SoA Forums

Quote from: Erpingham on July 25, 2024, 12:09:18 PMThanks Justin.  I didn't mean us to restart a conversation on this - as you say we've discussed before.

Interested parties might wish to view this epic http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=652.0

If anyone is tempted to go for a restart, I'd suggest posting in the Weapons and Tactics section of History or Rules Discussions, depending on whether you are interested in the history or the game mechanics.

That thread is 12 years old and I did quite bit of rethinking on line relief since then.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 25, 2024, 11:49:38 AMHere's the crucial passage from Livy, which is mistranslated and misunderstood by every single author I've read on the subject:

Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium. – History: 8.8.5.

The popular translation:

The first line, or hastati, comprised fifteen maniples, with short distances between [inter] them.

A word-for-word transliteration gives:

First line hastati were, maniples fifteen, standing-apart between/ among themselves small space.

First of all, the 'small spaces' are between/among the hastati, not the maniples, as the hastati are the subject of the sentence. Secondly, and more importantly, the word translated as 'between' - inter - has as its primary sense 'among" or 'within'. It's the root of the word 'internal'. So you have small gaps (not huge maniple-wide spaces) among the hastati, i.e. between the individual hastati files. It's obvious Livy is giving an amateur's description of open order which, as the tacticians describe, could be used to allow other infantry formations to move through an infantry line or even remain within it: 'interjection' or 'intercision'.

Justin, while my formal Latin education was a long time ago, I still have vague recollections of sentence structure and grammar.

"First line" is the subject of the sentence and not hastati (individuals as you suggest).  Similarly, it is these maniples that are separated by a short distance, not the individuals.  How you arrived at "maniple-sized gaps is a puzzle.  Perhaps Latin is taught differently in different times and in different places?

Possibles v Probables.   

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 01:12:34 PMPossibles v Probables.   

I call 'em as I translate 'em.

Quote from: Jon Freitag on July 25, 2024, 12:46:59 PMJustin, while my formal Latin education was a long time ago, I still have vague recollections of sentence structure and grammar.

"First line" is the subject of the sentence and not hastati (individuals as you suggest).  Similarly, it is these maniples that are separated by a short distance, not the individuals.  How you arrived at "maniple-sized gaps is a puzzle.  Perhaps Latin is taught differently in different times and in different places?

Strictly-speaking 'hastati' is the subject since 'distantes' applies to the hastati (plural) and not to the first line (singular). You could render the sentence as "The hastati were the first line and were composed of fifteen maniples, standing (the hastati) a small distance apart from each other." 'Fifteen maniples' qualifies 'hastati' so is not the direct subject though is part of it.

Maniple sized gaps is required by the checkerboard theory, allowing the maniples in front to retire between the maniples behind them, though how that can be effectively be done whilst engaging the enemy is never satisfactorily explained.

Although it's 12 years since the earlier debate, it all comes flooding back  Exactly this argument about translation featured then I recall.

As suggested earlier, we could certainly return to Roman line relief, given the big scrap discussion was so long ago, but suggest it has its own topic, rather than be bolted on here.

Another interesting topic hinted out earlier is how did the triarii operate?  Were they glorified camp guards?  Or were they an effective last line of defence (as per their proverbial reputation)?

And just for good measure, I'm thinking of raising modelling flank attacks elsewhere.  Yes, we've done it before but not for a while.

Something about those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it ... 

Quote from: dwkay57 on July 22, 2024, 08:24:03 AMNot placing importance on the number of figures on a base but concentrating on their "fighting value" instead is an interesting approach but might mean a lot of classifications if you have a lot of armies. I assume Chuck that your triarii have less of an impact or strength than the preceding ranks?

The A for Abstraction also plays a role. If your legion is the tactical / command / manoeuvre / morale / fighting strength "blob" then you have other options compared to those representing more detailed structures. As long as both sides are at the same level of abstraction and grouping then it should work.

