephants, to retire quickly either to the rear of the whole army by the intervals between the maniples [ dia ton diastematon] , which went straight through the ranks, or, if they got entangled with the elephants, to step aside into the lateral spaces [ diestemata]  between the maniples.

It is perverse to try to translate the second diastema differently just because it is singular - c.f. Livy. The Greek, and the meaning, are as clear as they come.

It's not perverse - it's necessary. As you show in this example, Polybius uses the plural when the plural is required, and the one case in which diastema is in the singular stands out like a sore thumb. It cannot refer to the multiple gaps in the hastati line - not when Polybius so clearly uses a plural form to indicate plural gaps in the rest of this passage. It must refer - if one doesn't want to do violence to the Greek - to the area/spread/extend of ground occupied by the hastati as a whole.

5. AND ONE OTHER LITTLE THING

I have to confess I didn't pay much attention to Livy's account of Zama when writing up the article. But notice this:

non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quamque signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, However, he did not form cohorts in close contact, each in advance of its standards, but rather maniples at a certain distance from each other

In other words the default deployment of the cohorts or maniples was a solid line, with the cohorts packed one next to the other.  At Zama Scipio did something exceptional: separate the maniples with gaps between them to let the elephants through. This was highly unusual and Livy (and Polybius with him) go to some lengths to describe it. I wish I'd read it earlier!

[Patrick Waterson]

Although woodcuts of the period often show what appears to be a staggered initial deployment, accounts of battles indicate that by the time the infantry lines collided they were combined into a solid front with no gaps.

Could you give any examples of this from historical English or European battles, please Patrick?

The infantry action at Marston Moor in 1644 seems to be a case in point: the Royalists lined the hedge in front of their line with musketeers, the Parliamentary first line crashed through it and engaged the Royalist first line, which was drawn up with gaps, but then Eythin flung in the Royalist second line (through the gaps in the first) and staggered the Parliamentary first line to the extent that some Scots units behind them broke and fled.

It would seem that Eythin's counterattack, launched through the gaps in the Royalist first line, hit something solid - it is hard to see the Parliamentary first line being disarrayed by an attack on empty air.  This suggests that the Parliamentary first line had solidified on its way to contact.  If one maintains that the Parliamentary first line kept its gaps, then one needs to account for Eythin's success by concluding that he exploited the gaps between the Parliamentary units to cause them serious harm and that much of the Parliamentary second line took one look at the rapidly filling Royalist gaps and decided that their own gap-filling duty was an optional extra.  The latter may be plausible, but if so it suggests the first infantry line to fill its gaps would be a winner so why tempt providence by advancing with a gapped line against a coordinated defender?

Contrast this with the earlier battle of Edgehill in 1642, where a Parliamentary cavalry reserve, emerging through gaps in the Parliamentary infantry line, caught several Royalist infantry regiments - which presumably also had gaps in their line - and mauled them, almost turning the course of the battle.  One suspects lessons were learned from this occasion.

Whether or not there were gaps in the line when it made contact with an opponent, if there were, the depth of the formation would only be a little over seven paces for a six rank formation or a little under 10 paces for an eight rank formation.   To visualize this take seven (and/or ten) steps away from a wall and see how close it actually is.   If there were gaps and the second line was covering them at the above distance(s) it would be highly unlikely that an opponent would be willing to break formation in order to attack the exposed flank of a unit in the first line.

If.

The problem is this: draw up the principes line ten paces behind the first and there is no room for posterior centuries of the hastati to deploy.  They will be at double depth (12-16 men) until deployed, so initial deployment and even more so subsequent 'undeployment' to pass between the maniples of principes when hard pressed is going to be a bit crowded in the most inconvenient locations.  Put simply, half the second line will be quite literally breathing down the necks of the first line.

