Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ArdadN (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 20 November 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

òè

D) NEW PROJECT: Plan of Battle of Strasbourg

A user in the Italian Misplaced Pages translated my article Battle of Strasbourg and added his own plan of the initial dispositions in the battle. (That user has since been banned from Misplaced Pages!) His plan is good so far, but it needs much more information. Can you improve it, or, if you prefer, make your own plan from scratch?

== Battle of Strasbourg ==Battle of Argentoratum1.svg|thumb|right|200px|Initial order of battle-Static map]]

TOPOGRAPHY corrections:

1. North arrow should be pointing WNW not E
2. Road does not cross battlefield, but delimits its edge. Draw the road from a point on the S edge (i.e. S from our pioint of view) of the map directly below the M of Most probable location to a point on the N edge directly above the right end of Severus' separate legion. All the ground to the left of the road should be wooded.
3. Redraw the altitude lines. The battlefield is sloping gently downwards from top left to bottom right.

ROMAN DISPOSITIONS:

We are going to assume the scenario that Severus' division of 2,000 men is additional to the 13,000 under Julian Severus' separate force on the left should consist of 4 auxilia infantry units, one of them archers (add symbol to unit denote archers). They should be drawn up in 2 lines: front: 3 auxilia infantry units rear: 1 auxilia archer unit

Julian's forces:

1. INFANTRY FRONTLINE: 4 legions in the centre (named, left to right, MOESIACI?, PANNONICIANI?, IOVIANI?, HERCULIANI?) 2 auxilia on each wing. Name those on the right wing (left to right) CORNUTI and BRACHIATI. Name one on the left PETULANTES?. 2 auxilia archer units immediately behind the line
2. INFANTRY REAR LINE: 1 legion in the centre, 2 auxilia on each wing. Name legion PRIMANI. Name auxilia units on right wing, BATAVI, REGES, left to right
3. CAVALRY: Front: (left to right) 1 vexillatio light cav (named DALMATAE); 1 vex. mounted archers (named SAGITTARII); Rear: (left to right, wedge shape (units on wing slightly behind front units): 1 vex normal cav (GENTILES), 1 vex cataphract cav, 1 vex cataphract cav, 1 normal cav (SCUTARII). NB we need in the KEY to distinguish between light (inc archers), normal and cataphract cav (maybe colours?)

GERMAN DISPOSITIONS:

1. The Right extremities of the Alamanni infantry lines should bestride the highway, reaching to the edge of the woods. The Alamanni infantry should be drawn up in 2 lines, each of 8 pagus units of ca. 1,000 men each - show the same size as a Romanb legion. Behind the Alamanni Rear Line place one large mass of 5,000-strong of allied Burgundi warriors. The German cavalry of ca. 3,000 was probably divided by kingdom i.e. 9 Alamanni squadrons of ca. 300 men each - show them as half the size of the Roman cavalry vexillationes). They should be arranged in 3 lines of 3 squadrons each. In the woods on the right, 2,000 men hiding in the woods. In front of the units, place the names of the Alamanni kings in command:

In command of the right (woods division, and 2 pagus units on the right wing): SERAPIO. From there left to right: WESTRALP?, URIUS?, URSICINUS?, SUOMARIUS? HORTARIUS? WADOMAR? In commmand of the cavalry on the left wing, CHNODOMAR.

OK. See what you can do with this. Then we can refine it. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good progress, I see! OK some points:

