Line relief for NON-Roman troops

[Mark G]

That is only accurate if you accept a single line of battle.

It's only one interpretation, and it is not supported by the presence of units and formations, or pretty much any modern research.

[Justin Swanton]

That is only accurate if you accept a single line of battle.

It's only one interpretation, and it is not supported by the presence of units and formations, or pretty much any modern research.

Fine. Let's see the modern research. We'll need a separate thread though.

[Cantabrigian]

Line relief doesn't work like that. The system is predicated on one line falling back through another before it routs. The supporting line must immediately take up the slack which means it has to be directly behind the line in front.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Hannibal wasn't expecting to do line relief as you use the phrase.  But given that, there is another possible explanation for his deployment which I gave - you can't assume that the only possible explanation was that he was intending to encircle the Romans.

Though personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that he was hoping to encircle them if he could.  The guy does have a track record.

[Justin Swanton]

The fact that Hannibal did not intend a multi-line frontal fight is clear from the way his troops behaved. When the battle did become a frontal fight they had no idea what to do. The Gauls were veterans from his Italian campaigns and by this time fought as drilled troops. The Carthaginian levies however had joined his army only a few days earlier and had been recruited just a short time before that. Hannibal had had no time to train them in line relief or anything else. When the Gauls fell back they expected to pass through the levies - who did not let them through - and a fight broke out between Gauls and levy troops.

My take is that Hannibal never expected the levies to do anything other than act as window dressing, helping simulate a triplex acies arrangement. Tactically, he had no use for them as anything else.

The veterans in the rear were certainly drilled for any tactic and should have been able to execute the line relief manoeuvre (open order files letting the front line through then immediately doubling to intermediate order files) but they did nothing of the sort. What were they there for? They were too far away to act as a supporting line and did not act as one when the levies broke. If they had been in open order with file gaps 4 feet wide the retreating levies and Gauls would have had no trouble passing through. But if they were in intermediate order with no file gaps, ready to form two columns (which requires intermediate order) and march around the Romans to their rear, then they could not let anyone through and did not do so. It all fits.

Sadly I have no video footage or multiple eyewitness accounts besides what we read in the sources to confirm this, so I suppose the Doubt will continue to reign supreme.

[Monad]

If they had been in open order with file gaps 4 feet wide the retreating levies and Gauls would have had no trouble passing through. But if they were in intermediate order with no file gaps, ready to form two columns (which requires intermediate order) and march around the Romans to their rear, then they could not let anyone through and did not do so. It all fits.

Sounds like my old paper I wrote for Slingshot back in the 90's (??).
 

[Erpingham]

If we are going to do Zama again (separate or here), we should be aware it has been discussed before.  For example

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=903.0

Although this was 11 years ago, so it may not include the modern studies referenced by Mark G.  I note Duncan references Steven's article, which he states was in Slingshot 241.

Add : The main sources for the battle are in the Battles section of the forum

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=907.msg5900#msg5900

[Justin Swanton]

11 years ago! Need to change our name to the Society of Fossilised Geriatrics.

I had a look at Zama in my line relief article (how many years ago was that published?). We could discuss it again, but all the relevant data has been covered and arguments thrashed out. I did a video on it a few years back. Might be of some interest.

[Mark G]

Justin, we have done this with you too many times.

We have presented evidence and arguments in thread, which you did not understand.
I have sent you journal articles setting it out directly, which you do not understand.

We have recommended books which you have not understood.

You view all combat cinematically, if you cannot see a Hollywood action film of the descriptions in your mind, you just fail to understand what is presented. I suspect you prefer YouTube to books too.

That is a conceptual failure on your part, not a lack of evidence supporting a contrary position.

So you have an opinion, others have different opinions - let debate proceed on that basis, but drop all the "only best description" hyperbole.

[Duncan Head]

The Gauls were veterans from his Italian campaigns and by this time fought as drilled troops.

Really? What's the source for that? The Gauls and Ligurians are usually, I think, regarded as survivors not from Hannibal but from Mago's army in Liguria, which the Romans had demanded be recalled. But I can't immediately recall what the source is for that view, either.

[Cantabrigian]

Justin, we have done this with you too many times.

But on the other hand, think what a boring forum it would be if we all agreed.

[Erpingham]

A moderator point.  Disagreement is fine, differing opinions are fine.  Always, though, aim your disagreement at arguments and not people. Everyone, I hope, sees the forum as a learning opportunity (though we may not all want to learn so much film, TV and pop trivia  )