I apologize David, I Missed your question earlier when I was catching up on the thread. I generally follow the rules that I'm currently using to decide on the capabilities of the triarii. For example, the for the Battle of the Trebia river in Age of Hannibal, the triarii are listed as "elite" and have the same combat factor as the hastati and princepes. The trriarii do suffer a loss of one combat factor in unfavorable terrain and the other two lines don't. it seems reasonable to me so I let it stand.

QuoteAnother interesting topic hinted out earlier is how did the triarii operate?  Were they glorified camp guards?  Or were they an effective last line of defence (as per their proverbial reputation)?

Or were they the veterans held in reserve to commit in a battle winning / saving role?

Which would be much more in line with standard military practice of keeping your best troops to commit at the point when the battle can be won, and culturally more in line with an era when seniority brought respect.

And it fits much more with the overall structure of ages in this army from its original set up.

That the hastatii and principes often proven enough doesn't make the triarii any less significant.

Quote from: Mark G on July 26, 2024, 06:42:18 AM

QuoteAnother interesting topic hinted out earlier is how did the triarii operate?  Were they glorified camp guards?  Or were they an effective last line of defence (as per their proverbial reputation)?

Or were they the veterans held in reserve to commit in a battle winning / saving role?

I had a look at the history of the Triarii in my book. Here's the relevant passage. It does seem egocentric quoting from one's own work but it's what I have on hand.

Triarii were an old institution, as old, according to Dionysius, as the Roman Republic itself. During Rome's first battle as a Republic against Tarquinius in 509 bc – when it still used the hoplite phalanx – the triarii were older veterans who guarded the camp.

... the sons of King Tarquinius put the left wing of the Romans to flight, and advancing close to their camp, did not fail to attempt to take it by storm; but after receiving many wounds, since those inside stood their ground, they desisted. These guards were the triarii, as they are called; they are veteran troops, experienced in many wars, and are always the last employed in the most critical fighting, when every other hope is lost. – Dionysius: 5.15.4.

During the battle between the Romans and the Volscians in 482 bc quoted earlier, the triarii again appear as camp guards. After defeating the army of Lucius Aemilius, the Volscians attempted to storm their camp.

But when, after attacking the hill and surrounding the camp, they endeavoured to pull down the palisades, first the Roman horse, obliged, from the nature of the ground, to fight on foot, sallied out against them, and, behind the horse, those they call the triarii, with their ranks closed. These are the oldest soldiers, to whom they commit the guarding of the camp when they go out to give battle, and they fall back of necessity upon these as their last hope when there has been a general slaughter of the younger men and they lack other reinforcements. – Dionysius: 8.86.4.

They are still camp guards in 480 bc when the consuls Gnaeus Manlius and Marcus Fabius gained a hard-fought victory against the Etruscans. After driving back the Roman right wing, the Etruscan infantry take the first and then the second camp of the Romans.

In the meantime the Tyrrhenians who had possessed themselves of the camp abandoned by Manlius, as soon as the signal for battle was given at headquarters, ran with great haste and alacrity to the other camp of the Romans, suspecting that it was not guarded by a sufficient force. And their belief was correct. For, apart from the triarii and a few younger troops, the rest of the crowd then in the camp consisted of merchants, servants and artificers. – Dionysius: 9.12.1 (see also Livy: 2.47.4).

This battle is also interesting as it shows how the second line could be used to counter an envelopment of a wing.

When Marcus Fabius, the other consul, who commanded in thevcentre, was informed of this [the envelopment of the Roman left wing], he took with him the best of the maniples, and summoning Caeso Fabius, his other brother, he passed beyond his own line, and advancing a long way, till he had got beyond the enemy's right wing, he turned upon those who were encircling his men, and charging them, caused great slaughter among all whom he encountered. – Dionysius: 9.11.3.

The 'best of the maniples' were evidently not those of the first line already locked in combat with the Etruscan centre, but were part of the uncommitted maniples of the second line.

The last time triarii are mentioned as camp guards is in 437 bc when they are used to repel an attack by the Veientian troops of Lars Tolumnus at Fidenae.

