(11-25-2016, 10:17 AM)Densus Wrote: What makes you think anyone needs to be 'at the front leading the men' when we are talking about well trained, disciplined soldiers? The US Army, like the British Army, trains officers that they need to 'lead from the front' but that doesn't actually mean that they are the one kicking the door in or walking point.
Actually most point men are team leaders, the TL is always the lead man in every fire team formation. And the lead man in a stack to breach and clear a building/room is usually a TL too. TLs are supposed to be NCO positions, and their job is literally "Lead by example, do as I do." Infantry platoon leaders/commanders don't need to lead from the front because underneath them, in the platoon's chain of command, are squads led by squad leaders, and fire teams led by team leaders, both of which routinely take point. But we're not discussing modern warfare, we're discussing ancient warfare. So what small unit leaders did the Romans possess that the centurion could delegate leading by example too?
We know that in most warrior cultures the nobility led from the front. Certainly in the phalanx, even the generals were in the very front ranks. The Roman legions share an evolution with the Hellenic aspis-armed phalanx. Centurions weren't suddenly created by Augustus when the long standing professionalized legions really came into being, they'd been around for 600+ years beforehand, being the lowest level of small unit leaders in the Roman Army.
Roman legions weren't even all that well trained until the Late Republic and after. They did have a level of discipline put on them that was as draconian as it can be, but that doesn't mean Roman soldiers were especially self disciplined. Considering how often Roman soldiers mutinied, killed their own officers, purposely failed to carry out orders, attacked without permission, I'd lean to more that Romans were naturally independent minded and needed draconian discipline imposed on them to keep them from rampaging like barbarian beserkers or just doing whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted.
(11-25-2016, 12:49 PM)Densus Wrote: My point throughout this has been that you can't give orders from the front, not only do you have no situational awareness in order to make decisions to give orders but only those immediately next to you will hear you. I have plenty of experience of commanding units by voice from the rear in an environment where the crowd are screaming, bricks are hitting shields, vehicle engines are running, police sirens are going etc etc. The sheer noise in a riot situation makes it impossible to use radios to control units so everything has to be done by voice. Even as a company commander I was much more likely to run over and tell a platoon commander what I wanted his platoon to do rather than try to speak to him on the radio, something I couldn't have done if he had been in the front rank.
Same with standards, if you are more than a couple of files down from the standard in the front rank you are not going to be able to look at it without looking away from the man in front of you who is trying to kill you. When someone is trying to kill or injure you they become your entire world and you are not going to be looking around you.
I will put forward a slightly different example. A little over 20 years ago a small group of Viking reenactors in the UK decided that they wanted something more physical and more competitive than the type of fighting being done at Viking events, more akin to a competitive martial art. They didn't get a lot of interest initially in the UK but they did in Poland. Eastern Style fighting was born and Wolin became the world's number one venue for it.
Those Brits and Poles involved at the beginning had no form of military or police training and as Wolin grew they had to experiment how they would control the battle. Initially they were all in the front rank, these were the guys who wanted a harder, more competitive fight and they believed that commanders at the front was what was indicated by the sources. But as the numbers grew they found it just didn't work, they were completely unaware of what was happening outside their immediate vicinity, they had no form of control and had no influence over how the battle developed. It became pure luck which side won.
So they took themselves out of the front rank and in behind the line and have commanded from there ever since, because it works better. They can see what is going on, understand the overall situation, communicate with each other and those in the fighting line, deploy reserves and plug gaps. The Jomsburg side adopted the system first and remained undefeated until the Slav/Mercenary side adopted the same system a couple of years ago.
In this video you can see Igor, Alban and others controlling the Jomsburg side (on the left as we look at it) from the rear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu2GOGxicc4 From that position in that one battle they; stopped an attempt to penetrate their shield wall, turned their entire shield wall through 90 degrees and deployed reserves to stop an attempt to outflank them.
If you guys are telling me that the sources explicitly say that the Centurions always fought in the front rank then I have no problem believing that. I am just trying to understand why they would have chosen such an ineffective method of using the most experienced commanders they had on the battlefield.
Let's create a scenario and then you can tell me what orders need to be transmitted, how they are transmitted, and why someone in the rear ranks is the only one in a position to do so:
1. You're a centurion at Pydna. The sarissa phalanx has been driving your century and every other back with little you or your men can do besides get impaled on a long pike or throw your pila against heavily armored, highly disciplined, well trained veteran promachoi. You realize the ground around you is breaking up, more bushes, crags, stream beds, large trees. It dawns on you that you can possibly infiltrate forces into the Macedonian gaps. Is this easier or harder to see such an situation and then exploit it from the back of 5-8 ranks? Or in the foremost rank?
2. You're Crastinus at Pharsalus. Without even being given an order by your general you just take it upon yourself to lead a charge that borders on Devotio level suicide, triggering the charging of the rest of the army too. Pompey's leading infantry line is 10 deep, all veterans, stationed on high ground, fresh from not having to run a half mile. After you initiate the charge, but before a gladius hispaniensis becomes buried in the soft palate down your throat, delivered in close combat, what orders would you, Crastinus, need to give to your men?
(11-25-2016, 12:00 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote:(11-25-2016, 10:17 AM)Densus Wrote: What makes you think anyone needs to be 'at the front leading the men' when we are talking about well trained, disciplined soldiers? The US Army, like the British Army, trains officers that they need to 'lead from the front' but that doesn't actually mean that they are the one kicking the door in or walking point.
What makes me think that is the very same reason I would never ever compare a Roman miles with a modern British or American infantryman. Totally different society, totally different army structure, totally different individual training. Roman milites were not trained to think for themselves (as soldiers would not be for the next milllennium and a half), but to follow orders. Orders are given where they can be followed, which is at the front. Shouting from the back through the din of a battle involving tens of thousands is not really effective, is it? Looking at the battle stabndard is. And lo and behold this is where we find the commanders to be positioned.
What did Caesar do when he wanted to lead flagging infantry? He got off his horse, grabbed an infantryman's scutum, and moved to the very front of the ranks, exhorting and leading by example. And he usually needed to do this only after the centurions and standard bearers were all casualties.
