Slitherine

Of course the caveat is that we do not always agree with you and interpretations can vary, however, your stuff was v. helpful - you'll not find the old Qidan interpretations for example

nikgaukroger wrote:And we do indeed have "chained" levy ...

We do?

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:And we do indeed have "chained" levy ...

We do?

For a given definition of "chained"

nikgaukroger wrote:Of course the caveat is that we do not always agree with you and interpretations can vary, however, your stuff was v. helpful - you'll not find the old Qidan interpretations for example

I shall wait with baited breath for Empires of the Dragon

tadamson wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Of course the caveat is that we do not always agree with you and interpretations can vary, however, your stuff was v. helpful - you'll not find the old Qidan interpretations for example

I shall wait with baited breath for Empires of the Dragon

Bro, don't do it; those worms taste nasty

About the line replacement thing, I totally agree with the way it's handled in FoG. I have never seen it handled well in any board game that tried to re-create it.

On a historical note, I have at times wondered if that was part of what the checkerboard formation of the manipular legion was about, at least in theory. While Titus Livius didn't fabricate things from whole cloth, he was as subject to error as any civilian author writing of military affairs.

And in all fairness, most of Livy's 142-volume work did not survive. We have only books 1-10, and 21-45, with major gaps in 3 of the last 4. Other than a roughly 1000-word fragment of book 91, and a summary of books 48-55, that's it! When I catch myself judging Livy harshly, I remind myself of the fragmentary nature of our knowledge of his works

marioslaz wrote:I don't know if it's correct to post here this question, or in forum about rules. I supposed this was more appropriate, but if I'm wrong I will re-post in the correct forum.

My question is: why isn't there special rules about interpenetration for Hastati, Principes and Triari? The manipular legion allowed this.

Mario

Right - I've shoehorned the contents of this thread into the FoG wiki, summarizing several of the points in this thread - and suggesting a way that you could represent it on table if you really, really, really wanted to.

http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... ican+Roman

Hopefully its now got a place to live forever

madaxeman wrote:

marioslaz wrote:I don't know if it's correct to post here this question, or in forum about rules. I supposed this was more appropriate, but if I'm wrong I will re-post in the correct forum.

My question is: why isn't there special rules about interpenetration for Hastati, Principes and Triari? The manipular legion allowed this.

Mario

Right - I've shoehorned the contents of this thread into the FoG wiki, summarizing several of the points in this thread - and suggesting a way that you could represent it on table if you really, really, really wanted to.

http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... ican+Roman

Hopefully its now got a place to live forever

Very interesting, but this is not what I meant. I know pretty well the composition of Roman Army and I think you too. I'm quite expert in scale of representation and other similar problem. So, I didn't want to suggest complex tactics which on top of that are not universally accepted. I was thinking to a way to represent the "gradual retreat". A rout without support can be seen, by a certain point of view, as a disordered flee. The same rout with a back BG which can be interpenetrated, can represent an "ordered retreat" made by the first assault who failed to push back their opponents. In this way you don't need any special rules (actually, this is the way I choose for a campaign game I planned to play with some friends using FoG).

Of course I don't want to convince you, or make any critics to rules. I intend this only as an exchange of opinions.

Mario.

nikgaukroger wrote:The interpenetration of the hastati and principes is assumed to happen at a level below what is represented on the table top. That is to say the maniples that make up the Hastati & Principes bases are doing it but it isn't expliciy shown by movement of the figures. The overall aim is to get the right effect of the legiones of the period.

This is pretty much following how a number of historians such as Adrian Goldsworthy now view the operation of the republican legio where the first two lines are to all intents acting as one.

I apologize you, but just now likely I realize what you meant. If so, I pray you to excuse me, remembering also that English, anyway, it's a foreign language for me. Did you mean the theory hastati were lighter than principes because they operated in a different way, something similar to Greek ekdromoi and hoplites?

Mario

Mario, no excuses or apologies needed

I wasn't referring to the theory that the hastati were lighter - I'll see if I can find time to dig out one of Goldsworthy's books and post a better explanation of what he says.

Yep - there are several ideas going on here.

Maybe we need another sticky to give suggestions as how you can add scenario-specific rules to FoG to allow a Cannae-style envelopment where a main line falls back and/or is forced back ?

nikgaukroger wrote:Mario, no excuses or apologies needed

I wasn't referring to the theory that the hastati were lighter - I'll see if I can find time to dig out one of Goldsworthy's books and post a better explanation of what he says.

OK. Anyway the theory I referred it's interesting but don't apply, for me, to this case. I explain what I mean. This theory tries to explain the description of Livio (VIII,8 ) exactly as it is, with hastati in a double role: they start the fight, then come back in principes ranks and fight with them in a second wave. It's an interesting theory, but it don't fit with battle description of the period which we are talking about (Mid-Republican Rome) where hastati fight as HF at all effect and principes have the same role, likely they are more experienced and armored. More, Rorari and Accensi are not mentioned in later battle descriptions, and in Livio they have a role vague: what benefit you have to deploy light and less reliable infantry behind your best fighter? Still is an important theory, because I think Livio cannot invented it completely. I think this theory can represent an archaic style of Roman legion, likely a transitional model between hoplites style army and manipolar legion. I know you likely know all this, but it's only to get to the point.

Mario