Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment

[Dangun]

I haven't read it, but I saw it open Academia.com
"Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment" for free download.
And I though the words "a Reassessment" might trigger a few people. 

https://www.academia.edu/1602947/Roman_Infantry_Tactics_in_the_Mid-Republic_A_Reassessment?email_work_card=title

[Justin Swanton]

I haven't read it, but I saw it open Academia.com
"Roman Infantry Tactics in the Mid-Republic: A Reassessment" for free download.
And I though the words "a Reassessment" might trigger a few people. 

https://www.academia.edu/1602947/Roman_Infantry_Tactics_in_the_Mid-Republic_A_Reassessment?email_work_card=title

"The range of frontages suggests that modest inter-manipular gaps were maintained even when the heavy infantry lines clashed."

I'm triggered.


https://media.giphy.com/media/cAcua5OePApEZ8Flow/giphy.gif

[Imperial Dave]

 

[rodge]

The author just sent it.
On a quick scan he thinks the legions operated in close order on the defensive and open in the attack (close being locked shields, open being 4.5 feet per man).
Worth a read.

[Imperial Dave]

on that basis it has piqued my interest

[Duncan Head]

Yes, I've got a copy of this - possibly of the author's submitted version, since it doesn't have the Historia heading and it's in different type. I think it's a very useful article and Taylor is right to emphasise that the literary evidence suggests that both a close and an open order were used in battle, however much room there may be to disagree on details.

[Justin Swanton]

The site on the link offers only the first page of the article. Is the full article available elsewhere?

[Duncan Head]

As the academia site says, you can email the author and ask - it worked for Rodge, see above.

[Imperial Dave]

I've emailed him for the full article

[Erpingham]

The author's article Visual Evidence for Roman Infantry Tactics seems to be there in full, if you can't wait, Justin.

From the abstract :

Arguing that select visual representations of Roman soldiers confirm Polybius' statements that Roman heavy infantry fought, at least part of the time, in an open order formation, it also claims that the relative positioning of soldier pairs in many examples of Roman military artwork reveals the tactical mechanism of transition from a defensive close-order to an open order spacing, simply by having every other man (or infantry file) step forward to create a matrix of soldiers arranged in a checkerboard formation.

[Imperial Dave]

thanks Anthony, much obliged for the find of the full article

[RichT]

From the abstract :

Arguing that select visual representations of Roman soldiers confirm Polybius' statements that Roman heavy infantry fought, at least part of the time, in an open order formation, it also claims that the relative positioning of soldier pairs in many examples of Roman military artwork reveals the tactical mechanism of transition from a defensive close-order to an open order spacing, simply by having every other man (or infantry file) step forward to create a matrix of soldiers arranged in a checkerboard formation.

Hurrah, that's always been my theory too. Though I thought in his 'Visual Evidence' article a certain amount of eye of faith was required.

[Dangun]

The author's article Visual Evidence for Roman Infantry Tactics seems to

Maybe I was grumpy, but this article rubbed me the wrong way....

There is one line in that essay, I really did not like. It goes, "the audience for public art would have contained a high proportion of combat veterans." Its structurally an important claim within the essay, because he wants to broadly claim that visual representations of soldiers reflected the reality of soldiers. But he could at least throw up a number. What proportion of citizens or simply occupants of the Roman Empire were veterans? What does high mean? > 50%? At the end of WW2, 12mn or 9% of the US population had been in the US military. Is 9% high?

The author didn't talk much about the limitations of the media. Sculpture, on flat surfaces, at a time in art where 3D was poorly understood, makes it uncertain as to other that guy on the left is behind or along side.

Lastly, the article didn't engage with the counterfactual, why do the thousands of other pieces of Roman military art not also support the conclusion.

On a separate matter...
What do you think is going on with the left-most figure on the Mainz Principia Relief?
If that is indeed a shield held at head height, what did he think he was doing? If he was punching with a shield, it does seem risky.

[Erpingham]

What do you think is going on with the left-most figure on the Mainz Principia Relief?
If that is indeed a shield held at head height, what did he think he was doing? If he was punching with a shield, it does seem risky.

He's the second rank of fulcum, perhaps?

[Tim]

Nicholas, not read the article so just going on your comments. 'the audience for public art would have contained a high proportion of combat veterans'. Agree that the statement is vague but it is supported by some of what the ancient authors write. The early authors do discuss the effect of legions being considered green until they have seen out a winter, implyingthat the army was taking large numbers of people on relatively short assignments, suggesting that they were rotating through rather quickly, perhaps only 1 campaign at a time. Certainly against Phyrrus and Hannibal the Romans seem to be able to raise large numbers of troops time and again. When the army moves to long service being more common in the later years of the 2nd Punic War and beyond, that is mentioned, implying it is a new idea. Even then they are drawing some of the troops from people who have served previously. If the art was aimed at voters, the audience would exclude womon, the young men, slaves, and socaii.

Also ancient societies probably relied upon word of mouth more than we do today. That MAY mean that they would pass on any view about something not matching their own experience as combat veterans. Ceratinly we know that Romans were not above mocking their social superiors if they felt they had gotten above their station, even into the very late Republic, so they MIGHT have made their feelings known if sculpts were inaccurate. Not a good place to be if using art to impress the voters.

That said, I do understand your concern. We have such a small sample of written evidence surviving from the period that making generalisations is fraught, it is possible that there was a stylistic convention that such are was expected to follow and everyone who mattered understood that (we know about it for Ancient Egypt and also for Western Europe Art in the 14th and early 15th centuries).