07-11-2014, 05:12 PM
Quote:..............Sound familiar?
Oh, have no fear I completely understand that - and have always appreciated where you and others have come from, even though I haven't agreed. But, genuinely and honestly, as per the first element of my OP - that has not been my stance. I was arguing from the 'human' definition.
And it's only that which has shaped my thoughts when presenting each time - even, sadly, if it has not come across that way - for we have adopted those entrenched positions and adopted a bunker mentality.
For when it comes to 'moving' troops about, for example - I genuinely don't see why there should be any differences. It doesn't matter if the 'soldier' thinks he might be killed (extreme - perhaps 'beaten up' may suffice) if he doesn't, or whether he will get extra duties - he would still receive orders, move and walk/march into position; changes positions; open ranks; etc - in a broadly similar way - for we're just made like that. That's all. So yes, you can train and encourage a soldier to almost revere his standard - and you could do now with the same reinforcements ('colours' in the Napoleonic period are very similar).
So - I do understand what you've all been saying, but I still don't see how those things affect the fundamentals.
Nor for ideas that I may have and suggest (and only ever that) for better places the centurion might wish to stand to enable the tactical movements the Romans introduced - and practically no one else did at the time. Sadly, therefore, I'm still not quite getting it.
