RomanArmyTalk

Quote:I will... concentrate on why I think the Centurion spent the majority of any battle 'commanding and controlling' his century from a position he could actually see it.

Is there any evidence or support for the idea that the centurion commanded from the rear in battle? There are several sources, most already mentioned here, that suggest he led from the front. From where are you drawing the idea that he did not?

I have always considered that the centurian stood just forward and to the right of his troop where there would have been a 2 meter gap between each rank and file, with the rear rank in a staggered position the troops holding their scutum on the ground and watching their centurian who would throw his pilum when the enemy are at around 30 meters.
This would be the signal for each man to throw his pilum so that above any screaming of shouting at close quarter they would all be able to throw at the exact same time, draw their swords and the staggered gaps had also allowed the rear rank to throw at the same time as the front where they now take one miles pasus lock shields and start with blades on the right of shields.

Then there is the other aspect of a centurian where he wears a transverse plume so he can be recognised by his men from front or rear, but if he is at the rear just how does his troop know just where the devil he is.
When at the front facing forward or to the rear he can be seen by his men and recogniside by his crest and can give them all great inspiration is that not what the job was.

Quote:Then there is the other aspect of a centurian where he wears a transverse plume so he can be recognised by his men from front or rear, but if he is at the rear just how does his troop know just where the devil he is.
When at the front facing forward or to the rear he can be seen by his men and recogniside by his crest and can give them all great inspiration is that not what the job was.

That to me is the big question, just what was his job in battle? Was it be an inspiration at the front with little knowledge or control over what the rest of the century was doing or was it to command the century. If it was to command the century, order formation changes, receive and relay orders from the Legate or Tribunes, keep it line with other centuries etc he can't have been in the front rank where his full attention would have been on the man in front trying to kill him.

Quote:Then there is the other aspect of a centurian where he wears a transverse plume so he can be recognised by his men from front or rear, but if he is at the rear just how does his troop know just where the devil he is.
When at the front facing forward or to the rear he can be seen by his men and recogniside by his crest and can give them all great inspiration is that not what the job was.

That to me is the big question, just what was his job in battle? Was it be an inspiration at the front with little knowledge or control over what the rest of the century was doing or was it to command the century. If it was to command the century, order formation changes, receive and relay orders from the Legate or Tribunes, keep it line with other centuries etc he can't have been in the front rank where his full attention would have been on fighting the man in front that is trying to kill him.

Adam.
I can't understand what you mean about being in front with his attention on the man in front trying to kill him in what respect the enemy or his own men.

The enemy. Someone trying to kill or maim you has a way of focusing your attention to the exclusion of pretty much everything else.

Adam.
Where you have also mentioned about being at the front with little knowledge of what the rest of the century was doing in what respect for as I have mentioned earlier the tactic I consider puts our centurian at the right end of the line with the his century.
Then there may also have been the othere two centuries in line to his right so that all shields are locked including the centurians at the front line, then there are the other three centuries behind with their three centurians Posteria who make up the three manipules of the Cohort.

Quote:Bryan,
It's important I ask - for are you reacting simply to a 'word' that I am using deliberately, but in context, and certainly in a modern way - because I am trying to communicate in the 21st century in English?
I can assure you that 1980's British Army methods are not rooted in 'management speak' - and I very much doubt that they are today - but word-use changes and the word 'manage' may well be used - in context and accurately. I know that the Officer selection process is relatively unchanged - and has been the same way for 2 generations.
- When you received orders - did someone then check they were carried out? That's 'management'.
- When you were allocated a bed-space, did someone check that there was a bed and the makings and that the facilities worked? That's 'management'
- Did someone check that the food had arrived, or that the mules were arranged for, and their additional forage, and the muleteers to, goodness, 'manage' them; that there were spare pila, shields, armour....I could go on? That's 'management'.
That's not for here though. Is it just the word you don't like? For then I will use something different and concentrate on why I think the Centurion spent the majority of any battle 'commanding and controlling' his century from a position he could actually see it.

