News:

Welcome to the SoA Forum.  You are welcome to browse through and contribute to the Forums listed below.

Main Menu

Line relief using open order file gaps is rubbish. Here's why....

Started by Justin Swanton, November 13, 2024, 08:38:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Erpingham

For convenience,  two earlier discussions are here

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=652.0
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3564.0

The first of these is an epic, covering sources and discussions of Latin.  The second is shorter. 



Erpingham

I'm assuming that either the previous three bites of the cherry settled this issue in people's minds?  Or is it exhaustion setting in?

This is perhaps because it is really a military history question.  From a wargames point of view, we don't usually need to detail model something like this - we can just state it happens.  Other military history questions which perhaps have more game design implications are whether it occurred during intense combat or during lulls in combat of varying intensity and at what level it happened.  This latter reflects upon how (if) the game portrays the command structures of the time.

But discussions don't have to have a practical game result as far as I'm concerned. Although Republican Rome doesn't interest me much, the mechanics of battle will always catch my attention (blame an encounter with Keegan's Face of Battle in my youth  :) ).

Justin Swanton

Oh, exhaustion set in a long time ago. :o  (Mark, where art thou?)

Sure, how exactly line relief worked doesn't affect things on the wargaming table since the result is the same - one line takes over from another.

There are some points of military history that do have a gaming application however. For example, the fact that battlelines never wheeled at any time in history. For the looser formations of the Napoleonic era and later companies might wheel separately and then shuffle back into line again, but before that time a line could only advance forwards or, if properly drilled, countermarch and advance to its rear.

We also need to give the column another going over. Battle columns - columns that could instantly form battlelines as deep as the column was wide - were very much a thing but they're not properly catered for in the rulesets (well, they are in one ruleset  ::)).

Erpingham

I suspect that tacking wheeling and columns onto this topic might not work.  It has enough complexity all of its own.

Justin Swanton

Quote from: Erpingham on November 14, 2024, 06:10:13 PMI suspect that tacking wheeling and columns onto this topic might not work.  It has enough complexity all of its own.
Sure.

Prufrock

We've all read the same sources and the reality is that how line relief worked in practice is something which has passed from human memory.

We have theories, but that is all.

I would imagine that Mark's objections to Justin's assertions are to do with the level of certainty claimed, but I may be putting words into his mouth.

Erpingham

I think the degree of certainty in a historical analysis is a tricky problem to get right. Justin is not alone in speaking with perhaps undue certainty - plenty of professional historians are guilty. I prefer my history with some balance of competing interpretations, but constant "perhaps", "maybe", "it is believed that" can be very annoying if trying to get to grips with what the author is saying.

Justin Swanton

#9
QuoteWe have theories, but that is all.

QuoteI think the degree of certainty in a historical analysis is a tricky problem to get right.

Here I'm going to disagree. Sure, history isn't experimental science, where you formulate a hypothesis and conduct experiments to confirm its truth. in the case of history we are largely dealing with human testimony, so the kind of certitude we arrive at is moral, not scientific. But moral certitude is enough to be certain. If it wasn't the legal system would cease to function. It's common sense, really.

In the case of line relief the only author that spends time describing how it works is Livy and here the crucial question is the exact meaning of inter - "between", "among", "in the midst of." I have looked at the authors who do line relief and observed that not one of them examines the translations they use. They all just assume that inter means "between" and that the "between" means gaps between maniples, not individual hastati. They don't give any reason for that assumption. They don't dispute my study of the Latin because they don't do it themselves. So I am not in competition. It's pointless using the argument of authority here since the authorities don't cover this ground.

Translating inter in its more common use of "among" and having that refer to the small file gaps in open order lines, I - with a lot of help from Patrick - was able to create a mechanism of line relief that not only doesn't violate military common sense but also explains in a coherent manner all the references to it in the sources. If everything hangs together and no fact contradicts it then I think you have a case of moral certitude.

Our big problem is that we generally don't have the time to do the deep dive - really dig into the sources and see what they actually say - so we rely on the experts. Here's a very interesting video by Sabine Hossenfelder, a German physicist, who admits that scientific research is dying because the experts are largely concerned just with pushing out papers for grant money, generating theories built on fresh air or outdated models rather than doing real research. In history one can do the same thing since all academia works pretty much on the same principles.

At least in the case of line relief there isn't much primary source evidence (so we can all examine it for ourselves) but there is enough to get a pretty good idea of how it worked. But what do I know? ::)

Edit: Here's another take by Sabine on the process of contemporary academic research, at least in physics (which she was part of for years). Her summary of it is "bullshit".

Erpingham

Justin, I'm sure we've argued this case before. I think your use of "argument from authority" is misleading, because you use it to avoid the need to respect expertise.  In science, most things are not checked from first principles and I wouldn't expect a historian to investigate each piece of information from the primary record either. In the fields of human knowledge, even inexact ones like history, we are far beyond the idea of a person who can know every known detail. We rely on specialists and then those who synthesise and then those who communicate to those beyond the walls of academe.  That line can, as you correctly point out, fail as misunderstandings perpetuate.  It can also fail as speculations harden down the chain into "facts". 

Quote"I think the degree of certainty in a historical analysis is a tricky problem to get right.


Here I'm going to disagree."

But we always have  :) To me, communication of historic knwledge is a tricky problem.  How not to descend into a fog of uncertainty and suggest everything is up for grabs while not claiming some spurious "only truth" is not something everyone gets right. While I accept some moral element is involved (the need not to deceive), for most I think this is a communication problem.  Many academics are poor communicators, who are prone to fall into complex language just to impress other academics that they are serious scholars (IMO).  Which is why I have a good deal of respect for good popular history, even if "serious" historians scoff at it.




