Roman Chequered Formation = Useless!

[El_Saracen]

After having several infantry-only battles as the Romans against the Gauls I have realised that it is suicide to march into battle in the chequered formation. My frontline units become overwhelmed by the inferior (but more numerous) enemy infantry and rout quickly due to being flanked.

The Romans will have deployed the second line of infantry (principles) some distance behind the Hastati, meaning they could not support the frontline in time. After reading on a few websites it seems that some people think that the frontline would never charge into battle with large gaps between the Hastati.

It seems that before hand to hand fighting began there were large gaps in the frontline to allow the velites/skirmishers to retreat. Then the rear centurions of each cohort would march to the side, then forward, creating a single solid frontline with no gaps (if you know what I mean).

“….velites loosed a hail of javelins against the enemy and then retired through the gaps in the lines behind them. Once the velites had passed, the rear ranks of the hastati maniples moved into the gap between the maniple on the left, forming a continuous line. Just before impact with the enemy….”

Obviously this is not possible with the RTW engine because single units do not have such flexibility . However, this can be simulated in game by grouping two sets of units and creating a double infantry line with a gap (equal to unit width) between each unit. When the velites retreat you can use the ALT button to move the grouped 2nd line into the gaps of the frontline, creating a single continuous line with a single click of the mouse.

Although this method works well (looks really cool), it takes practice to pull off. Unfortunately it is very hard to pull off when the enemy charges you and usually ends up in a mess.

Also, in RTW/R the velites travel at the same speed when passing through a unit or when marching on open ground - this means the there is no need for gaps in the formation at all! You can just deploy a line of infantry and have the skirmishers retreat through them with ease. What I am trying to say is that the default chequered formation (or any formation with large gaps between the frontline units) that you are sometimes automatically deployed as when you are the Romans, is useless!
I regret dropping History at school now - RTW/RTR has really got me hooked on history! Thanks to the RTR team for the best learning experience ever!

[khshayathiya]

The reason the Romans adopted the quincunx is because, in real life, two units could not cross through each other without creating total chaos. The battle went pretty much like this - the velites would throw the javelins, then withdraw through the gaps. The hastati would take over, throw their own javelins and engage. If the enemy was not soften up enough, the hastati would pull out and leave the terrain to the principes, who would throw javelins and engage.

The superiority of the manipular system is that it allows greater cohesion in broken terrain (something imperfectly rendered by the RTW engine).

The width of the gaps is unknown - perhaps it was not the width of a unit. However, they were present and the suggestion that the principes would close the gaps between the hastati right before battle was joined makes absolutely no sense - then the whole division is pointless and the whole previous arrangement in three successive lines is a waste of energy and of precious momentum - why have a volley of javelins just from the hastati and not from the hastati PLUS the principes?

[Patronus]

The width of the gaps is unknown - perhaps it was not the width of a unit. However, they were present and the suggestion that the principes would close the gaps between the hastati right before battle was joined makes absolutely no sense - then the whole division is pointless and the whole previous arrangement in three successive lines is a waste of energy and of precious momentum - why have a volley of javelins just from the hastati and not from the hastati PLUS the principes?

Actually it makes perfect sense to close the gaps in the chequered formation. It would cover the otherwise exposed flanks of the front line of battle. I can't impossible see how it would be beneficial to leave gaps in a line of battle.

Obviously the gaps help the skirmishers escape to the rear before the enemy line catches them, but when the main battle is joined, Im pretty sure a solid line is much better to have than a broken line with gaps.

RTR has included this chequered formation, but I seriously doubt that the Romans actually fought with gaps in their lines. I think it was more of a pre battle arrangement. If anyone has sources proving the opposite, please let me know.

[El_Saracen]

Actually it makes perfect sense to close the gaps in the chequered formation. It would cover the otherwise exposed flanks of the front line of battle. I can't impossible see how it would be beneficial to leave gaps in a line of battle.

Obviously the gaps help the skirmishers escape to the rear before the enemy line catches them, but when the main battle is joined, Im pretty sure a solid line is much better to have than a broken line with gaps.

RTR has included this chequered formation, but I seriously doubt that the Romans actually fought with gaps in their lines. I think it was more of a pre battle arrangement. If anyone has sources proving the opposite, please let me know.