1. SCALE: If we assume the Roman lines are 10 ranks deep each (the typical figure was 8-9 ranks), then, allowing 1 metre per man in line, the length of each legion equals 100m.
2. Move the woods a bit further back from the road - they would have been cut back to no closer than 50m to avoid ambushes by robbers etc.
3. The N arrow is pointing NW: it should be pointing WNW i.e. halfway between W and NW. The road is almost East-West
4. Move Severus' division back from the frontline to about halfway between the front and rear lines. Turn it 22.5 degrees anti-clockwise so that it faces the Germans in the woods.
5. Move the Romans back a bit from the Germans. The gap between the two frontlines should be at least 500m at the start.
6. I've decided it's best to place the Roman archers BEHIND their frontlines (this is where they would be stationed during the battle - but sometimes they could be sent in front at the start to harass the enemy from a distance). We are not told anything about the archers' activity by Ammianus. In practice, during the action, the archers would form the rear two ranks of the Roman frontline, shooting over the heads of the front ranks. So can you show the archer units as long, thin rectangles rather than squares?
7. Place infantry interspersed among Chnodomar's cavalry, as in the article
8. Add a ? to BURGUNDIANS -their location is uncertain
9. In the key, we need to specify the different types of Roman unit and their strength - Infantry: legion (1,000), auxilium (500); cavalry: vexillatio (500). We should also specify that the units shown on the German side, both infantry and cavalry are "Alamannic pagus contingent".
10. Add some unit names I forgot: on the frontline left, the auxilium next to PETULANTES? is HERULI? On the rearline far left, name the auxilium CELTAE?
11. Some of the unit names are difficult to read. Can you put them all in bold?
12. In the key, we should explain that a name with a ? mark means the unit is attested as being part of Julian's comitatus, but that its exact position in the line is uncertain
13. In the key, we need to distinguish light (unarmoured) cavalry from the regular cav. All the German cavalry was unarmoured. On the Roman side, jut the DALMATAE and the mounted archers were unarmoured. The regular cav was armoured and even more so were the cataphracts.

How you do the action sequences I leave to you, as I know nothing about animation. But I will summarise the sequence of key events for you:

1. Roman light cavalry (Dalmatae and sagittarii) carry out harassing attacks on German cavalry. Thee latter does not respond.
2. Roman heavy cavalry charges German cavalry. If possible, this should be shown in this wedge formation:
3. XXXXXXXX CATAPHRACTI CATAPHRACTI
4. GENTILES XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SCUTARII DALMATAE SAGITTARII
5. Roman cataphracts are routed and flee to behind Roman rear line (other cav units return to station on Roman right wing)
6. Infantry frontlines collide. Severus' division stays put, facing woods
7. Germans break through centre of Roman frontline
8. Germans pour through Roman breach but are driven back by Roman rear line - Roman breach is sealed
9. Roman line, reinforced by rear line and Severus' division push back the Germans up the battlefield
10. German line collapses and Germans flee battlefield

I look forward to see what you make of this Saluti tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, well done, the order of battle is good. The problem is that I have miscalculated the German numbers. I want them to add up to 25,000, but at the moment they are 28,000 +. I've double-counted the 2 pagi contingents hidden in the woods. Also, my placing the Burgundians in a separate division at the rear (Ammianus gives no indication of their position) is probably unrealistic: as honoured allies, they would have been outraged not to be given a place in the main battle line. I put them separately because Ammianus does not mention them in his line-up. But Ammianus' account is very patchy. In fact, what position to give them in the line would have been a tricky decision for Chnodomar: on the one hand, he would not fully trust them as non-Alamanni and would want to avoid giving them a crucial position such as a wing or the centre. On the other hand, he would have to pander to their self-esteem. Most likely, he would have placed them under the overall command of his trusted nephew Serapio. Also I've become unhappy with overall Alamanni numbers. As you know from the article, there is a lot of debate about this, with Ammianus' figure of 35,000 regarded as way too high and the most recent estimate by a historian at 15,000, the same as the Romans. I took 25,000 as the midpoint between the two. It assumes that the Burgundians were 20% of the total (after Drinkwater). But this is just a guess, and for the purposes of this plan, I'm (arbitrarily) reducing Burgundians to just 2,000 (so that the Germans add up to 23,000). So they can take the place of the 2 pagi contingents that I double-counted. CONCLUSION: Eliminate the blob of Burgundians and make the pair of pagus contingents second-to-last on the German right wing (excluding the woods contingents) Burgundians (can you show that they are Burgundians, either by labelling or colouring?).

Can you shift the names of the Alamannic kings one contingent towards the German right wing, since I forgot that Wadomar was in charge of two royal contingents (i.e. 4 pagus contingents) as he took over his murdered colleague Gundomad's also. Thus show Wadomar in charge of a double contingent on the German left wing.

