>"The Romans fought battles in quincunx (checkerboar

Yes it their 2,200 years as a fighting force the Roman army fought exactly the same way from the 8th century BC until the 15th century AD

>>2394984
During their height yes, they did phalanxs early on though

>>2394984
As far as I'm aware it would start as a checkerboard, then after the velites moved back through the gaps the first rank would advance and close the wall so that it was a solid rank. Then after the first rank was tired and started depleting it would fall back through the gaps of the second rank and then they would close the wall and advance.

Fighting this way kept clear avenues of retreat and allowed fresh troops to constantly be moved to the front

>>2394984
Yep. It is something very known mentioned in classic historian books senpai. It is a pre-battle formation thou.

File: carlosv.jpg (98KB, 640x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x768px

>>2395011
>the 15th century AD

Excuse me?

>>2395011
>>2395018
He's talking specifically about Rome during the 2nd Punic war

>>2394984
the Romans marched in a checkerboard but they obviously closed the ranks when they were ready to fight. The cohorts/maniples in the back however would remain as a checkerboard so they could fill holes in the line and move freely on the battlefield for flanking and such.

However, it makes no sense to assume the front cohorts left gaps in their line, it just doesn't make any sense and doesn't line up with accounts. If you read Caesar's Gaul diaries, you'd know that his front line was always a solid shield wall.

>>2395156
Velites(light skirmishers) throw their pila then get behind of friendly line. Solid shield wall is only right before the clash.

>>2395176
well obviously otherwise the verities have no room to retreat. But obviously their weren't gaps in the line because that would create the opportunity for flanking each individual block, it makes no tactical sense whatsoever.

Also read the battle of zama. Clearly hannibal and Scipio lined their men up in solid lines during the fight, and it's noted that Scipio's forces were especially irregular in that by the end of the battle, he only had one single battle line consisting of triarii, princepes, and hastati, and hannibal did the same.
Obviously the Romans were capable of switching up the formation on a dime, as seen by their ability to make lanes for the elephants. Basically, the strength of rome is that they never fight the same way; the checkerboard system allows for a ton of variety, but that variety never involves leaving huge gaps in the front line for the enemy to pour into.

>>2395011
good bait mate

>>2395129
He probably thinks Greeks count as Romans.

>>2395270
>byzantines weren't romans meme

File: 220px-Constantine_XI_Palaiologos_miniature.jpg (31KB, 220x292px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 220x292px

>>2395129
You know exactly what he means, motherfucker

>>2394984
he literally says at the start of the video that he's presenting possibilities nothing else

watch the fucking video

>>2394984
Probably got this knowledge bomb from rome 2 total war

>>2394984
Nobody knows. They definitely marched in the quincunx but if they actually fought like that we don't know. Ask yourself would it be advantageous in any way to have such massive holes in your lines? Not to mention the immense discipline the soldiers would need to tactically retreat walking backwards in a fight. I don't think they fought in the quincunx formation, it's too vulnerable.

>>2399415
Thats basically how I won every battle in Rome total war, used two or three squares of legionaries to attack and then when they tired to surround them attack the gaps that opened in their lines and finally used everything left to out flank them

>>2394984
Goddamn, his product placement has no boundaries these days

The Byzantines got even more checkerboardey.

They had to adopt the light cavalry of the steppe nomads to fight fire with fire.

Making room for the light cavalry to operate between squares of protective infantry became even more important to them.

>>2399668
if you're implying that the byzantines fought in a series of square formations, I'm going to have to stop you there. That's fucking ridiculous, they fought in a solid line like literally every other army in history up to that point.

This thread is ridiculous, they obviously didn't fight with gaps in their front line, various sources prove this, not the least of which I've already referenced ITT via Caesar and Scipio Africanus, but I could just as easily keep going. You'd be hard pressed to find any situation where the Roman front line wasn't solid. You'd think we'd know more about it if they really fought in such a ridiculously stupid and unique way, but instead we have no proof of that and it's literally retarded to assume anything other than a solid front line, having it be as solid as possible is literally the main job of line infantry, it's literally called "Line" infantry because they form a line and hold the line, you've never heard the phrase "hold the line"? How are you suppose to hold a line when you've got a massive gap every couple hundred men?

No retards, the marius legions marched in a checkerboard, then reformed into a solid line while the back of the army remained in a checkerboard so that each cohort could respond to threats individually. You see tons of examples of this is Caesar's diaries.

If you wanna go back before that, the hastati formed a solid wall and we have multiple sources to confirm this at multiple battles, and when they retreated through the princepes they too formed a solid wall, and if it went to the triarii they literally formed a phalanx formation which DEFINITELY did not have gaps.

Gaps are good for pre-battle, and they're even good for mid battle when you're talking about your reserves, but in the front line? Makes no sense.
Stupid thread, stupid youtube video.