You can do the close the gaps manoeuvre in RTR but there is no point. It wasn't the Principles that closed the gaps, It was the rear centurions of each Hastati maniple that filled the gaps. In RTW/R the skirmishers can march through the frontline infantry with ease as if running along open ground (whith Roman infantry they can anyway). This means it is a waste of time using the formation in the first place (when facing a solid line of enemy).

[Tiberius Tosi]

Actually it makes perfect sense to close the gaps in the chequered formation. It would cover the otherwise exposed flanks of the front line of battle. I can't impossible see how it would be beneficial to leave gaps in a line of battle.

Obviously the gaps help the skirmishers escape to the rear before the enemy line catches them, but when the main battle is joined, Im pretty sure a solid line is much better to have than a broken line with gaps.

RTR has included this chequered formation, but I seriously doubt that the Romans actually fought with gaps in their lines. I think it was more of a pre battle arrangement. If anyone has sources proving the opposite, please let me know.

Most historians now beleive that the Romans indeed did engage with the checkered formation. If you think about it, it would be suicide for the enemy to try and charge through the open gaps in between the Roman lines, they would simply be cut down and not many men would have the ballz to do such a thing.

[phoebusapollon]

Most historians now beleive that the Romans indeed did engage with the checkered formation. If you think about it, it would be suicide for the enemy to try and charge through the open gaps in between the Roman lines, they would simply be cut down and not many men would have the ballz to do such a thing.

yep - i've killed quite a few suicidal AI generals who tried to do just that

[khshayathiya]

If anyone has sources stating they WOULD close the gaps, please let me know. It is A. Goldsworthy who makes a number of points, defending the idea that the Romans did fight in chequered formation, in his "The Roman Army" (I don't have the book with me, but once I get it, I will give exact reference).

One of his arguments is that in battlefield conditions, it does make sense to fight with gaps. A wide front cannot advance without becoming disorganised. Smaller formations acting independently (with gaps in between) can maintain their cohesion much better.

His other point is that the enemy, as well, would advance with gaps in between tactical units.

Now, it RTW terms, it might just be that the quincunx is useless, but in RL, it was not at all so.

[El_Saracen]

If anyone has sources stating they WOULD close the gaps, please let me know. It is A. Goldsworthy who makes a number of points, defending the idea that the Romans did fight in chequered formation, in his "The Roman Army" (I don't have the book with me, but once I get it, I will give exact reference).

One of his arguments is that in battlefield conditions, it does make sense to fight with gaps. A wide front cannot advance without becoming disorganised. Smaller formations acting independently (with gaps in between) can maintain their cohesion much better.

His other point is that the enemy, as well, would advance with gaps in between tactical units.

Now, it RTW terms, it might just be that the quincunx is useless, but in RL, it was not at all so.

Apart from allowing more flexibility, what advantages would the gaps give? Small gaps between the infantry would allow flexibility and wouldn't allow swarms of enemy to rush through. But large gaps that are present with the chequered formation seem too big.

Also, the operation of replacing Hastati with the principles is accepted as how the early legions worked. How can the Hastati fall back if they are surrounded due to the exposed flanks? And how could the Hastati just fall back without the line crumbling? Wouldn't the enemy just charge forward and hack down the Hastati? This would surely cause chaos on the battle field.

It seems there is little information on how the Romans achieved this during battle. But then again I am only using the internet to find info. Is there any detailed accounts of how the roman army moved during battle? Theres loads of pre battle formations on the net but little on how the Romans pulled off the moves that they are thought to have done.

[EmperorCharles]

Also, the operation of replacing Hastati with the principles is accepted as how the early legions worked. How can the Hastati fall back if they are surrounded due to the exposed flanks? And how could the Hastati just fall back without the line crumbling? Wouldn't the enemy just charge forward and hack down the Hastati? This would surely cause chaos on the battle field.

to allow the rest of the Hastati to fall back the front line would remain engaged until the Principles arrived. most of the Hastati in this case where killed but it allowed the others to get away.

[Patronus]

It is A. Goldsworthy who makes a number of points, defending the idea that the Romans did fight in chequered formation, in his "The Roman Army" (I don't have the book with me, but once I get it, I will give exact reference).

