News:

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

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The Anabasis
Last post by Imperial Dave - Today at 08:04:27 PM
 :)
#2
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The Anabasis
Last post by Old Sarum - Today at 08:01:30 PM
It was the set book for my Greek 'O' Level in 1970!
#3
Battle Reports / Re: ADLG: Vapnartak (York, 01 ...
Last post by Imperial Dave - Today at 02:33:11 PM
Pretty good effort...how do we know which is which. I mean you could be an AI bot... ;D
#4
Battle Reports / Re: Tactica 2 Battles
Last post by Imperial Dave - Today at 02:32:01 PM
Makes me want to (re)start my own chariot fleet...
#5
Army Research / Re: The Frontage of the Roman ...
Last post by Monad - Today at 01:50:27 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on Today at 01:28:30 PMThanks again Steven.  Apologies for using centuries rather than maniples and the confusion it caused. This info will be useful to those wanting to compare your reconstruction of the Roman formation with Justin's.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the cavalry. It is late at night here, and I am quite tired. The 140 allied cavalry on the left wing are arrayed 28 squadrons wide by 5 squadrons deep, giving a frontage of 1,680 feet (560 yards), which is the same frontage as the 14 legions. The 70 Roman cavalry squadrons are arrayed 14 squadrons wide by 5 squadrons deep, giving a frontage of 840 feet (280 yards). So in all, a frontage of 1,400 yards.
 
#6
Army Research / Re: The Frontage of the Roman ...
Last post by Erpingham - Today at 01:28:30 PM
Thanks again Steven.  Apologies for using centuries rather than maniples and the confusion it caused. This info will be useful to those wanting to compare your reconstruction of the Roman formation with Justin's.
#7
Army Research / Re: The Frontage of the Roman ...
Last post by Monad - Today at 01:18:28 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on Today at 10:39:52 AMThanks for the clarification, Steven.  I would assume the simplest version of this would be 6 x 10, so a 60 man front, or would you go narrower (and deeper) still?

Sorry, lost here about the 6 x 10. Is that referring to the 60 infantry in a century. As Polybius refers to the maniple, the frontage in my diagram for a maniple is 20 infantry wide by 6 deep in the standard array. So, a maniple of 120 infantry can be arrayed 10 wide by 12 deep, 8 wide by 15 deep, 6 wide by 20 deep, 5 wide by 24 deep, 4 wide by 30 deep, 3 wide by 40 deep, and 2 wide by 60 deep. With the legion arrayed 5 maniples wide by 6 maniples deep, those frontages from 5 wide to 2 wide, is creating a extremely deep legion. From my examination of the numbers given and also the casualties, the triarii were guarding the camps. With this in mind, each maniple is arrayed 8 wide by 15 deep, and a legion 5 maniples wide by 5 maniples deep, has a frontage of 40 infantry and a depth of 75 infantry. this omits the velites. Therefore, the 14 legions has a frontage of 560 infantry (560 yards or 1,680 feet). From a frontage of 1,400 yards, that leaves 840 yards for the Roman and allied cavalry. However, as I have stated earlier, I am leaving cavalry gaps for both Roman and allied cavalry. Leaving no cavalry squadron gaps for the Roman cavalry I am struggling with, as it does not explain how they would turn their horses around and manage to flee.
#8
Army Research / Re: The Frontage of the Roman ...
Last post by Monad - Today at 12:58:12 PM
Ok, you say you are not looking for a fight, putting aside the criticism on structure and so on, that is good to hear, but let me also give you some friendly advice. When you write "not assert that they are the only person ever to have been clever enough to work things out." Be honest, that is aimed at me and is inflammatory. Had you treated me in the same manner as Justin, we would not have a problem. Please don't make me the villain. I did not make statements like "would be laughed out of court in any academic environment." That is an insult to those academics that are associated with my work, especially Professor Ronald Ridley, whom I have a lot of respect for. Wouldn't it have been better to ask first if I have been peered reviewed?

It becomes frustrating when you claim that Pythagoras had nothing to do with Roman military organisation, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support this. Wouldn't it have been better to ask me how does Pythagorean mathematics integrate with the Roman legion? That would have given me to chance to explain the how and whys, and then armed with that, a better debate can begin. Your line of questions actually shuts down any serious discussion and will always result in a brawl. Do you treat me the same as everyone else on this forum? I see two David's here.

The centre of the problem for me is no matter what evidence I present, it is completely ignored. It is like it does not exist. The focus is on implying I am wrong, and then to tell me not to get upset when someone disagrees with you. If my army numbers did not add up, would it have been ignored, or would the board light up like a Xmas tree, letting me know about it?
#9
Battle Reports / Re: Tactica 2 Battles
Last post by simonw - Today at 11:59:29 AM
Cheers Gents!
Simon
#10
Army Research / Re: The Frontage of the Roman ...
Last post by DBS - Today at 11:44:36 AM
Steven

If you post on here, expect others to respond.  Do not tell me not to communicate with you.  As Anthony says, this is getting really unpleasant.  I am not looking for a fight, but I do expect people who advance such radical theories to be prepared to defend that position, not just assert that they are the only person ever to have been clever enough to work things.  Justin gave you some friendly advice.  Let me also give you some friendly advice; your posts are far too long, poorly structured, and because of that very difficult to read.

Now, I have said my piece, and offered above my qualifications on Justin's thoughtful thesis on the frontage of Cannae.  I do not agree with all he says, but I respect him for presenting his logic rationally and clearly.