LRR and "later" roman infantry

[badhabum]

I was wondering why the LRR roman legionary ( and most of the imperial ones ) are FLEXIBLE and not close order as nothing seems to indicate that king of flexibility ?

In woods, the romans do seem to have used mainly their auxiliaries that are there for that kind of work and for battles they seem to have looked mainly for open ground.

Being impact weapon and melee expert, terrain does have a limited impact on them so why "flexible" ?

The same might be said for some gallic and german tribes :-) either loose or close but flexible ? really ?

[lionheartrjc]

Personally, I would have been happy to scrap the entire close/loose thing and just stuck with either skirmisher or non-skirmisher....

re: Barbarians.  The problem is which would you classify them?  Close or loose?  They seem to have been quite capable in either.  In effect, flexible is allowing them to pick either close or loose when they deploy.

re: Romans.  They might have been classified as close.  I am not sure I agree with your view that nothing seems to indicate flexibility - in fact I think the whole Roman army was pretty flexible to deploy regardless of terrain.  I am not sure of any evidence for auxiliaries particularly being used in woods.

[nikgaukroger]

Personally, I would have been happy to scrap the entire close/loose thing and just stuck with either skirmisher or non-skirmisher....

The approach of all right thinking people    However, given what there is in MeG for classification Flexible works IMO.

I am not sure of any evidence for auxiliaries particularly being used in woods.

I can think of at least 1 example where the legionarii went and fought in the woods whilst the auxilia were in the open, plus other examples of legionarii in bad terrain by choice. When you start to dig the whole idea of the Auxilia as some sort of rough going specialists really looks like a wargames rationale to justify "loose" formation and a circular one at that.

[Robin]

Agree with the lads on this one. Loads of written evidence to suggest that legionnaire's probably from 2nd century BC were on the whole highly trained and often fought loose, close and bloody tight depending on the foe. Only suggestion from me would be give them the option of close or flex as if you know they are fighting in open terrain you can save a few points and go close. Might make the Early imperial Army a little more attractive points wise as well.

[badhabum]

Personally, I would have been happy to scrap the entire close/loose thing and just stuck with either skirmisher or non-skirmisher....

Well for once we agree

[Jilu]

Personally, I would have been happy to scrap the entire close/loose thing and just stuck with either skirmisher or non-skirmisher....

Well for once we agree

agree too it is all a bit artificial

[badhabum]

I can think of at least 1 example where the legionarii went and fought in the woods whilst the auxilia were in the open, plus other examples of legionarii in bad terrain by choice. When you start to dig the whole idea of the Auxilia as some sort of rough going specialists really looks like a wargames rationale to justify "loose" formation and a circular one at that.

A difficult decision to make. Why did they go in the woods ? In MEG I could go for terrain when facing CL as we would both be affected but the CL would loose his CL factors  but that's gaming so what in reality is something we will never know.

What we know is that  Sassanid mounted did go in terrain to get some protection from the byzantine CL .

My feeling in MEG ( a game and so using the rules ) is that the romans can be used rather efficiently in terrain as impact weapons are not affected by terrain ( and so is melee expert )

So the discussion is open and I fear be closed rather quickly but still an interesting one.