I would just like to point out that though Goldsworthy might be an expert in the field of Roman history, there is only so much evidence out there on how the Romans fought. He, just like all other historians, has reviewed what facts are available and has put forth his best analysis.

No one has concrete, 100% doubt free evidence showing that the Romans fought with gaps in their lines, and if there is such evidence, I would be real eager to see it. The fact remains though, that fighting with even decent sized gaps in a battle line would have adverse effects on an army. Once the velites escaped through the gaps, there is absolutely no tactical advantage to fighting with those gaps. Such openings would leave a unit's flanks open to enemy attack and could even result in possible envelopment.

The Selecuids didn't fight with those gaps, the Byzantines didn't fight with those gaps, and the late republic/imperial legions didn't fight with those gaps...because gaps = more casualties. I really do believe that the chequered formation was simply a pre battle arrangement designed to allow easy movement of troops. The gaps were probably closed right before battle.

[khshayathiya]

I appreciate the spirit you have, and your dogged determination to think with your own head. If only all fans were the same!

Now, as I said, I haven't got Goldsworthy with me, to check his arguments, but this is a readily available passage from Polybios, book XVIII. It does not hold all the answers, but it gives some hints:

"For the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engaged the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following up a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy's reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx."

It may indicate that the gaps had tactical use - either in withdrawal from the enemy, either in attack, it allows movement of the reserve (principes, mostly, sine the triarii were the Barbies of the Roman army).

[El_Saracen]

I appreciate the spirit you have, and your dogged determination to think with your own head. If only all fans were the same!

Now, as I said, I haven't got Goldsworthy with me, to check his arguments, but this is a readily available passage from Polybios, book XVIII. It does not hold all the answers, but it gives some hints:

"For the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engaged the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following up a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy's reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx."

It may indicate that the gaps had tactical use - either in withdrawal from the enemy, either in attack, it allows movement of the reserve (principes, mostly, sine the triarii were the Barbies of the Roman army).

This makes sense. Gaps in the line would disrupt a solid phalanx frontline. The engaged sections would be pushed back or rush froward depending on who was winning in each section. This would cut up the phalanx line making it easier to flank exposed sections by reserves.

What about when facing flexible non-phalanx infantry? Exposing the flanks would be more dangerous if the enemy can fight effectively on two fronts unlike spearmen.

BTW The thread title is refering to the RTW game engine, not RL (whatever formations the Romans did fight with, they definately weren't useless).

[Zaknafien]

Misunderstanding the manipular way of battle belies also a misunderstanding of warfare itself in antiquity. Unlike RTW, battles were not masses of men throwing themselves at each other until one side broke. Battle was fluid, with small groups of combatants advancing to fight and retire periodically, resting behind the lines and recouping enough to advance again later on. The way maniples worked was simply to organize these small groups of men and provide them with more leadership in the form of organic officers. The third liners, triarii, would be the only ones remaining in any sort of line formation with the signa (standards) while the maniples "handfuls", sporadically advanced and retreated to fight their enemies.

[Tony83]

I persisted with the chequered formation formation for a long while, in an effort to achieve "realism". Against a numerically inferior enemy I could usually get away with it but against equal, or superior, numbers my results were more "chequered" (lol).

I would either be badly outflanked or get creamed by the cohesion of the phalanx based Hellenic armies. Maybe it's because we imperfectly understand how battles were actually fought tactically; maybe it's because the RTW engine limitations favours the phalanx more; or maybe it's just that I'm a lousy general. Whichever, it just didn't work for me.

Now I tend to use my legions in a kind of pseudo-Napoleonic deployment. Two brigades of Principes side by side. Each with two cohorts in line, supported by a unit of missile troops (usually Funditores or Cretan Archers). Then a brigade of Hastati on either flank. Each with two cohorts of Hastati in line abreast and supported by a unit of velites. Two cohorts of Triari form the reserve, formed in line behind the Principes, and the flanks covered by the General on the right and Equites to the left.

Obviously, this basic layout changes due to local tactical needs but I find a legion deployed thus, hinging on the battlefield at the brigade level, to be flexible and very effective against all comers.

Maybe it's not 100% accurate but it works.

[BPNZ]

Hi Guys,
First post - be gentle
I have played RTW/RTR for about a year and have thoroughly enjoyed myself. It is one of the best gaming systems I have seen.