When you tell your kid to go to bed and then you check up on them, are you managing?
When your dog starts whining and you feed it, are you managing?
The fact that you chose to use a business word (military leads or commands vs. business manages) to convey the idea of basic supervision is exactly what I am referring to. You are using business speak. Everyone single one of those examples you provided above you could have substituted another verb but you chose the one most associated with leadership in the business world.

All those 'horrible' things you say the Romans did - then I'll horrify you some more - for they truly are 'management techniques' (we could call them 'control measures').
But one thing I will assure you of - is that man hasn't changed very much if at all in 10,000 years! We are no different from the Romans. Massacring populations, killing girl children, raping the planet and exploiting people mercilessly - it all still goes on; we are just a bit more 'civilised' these days.

So when the British got defeated at Dunkirk, did Churchill and Parliament order four slaves to be buried underneath Westminster Abbey? Were the retreating British army units decimated when they returned home? Did Monty become the richest man in England after he sold all the Nazis he captured into slavery? After taking a city Germany, how many commanders allowed their units three days to rape and pillage the city? How many slaves do you own? When you served in the army, how many tribal cultures did you help eliminate when your commanding officer ordered the entire male population to be flogged and beheaded? What sword thrust or slash is best for dispatching a cowering women with a babe in hand? Do I really need to go on and on about this?

Just because in movies the Romans speak with British accents doesn't make you a Roman. You're British, from the 21st century. Your culture does NONE of those things. The few isolated incidents of brutality in war by western nations are punished severely these days. Rwanda aint the world. Victorian England wasn't even getting away with that stuff. Romans were there own unique culture, separated by yours by two millennia.

I do maintain that all the heroic actions we read about are there because they are the interesting, exciting and more 'glorious' subjects that are deliberately emphasized to affect the cultural mindset that is encouraged, wanted and needed. You want people to support and join your army and try their hardest.
So you don't read about the 99%

So accounts of bravery are propaganda, got it. In real life, 99% of the duties of a centurion in battle were much more mundane. Lots of note taking no doubt. Controlling the men from the rear, making sure they are being managed by controlling them. Ensuring they are being well led, by managing them, in a controlling manner. All from the rear. Because that's what leadership is. Crastinus' speech to Caesar at Pharsalus probably actually went something like "Imperator, you will be proud of the way I manage today from the rear, in life or death!" And then he accidentally fell on his abacus and died.

Deleted.

Quote: just what was his job in battle?

It's a question worth considering. I think the answer depends on whether we should see the centuria as an semi-independent tactical unit on the battlefield.

If not, the amount of command options, if you like, available to individual centurions are very limited - they can advance or retreat, basically, in more or less degree.

So the 'job' of the centurion on the battlefield* is quite simple, and best carried out from the front, where they can see what the enemy are doing and lead by example.

If we follow the suggestion that Polybius calling an optio an ouragos ('tail man') means that the optiones were stationed at the rear, there is surely no need for anyone else controlling the rear ranks. Everyone can look forward, towards the centurion and standard bearer (and the enemy!), and take their direction from there.

* centurions did all sorts of other things, on and off the field, of course. But it's the men in command of the centuria in the battle line we're discussing here.

Quote:That to me is the big question, just what was his job in battle? Was it be an inspiration at the front with little knowledge or control over what the rest of the century was doing or was it to command the century. If it was to command the century, order formation changes, receive and relay orders from the Legate or Tribunes, keep it line with other centuries etc he can't have been in the front rank where his full attention would have been on the man in front trying to kill him.

What other commanding and controlling did a centurion need to do once the century was actively fighting? I don't mean while waiting, or during the approach march. I mean during the actual hand to hand portion of the fight. Immediately before the massed pila volley and then into the charge. Once actually committed to the fight, not in a follow on battle line or while waiting, what orders mid-fight would a centurion need to get from a tribune or legate, in person, that couldn't be relayed through a musical instrument? Would a previous order need be changed, while a century is actually fighting it out with another unit, in contact? What formation change could occur if a unit is actively engaged in battle, even if the centurion was aware of the necessity for it? How realistic would it to expect a unit in contact to wheel about or perform some complex drill maneuver or something? In my opinion, once a unit is actually committed to the fight, the only real orders it can realistically follow are Advance or Retreat, either of which can be relayed through musical instruments, at least according to the few literary sources that describe actual battles in detail. However, some verbal orders, such as to spread out units, can be done from the immediate front, such as when Caesar grabbed a shield, shoved his way to the front of a unit in contact with the enemy that was bunched up, and ordered it to "Open the maniple" (Caesar, DBG, 2.25). A centurion leading from the front could have done the exact same though (but he was already probably dead or wounded).