Hence if the principes are covering gaps at a distance of, say, 10 paces, they effectively prevent the unfolding model in which the posterior centuries fill the gaps (which in any event is inapplicable to Livy's legion of 340 BC, which did not have centuries).  This forces both hastati and principes to start with gaps between fully deployed maniples, which would make for overlong frontages (400 yards per legion), a single line formation of hastati and principes with 10-pace indentations every other maniple which does not allow for any sort of meaningful line relief and some extremely overstretched triarii (600 triarii per legion on a frontage of 400 yards).  How the indented hastati-principes line is going to manage to fall back through these triarii is a further question.

[RichT]

Thanks for this post Richard - no, seriously. You brought to my attention a couple of things I hadn't seen before. I really think it a very good idea for Slingshot writers to toss their articles onto the SoA forum for a thorough once-over (or even twice-over). I wish I had done it with this one...

You're welcome! I agree, in the unavoidable absence of any peer review for Slingshot, putting ideas up for comment on this forum is a good idea - the article could be the end, not the beginning, of the process.

You clearly remain unshakable in your convictions, and I'm just as convinced that Walbank, Paton, Gomme, Briscoe, Oakley et al are unlikely to be doing much violence to the Greek or Latin, and that line relief itself is a bigger problem than both of us, so I think we should leave it at that. Hopefully there is enough information in this thread for readers to make up their own minds.

One small point of fact to clear up though:

2. MODICUM

You might also note the interval - spatium - is singular, like the diastema in Polybius. This doesn't mean there was only one interval

Yes it does. The spatium is a single gap or space between the front lines of the Carthaginians (whose own gaps are considered negligible and hence not worth mentioning) and the third line of Italian veterans. There are not two of them.

The singular spatium I was referring to here is the 'space for the elephants', ie the spatium between the maniples.

manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esset spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent.

Maniples standing a certain distance apart so that there might be a space through which the elephants of the enemy could be driven without disordering the formations.

[RichT]

Thanks Patrick - that sounds to me like just as good evidence for gaps as it is for no gaps - at best, it is as unclear as it is for the Romans. So the question isn't resolved just yet.

[adonys]

This is a subject I have thinking about for a long time, and I think I have reached something, at least for the roman legions battle mechanics. More digging is still needed for confirmation though.

I'll get back later on with the proposed model (don't have the time for it rifgt now)

[Patrick Waterson]

This is a subject I have thinking about for a long time, and I think I have reached something, at least for the roman legions battle mechanics. More digging is still needed for confirmation though.

I'll get back later on with the proposed model (don't have the time for it rifgt now)

Your thoughts will be welcome, Dan.  Do not worry if discussion has moved on in the meantime: there is no time limit on knowledge!

Thanks Patrick - that sounds to me like just as good evidence for gaps as it is for no gaps - at best, it is as unclear as it is for the Romans. So the question isn't resolved just yet.

The Romans are a rather different matter as they are not manoeuvring blocks of pikes sleeved with musketeers, formations which are unhandy to say the least.  In the 17th century, once the bayonet replaces the pike, infantry lines become continuous, which suggests that the drawbacks of having gaps were now understood.  The Romans, who were usually up against fairly handy opponents, would have good reason to keep their lines cohesive whereas the musket-sleeved pike blocks of the Renaissance could wander about independently with little risk to their flanks from similar clumsy behemoths - at least until the Swedes brought in handier formations.

One might also note that non confertas autem cohortes is not a description applied to 17th century armies.

[nikgaukroger]

The Romans are a rather different matter as they are not manoeuvring blocks of pikes sleeved with musketeers, formations which are unhandy to say the least.  In the 17th century, once the bayonet replaces the pike, infantry lines become continuous, which suggests that the drawbacks of having gaps were now understood. 

IIRC at the start of the C18th infantry were drawn up with battalion sized gaps between the individual battalions and the 2nd line of infantry would be about 200 yards behind the first (think the info is in Chandler, et al). No idea how long into the C18th this lasted. Significant gaps seem to have been quite persistent.

[Dangun]

I am normally not capable of adding much to the facts or interpretation of these well worn discussions of the western classical period. The sources are just too well known.

But the discussion reminds me of a potential historiographical issue and that is we may be insisting on a source's level of precision that this type of literary source just can't bear.