Now to the topic, I have been reading what I consider to be a very well researched book on Greek / Roman history:

Greece and Rome at War
by Peter Connelly


It gives a good description of the sequence of events during a typical battle with regard to the deployment of the various troop types employed by the Roman legion. He believes each troop type was in a continuous line once deployed to the from line for battle. The other troops awaiting to the rear deployed in depth with gaps between maniples so that those currently engaged could withdraw easily.
The whole book makes for great reading, with detailed explainations of many battles, tactics, and strategies.

I have scans of a great diagram and the accompanying text as jpgs. If anyone is interested, email me as they are about 500k each and the image loading aspect ratio makes uploading them difficult.

I might retry the upload later.

BPNZ

[We shall fwee...Wode]

What battle difficulty are you on, because when i use the quinqucx, I win every battle except ones where i'm outnumbered and with battered legions.

[Imperator Sulla]

There is a battle scene in the classical Spartacus film which shows the probable execution of the quincunx formation. It's the scene when Crassus engages Spartacus in the final battle. I'll post the youtube-link later.

I think it really unlikely that the roman(republican) legions fought with an interupted battle line, all the logicall downsides have already been posted in this thread so I won't mention them all over again. The deployment arrangements in that scene seem more plausible to me.

As promissed:

[alibegoa]

There is a battle scene in the classical Spartacus film which shows the probable execution of the quincunx formation. It's the scene when Crassus engages Spartacus in the final battle. I'll post the youtube-link later.

I think it really unlikely that the roman(republican) legions fought with an interupted battle line, all the logicall downsides have already been posted in this thread so I won't mention them all over again. The deployment arrangements in that scene seem more plausible to me.

As promissed:

You use THAT movie to illustrate any historical point?
It did not even get roman shields right.
Did the Romans even throw their pila?

[alibegoa]

I'm new here, but I've been reading the forums for a number of days. I must say I am extremely impressed with the respect and restraint I've seen shown in this forum as well as the informed nature of so many of your responses.

As for the use of a staggered line, I've had pretty good luck with it so far. Usually I have a front rank of hastati followed by a second rank of Principes behind the gaps in the front rank. Oftentimes the front rank of hastatii (correct me if this isn't the proper plural) will be partially enveloped. Once this partial envelopment has occurred I will charge into them with the principes. This seems to have a flanking effect and rolls up the units attacking the hastati.

Overall this strategy is pretty punishing to the hastati who suffer 40-60% casualties, but the principes tend to hold up pretty well taking only 10-15% and killing enormous numbers of enemies. I also roll my velites back out on the flanks to harry the enemy once engaged. I guess that my 10 cents worth.

To speak of those casualities to a victorious army is to misunderstand ancient warfare.
It was almost unheard of that a victorious army suffered something close to 10% casualities.
the biggest problem is that large scale hand to hand combat has not been a common feature in recent centuries and is very difficult for us to imagine.
Our mental picture of such a clash is formed by cinematic portrayals of spectalular battle scenes (like spartacus above) in which all the participants rush around fighting individual duels. In reality combat was a lot more tentative.
Battles usually lasted for several hours and the battle of Pydna in 168 bc which lasted only an hour was an exceptionally brief affair. Imagine the physical and mental strain this imposed on the participants being weighed down with heavy equipment and in constant mortal danger, thus hand to hand fighting being physically very fatiguing and emotionally stressful. Therefore actual fighting could only have lasted for very short periods, and light casualities only resulting in this stage.
Roman legionaries advanced noisily yelling war cries and banging the weapons aginst their shields (spartacus again anything apart those sound effects?). Their opponents advanced in a similar fashion the object being to intimidate enemy by looking and sounding threatening (for this reason also the Romans carried plumes on their helmets to make them appear taller). Ideally this persuaded enemy he had no chance of success and put him to flight lonf before opponents met. Within 30 meters of the enemy Romans usually sloved their advance or halted, threw their pila, the barrage of heavy missiles inflicting casualities and further reducing the enemy confidence. Also the most important part of defensive armor was the shield and even if a pilum did not kill of wound an enemy, if it struck his shield, it was designed in a way to be extremely difficult to dislodge thus forcing an opponent to either discard his shield and thus fight unprotected, or continue using it but being additionaly encumbered and also not able to use it properly.
If neither side managed to gain significant moral advantage, the armies resumed the advance and reached the enemy. In the resulting combat the opposing front ranks hacked, thrust and stabbed at each other. When an enemy was knocked down there was a chance to step into his place and attempt to fight a way into enemy formation. If a few men managed to work their way into the enemy ranks and break their formation there was a real chance that the enemy would panic and flee. This emphasizes the importance of staying in the formation, but from Hollywood spectacles all formation seems to be lost upon contact but if that is the case then why advance in any formation, why not like the gauls in an unruly and dense crowd?
Now if neither side managed to make the enemy flee after a few minutes of fighting then the opposong lines drew back. I submit this is most difficult for a movie goer to imagine. Separated by as little as a few meters the two lines jeered and glared at each other as each attempted to build enough energy and confidence to step forward and renew the struggle. The longer the battle went on the harder it became each time to persuade the line to close one more. Officers played a vital role in urging on their men to sustain this effort. This is probably the reason behind exceptionally high number of officers in the roman legions. The longer the unit was close to enemy the more its formation and cohesion dissolved making it more susceptible to break. At any time a unit might dissolve into rout. Most casualities on an ancient battlefield occured when a unit fled from combat. The ones who died first were those who were slowest in turning to flee, so the men in the centre of a formation able to see little of what was going on were always on the verge of nervous panic.

