Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 6/21/02 5:32:07 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< The "Cohort System" retained the organization of H, P, and T

maniples. Maybe the "Maniple System" never lost its cohort

organization.


What you guys think? >>

I have never understood the 'checkerboard' system, and have yet to hear an
explanation that seemed in the least logical. It is always said that the
second, refused maniples could simply step up to form a solid line. Sure- why
wouldn't they? What would be the advantage in hitting your opponent with half
your troops, allowing each body to be flanked on both sides? Where is the
vaunted 'flexibility' here?
A simple, dumb question, i realise, but without getting past this one the
concept of replacing lines in combat is hard to visualise.

Never dumb questions! Just dumb answers :)

I think the "manipular checkerboard look" was a method to
advance or maneuver into combat range, not into actual combat. It
likely gave the legates opportunity (flexibility) to adjust the men
prior to contact, and in earlier times lanes for the skirmishers to
run through before coming to physical grips. The combat drill would
be executed when contact was imminent; ex. uncovering maniples with
centuries in line (filling the gap). Which gap would be filled and
on which side, the opponent could only guess. Flexibility is of
course relative to the troop experience level, terrain, and ability
of the commander.

There may also be a visual deception component of the
"checkerboard"advancing with shorter sub-unit frontage and
more depth. From a distance, what catches the eye is the empty space
and not specific density of the troop packets. Just maybe, giving
the opposite commander an opportunity to misjudge strength and commit
his mass prematurely. They also tried to "hide" troops by
setting
velites in the gaps or extending the centuries, covering the rearward
units. I'd reckon in these cases, to display false strength or
false weakness.

The essence Roman infantry combat is compression and the counter-
punch. The advantage of hitting the enemy with one-third to one-half
of your troops is that you have the remainder to counter attack along
the same original axis. Basically, the first third is the shield and
the rest are the sword. The first allows the commander to decide
where to strike with the sword.

As a kid I boxed a bit. After every three minute round I got a
break, and I usually needed it. If I lasted 3 rounds, I definitely
needed that break. The Roman replacement came during the break.
Instead of the new boxer sitting in their corner waiting for the
bell, they'd run across the ring and start beating on the guy who
was trying to recuperate. Meanwhile, the third boxer (a third cohort)
was getting rubbed down and ready in the Roman corner. Stamina was
and still is a big issue. That's probably why a Roman commander
was judged on the work ethic of his troops and the activity of his
campus.

I'm with you. I also seriously doubt that replacement while in
actual HTH is possible without major disruption. People moving to
the rear is not a good thing while literally in-the-face of the
enemy. Continuous HTH for 15 minutes is also highly unlikely,
especially when it is a string of 15 minute events. I'd guess
that in game terms, replacement takes place sometime within the bound
when both fighters go to their corners. This of course assumes that
combat or position parity is somewhat maintained due to intense
physical effort. If the replace-ee breaks and runs without making
the other guy win the ground, all bets are off. The opposing
infantry smell blood and will be in the next unit's cookie jar
with an attitude.

Hope my madness helps.
Fred


--- In WarriorRules@y..., Quahog25@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/21/02 5:32:07 AM, WarriorRules@y... writes:
The "Cohort System" retained the organization of H, P, and T
maniples. Maybe the "Maniple System" never lost its cohort
organization.

>
> I have never understood the 'checkerboard' system, and have yet
to hear an explanation that seemed in the least logical. It is always
said that the second, refused maniples could simply step up to form a
solid line. Sure- why wouldn't they? What would be the advantage in
hitting your opponent with half your troops, allowing each body to be
flanked on both sides? Where is the vaunted 'flexibility' here?
> A simple, dumb question, i realise, but without getting past this
one the concept of replacing lines in combat is hard to visualise.