In 350 bc they have a more active role, constructing field works near a Gallic army in Latium whilst the two infantry lines stand guard. The Gauls attack the lines – now called hastati and principes by Livy – who repel them whilst the triarii continue working.

On the side of the Romans neither the works were interrupted, (it was the triarii who were employed at them) but the battle was commenced by the hastati and the principes, who stood in front of the workmen armed and prepared for the fight. – Livy: 7.23.7.

It is possible the triarii were engaged in this same occupation 40 years earlier in 394 bc, when Camillus entrenched the high ground above a Faliscan army, but the crucial word in Livy (History: 5.26.7) is rendered as either triarii (Weissenborn, Müller) or trifariam (three places/sides: Foster, Conway, Walters).

I suspect our figure size and basing have distorted our gaming ideas of how Republican legionaries operated and have led to tabletop truisms. I wasn't brought up on a diet of 25mm figures, so the clunkiness of these on undersized tables wasn't part of my mispent youth. This doesn't mean that 15mm scale elements work any better either.

Do maniples operate independently of each other or in groups? Who decides when "line relief" happens and in what quantity? Is it legion-wide or up to independent Centurions and how do they communicate their maniple is under stress? What figure scale do we play games that make any sense to playing a battle so that we are not micro-managing the game? Do you want to be making Scipio decisions, Tribune decisions or Centurion decisions? In other words, in the scale of your game are you commanding legions or maniples?

I've always regarded the Triarii as an elite social grouping, an exclusive club of relatively wealthy veterans who are keen not to lose their shiny kit or their lives. They will fight if they absolutely have to but our sources don't reflect their battlefield combat ability or effectiveness. Was there a morale advantage to the Principes & Hastati knowing these elite "heroes" had our backs? Why put them on the tabletop at all if their only value was to cover a retreat?

What an old chestnut this is!

I think Steve's middle paragraph is quite key. The most likely answer is that we probably don't know and how we replicate this on our model battlefields is down to the 4 A's (ambition, abstraction, authenticity, and aesthetics) of wargaming. The result is dependent upon where we are in our individual four-dimensional matrix of those factors.

Quote from: stevenneate on July 26, 2024, 02:42:42 PMWas there a morale advantage to the Principes & Hastati knowing these elite "heroes" had our backs?

I think I recall attending a talk by Marian Helm (possibly at King's College London in 2019 or online in 2023) where he spoke about "Creating 'natural fighters': Age and social expectations in the Roman republican army." I don't think his ideas have yet made it into print.

If I remember correctly, one of his arguments was that the triarii, as established married heads of families, had an important social function within the army. The younger legionaries, the bulk of the fighting men, operated under the watchful (and watching) eyes of their social superiors who were in a position to assess, judge, and validate their performance both within the army and to their families back home. With such peer pressure the younger men were likely thereby encouraged to greater acts of virtus and thus the overall fighting ability and moral resilience of the army were enhanced.

Adrian.

Quote from: dwkay57 on July 26, 2024, 05:49:25 PMI think Steve's middle paragraph is quite key. The most likely answer is that we probably don't know and how we replicate this on our model battlefields is down to the 4 A's (ambition, abstraction, authenticity, and aesthetics) of wargaming. The result is dependent upon where we are in our individual four-dimensional matrix of those factors.

This is one of the questions that keeps coming to me and I'm sure I've raised it before. Who on earth gave the order for line relief, and what was the mechanism for relaying it to the centurions?
Did the legate decide and have a signal blown so the whole front line replaced the whole second line. It would make sense in that he could spot a lull and have it happen then.
Or was it done 'locally' where two centurions communicated with each other and did it quickly when their bit of the 'front' was quiet.
I must admit I lean towards the first. It seems more practical especially if you assume that the Western Med way of way was one where lulls in the fighting as men caught their breath wasn't unusual

It also begs the question that within this theatre of warfare was it relatively common to swap lines forward, say among other Italians, Spanish, even Gauls who'd settled in these areas but they never got to write about it?

Marian Helm

Now there is a name to have when researching ancient military history - as would Gladys Spatha