Why the term 'Orb'

mnm · Post by **mnm** » Sun May 13, 2007 7:48 pm

Why 'Orb' and not 'Square'? For the purpose of translating the rules into a different laguage the term Orb does not make much sense, it evokes a circular shape, spherical to be precise. Square is much more self-explanatory, could I use this instead?

Miguel

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:25 am

As far as I am aware "orb" is actually a military term from the Roman manuals

"square" became a term for this type of formation in napoleonic times

The best idea might be to check a Roman History source in ther language and see what word is used in that for it.

Hope that helps

Si

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:33 am

shall wrote:
As far as I am aware "orb" is actually a military term from the Roman manuals

Well Vegetius at least and maybe the Strategikon (memory failing here).

jre · Post by **jre** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:44 pm

That begs the question why Romans are not allowed it...

Jose

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:52 pm

Alas memory fails me too

I am sure somebody will remind us properly. I fell quite proud to have rmembered that little so well

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:57 pm

jre wrote:That begs the question why Romans are not allowed it...

It's a secret.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:59 pm

Yeah that's why I didn't tell them Richard....!!!

Such a good one in fact that I can't remember the answer

but I am sure we have it down somewhere

Si

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:01 pm

Vegetius on the Roman orbis (orb) formation:

"They [new legionary recruits] must be taught to form the circle or orb; for well-disciplined troops, after being broken by the enemy, have thrown themselves into this position and have thereby prevented the total rout of the army." (De Re Militari 1.21, translation by John Clarke)

More information on the orbis formation may be found at:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/orb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army

Cheers,
Scott

whitehorses · Post by **whitehorses** » Mon May 14, 2007 3:24 pm

Not dissimilar to the 'crown' which the Low Countries armies formed in their battles against the French when things were going pear-shaped....

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:43 pm

So would the Orb also apply to the Scottish Schiltron? Weren't they designed for an all around type formation? Granted it has been almost two decades since I read anything on the Schilitrons.

mnm · Post by **mnm** » Mon May 14, 2007 7:12 pm

So is the Orb indeed a round formation? Am I being influenced by later times to call it a Square, then?

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square (the greatest of sources

), it says "An infantry square is a battle tactic of infantry when faced with cavalry. It was a formation described by Plutarch and used by the Romans, a development of an earlier circular formation. It was revived in the 14th century as the schiltron, in the 15th century as the pike square and... "

What historical instances do we have of a Square?

Fact remains that it is much easier to say square than orb, in any language ...

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Mon May 14, 2007 9:52 pm

mnm wrote:What historical instances do we have of a Square?

The passage to which the Wikipedia article is most likely referring:

All were greatly disturbed, of course, but Crassus was altogether frightened out of his senses, and began to draw up his forces in haste and with no great consistency. At first, as Cassius recommended, he extended the line of his men-at-arms as far as possible along the plain, with little depth, to prevent the enemy from surrounding them, and divided all his cavalry between the two wings. Then he changed his mind and concentrated his men, forming them in a hollow square of four fronts, with twelve cohorts on each side. With each cohort he placed a squadron of horse, that no part of the line might lack cavalry support, but that the whole body might advance to the attack with equal protection everywhere. He gave one of the wings to Cassius, and one to the young Crassus, and took his own position in the centre. (Plutarch, Life of Crassus 23.3-4, translated by Arthur Hugh Clough)

I don't have ready access to a copy of Plutarch in the original language at the moment, so I don't know the Greek term that Clough has translated as "square." However, we do appear to have two different all-round military formations described by two different authors writing in two different languages about two different periods in Roman history. It is also interesting to note that the "square" as detailed by Plutarch is a deployment adopted by the army as a whole, while the "orb" described by Vegetius appears to be a single-unit formation. Hope that helps!

Cheers,
Scott

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:11 am

the description above of romans forming it after they have been broken into sounds more like a formation in desperate straights rather than something a whole unit forms - like the Austrian "klumpen" of Nappy times - how ever many soldiers aer in a group youst form up with their backs to the middle hence forming an all-round defence. Particularly practiced by skirmishers when ridden down by cavalry.

