Spun off from the discussion of Reserves in Rule System Discussions
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=5329.msg70782;topicseen#msg70782
Was the Roman army deployed in 2 lines, or only 1 ?
I had a quick look at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D16%3Achapter%3D12
and extracted what I think are the relevant parts:
"[31] Also, when he had come to others, who were stationed behind the standards and in the extreme rear, he said: "Behold, fellow-soldiers, the long-hoped-for day is now here, forcing us all to wash away the old-time stains and restore its due honour to the majesty of Rome."
Definitely some troops stationed in the "extreme rear", but does this constitute a whole second line, a camp guard, or something else?
"[37] ... (snip) ... And although our left wing, marching in close formation had driven back by main force the onrushing hordes of Germans and was advancing with shouts into the midst of the savages, our cavalry, which held the right wing, unexpectedly broke ranks and fled; but while the foremost of these fugitives hindered the hindmost, finding themselves sheltered in the bosom of the legions, they halted, and renewed the battle."
Cavalry, having fled, find themselves "sheltered in the bosom of the legions". This suggests that the legions were stationed further to the rear than whatever location the cavalry fled from. However, [38] says they "scattered in whatever direction they could", so the legions might not be directly to the rear of the cavalry, and what exactly does "sheltered in the bosom" mean?
"[42] Then the Alamanni, having beaten and scattered our cavalry, charged upon the front line of the infantry, supposing that their courage to resist was now lost and that they would therefore drive them back."
Does a mention of "the front line" imply there is another line separate from the front line ?
"[49] And so there suddenly leaped forth a fiery band of nobles, among whom even the kings fought, and with the common soldiers following they burst in upon our lines before the rest; and opening up a path for themselves they got as far as the legion of the Primani, which was stationed in the centre a strong feature called praetorian camp; there our soldiers, closely packed and in fully-manned lines. stood their ground fast and firm, like towers"
The band of nobles "open up a path for themselves" to the Primani legion, but is it a path through their own troops, or a path through other Roman troops in front of the Primani? Are the Primani on their own at this "praetorian camp" feature, or part of a line? Are these the same troops that were in the extreme rear earlier on?
"[50] But the enemy strove to lavish their lives for victory and kept trying to break the fabric of our line."
this time only 1 line, apparently.
Next step is to look at the original language, I suggest.
QuoteNext step is to look at the original language, I suggest.
To help you, I've extracted this comment from Patrick in an earlier discussion , which doubtless he would have introduced at this point
QuoteI do not think the Allemanni actually penetrated the Roman line: the troops they pushed through appear to have been their own. The Romans they fought, the Primani legion, renewed the battle, which seems to require a bit of a conceptual and semantic stretch if they were reserves. Ammianus (VI.12.49) just says:
et iter sibi aperiendo (having needed to open a way for themselves) ad usque Primanorum legionem pervenit locatam in medio (they reached [literally: arrived all the way to] the Primani legion located in the centre)
So they may well have been pushing through their own forces, which were probably shaky, maybe even falling back, given Severus' success on the Roman left.
Had they actually broken through the Roman line, one would expect Ammianus to mention this, if only as a counterpoint to the rout of the cataphracts (which I am surprised never surfaced in discussion of unpredictability on the battlefield).
As usual, Patrick puts a counter position to the orthodox one and I offer it here for the purposes of discussion.
My take as well, but rereading Ammianus he does mention "lines" more than once. Let me come back to this.
The original text will be vital. The Project Gutenberg translation of #49 has:
"49. Presently there sprang forward with sudden vigour a fiery band of nobles, among whom also were the princes of the petty tribes, and, as the common soldiers followed them in great numbers, they burst through our lines, and forced a path for themselves up to the principal legion of the reserve, which was stationed in the centre, in a position called the prætorian camp; and there the soldiery, being in closer array, and in densely serried ranks, stood firm as so many towers, and renewed the battle with increased spirit. And intent upon parrying the blows of the enemy, and covering themselves with their shields as the Mirmillos[68] do, with their drawn swords wounded their antagonists in the sides, which their too vehement impetuosity left unprotected."
Now "the principal legion" is clearly an incorrect translation of a unit title (Primani) but the term "reserve" is explicitly used... but by Ammianus or the translator?
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on June 30, 2021, 10:29:46 AM
The original text will be vital. The Project Gutenberg translation of #49 has:
"49. Presently there sprang forward with sudden vigour a fiery band of nobles, among whom also were the princes of the petty tribes, and, as the common soldiers followed them in great numbers, they burst through our lines, and forced a path for themselves up to the principal legion of the reserve, which was stationed in the centre, in a position called the prætorian camp; and there the soldiery, being in closer array, and in densely serried ranks, stood firm as so many towers, and renewed the battle with increased spirit. And intent upon parrying the blows of the enemy, and covering themselves with their shields as the Mirmillos[68] do, with their drawn swords wounded their antagonists in the sides, which their too vehement impetuosity left unprotected."
