roman wargamer Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 it can never be understand... until you will know the the right and proper centurion formation. each legiones soldier have a basic formation and distance. how they could rotate the front rank? ________________________________________________________________________________ see related article 'The Cohors" for detailed formation in the above representation the figure represent 1 man ________________________________________________________________________________ the contubernia have 9 man member, 3 man shoulder to shoulder and 3 man at the back and 3 man at rearmost or 27 men for the contutriplia. the first line protect the frontal coverage the second line protect the front men head coverage from arrow the third line continue to protect the head coverage from arrow "the men , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields." " when the posterior come forward , they "PASS" on that "Space" without breaking their own line formation or the prior line formation. they could rotate the front rank and rear rank without Breaking any formation. a Cohors have 10 battle lines with 3 battle acies lines. the cohors "primum line" acies have 3 lines compose of Anteadstatus, Hastatus Prior and Posterior. the centurion "line" was fixed form , rigid movement , and militarily straight line. nobody is ever allowed to break away from the line , either by some moving faster or slower. they do it by "military cadence" or numbered step of marching. regardless of opportunity, of exposed individual enemy, good reason because of weaker type of enemy troops or enemy flanks was exposed. The Hastatus Prior and Hastatus Posterior never break their line regardless of reason. It is the "JOB" of the more mobile and lighter Anteadstatus to do the "selective lesser battle". each manipular line have a standard distance of 50 meters each acies line have a standard distance of 150 meters it is use as the re-assembly fields for the retreated men and reform and reorganize again as before on the same formation less the casualty. i will try to recreate a scene with the following command and signal to point out the... ...order of battle. on my next visit, i'll try my best. __________________________________________________________________________ let's consider this situation; the battle engagement begin here, ( cursores was omitted for easy understanding ) ____________________________ figure 1 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Anteadstatus / medium infantry / antepilanus 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Posterior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Prior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ the "signa referre" was given to Anteadstatus after a heated and bloody first engagement the Anteadstatus shall move at the rear of Hastatus Line. while the enemy are heavily attacking them as thought they are already retreating. the men of the Hastatus , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields." on that space the three Hastae protrude in an upward form while the end of the stake was firmly holding the ground. they all slowly rise it above the head retreating men, and slowly return it again at the same formation, after the men already made a safe contact and passage in the pilus killing field area. when the antepilanus retreated backward , they "PASS" on that "Space" without breaking their own line formation or the Hastatus Posterior and Prior line formation. They could rotate the front rank and rear rank without Breaking any formation. while they are in actual battle engagement. The Antepilanus slowly step rearward in a marching cadence leaving behind the casualty, who can not move bodily , on each own , or already mortally wounded. the Anteadstatus retreat at the rear of Hastatus Line and reform again after 30% casualty. while everything in the "signa referre" order of move was carried out, the 3 men of Hastatus Posterior have accidentally killed by archery, and 2 man of Hastatus Prior, in the right flank area. ___________________________ figure 2 representation []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Posterior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.............[]/......[]/. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Prior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.............[]/ 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Anteadstatus / medium infantry 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/.. the first line men place position who was killed by arrow was immediately replaced by the second line men who take now the first line men position, the third line continue to do same process, everything was done in an automatic manner without any needs for a command order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) the contubernia have 9 man member, [/q] except of course that in action a unit would never be at full strength. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest they fought as a 'section' it seems a very reasonable assumption [q] 3 man shoulder to shoulder and 3 man at the back and 3 man at rearmost or 27 men for the contutriplia. the first line protect the frontal coverage the second line protect the front men head coverage from arrow the third line continue to protect the head coverage from arrow "the men , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields." " [/q] if tyhe front ranks are shoulder to shoulder they cannot have two feet between shields. That is the whole crux of the issue. [q] when the posterior come forward , they "PASS" on that "Space" without breaking their own line formation or the prior line formation. they could rotate the front rank and rear rank without Breaking any formation. [/q] So the front rankers aren't shoulder to shoulder in this system. Irefer you to my above posts for the problems this raises. [q] it is use as the re-assembly fields for the retreated men and reform and reorganize again as before on the same formation less the casualty. [/q] Very plausible, regrouping out of combat to reorganise. [q] let's consider this situation;[/q] I'm in favour of that [q] the "signa referre" was given to Anteadstatus after a heated and bloody first engagement [/q] The key word here being after. [q] the Anteadstatus shall move at the rear of Hastatus Line. while the enemy are heavily attacking them as thought they are already retreating. [/q] Thought that contradicts the above as it implies that they're still fighting... [q] the men of the Hastatus , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields." [/q] This still raises the question as to how, if in combat, the enemy were prevented from exploiting the gaps as I suggested above. [q] on that space the three Hastae protrude in an upward form while the end of the stake was firmly holding the ground. they all slowly rise it above the head retreating men, and slowly return it again at the same formation, after the men already made a safe contact and passage in the pilus killing field area. when the antepilanus retreated backward , they "PASS" on that "Space" without breaking their own line formation or the Hastatus Posterior and Prior line formation. [/q] This is a wholesale replacement. But did it happen when the enemy were at grips? Or merely in proximity? [q] They could rotate the front rank and rear rank without Breaking any formation. while they are in actual battle engagement. [/q] Whilst in battle, yes. Whilst physically fighting, perhaps. [q] The Antepilanus slowly step rearward in a marching cadence leaving behind the casualty, who can not move bodily , on each own , or already mortally wounded. the Anteadstatus retreat at the rear of Hastatus Line and reform again after 30% casualty. [/q] a unit suffering 30% casualties will have almost certainly fled. Now all this is good stuff but suppose as the front rankers give back, the enemy follow up. How then do you prevent the two bodies becoming hoplessly fouled? 'X' are the baddies. A and B our Roman unit. B is relieving A XXXXXXXXXX A A A A A A A A A A A A A A :B B B B B B B :B B B B B B B the A's fall back but the enemy press XXXXXXX A A A A A ABABABA _B_B_B_B and then XXXXXXX ABABABAB ABABABAB now how do the Bs prevent this happeningas the As withdraw? XXXXXXXXXX XBXBXBXBXB ABABABABAB And it still means that each front rank Roman has his right side wide open and is in effect confronted by two of the enemy. I don't think it will do. Undoubtedly it is how units in close proximity to the enemy were relieved butit is still unclear how, if it ever did, work in the face of the enemy. What's your source for this btw? It's interesting. AAAAA Edited March 23, 2006 by Furius Venator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mquish Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) First question, would an unit of cavalry require back-up horses? If so how many? About communication on the battlefield. How effective was this and how much difference did it make? Did a general have control over his units during the battle. Or was it just careful planning and then trusting in the commanders during the battle. I know there are different techniques but I don't even know which one the romans used. The romans used three types of horns to give commands. The first signalling device was called the Cornu. This horn had a deep loud sound that was blown for basic formations. The Tuba, which looked like the trumpet we have today, gave precise battle commands. The Bucina was a lot like a bugle. The Bucina told the soldiers when lunch breaks were happening and signaled preliminary formations. Last but not least, the Lituus was used to signal the cavalry. Ok, so no one knows what exactly happened. Too bad things like communication and specific unit tactics like rotation of the troops are unknown. Communication is known but im not sure of the latter. The romans used three types of horns to give signals for specific battle tactics. The first signalling device was called the Cornu. This horn had a deep loud sound that was blown for basic formations. The Tuba, which looked like the trumpet we have today, gave precise battle commands. The Bucina was a lot like a bugle. The Bucina told the soldiers when lunch breaks were happening and signaled preliminary formations. Last but not least, the Lituus was used to signal the cavalry. Edited March 21, 2006 by mquish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Very nice topic. I wonder if anyone can make it clear to me why the batlle formations were so deep. To have 12 lines in a macedonian phalanx and 10 in a roman legion does not make much sense to me as those behind cannot