I don't know that schiltrons were for all-round defence either - when was a Scots army attacked from all sides? AFAIK they were deep formations, and hte guys on the outsides would fight outwards if required just as you'd expect anyone on the outside of any formation to fight.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue May 15, 2007 8:17 am

stalins_organ wrote:the description above of romans forming it after they have been broken into sounds more like a formation in desperate straights rather than something a whole unit forms - like the Austrian "klumpen" of Nappy times - how ever many soldiers aer in a group youst form up with their backs to the middle hence forming an all-round defence. Particularly practiced by skirmishers when ridden down by cavalry.

Absolutely, Mike, which is why we don't allow Romans to do this as a special formation.

I don't know that schiltrons were for all-round defence either - when was a Scots army attacked from all sides? AFAIK they were deep formations, and hte guys on the outsides would fight outwards if required just as you'd expect anyone on the outside of any formation to fight.

A good question. However, the Seleucids do appear to have adopted some such formation at Magnesia after the Pergamene cavalry broke their left wing and threatened the flank of the phalanx. It worked OK until the elephants in the intervals in the phalanx panicked. The exact details of the formation adopted don't really matter, suffice it to say that (1) it prevented the Pergamene cavalry from attacking them in the flank (2) it prevented the phalanx from attacking the Roman foot to their front (3) it only allowed the phalanx to move very slowly.

Hence we do allow it for pikes and deep spear formations. It is not very effective under the rules and obeys the 3 points above. Perhaps Orb isn't the best word for it, but none of the other possible words seemed much better. At least it has the virtue of being "Ancient". What's in a name anyway?

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:00 pm

Perhaps Orb isn't the best word for it, but none of the other possible words seemed much better.

"Hedgehog" ?

"All-round-defence" ?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue May 15, 2007 5:50 pm

stalins_organ wrote:
I don't know that schiltrons were for all-round defence either - when was a Scots army attacked from all sides?

Falkirk - they are usually described as being all round formations there.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Fri May 18, 2007 12:48 am

I'm not familiar with them being described as that - certainly as being in schiltrons as deep formations.

The English cavalry hit the flanks after diverting around a small marsh in front, and the Scots archers are described as being deployed between the schiltrons and being easily ridden down. there weer 4 schiltrons, so presumably 3 groups of archers in the gaps between.

IMO it sounds like the English initially hit the front of the Scots formations, but not a small area in hte middle covered by the marsh. Had they hit from the sides then the cavalry would have had to hit the pikemen before getting to the archers

The archers fled leaving gaps between the schiltrons, but there's no mention of any serious outflanking of them that I'm aware of, either by the cavalry or by the English spearmen who followed them into combat and suffered heavy casualties.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri May 18, 2007 6:22 pm

IMO it sounds like the English initially hit the front of the Scots formations, but not a small area in hte middle covered by the marsh. Had they hit from the sides then the cavalry would have had to hit the pikemen before getting to the archers

The archers fled leaving gaps between the schiltrons, but there's no mention of any serious outflanking of them that I'm aware of, either by the cavalry or by the English spearmen who followed them into combat and suffered heavy casualties.

The English knights advanced towards the front of the Schiltrons, one of the "battles" got stuck in the Marsh so the other two went around it, which put them in the rear of the Scots army. They rode down the bowmen between the schiltrons and are then described as having a futile charge against the flank schiltrons.

Then the main English army turned up and "broke the schiltrons with sling and arrow". Given the casualties that the English Bowmen took I would postulate that they must have charged the initial schiltrons, with the other unbroken schiltrons charging the bowmen before they suffered the same fate. I suspect it would have been at this point that the Knights on the flank charged.

For the knights to sit and wait patiently whilst the bowmen did their work suggests that they in no way had an open flank and therefore the Scots must have been deployed in [for want of a better word] square formation.