Also, I've decided to reduce the German cavalry to 2,400. As explained in the article, only the wealthiest stratum in society could afford horses and therefore cavalry probably did not exceed 10% of the total force. The cavalry contingents are actually royal, not pagus-based (i.e. 2 pagi combined), so the German cavalry should now be 8 royal contingents of 300 men each.

You know, the Trebia pseudo-animation is so unimpressive (and slow) that I am wondering whether it would not be better to just make 3 or 4 static images to show the sequence of events. We should only use pseudo-animation if it makes it easier for the reader to follow the sequence than static images, not simply because it's flashy. But I leave you to decide which is best.

Although in the initial line-up we are showing the units as separate blocks for convenience, in practice, the troops would have formed a continuous line. Therefore subsequent images, whether mobile or static, should show the lines as continuous. PS: Is there any way of showing the troops as little men, rather than just square blocks - with each little man representing a set number of of troops say 20, or 50? Same for cavalry, little men on horseback? I don't know what kinds of graphic software Wiki will support (not much by the sound of it).

Sorry about all these changes. There's nothing like making a plan like this to force one to think through all the issues. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another change, to the geography of the battlefield. Looking at A. Goldsworthy's diagram of the battle in Roman Warfare, I was wrong to put woods the whole length of the road. You should eliminate the woods south (i.e south from our point of view - not the cardinal direction) of a line running SW to the map's right edge from where the S of SERAPIO is now. Adjust the Germans in the woods so they are hidden behind this line. Goldsworthy's plan makes more sense.

PHASES: I would say 4 Phases: (1) Initial; (2) cavalry action (3) German infantry breakthrough (4) Final: German line hemmed in and forced back by Roman crescent-shaped line. But do whatever you think is most practical from an illustration point of view.

Everything's fine now, except a detail about the Germnan commanders' line-up. I've just realised that WESTRALP,as co-president of the Alamanni confederation, would probably have held the German centre. So: move WESTRALP? to where SUOMARIUS? is now. Move BURGUNDIANS (+ a ? mark) to where WESTRALP is now. And place SUOMARIUS? in front of the extreme right contingent (not the one in the woods) EraNavigator (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SERAPIO was in overall command of the German right wing. So you have shown him OK. Perhaps you could move his name to rear to make way for the smaller names EraNavigator (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to amend point 6 of the summary of events as follows: Severus' division crosses over road and halts facing woods.

An important point is that SEVERUS' division was not the Roman left wing, but a separate force. So I think you should spread out the units in the Roman frontline so that the latter covers the whole length of the German frontline, otherwise they could be outflanked. EraNavigator (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The archers should be integrated into the frontline (of which they formed the rear couple of ranks) and not shown separately in the action phases. EraNavigator (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In practice, because the Romans were outnumbered, they would have been obliged to reduce the depth of their line (from 8 ranks to say, 5) to cover the enemy line. You can show this if you want, or alternatively, for the initial picture, which is schematic, just increase the spaces between the units (in the rear line also - keep the rear line centred behind the front line). One point I missed: the archer unit in Severus' division should be stretched to cover Severus' frontline - but here we keep the archers in front, as they would have been used to target any Germans emerging from the woods). EraNavigator (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the position of the BURGUNDIANS? I did not make myself clear. I said move them to where WESTRALP is now, I meant where WESTRALP? was originally i.e. in front of the second-to-last contingent of the German right. Please note the BURGUNDIANS are not forming two frontline contingents, but one front, one rear. WADOMAR was OK before. EraNavigator (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)!

