Why are Mid Republican Roman infantry close order troops?

[Alcibiades]

Fellow wargamers,

I have wondered for some time why Roman infantry in the Mid Republican list are close order rather than flexible, as in later lists. Polybius' descriptions of the Roman infantry (i.e., Mid Republican Roman) he knew are the most detailed descriptions of the organisation and equipment of Roman troops that we have. In writing in Greek to a Greek speaking audience, he makes a point of emphasising the flexibility (no pun intended) of Roman troops compared the the Macedonians. Even the triarii with their long spears use oblong shields, quite unlike hoplite shields. These long shields would have enabled them to have fought in either loser or tighter formations, as needed. Later Roman infantry are classed as flexible. The answer cannot be the so-called "Marian army reforms". They are a modern myth and didn't happen. So why are the Mid Republican infantry different to the later troops?

Alcibiades

[nikgaukroger]

Think it's one of those "gets the desired effect" ones where a call has been made on something that could be classified either way. I think for the MRR on the whole, close is the more appropriate option for the "feel" of the army, although I also think that for some of the best trained armies such as Scipio's in Spain around the time of Ilpia there could be an argument for a different classification. The use of the "Marian" date for the split between MRR and LRR is really just one of convenience.

[lionheartrjc]

In one sense you are completely right.  However, giving MRR flexible doesn't give the correct feel IMO.  The distinction between Close and Flexible is marginal,  I could make a strong argument that Close and Loose formations are a bit of a wargamers myth.

I would argue the flexibility that Polybius talks about is actually reflected more in the combat claims than in the Close/Loose split.  (Early on in the development of MeG I actually argued for not distinguishing between close and loose).

To say the "Marian" reforms are a modern myth is too simplistic.  The Roman army did evolve, but it wasn't a single event and it wasn't down to Marius alone.  Some of the reforms started before Marius and some changes weren't applied universally at the same time.

Richard

[Alcibiades]

Thank you both for your replies. I have little ideal of what "feel" is and no idea how you subjectively measured it but your reference to Scipio's army in Spain is something I understand. Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

As for Marian reforms being a myth, abandoning the myth does not mean that there were no changes. On the contrary, it opens up the idea of gradual change whereas reform claims a single author and a single point in time for all the changes: see François Cadiou, L'armée imaginaire. "Evolution" may not be the best metaphor given its teleological implications.

[IanN]

 (Early on in the development of MeG I actually argued for not distinguishing between close and loose) .... RJC above

Seconded. Have argued for this many times

[nikgaukroger]

Been my view for a long long time now 

[lionheartrjc]

Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

No it doesn't.

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike in 4 ranks  +2.
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike in 3/4 ranks +2
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain 

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

Think it's one of those "gets the desired effect" ones where a call has been made on something that could be classified either way. I think for the MRR on the whole, close is the more appropriate option for the "feel" of the army, although I also think that for some of the best trained armies such as Scipio's in Spain around the time of Ilpia there could be an argument for a different classification. The use of the "Marian" date for the split between MRR and LRR is really just one of convenience.

I'd add to this that I think that for the pre-2nd Punic Wars part of this list that the legionaries should probably be Formed not Drilled.

[Alcibiades]

Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

No it doesn't.

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike in 4 ranks  +2.
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike in 3/4 ranks +2
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain 

Richard

I believe that you have missed my point. Flexible Romans, if in the right formation, would be able to fight the Macedonians without the General Terrain claims against the, as you say.  Wouldn't the close order Mid Republican Romans be inconvenienced by terrain in the rough?

[Alcibiades]

Think it's one of those "gets the desired effect" ones where a call has been made on something that could be classified either way. I think for the MRR on the whole, close is the more appropriate option for the "feel" of the army, although I also think that for some of the best trained armies such as Scipio's in Spain around the time of Ilpia there could be an argument for a different classification. The use of the "Marian" date for the split between MRR and LRR is really just one of convenience.

I'd add to this that I think that for the pre-2nd Punic Wars part of this list that the legionaries should probably be Formed not Drilled.

There is no evidence that the Romans systematically trained their troops in this period: they learnt on the job. It would be more consistent with the evidence if veteran troops could be upgraded to drilled. Similarly, veteran troops could be limited to those like Scipio Africanus' troops and those that volunteered for the legions which fought in the Second Macedonian War.

[nikgaukroger]

Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

No it doesn't.

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike in 4 ranks  +2.
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike in 3/4 ranks +2
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain 

Richard

I believe that you have missed my point. Flexible Romans, if in the right formation, would be able to fight the Macedonians without the General Terrain claims against the, as you say.  Wouldn't the close order Mid Republican Romans be inconvenienced by terrain in the rough?

As Close order troops in Rough going both the Mid Republican Romans and Macedonians are Affected - as they are equally affected the claims for fighting an opponent affected by terrain cancel out, Pike cannot get Preferred Claims in rough, but the Romans still get Impact weapon and Melee Expert and so we are left with the combat factors Richard posted. Close order Romans are better in terrain than Macedonian pikemen.

[Alcibiades]

Seeing Polybius' evidence in the combat claims ignores his statements about the Romans' flexibility in different kinds of terrain compared to the Macedonian phalanx.

No it doesn't.

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike in 4 ranks  +2.
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx at impact:
Impact Weapon +2  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain

Roman legion in good going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike in 3/4 ranks +2
Roman legion in rough going vs Macedonian phalanx in melee
Melee Expert +1  vs Pike - no claims as affected by terrain 

Richard

I believe that you have missed my point. Flexible Romans, if in the right formation, would be able to fight the Macedonians without the General Terrain claims against the, as you say.  Wouldn't the close order Mid Republican Romans be inconvenienced by terrain in the rough?

As Close order troops in Rough going both the Mid Republican Romans and Macedonians are Affected - as they are equally affected the claims for fighting an opponent affected by terrain cancel out, Pike cannot get Preferred Claims in rough, but the Romans still get Impact weapon and Melee Expert and so we are left with the combat factors Richard posted. Close order Romans are better in terrain than Macedonian pikemen.

I acknowledge my mistake in not understanding that Impact weapon and melee expert would still apply if affected or badly affected by terrain. And still no evidence is offered to explain why later Roman troops become flexibles in these rules. Surely there can be something better than "feel"?

[lionheartrjc]

Army lists are an art not a science.  Feel is extremely important to our philosophy of list writing.

Army lists are all about constraints - limiting the player choice.  What are the characteristics of an army that encourages the player to use it in the fashion in which it fought it's historical opponents. 

The rules already give the correct flexibility for the manipular system compared to a pike phalanx.  A mid-Republican Roman doesn't need flexible infantry to have the right effect.
I could be more easily persuaded that Roman legionaries should not be flexible, than be convinced that MRR legionaries should be.

I don't think this topic can be taken any further so I am locking it.