I have always had a great interest in the Punic Wars. Unfortunately we have never been blessed with a set of rules which effectively models this particular period's unique manipular tactics and mechanics. The many unanswered questions as to how it actually worked and the mechanics used to accomplish the switches of frontage have caused me to avoid this intriguing period. A recent study in the Courier inspired me (for the "nth" time) to address the difficulties latent in this subject. As clearly stated by the various authors in that article, there is no specific research reference to explain how this manipular "checkerboard" combat functions. Livy is prior to the Second Punic War and Polybius is after the period in question. We are given to understand the concept is to provide fresh troops in a secondary line when the "front rank" Hastati have become fatigued. We are further given to assume the battles are a series of contacts interspersed with withdrawals for rest (especially by the Romans' adversaries) between charges. There is no explanation of how the repositioning of the Hastati and Princeps' (I will use this spelling rather than Principes which is also seen) battle lines is accomplished other than to infer this change is made during one of those respites. Most contemporary scholars suggest rather complicated maneuvers involving the rear or (posterior) century of the maniple marching column left, facing right and advancing forward to fill the gap between maniples and at a later time reversing this maneuver to once again occupy the space behind the first century. Then they all about-face and march backwards while the Princeps maniples duplicate this maneuver to fill the frontage of this checkerboard formation. This seems difficult to accomplish, particularly under combat conditions. My own drilling experience advises this would have been tough to pull off! I wished to propose a rather revolutionary (and I assume controversial) alternative to the above -- and all the other somewhat nebulous explanations we have heard. Most games avoid this element and I have found no contemporary rules covering this mechanic to my satisfaction. I shall welcome your comments and I am prepared for the storm I expect to follow! Combined Arms Battle Lines Here is my proposal/theorem: The Velites have been assumed to be simply psiloi (non-contact) skirmishers ever since I began to research this problem. Could they be/do more? My assumption finds them similar to Greek peltasts who are primarily missile casting skirmishers but who can (when of necessity) act in a sort of light-medium infantry role to the extent of even filling a portion of the battle line frontage upon occasion. The Velites are equipped with swords and shields (most with metal and/or leather helmets beneath their fox skin head gear) and an almost unlimited supply of javelins -- supplied in bundles of seven I believe. My impression is that there could actually be a different tactical disposition in this period's manipular formations. In support of this, note the continual increasing number of Velites during this period. From 600 to 900 to 1200 which happens to match the roster of a Hastati or Princeps line. There must be some reason besides just skirmishing. Do you really need 1200 skirmishers? Consider a Roman formation of this manipular system beginning with a Velite line. This is followed by a Hastati line, then a Princeps line and finally by the old vets, the Triarii in the rear. The Velites move out initially to skirmish and contained the opposing light infantry until the horn blows -- at which time they fall back into the interstices between the Hastati maniples of the checkerboard in the front-line making a solid facing. Granted these now "formed" Velite units may be in a somewhat looser and less dense formation than the Hastati maniples of heavy infantry. We must remember however that in this circumstance each legionnaire required sufficient space to function in his combat role. The Hastati cast their pila as the opposing sides close. The Velites defend their position/frontage with copiously re-supplied javelins as much as possible and with the sword when pressed. The Velites feel secure with a Hastati maniple on each side and a Princeps behind. They may even form into a concave pattern in order to concentrate their missilery. Enemy units may be a bit loath to present their own flanks by penetrating too far into this portion of the battle line without a substantial defeat of the defenders in progress. Besides, a showering mass of prickly javelins is not much more appealing than a line of swordsmen who are more noble opponents. Melee Cycle Methodology If personal experience is any kind of guide, twenty minutes of combat with sword and shield is enough to generate desire on my part for some rest and relief. Obviously these trained warriors were much more able to accomplish this type of combat than the writer and his Society of Creative Anachronism comrades. Yet it strongly suggests that a few rounds of strenuous combat melee will certainly lessen one's effectiveness in this endeavor. Therefore to depict this attrition (and to give the player a logical reason to fall back periodically) we will lessen the fighting ability of the participants upon succeeding rounds of combat. From a wargaming perspective, a method will need to be provided for recording the rounds of combat and therefore indirectly indicating the fatigue of the unit. The obvious concept presented is the tactic of assaulting fatigued units with fresh elements. This certainly lends validity to the Roman Quincunx (checkerboard multi-line formation) which rotates in a fresh line of battle. Obviously the chances of success improve and the result is much less in question. The game of chess offers a specialized action in the maneuver called "castling" where a King and a Rook perform a unique movement involving both pieces. In like manner at a chosen respite in the action (temporary disengagement of the frontal battle line) the horn is blown! The Velites moved out and cover the frontage of the Hastati units while simultaneously the Princeps maniples are advancing into the space vacated by the Velites. The maneuver creates a new line of battle with the Velites filling the spaces between the newly placed Princeps. We now have a frontage of Princeps and Velites rather than Hastati and Velites. The Hastati are now secure and at rest behind the Velites. This is the converse of the initial battle line. The Princeps in the form of fresh heavy infantry (better armored and perhaps of higher quality than their predecessors) are now facing an enemy who has been in action and are perhaps/hopefully a bit worn down by the Hastati. Granted the Celts have had a bit of rest but this is not the same as the worth of a fresh formation. We still have the same young Velites, but these lighter infantrymen may be expected to be physically able to continue the fray as they are certainly less burdened with armor and may well have rotated front men to the rear during the break. They have likely been re-supplied with javelins in quantity. The concept my theorem advances, that the Velites played a greater, more important role in the manipular system provides a most interesting subject for conjecture as it provides a workable method for accomplishing the "checkerboard" technique of multiple lines effectively and easily rotating in fresh heavy infantry battle lines. It also introduces a "combined arms" approach which in itself is controversial. I am hopeful this will stir others to respond and perhaps we can all gain some viable mechanics for our representative gaming as a result of the discussion. Battle Line Pre-Melee Missilery One other problem encountered in this period of conflict involves the pila volley(s) designed as much to weigh down shields and weaken the defense ability of adversaries as to actually cause casualties. Not as commonly realized is the fact that their opponents were also casting various forms of close-proximity missiles with the same objective in mind. It would appear that a sort of comparative die cast with the advantage being given to the Romans is appropriate. The losers would receive a negative to their initial melee die casts as a representation of their relative lack of success in affecting their adversary's combat ability. Using the concepts in these "Designer Notes" I have endeavor to develop some workable rules for this rather unique form of battle line in multiple. Perhaps you will provide some play testing response for this attempt at modeling the combat prevalent during the Second Punic War. I will appreciate your creative input and suggestions. Useful References for the Various Concepts The Roman Army, Peter Connolly, pp 16-17. Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome, Peter Connolly, pp 68-69. A History of Warfare, Montgomery of Alamein, pp 86-87. Osborne Book of the Ancient World, Chisholm-Millard, pp 206. Osprey Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC, Tereance Wise, pp 25-26. Osprey Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC, Nick Sekunda, pp 20. WRG Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars 359-146 BC, Duncan Head, pp 58-59, 80. Warfare in the Classical World, John Warry, pp 111. Greece and Rome at War, Peter Connolly, pp 128, 140-142. Livy for the prior period and Polybius for the period after. Back to MWAN #100 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1999 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com