Sorry, but the sequence of German commanders is now screwed up. From left to right (excluding the woods contingent) the sequence should be (one contingent each unless otherwise specified): SUOMARIUS?, BURGUNDIANS?, URIUS?, URSICINUS?, WESTRALP?, HORTARIUS?, WADOMAR (2 contingents). You've shown SERAPIO as commanding the woods contingent only, but he actually commanded the whole right wing. I suggest the best is put his name in the rear, like CHNODOMAR, covering the woods contingent and 2 main line contingents. EraNavigator (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In the order of battle map, you can just use wider spacing. In the action maps, the line must be stretched. EraNavigator (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why does it take ages for the changes to appear? EraNavigator (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's come up now: but you are still not following the sequence I gave you above. What's the problem, amico mio? By the way, don't bother to space the order of battle wider, it's OK as it is EraNavigator (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to go out now. I look forward to seeing the finished product. Ciao tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think for the order-of-battle map it is better to have wider spacing than to stretch the units themselves. This is so that it is easier to compare sizes between units and sides (e.g. the fact that legions are the same size as pagus contingents etc). PS: Why have you stopped work on the phases? EraNavigator (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the Dacia relief is fantastic! Really professional. The only thing is, I think we should shift the map eastwards a little so that we get a bit of Black sea coast in, although it need not include the whole Danube delta - we can afford to give up the Tisza plain. I am more interested in showing the Dacian and other tribes in Moldavia Wallachia and some of Moesia Inferior than the Tisza plain, which contains only the Iazyges. The western edge of the map should be (at leastr) where the leftmost longitudinal line is now, or even further if we need it to get Constanza in. The other point is - I don't think it's a good idea to show every little stream, as that will clutter the map horribly once you start to enter other data. Can we thin out the streams, to just show the main rivers? Once the physical map is ready, the next step is to use GIS to enter the modern equivalents of all the places (towns/forts/etc) that are going into the map so that we get the precise locations.

Regarding the Strasbourg battle phases, I take it from the arrows that you have given up the animation idea. That's fine, but even for static maps I don't like arrows. They are ugly, artificial and often confusing. I strongly recommend we have a series of static plans showing a snapshot of the situation at a particular moment, with commentary to explain developments. Also, is there ayny way of turning the impersonal blocks of troops into something that more resembles a group of individuals? The best way to explain this is if you could find Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare (2000) book and look at his plans of the battle on pages 176-7. (There might be a copy in your college library or alternatively look in Dillon's bookshop in Malet St. -you don't need to buy it, you can just look at the plans in the shop. I've used his plans (partly) as the basis of our own plan. He has used computer graphics to turn his military formations into a series of dots, and to arrange the lines in a more ragged, natural way. It would also be nice to improve on Goldsworthy by showing the cavalry in a distinct way. It's a question of getting the right battle graphics software. Can you do something like this? In general, it would be a good idea if you experimented a bit with software to improve presentation of battle field information. I like the way Goldsworthy shows battle field relief, with a cross-sectional cut-away (although, unlike us, he shows the field as mildly undulating, not sloping).

The snapshots that I suggest are:

1. Battle Engaged (not shown in Goldsworthy): The frontlines have clashed, and are shown stuck together. The routed Roman cataphract cavalry is shown behind the Roman rear line, with JULIAN and his escort with them, encouraging them to return to the fight. The rest of the Roman cavalry is shown on the Roman right wing holding off the German cavalry assault. Severus' division is shown over the road facing the woods at a distance. The forest Germans are still hidden in the woods
2. Barbarian breakthrough (same as Goldsworthy plan 2): The Roman frontline is shown with a breach in the centre (by the way, the breach you have shown is much too large - it was just a small gap right in the centre of the ROman line) and Germans pouring through it, with their vanguard engaged with the Primani in the Roman rear line. Over the road, Severus' division is shown as engaged with the forest Germans, who have advanced out of the woods
3. Final phase (not shown in Goldsworthy): All the Romans now form one thick line, in a crescent formation, hemming in the Germans, shown as a large incoherent mass. This is further up (i.e. North from our point of view) than where the two frontlines clashed in Snapshot 1. The forest Germans have disappeared. Severus' division has become the left extremity of the Roman crescent.

PS: Do NOT copy the individual unit formations in Goldsworthy plan 1 (his order of battle plan). They are completely wrong, as they are not based, as are ours, on a detailed analysis of the units involved.