Now "the principal legion" is clearly an incorrect translation of a unit title (Primani) but the term "reserve" is explicitly used... but by Ammianus or the translator?
"ad usque Primanorum legionem pervenit locatam in medio " quoted by Patrick seems to be the passage in question. Even with my non-existent Latin, I'm not seeing the word reserve there.
You also need to include Amm. 16.12.20:
"When our leading officers espied them [the Germans], now near at hand, taking their places in close wedge-formation [cuneus - probably not a wedge], they halted and stood fast, making a solid line, like an impregnable wall, of the vanguard [antepilanis], the standard bearers [hastatis], and the staff-officers [ordinum primis]; and with like wariness the enemy held their ground in wedge-formation."
The (slightly odd) translations are justified (not very successfully) in a footnote to the Perseus translation. I don't know enough (sc. anything) about Roman armies of this period to know what these antepilani and hastati and ordinum primi might be, exactly - they are terms familiar from Livy's account of the Republican legion. At any rate, Ammianus seems to envisage some sort of division of the Roman line into forward and rearward components, like the earlier legions.
Quote[49] Exsiluit itaque subito ardens optimatium globus, inter quos decernebant et reges, et sequente vulgo ante alios agmina nostrorum irrupit, et iter sibi aperiendo, 30 ad usque Primanorum legionem pervenit locatam in medio—quae confirmatio castra praetoria dictitatur,-ubi densior et ordinibus frequens, miles instar turrium fixa firmitate consistens, proelium maiore spiritu repetivit, et vulneribus declinandis intentus, seque in modum mirmillonis operiens, hostium latera, quae nudabat ira flagrantior, districtis gladiis perforabat.
Perseus note 30 is: "aperiendo, EBG; pandendo, Her.; rapiendo, suggested by Clark, cf. xviii. 9, 3; pariendo, V."
aperio = to uncover, lay bare
pando = to split
rapio = to seize and carry off, snatch, tear, pluck, drag, hurry away
pario = to bring forth, produce and various other meanings carrying that sense.
Relying heavily on Perseus Latin word study tool, and keeping it literal, I get
And thus suddenly a burning band of nobles, among whom also kings were fighting, and common soldiers following, before the others, burst into (or attacked) our advancing formations, and laying bare a path for itself, it reached all the way to / as far as the legion of the Primani positioned in the centre – (I think it might be the position in the line rather than a feature that is called the praetorian camp) – where denser and in repeated ranks, a soldier the likeness of fixed towers making a stand with firmness, renewed the battle with greater spirit, etc .
"miles" and "repetivit" are both singular, although from the context many soldiers are doing this.
No reference to a "reserve" there unless "castra praetoria" has that as an idiomatic meaning. Still unclear who or what the band of nobles is clearing a path through.
Quote from: RichT on June 30, 2021, 11:38:56 AM
You also need to include Amm. 16.12.20:
"When our leading officers espied them [the Germans], now near at hand, taking their places in close wedge-formation [cuneus - probably not a wedge], they halted and stood fast, making a solid line, like an impregnable wall, of the vanguard [antepilanis], the standard bearers [hastatis], and the staff-officers [ordinum primis]; and with like wariness the enemy held their ground in wedge-formation."
The (slightly odd) translations are justified (not very successfully) in a footnote to the Perseus translation. I don't know enough (sc. anything) about Roman armies of this period to know what these antepilani and hastati and ordinum primi might be, exactly - they are terms familiar from Livy's account of the Republican legion. At any rate, Ammianus seems to envisage some sort of division of the Roman line into forward and rearward components, like the earlier legions.
Word for word:
Quos cum iam prope densantes semet in cuneos - When them (the Alamans) now nearby packed-together in wedges
nostrorum conspexere ductores, - our leaders saw,
steterunt vestigiis fixis, antepilanis hastatisque et ordinum primis, - they (the Romans) stood, their feet fixed-fast [
Edit: The antepilani with the hastati and the ordinum primis stood, their feet fixed fast]
velut insolubili muro fundatis, - made-firm like an immovable wall
et pari - and likewise ("pari" is difficult as it can mean many things. In this context I see it as "their counterparts", "like them")
cautela hostes stetere cuneati. - the enemies with caution stood-still, wedge-shaped.