Monad

Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 16, 2024, 05:44:43 AMOur big problem is that we generally don't have the time to do the deep dive - really dig into the sources and see what they actually say - so we rely on the experts. Here's a very interesting video by Sabine Hossenfelder, a German physicist, who admits that scientific research is dying because the experts are largely concerned just with pushing out papers for grant money, generating theories built on fresh air or outdated models rather than doing real research. In history one can do the same thing since all academia works pretty much on the same principles.

During my time when I had access at Melbourne University to "Early English Books Online," this was an amazing source as I could read Sir Walter Raileigh's work on the Roman army and other numerous authors, I had no idea even existed. I even found a 16th century manual on how to draw and quarter a person. What left me dumbfounded was from the 16th century onwards, in relation to the Roman army, was that generation after generation of historians repeated the previous generation's interpretation with some minor differences. Basically, nothing much had changed from Lipsus' interpretation of the Roman army, which I am led to believe was the first book written on the Roman army in 1596.

At the moment, my research papers on academia have reached the top 1%, whatever that means, and because of this, I have been receiving messages from some very prominent academics, one quite literally telling me: "The size of the Republican legion varied, being set by the Senate each year. This is clear from Livy. There is not overwhelming evidence for anything regarding the legion. We have to piece things together."

Is this person so out of touch with the primary sources? Have they not read and studied Livy's books 33 to 45, which is drowning in army data? Have they, after receiving their Phd, stopped reading the primary sources? The pressure has been put on historians associated with a university to produce a certain number of papers each year, which has resulted in a deluge of cut and paste papers popping up in academic journals. The low standard of research shows they are merely fulfilling their quota of papers.


Justin Swanton

Quote from: Monad on November 16, 2024, 12:57:02 PMDuring my time when I had access at Melbourne University to "Early English Books Online," this was an amazing source as I could read Sir Walter Raileigh's work on the Roman army and other numerous authors, I had no idea even existed. I even found a 16th century manual on how to draw and quarter a person. What left me dumbfounded was from the 16th century onwards, in relation to the Roman army, was that generation after generation of historians repeated the previous generation's interpretation with some minor differences. Basically, nothing much had changed from Lipsus' interpretation of the Roman army, which I am led to believe was the first book written on the Roman army in 1596.
Then you will love Sabine (platonically. She's married ;D ).

Justin Swanton

Quote from: Erpingham on November 16, 2024, 09:59:16 AMJustin, I'm sure we've argued this case before. I think your use of "argument from authority" is misleading, because you use it to avoid the need to respect expertise.
My take is that when there is plenty of primary source material, as in the case of more recent history, then historical expertise is invaluable in collecting and organising all the relevant data and forming a clear picture of events from it. They can't really go wrong since there is so much material but they can dig up interesting details.

For earlier history or history where the source material is scarce, collecting together every bit of relevant data is very useful - kudos to the specialists for that - but then one needs careful interpretation since there is so little to go on, and here one can't just trust the specialist. I think the quincunx is a classic case of misreading the primary source material because that material at a first reading can be misleading. It is necessary to take a fresh look at it oneself.

Quote from: Erpingham on November 16, 2024, 09:59:16 AMIn science, most things are not checked from first principles and I wouldn't expect a historian to investigate each piece of information from the primary record either.
I would.

Quote from: Erpingham on November 16, 2024, 09:59:16 AMIn the fields of human knowledge, even inexact ones like history, we are far beyond the idea of a person who can know every known detail.
See above. Where the source material is ample it is difficult to go wrong. Where it is scarce it's vital to evaluate it carefully and here one can know every detail for oneself.

Quote from: Erpingham on November 16, 2024, 09:59:16 AMWe rely on specialists and then those who synthesise and then those who communicate to those beyond the walls of academe.  That line can, as you correctly point out, fail as misunderstandings perpetuate.  It can also fail as speculations harden down the chain into "facts".
Well there you go. My experience is that this has happened, several times.
 
Quote from: Erpingham on November 16, 2024, 09:59:16 AMTo me, communication of historic knowledge is a tricky problem.  How not to descend into a fog of uncertainty and suggest everything is up for grabs while not claiming some spurious "only truth" is not something everyone gets right. While I accept some moral element is involved (the need not to deceive), for most I think this is a communication problem.  Many academics are poor communicators, who are prone to fall into complex language just to impress other academics that they are serious scholars (IMO).  Which is why I have a good deal of respect for good popular history, even if "serious" historians scoff at it.
Obviously you can't generalise about any class of people, but - communication problems aside - modern academe is in serious trouble. I cited Sabine Hossenfelder's take on contemporary scientific research. Interestingly, she just released another video on the subject.

Erpingham

There you have it Justin.  I'm just boringly conventional whereas you strive to be pushing the boundaries.  :)

However, I don't think you are right on the subject of testing back to basics.  It can work in a very tight subject area but you cannot apply the same detail across a wider range of subjects.

On the subject of the quincunx I actually agree with your point about copying what went before. It is not clear to me that the Romans had a formation called a quincunx or even that the word always meant what we use it to mean today. It gives too solid a "factual" basis to what is an interpretation.  However, it seems to me we still have an impasse because everything rotates about a word in a passage.  Does no one describe the legion in action and how it deployed that may provide further clues?