do much against the enemy. If in a roman unit it's possible that they changed lines there is no info about the greek and macedonian formations to allow as to think that thay also changed the lines. @Roman Wargamer: Most descriptions of a battle line describe it as a wall of shields and soldiers fighting shoulder to shoulder, sometimes so compact that they cannot drew their swords, so I wonder about the sources of the detailed description that you gave us. Maybe the fight was based on pushing the enemy like in a rugby melee using the weight of the formation to break the enemy line. Or maybe those behind are there to stop the first lines to run away. I think it's possible that many in a formation will never engage the enemy in close combat in shorter batlles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Formations are deep for two main reasons: Manoeuver. It is almost impossible to keep order when moving forward in extended line, it also takes long thin lines much more time to change facing or wheel. Also a column can deploy into a thinner line by rear troops advancing, to go from line to column on the same position, troops must withdraw which might damage morale. Disciplined troops can thus form thinner than irregulars Morale. A unit formed eight deep looks more impressive than one three deep. It also feels more 'solid' to the troops forming it. Hence veterans can form thinner than recruits. So trained veterans like Caesar's 'Gallic' legions at Pharsalus could form 3 deep to compensate for their lack of numbers whereas Pompey's more numerous but generally less good troops formed deeper. Equally, freshly raised irregulars would tend to form very deep. Now the Macedonian phalanx was often 16 deep, which is very deep indeed. But this was a very cumbersome formation to manoeuver due to the length of the pikes. Given that it ofen extended its frontage by forming 8 deep, it's greater depth allowed for this. Now the nonsense: It pains me that otherwise intelligent and highly respected historians (I am thinking of Hanson and others) can see no better reason for Greeks to have formed eight deep than to shove each other forward with their shields. A moment's reflection shows that this is highly unlikely. First the evidence rests on statements in the sources that say there was a 'shoving of shields' and there are exhortations to the unit to 'go one step more'. Now there was very likely a shoving of shields between the front rankers of rival formations, in fact that is virtually certain, but if 'pushing' included all ranks shoving forward like a rugby scrum then we must conclude that the front rankers would have the breathcrushed from them in short order. Second, early musket armed troops formed even deeper.Are we to assume that they also resorted to scrumming? Of course not. In fact its only Greek historians who have come up with this theory, yet other nations formed as deep or deeper. It really will not do. Replacing casualties. The winners in ancient battles seldom suffered more than 5% casualties, often less. It is accepted tat most of the losing soldiers troops were slaughtered in the rout. Even if we assume that not all units engaged then a unit taking 10% casualties would almost certainly break and run. If a unit of 80 men is formed 8 deep, and will rout after 8 of its number fall, then one needs less than 8 men to replace casualties. So clearly there is no need to have more than three ranks to allow for men falling out (which is interestingly the absolute minimum depth that ancient troops formed in). See my lengthy postings on 'gutful men' above. Deeper ranks would however allow fresher men to replace tiring front rankers during lulls as in my hypothetical example above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mquish Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Very nice topic. I wonder if anyone can make it clear to me why the batlle formations were so deep. To have 12 lines in a macedonian phalanx and 10 in a roman legion does not make much sense to me as those behind cannot do much against the enemy. The main reason battle formations deep is so that the back lines could fill in any spaces were soldiers were killed in the frontline. Basically to plug any gaps that appear in the foremost line of fighting. They usually consisted of the less experienced soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 (edited) Weren't lulls and even agreed breaks quite common? Also, didn't the legion battle line have holes in them? I am not sure how big their were but surely the roman battle line was made up of square blocks containing a particular number of Centuria. For an enemy to enter those hole was not a good thing. At least I am told. So maybe if we consider a great number of lulls, gutful men, or rather the lack of them and manuvering space in the battle line then all problems are solved. Right? Edited March 22, 2006 by Prometheus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 So maybe if we consider a great number of lulls, gutful men, or rather the lack of them and manuvering space in the battle line then all problems are solved. Right? Wrong, you can choose to believe that theory if you like, but I don't. I need solid evidence, of which there seems to be little - unless you have it prometheus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mquish Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 (edited) Weren't lulls and even agreed breaks quite common? Also, didn't the legion battle line have holes in them? I am not sure how big their were but surely the roman battle line was made up of square blocks containing a particular number of Centuria. For an enemy to enter those hole was not a good thing. At least I am told. So maybe if we consider a great number of lulls, gutful men, or rather the lack of them and manuvering space in the battle line then all problems are solved. Right? Im not sure what you mean by lull, but it was common practice for the acies prima(frontline) to rotate with acies secunda(second line) when they got tired. The number of men in a legions line(depth) depended on many factores.ie, How many men were available, The number of enemies, Locations and many other variables. I will explain what a legion was made up of and maybe this will help you understand battle lines more clearly. A roman legion consisted of many groups. It was made up of many smaller groups grouped into bigger and bigger ones. The lowest unit was called the pedite, a single soldier. Next would be the grouping called a Centuria, a pack of 100 men led by a Centurion. Two Centuria would team up to form a Manipulus. A Cohors would be made by binding 3 Manipuli together. A legion would be formed by getting together 10 Cohorts. The legion would be led by a general. The usual battle formation was the triplex acies. It consisted of three parts. 1) The prima acies ( the strongest troops stationed at the frontline). The first line consisted of four cohorts(2400 men) 2) The Acies secunda made up the second line and consisted of three cohorts. These were usually mediochre troops used mainly for plugging gaps in the frontline defensive. 3)The last line was called the Acies tertia. This line again contained three cohorts. Thse troops were the weakest and were used to protect against flanking and in the case of the second line needing more men to fill in the gaps of the frontline. I hope this information is helpful. I Edited March 22, 2006 by mquish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) Wrong, you can choose to believe that theory if you like, but I don't. I need solid evidence, of which there seems to be little - unless you have it prometheus. I am not sure which part you refer to but all of these parts I read somewhere. I just put them together. A lull is when the two battle lines disconnect and the fighting stops. Edited March 23, 2006 by Prometheus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 I am not sure which part you refer to but all of these parts I read somewhere. I just put them together. Sorry, but "I read somewhere" is not evidence. A lull is when the two battle lines disconnect and the fighting stops. Yeahhh....thanks for "filling me in". Give me a classical description of one that was used for re-enforcment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 There is no evidence to suggest that troops who were actually engaged in hand to hand fighting were relieved either. All 'replacement of men in battle' comments can be interpreted in either way. None are clear cut. So we apply Occum's Razor. Which is simpler, or presents fewest problems? As I've banged on about at length there is the physical impossibility of close formed infantry moving forward/backward due to lack of room. So in order to replace, open order must be assumed. We know that battle lines tended to form in close order. Thus replacement occurred during lulls in combat. Problems still exist: how did the lulls occur? I've tried to explain how that might have happened with reference to how men behave in battle. I'd like for someone to expain similarly how they think replacement in close fighting worked. Again, I have pointed out some things that I percieve to be flaws in this reasoning. A rebuttal would be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 It seems that the era when the battle occured is not being considered, and thus the formations and tactics used. In the earliest of times there would have only been three lines of infantry (each of 1,000 men), to a legion with small cavalry units on the wings. When the phalanx was used, the spears were some 18 feet long and projected out to the front some 3 feet distant from the spear ahead. If a man in front went down, the man behind simply stepped over him. But, let us take the example of Scipio at Zama. Initially he presented a continuous front. When Hannibal's elephants charged, the centuries formed close order and allowed the charging elephants to pass through the gaps created between the centuries or maniples. The elephants were attacked on their flanks and turned out to be useless. This is an example of a frontal cavalry charge failing. The Parthians did use frontal and surrounding charges with cavalry who were armed with bows and arrows. They would shoot, retreat and then return for an encore, thus the 'parting' or 'Parthian' shot. Carrae. They never engaged the infantry directly, until the matter was settled. Cavalry were usually placed on the wings of an army and/or held in reserve to be used for the most propitious purpose, usually to follow up a defeated enemy and destroy him. Scipio's cavalry attacked Hannibal's and ran them off; defeated them, and did not return to