Notice that the antepilani, hastati and ordinum primi are all in a
single wall, i.e. the implication is that they are in one line, regardless of whether their designations originally applied to several lines
It occurs to me that if the band of nobles cleared a path through their own forces, not through the Roman front line, then they themselves must have previously been in reserve.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
Notice that the antepilani, hastati and ordinum primi are all in a single wall, i.e. the implication is that they are in one line, regardless of whether their designations originally applied to several lines
No, they are not. They are made firm
like an immovable wall. It's a simile. It tells us nothing about the disposition of the troops themselves.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on June 30, 2021, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
Notice that the antepilani, hastati and ordinum primi are all in a single wall, i.e. the implication is that they are in one line, regardless of whether their designations originally applied to several lines
No, they are not. They are made firm like an immovable wall. It's a simile. It tells us nothing about the disposition of the troops themselves.
Cheers
Mick
Mmmm...."like immovable walls" if they were multi-line. But I agree it's rather ambiguous.
QuoteNo reference to a "reserve" there unless "castra praetoria" has that as an idiomatic meaning.
I found this in the Roman military glossary online
Castra praetoria (LA): praetorian camp; (1) base of the praetorian guard at Rome established by Tiberius; (2) dense close ordered formation in the late Roman army.
Unfortunately no further authority given for the statement. It may simply be based on an interpretation of this passage in Ammianus and thus not helpful.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
steterunt vestigiis fixis, antepilanis hastatisque et ordinum primis, - they (the Romans) stood, their feet fixed-fast
Strangely you've missed the key words, antepilanis hastatisque et ordinum primis, from your translation.
If there are antepilani, there must be postpilani, and ditto (probably) hastati (principes?) and ordinum primis (ordinum posterior/secundis?)
Yes the whole formation is like a wall. To use this to try to interpret the precise shape of the formation (towers? battlements? gates?) is to leave the path of wisdom.
And more generally, Ammianus wasn't writing a detailed technical account of the tactical manoeuvres of the battle, he was writing a colourful literary 'battle piece', full of sound and fury. Some details can be extracted, with caution, since it's all we have, but I hate this picking apart of a single word here and there and trying to twist them to fit some particular theory.
There's a small and mostly unhelpful RAT discussion of the castra praetoria at Argentoratum:
https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat//printthread.php?tid=20560
No other examples are offered. It does feel like an idiom but who knows?
Quote from: RichT on June 30, 2021, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
steterunt vestigiis fixis, antepilanis hastatisque et ordinum primis, - they (the Romans) stood, their feet fixed-fast
Strangely you've missed the key words, antepilanis hastatisque et ordinum primis, from your translation.
If there are antepilani, there must be postpilani, and ditto (probably) hastati (principes?) and ordinum primis (ordinum posterior/secundis?)
They're in my translation. I think it's clear though that the terms no longer meant what they had meant in 340BC. By the time of the Second Punic War antepilani were no longer a thing - they belonged to the legion of the Latin War where the antepilani were the leves, hastati and principes, whilst the postpilani were the triarii, rorarii and accensi. By the late republic the hastati didn't exist either - the legions had been simplified into cohorts of multi-purpose legionaries. The terms were kept however but referred to something very different, just as the 1st Cavalry Division of the US army doesn't ride into battle on horseback but uses helicopters and other suitable contemporary hardware. It's absolutely standard for armies to keep obsolescent designations for units that no longer describe what the units actually are.
QuoteIf there are antepilani, there must be postpilani, and ditto (probably) hastati (principes?) and ordinum primis (ordinum posterior/secundis?)
But are we supposed to take these antiquarian terms literally, or is Ammianus, as you say, demonstrating his literary skills with a battlepiece proving he is au fait with the classics of the genre?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 03:11:43 PM
They're in my translation.
Where? You mean 'they' taking a-p, h and o-p to mean 'all the Romans'? That seems unlikely, but if that is your position you need to spell it out.
Quote from: RichT on June 30, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 03:11:43 PM
They're in my translation.
Where? You mean 'they' taking a-p, h and o-p to mean 'all the Romans'? That seems unlikely, but if that is your position you need to spell it out.
Oh yes, sorry, missed that part out by mistake. That's what you get for typing in a hurry at work.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 30, 2021, 03:14:00 PM
QuoteIf there are antepilani, there must be postpilani, and ditto (probably) hastati (principes?) and ordinum primis (ordinum posterior/secundis?)
But are we supposed to take these antiquarian terms literally, or is Ammianus, as you say, demonstrating his literary skills with a battlepiece proving he is au fait with the classics of the genre?