Most armies deployed in a single line and no reserves, the line as a result tended to be deep and have great staying power in combat, the men in front ranks doing actual combat being unable to flee until the men in the rear not in contact with the enemy did so. In the Roman triple acies more than half the infantry were kept in reserve and not involved in the initial combat. Remember again hand to hand combat being extremely physically demanding and most men being exhausted within 15 minutes. Now the Romans advanced their two rear lines in turn to join the existing combat at later stages of the battle, overwhelming their exhausted opponents in the enemy front line, thus working their way into enemy formation and putting them to flight.
Ideally, the hastati fought the main enemy line to a standstill, their discipline and the leadership of their centurions keeping them in contact with the enemy, who was probably more numerous and in a deeper formation. Then the principes advanced into combat zone their freshness and enthusiasm urging the whole Rman line to advance with a confidence which the enemy by that time might not be able to mach. The skil of a Roman commander lay in commiting his second and third lines at the right time. Too long then the hastati might buckle under enemy preassure. Too soon and the value of adding fresh troops to the combat might be lost. It was extremely rare for the Romans to withdraw an entire line and replace it with one from behind. Usually the troops in the rear lines were fed into combat to support the troops already engaged (through those disputed gaps). In this context the tripple acies offered a more effective use of army's numbers. the intervals between maniples were necessary to allow fresh troops to join the struggle.
Since the combat between the lines was so tentative there was little danger that the enemy would stream through the gaps and swamp the entire line. The reason why quincunx did not risk disaster was that maniples of the line behind covered the intervals in front. An army passing through the gaps between the hastati risked attack from the principes and thus from front and flanks. The ancient battlefield was a far more open place than is often imagined.

And on importance of being fresh and gaps, at the battle of Cannae Roman infantry heavily outnumbered their Punic opponents, and after a long struggle in the center in the manner described, after having commited all their reserves, broke through the enemy ranks and strating pursuit having lost all formation and having degenerated into a mass of men was stoped in track by attack from fresh African infantry at both flanks, these having been concealed from sight at the deployment stage. Being no more than a mass of men they were not able to respond to this and form a clear battle line allowing routing punic centre to reform and attack, the defeat being completed by cavalry attack from behind. Even when surrounded they outnumbered their opponents, and certainly they had no gaps in their mass. But they were exhausted and had no gaps to allow them to manoeuvre. The battle degenerated into slaughter.

[Imperator Sulla]

You use THAT movie to illustrate any historical point?
It did not even get roman shields right.
Did the Romans even throw their pila?

No, it is not intended to illustrate historical correct romans or to make an historical point. There isn't much that is historicly correct in that movie. I posted that scene because it illustrates imo the probable use of the much debated quincunx formation as a battle formation. I think it was more used as a pre-battle formation to be able to be flexible in deploying the battle line(s). THATS what the scene is supposed to illustrate. I thought it was obvious the thread toppic being the chequerd formation .