Commanding a century was no doubt complicated, especially in non battle/garrison settings, where more mundane issues regularly needed to be dealt with. However, an individual century had no autonomy to advance the line, halt it, fall back as a unit, conduct line relief, order a change in tactics, etc., especially once it had been committed to battle. At that point, the centurion's role was limited to actively leading his men into the fight, ensuring the men followed him and the standard forward. The leadership of the battle line (of multiple centuries) fell on the tribunes and legates to relieve units individually or by cohort, issue fragmentary orders, etc. Nearly all orders would have been standardized enough that they would have corresponded to a musical signal, which the unit's cornicen would hear and relay to the unit itself. Centurions would not be needed to coordinate anything. Once committed into battle, I think their role was leadership by example.

Quote:

Mark Hygate post=356523 Wrote:I will... concentrate on why I think the Centurion spent the majority of any battle 'commanding and controlling' his century from a position he could actually see it.

Is there any evidence or support for the idea that the centurion commanded from the rear in battle? There are several sources, most already mentioned here, that suggest he led from the front. From where are you drawing the idea that he did not?

Nathan, et al

It has previously come up in discussion, but I will be the first to emphasize that we have no 'Roman Drill Manual' that might tell us - which is why it's up for discussion.

We do have many examples (given the long period of Roman military history) of the prowess, dedication, incredible effort and even simple downright heroism of Roman centurions and other individual soldiers. I am quite happy reading such and, because I'm just as happy with my word use and know exactly what I mean, can see these also as examples of 'leadership'. Our world cultural history, particularly when it comes to things connected with the military, is sprinkled with examples of heroism - and a resultant, even sometimes just passive, encouragement to emulate.

Firstly, however, as to actual evidence I offer a, hopefully not unreasonable, view of the likely development up to the Roman century (the apparent lowest tactical unit we see used in the Roman army).

I doubt there is much contention that the king or war-chief of a classic warband (sic), without particular formation, organisation or drills, can be seen as an example of convincing simple leadership of the 'follow me and get stuck in like I am - let's just kill those 'nasty, horrible chaps' (definitely sic :wink: ) over that-a-way'. Examples probably everywhere, before, during and after our period.

The downside of this initial example is that it is a one-shot, fire and forget attack until the leader (or whoever is able to replace him) can pause and find a new target; or potentially receive new instructions from a higher leader.

Then there are the examples of the 'Greek tactical systems' (widely exported) that we see, which introduces the concept of formations, drills, marching in formations (and thus maintaining control and easier implementation of those drills) and deploying on the battlefield - that I referred to earlier. The smallest units thus represented are the hoplite lochoi and the pike syntagma. Here, in both cases, the 'leader'/'commander' is an integral part of the rank and file structure. In both cases they occupy the front right position as 'right marker', with 5, 7, 11 or 15 soldiers of his own file behind him; matching exactly the 6, 8, 12 or 16 soldiers in the files next to him. All the other infantry formations are variations on that theme. In short, however, there is, I believe I am correct in saying, no doubt that he is in a front-line leadership position and any control he exercises is all about keeping those to his left in line, whilst his personal file's ouragos is ensuring everyone in his file stays behind him; those sub-leaders to his left the same.

This works extremely well when the battle-line/phalanx is cohesive and working as intended, whether holding or, more tricky, actually advancing, provided the front line more or less stays linear (a degree of 'bending' is quite tolerable). However, if the battle-line is broken and a gap appears which the enemy exploits, then it all unravels. Hoplites or pikemen now faced with enemy to the left of their formation when they are concentrated on staying in line with the men on their right are in deep trouble, and they know it. If they individually turn and face them, then their own formation falls to pieces. Certainly the leader at front right, who may still be fighting himself, has no idea and can do nothing. This is why the concentration in so many battles of the need to break the line and/or out-flank it.