I have no idea, having no knowledge of the later Roman army, but I think that if Ammianus lists three particular groups of people it is because he means those groups, specifically. Whether he is using the correct names for them (and they were rather different from their Classical counterparts, as in the translator's hastati = standard bearers, ordinum primi = staff officers), or whether he is deliberately using archaic names to refer to familiar concepts (the vanguard, the leading units) I don't know, and don't know if anyone knows. But it seems unlikely that he just meant 'all the Romans'.
Quote from: RichT on June 30, 2021, 03:10:28 PM
There's a small and mostly unhelpful RAT discussion of the castra praetoria at Argentoratum:
https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat//printthread.php?tid=20560
Read that. Doesn't help, as you say.
QuoteNo other examples are offered. It does feel like an idiom but who knows?
I'm very tempted to think Ammianus is running off with his extended metaphor about walls and towers and he may intend the reader to think of the castra Praetoria and its relationship to the Roman walls.
QuoteI have no idea, having no knowledge of the later Roman army, but I think that if Ammianus lists three particular groups of people it is because he means those groups, specifically.
I don't know much about the late Roman army either but I do think he has chosen terms from the "front" part of Republican legions. Whatever exactly he meant, he seems to want us to get the idea he is talking about the foremost parts of the Roman army and particularly the main infantry line - none of these are cavalry designations, AFAIK. It does leave open the possibility that he envisages another part of the army behind these.
"velut insolubili muro fundatis" = " fixed (plural) like an immovable wall (singular)"
Fixed is plural because it refers to the antisignati, hastati and ordines primi.
Whether it is the troops that are being likened to an immovable wall, or their fixedness being likened to the immovability of an immovable wall is a good question.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 03:11:43 PM
By the time of the Second Punic War antepilani were no longer a thing - they belonged to the legion of the Latin War where the antepilani were the leves, hastati and principes, whilst the postpilani were the triarii, rorarii and accensi.
Hm? My understanding (originally from Duncan I think but Perseus agrees) is that
pilani =
triarii, and I don't believe I've ever heard of "postpilani". Neither has anyone else, judging by the Google results.
(And as a point of logic, the existence of "ante-X" doesn't necessarily imply the existence of "post-X", only of X itself.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 30, 2021, 09:05:59 PMb
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 30, 2021, 03:11:43 PM
By the time of the Second Punic War antepilani were no longer a thing - they belonged to the legion of the Latin War where the antepilani were the leves, hastati and principes, whilst the postpilani were the triarii, rorarii and accensi.
Hm? My understanding (originally from Duncan I think but Perseus agrees) is that pilani = triarii, and I don't believe I've ever heard of "postpilani". Neither has anyone else, judging by the Google results.
(And as a point of logic, the existence of "ante-X" doesn't necessarily imply the existence of "post-X", only of X itself.)
Ok. I made up "postpilani" as a convenient term. "Antepilani" appears in Livy's description of the legion of the Latin War, and he affirms that the triarii, rorarii and accensii form a composite unit (ordo) that is behind the antepilani.
History: 8.8. The
pilus is the triarii but Livy makes clear that the antepilani are so-called because they are in front of the entire composite unit of which the triarii is only one subunit out of three. So to be exact the leves, hastati and principes are antepilani, the triarii are pilani and the rorarii and accensii are postpilani.
Re the infantry arrangement of the late Roman army, I think Vegetius is useful here. In
De Re Militari, Book III, he seems to abandon his attempt at reconciling the multi-line legions of the Republican and Imperial eras in an anachronistic composite and simply describes the late Roman army as it actually was:
| PROPER DISTANCES AND INTERVALS
Having explained the general disposition of the lines, we now come to the distances and dimensions. One thousand paces contain a single rank of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man being allowed three feet. Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men. To form only three ranks of the same number will take up two thousand paces, but it is much better to increase the number of ranks than to make your front too extensive. We have before observed the distance between each rank should be six feet, one foot of which is taken up by the men. Thus if you form a body of ten thousand men into six ranks they will occupy thirty-six feet. in depth and a thousand paces in front. By this calculation it is easy to compute the extent of ground required for twenty or thirty thousand men to form upon. Nor can a general be mistaken when thus he knows the proportion of ground for any fixed number of men.
But if the field of battle is not spacious enough or your troops are very numerous, you may form them into nine ranks or even more, for it is more advantageous to engage in close order that to extend your line too much. An army that takes up too much ground in front and too little in depth, is quickly penetrated by the enemy's first onset. After this there is no remedy. As to the post of the different corps in the right or left wing or in the center, it is the general rule to draw them up according to their respective ranks or to distribute them as circumstances or the dispositions of the enemy may require.