the battle until much later in the fight. When cavalry did attack infantry, it was usually to the left side of the enemy infantry, the unarmed side. Or for an envelopment. Using Scipio's example when he defended against the elephants, centuries could easily form up in close order to retreat into the gap behind them. If the gap were charged, the enemy became susceptible to flank attack. In this fashion, entire units could advance or retreat. By this, I do not mean cohorts or legions, unless there were a tactical reason. It would not be wise to replace troopers man for man, as unit cohesion would be lost. Men within a unit could replace a fallen comrade easily. A battle might start with a cloud of arrows greeting the opponents. This would be countered by the Romans using their shields in Testudo fashion. As the armies advanced, the Roman Velites opened fire with bullets and small spears. They did not engage the enemy man to man. As the armies got closer, the Velites retreated THROUGH the advanced Roman lines into the rear, before the legion(s) attacked. They did not retreat to the flanks. The front line Romans then heaved their pilum. Then man to man combat occurred. If the legion were formed of Hastati, Principes and Triarii and the front most unit was being defeated, the next unit could advance. This generally being the decision of the on sight commander. 'The matter is down to the Triarii.' If a Reserve unit were to replace a large unit being defeated, again lanes would have to to formed in order for the Reserve to advance into the fray. I am not certain as to how the Romans used their balista (belly busters or arrow machine guns). I doubt if they were used during the clash of infantry. So, perhaps they were used at the beginning. If up front, the infantry would have to form lanes to bypass them. If not up front, then lanes of fire would have to be formed initially. Or both at the same time. The essence of the Roman army was unitary cohesion, tactics and discipline. The generals following Scipio certainly learned from him. Most battles were not long drawn out affairs. The outcome was usually decided early on. Had I applied myself to Invesment Banking as I am to this site, I would not have had to ask the question about interest calculations during the pre Julian calandar, which no one has answered. Please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 In regard of formation depth, I dont believe that the porpose of those behind was to replace those in front when killed because if the first lines were killed they probably fled. You dont have 50 % losses and still function as a unit. To give them depth to ease manovering it's hard to believe. In my opinon the best reenactors are today's riot police forces. If you watch the formations in which they deploy when armed with shields and sticks you can have a sense of how an ancient battle line looked like, but they never deploy in depth and they manouver quickly. Another problem I have is the famed gap in the roman line. Everybody says that no enemy can enter because it will be attacked from three sides, but I dont see how a formation attacked in front (those in the sides of the gap) can attack to a side. Eventually to both sides if it has another gap to the other side. The fact they had two centuria side by side in a manipuli it's an indication that oposing sides (left-right) had different comanders and could act independently. So, maybe a roman manipuli in battle line had three "front" lines something like the square formations of rifle infantry in XVIII century. Sorry about the confuse expressions, but I'm in a bit of hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Q? except of course that in action a unit would never be at full strength. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest they fought as a 'section' it seems a very reasonable assumption reply = the centuria have 10 continous contubernia that made the battle line ex: of Hastatus Posterior Hastatus Acies is made of of Posterior, Prior and the Antepilanus you must re-read most the members old post to avoid mis-qoute of the meaning they give. i already said the hastatus never break the battle line regardless of reason. Q? if tyhe front ranks are shoulder to shoulder they cannot have two feet between shields. That is the whole crux of the issue. So the front rankers aren't shoulder to shoulder in this system. I refer you to my above posts for the problems this raises. reply= the word "shoulder to shoulder" do not litterally mean shoulder to shoulder, but means they are in a very "straight battle line" using the shoulder as horizontal direction, so the "two feet between the shields" are the standard Romanus Legiones 'battle formation.' it is use as the re-assembly fields for the retreated men and reform and reorganize again as before on the same formation less the casualty. Q? Very plausible, regrouping out of combat to reorganise. there is no way a coward could run backward continously, a cohors have 10 separate battle lines, not including the 2 next agmen. i think only a true military will understand that... in retreating without command or order, a death on the spot be could done to a coward milites by it own officers. the "signa referre" was given to Anteadstatus after a heated and bloody first engagement [/q] The key word here being after. [q] the Anteadstatus shall move at the rear of Hastatus Line. while the enemy are heavily attacking them as thought they are already retreating. [/q] Q? The key word here being after. Q? Thought that contradicts the above as it implies that they're still fighting... reply = as i notice it , you seem not very familiar of the Legiones Organization and Structure, When the two forces meet intially .... a very strong reaction of fighting ensued, the extreme heated swordmanship and the bloody first engagement will slow down "after... ... 