So now we come to the Roman century - a typical hastati/principes one of the Manipular-Polybian era that we have most detail on. 60 men with centurion, signifer and optio (Greek ouragos, but only one of them). The men are in their contubernia (2 detached, so six remaining). Now, I have previously been happy to suggest that they most probably form up 10x6, with the 'tent-mates' in files, just like their Graeco forebears. But is there any serious dissension on that? If not, then I note particularly that none of the 3 'officers' seem an integral part of that.

So, the beginning of presenting my side of the discussion are a few additional questions?

- If the centurion always leads from the front (like the Greeks certainly), why is he not a part of the formation structure and the century is 60 including the 'officers'?

- If, as Brian suggests, he is out in front (alone) of his century and/or to the right, then not only is there no one behind him to brace or replace him, he represents a single point of weakness that would result in an exploitable gap between centuries once he was killed or captured; which would happen in moments whomsoever the enemy. Is that really presented as an argument?

- Bryan countered with a picture of an aquilifer with a shield from his tombstone. Now, I was under the impression, and am happy to be corrected, that both aquila and signum were tall spear-like symbols with heavy and unbalancing weights high up that required two-hands to hold; but if they are light-weight items that can be tucked under the arm or held in the teeth, then I would withdraw my contention that such men are relatively useless in the front-line as they can then obviously still use sword and shield. But is that really true?

- I am utterly comfortable seeing the optio as a platoon/century sergeant, because I see it as an obvious parallel. But either way he is also synonymous with the Greek file-closer, although there is only one of him. I see him outside and to the rear of the 60-man formation, because he has to keep all the files closed up - is that a wrong assumption?

That's my starter - with one addition.....

Bryan, I am sorry, I am simply going to put down our contention as one more difficulty in English-American translation, for there is apparently some cultural-based hatred for a simple word that I just don't get. I know exactly what I mean and I apply it accurately. It has nothing to do with 'business speak', but simply that I have learned that many of the things I have done and do can be termed 'management'. They are definitely different to either 'commanding' or 'leading', both of which I have done (both in and out of service). If you are happier with the words, then I will certainly use other terms like 'staff-work' or 'logistics'; neither of which, I assure you, are things that Generals, or their biographers, or history writers tend to talk about or emphasise. They do get done, however.

Quote:Bryan countered with a picture of an aquilifer with a shield from his tombstone. Now, I was under the impression, and am happy to be corrected, that both aquila and signum were tall spear-like symbols with heavy and unbalancing weights high up that required two-hands to hold; but if they are light-weight items that can be tucked under the arm or held in the teeth, then I would withdraw my contention that such men are relatively useless in the front-line as they can then obviously still use sword and shield. But is that really true?

I am not sure that sarcasm takes the argument very far. No one is suggesting, I think, that the signifer would be using his sword in battle, except in emergency, but he certainly had a shield, as this relief shows:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...XXVIII.jpg

Quote:If the centurion always leads from the front (like the Greeks certainly), why is he not a part of the formation structure and the century is 60 including the 'officers'?

But since we don't really know what the battle formation of the century was (there are various guesses, but nothing definite, as far as I know), how can we use this as an argument against the centurion being included as a part of it?

The significance of the stories of 'heroic' centurions charging the enemy lies not, I think, in the idea that centurions were always doing this sort of thing, but rather that they must have been in the front rank to start with in order to behave like this...

This sort of anecdotal evidence, plus the Sallust quote I mentioned, suggests a front rank position - I still don't see any countering evidence to suggest anything else.

Quote:if they are light-weight items that can be tucked under the arm or held in the teeth, then I would withdraw my contention that such men are relatively useless in the front-line

There is a story of a Caesarian aquilifer pulling the eagle off the top of its pole and tucking it into his sash, which suggests it was actually pretty small and light...

But I don't think the standard bearers would be expected to fight hand to hand - they would surely have men around them to protect them. They would need to be at the front though, so the rest of the men in the century could see them - standards were used for signalling orders, and would be fairly useless if they were kept at the rear.