DISPOSITION OF THE CAVALRY
The line of infantry being formed, the cavalry are drawn up in the wings. The heavy horse, that is, the cuirassiers and troopers armed with lances, should join the infantry. The light cavalry, consisting of the archers and those who have no cuirasses, should be placed at a greater distance. The best and heaviest horse are to cover the flanks of the foot, and the light horse are posted as abovementioned to surround and disorder the enemy's wings. A general should know what part of his own cavalry is most proper to oppose any particular squadrons or troops of the enemy. For from some causes not to be accounted for some particular corps fight better against others, and those who have defeated superior enemies are often overcome by an inferior force.
If your cavalry is not equal to the enemy's it is proper, after the ancient custom, to intermingle it with light infantry armed with small shields and trained to this kind of service. By observing this method, even though the flower of the enemy's cavalry should attack you, they will never be able to cope with this mixed disposition. This was the only resource of the old generals to supply the defects of their cavalry, and they intermingled the men, used to running and armed for this purpose with light shields, swords and darts, among the horse, placing one of them between two troopers.
RESERVES
The method of having bodies of reserves in rear of the army, composed of choice infantry and cavalry, commanded by the supernumerary lieutenant generals, counts and tribunes, is very judicious and of great consequence towards the gaining of a battle. Some should be posted in rear of the wings and some near the center, to be ready to fly immediately to the assistance of any part of the line which is hard pressed, to prevent its being pierced, to supply the vacancies made therein during the action and thereby to keep up the courage of their fellow soldiers and check the impetuosity of the enemy. This was an invention of the Lacedaemonians, in which they were imitated by the Carthaginians. The Romans have since observed it, and indeed no better disposition can be found.
The line is solely designed to repulse, or if possible, break the enemy. If it is necessary to form the wedge or the pincers, it must be done by the supernumerary troops stationed in the rear for that purpose. If the saw is to be formed, it must also be done from the reserves, for if once you begin to draw off men from the line you throw all into confusion. If any flying platoon of the enemy should fall upon your wing or any other part of your army, and you have no supernumerary troops to oppose it or if you pretend to detach either horse or foot from your line for that service by endeavoring to protect one part, you will expose the other to greater danger. In armies not very numerous, it is much better to contract the front, and to have strong reserves. In short, you must have a reserve of good and well-armed infantry near the center to form the wedge and thereby pierce the enemy's line; and also bodies of cavalry armed with lances and cuirasses, with light infantry, near the wings, to surround the flanks of the enemy. |
So what you have is the infantry in a single line, with reserve infantry behind the line on the wings and also the centre - but not a complete second line. Heavy cavalry flank the infantry and lighter cavalry flank the heavy cavalry.
This seems to be what Julian did at Argentoratum, with modifications. The legions deployed in a single line in the centre. On their right the Cornuti and Bracchiati deployed alongside them with the Batavii and the "Kings" behind them in reserve. On the left of the legions the Auxilia also deployed presumably with half in front and half behind in reserve. The Legio Primani
may have been a reserve - "good and well-armed infantry near the center" - or Julian may have dispensed with a central reserve since he was badly outnumbered by the Alamans.
The Alaman deployment is interesting in that it closely mirrors the Roman system described by Vegetius. The Alaman infantry are in a single line with at least one reserve unit in the rear in a wedge shape which mirrors Vegetius' "you must have a reserve of good and well-armed infantry near the center to form the wedge and thereby pierce the enemy's line". The Alaman cavalry are mixed with infantry which mirrors "If your cavalry is not equal to the enemy's it is proper, after the ancient custom, to intermingle it with light infantry armed with small shields and trained to this kind of service". If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the barbarians had had several centuries to become really impressed by the Roman military machine.
What is also interesting is the length of the Roman line as described by Vegetius. A rank contains 1,650 infantrymen which, at 3 feet per soldier, gives a width of 1500 meters. This is substantially wider than the Macedonian phalanx (1,000 meters) or the 4-legion Consular army (800 meters). It does explain where the extra infantry go once you remove the second and third support lines - keeping in mind Roman field armies of late Antiquity generally weren't any smaller than Consular armies of the Republican period so those infantry had to go somewhere. It is as wide as my proposed Roman infantry deployment at Cannae which seems to suggest that a 1,5km wide infantry line was about as wide as one could go and still act as a coherent body.
This would suggest that the late Roman army had a superior command and control system, able to routinely advance a wider line in a co-ordinated fashion without the line rupturing. Or it suggests that a shorter line wasn't a bad thing if support lines were there to counter outflanking.