'after' a few minutes of fighting will surely slow down" but will still continue to fight. so the term "after a heated and bloody first engagement" means after the heated engagement slow down. i have been to many street fighting, and i know no man can continue to fight ... at the same intensity continously for even just 20 minutes or 10 minutes. their is no word that say's the two forces dis-engage in the fighting. so contradiction was only on your perception. i am willing to stand my point to a true military officers, to prove my argument is logical and possible. and much more within the "now" modern military battle order. the men of the Hastatus , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields." [/q] Q? This still raises the question as to how, if in combat, the enemy were prevented from exploiting the gaps as I suggested above. as the explanation say's the two feet distance between shields was filled by protruding 'Hastae.' [q] on that space the three Hastae protrude in an upward form while the end of the stake was firmly holding the ground. they all slowly rise it above the head retreating men, and slowly return it again at the same formation, after the men already made a safe contact and passage in the pilus killing field area. when the antepilanus retreated backward , they "PASS" on that "Space" without breaking their own line formation or the Hastatus Posterior and Prior line formation. [/q] Q? This is a wholesale replacement. But did it happen when the enemy were at grips? Or merely in proximity? reply= it done even while the forward men are fighting the enemy. [q] They could rotate the front rank and rear rank without Breaking any formation. while they are in actual battle engagement. [/q] Whilst in battle, yes. Whilst physically fighting, perhaps. i stand , it is can done even while physically fighting. [q] The Antepilanus slowly step rearward in a marching cadence leaving behind the casualty, who can not move bodily , on each own , or already mortally wounded. the Anteadstatus retreat at the rear of Hastatus Line and reform again after 30% casualty. [/q] QA a unit suffering 30% casualties will have almost certainly fled. unless you are a coward, or the men are coward. it is your perception, i been almost killed not only once, but i stand my ground. but their own officers or the next line will stabs them to death for cowardice retreat. and prevent the chaos within their own ranks and file. the figure you are looking is only a part of centuria, a contutriplia. Q? Now all this is good stuff but suppose as the front rankers give back, the enemy follow up. How then do you prevent the two bodies becoming hoplessly fouled? kindly re-read all others post to understand the basic stands of members. the legiones "battle line" move by centuria , acies . cohors, and by agmen. not by section. here is my representation of the "full centuria." __________________________ Primum Acies Line Centuria Anteadstatus / medium infantry / Antepilanus 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..0/..0/..0/..,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..,0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..,0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..,0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..,0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. Centuria Hastatus Posterior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.. Centuria Hastatus Prior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..,..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.. Q? Now all this is good stuff but suppose as the front rankers give back, the enemy follow up. How then do you prevent the two bodies becoming hoplessly fouled? reply= the men and rank of the centuria have a pre-arranged post, or position and location; if you're position is in the front line, you can never never say's i wan't to be in the 2nd line. cowardice can be meted death right at the battle fields by stabing them right there. it is a military maxim, men are expendable. the distance in technical term; "the men , they all have a minimum of two feet distance between "each other shields." " a milites have a shield size of 30" distance between each other 24" a milites have a free space of 06" 3" on both sides so distance between each other 24" a milites have a free space of 03" right flank a milites have a free space of 03" left flank ____________________________ .........................................= 30" the men will only slightly diagonally incline the shield outwards. _____________________________________________________________________________________ to close the "gaps" the command of " signa ad pila et spathas" will be given. to mean = close shield combat formation. i claim copyrights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.