PPS: In the Order of Battle map, can we please return the Roman units to their unstretched sizes as you had them before, as it is easier to compare them with the German units. Just go back to your previous order of battle, don't wrry about spacing. Tuo amico fedele

PPPS: On the order of battle plan, we should enter the late Roman names for the city directiins on the road. i.e. Argentoratum (Strasbourg) and Mediomatrici (Metz). It would be a good idea to add the modern names underneath and the distances (Strasbourg 4km - Metz I'm not sure). EraNavigator (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Andrei. Do you have any response to my comments above? Regarding the sequence of snapshots above, whether you can replicate Goldsworthy's graphics or not, we don't need arrows. For example, to show the charge of the Roman cavalry units, you can just show them mingled with the German ones in a melee. Their movement is understood by comparison with the previous position, and you don't need to indicate it by arrows. Any development that is difficult to follow can simply be explained by textual commentary, as in Goldsworthy's plan. Did you get a copy of Goldsworthy, and do you think you could produce something similar? Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Roman Empire 125 map, I think we must remove the ANTES rubric, as I have been unable to find a reference supporting its presence here during the 2nd century. EraNavigator (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also on the Empire map, I suggest that we make some much-needed improvements to the Rhine frontier rubrics. The problem here is that, because we have entered the lettering of Roman forts/legions in the barbarian zone, the location of German tribes is inaccurate, forced to fit in gaps between the lettering. For example, HERMUNDURI, MARCOMANNI and QUADI are all shifted well to the East of where they should be. If we could bring the lettering onto Roman territory, we could remedy this, while also permitting the entering of a few more tribes. Of course, moving the lettering onto the Roman side creates overcrowding of its own. The way to deal with this, apart from your ingenuity in fitting names in, is (a) eliminating a couple of internal rubrics: I think DUROCORTORUM and GERMANIA INFERIOR would have to go (only the names, not the city symbol or the provincial boundary). BELGICA would need to be moved. (b) abbreviating the rubrics where needed e.g. XXX ULPIA VICTRIX could be shown as just XXX ULPIA. Once you have cleared Germania Libera of Roman rubrics, you should make the following changes:

1. Show the river Saale, a tributary of the Elbe, which is useful for demarcation
2. The HERMUNDURI should be shifted West, to occupy the region between the Roman border and the Saale.
3. The MARCOMANNI should move NorthWest, to occupy Bohemia E of the Saale. The NAHARVALI should be shifted NE into Silesia, along the W bank of the Oder. Reverse the VANDILII (LUGII) rubric to LUGII (VANDILII)
4. The QUADI should also move West to where the MANNI of MARCOMANNI is now. Move the COTINI to where the QUADI are now
5. The CHERUSCI should move South, to where ULPIA VICTRIX is now
6. The CHATTI should move SW, so the C is where the NN of BONNA is now (reduce the size of the CHATTI lettering to same as CHERUSCI
7. Enter the LANGOBARDI, between the CHAUCI and the CHERUSCI along the West bank of the Elbe river
8. Enter the CHAMAVI, between CASTRA VETERA (symbol) and the CHAUCI
9. Enter the TENCTERI, along the Rhine between COLONIA symbol and where the Roman border leaves the Rhine
10. Having checked this, I've decided that DESERTUM AFRICANUM was the more common term for the Sahara desert at this time

Well, that really should be final! Ciao EraNavigator (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg

Can you replace barbarians in {File:Battle of Argentoratum1.svg with Alamanni because barbarian is a Roman POV and thus violates WP:NPOV. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

125 map

Personally, I don't think we need the marine relief. It would be an irrelevant distraction, and I'm worried about over-burdening the map with detail: so a plain blue sea would do fine. For the same reason, I think we should show only the rivers that are on the current map: any more and the map could turn into a spaghetti-like mess. EraNavigator (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How are things progressing? I can't wait to see the base projection. PS: I,ve sharpened paragraph 3 of note (b) in Costoboci on material culture and ethnicity. It seems to have silenced my critics on the discussion pages of Costoboci and Carpi (people). Check it out. EraNavigator (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)