Centurions

[Crispvs]

Thanks for that. I was typing in quite a hurry and forgot to mention that. Thanks for the added detail.

The helmet from Sisac was covered with decorated silver foil and this appears to have been the standard way of applying silver to the surfaces of objects, held in place with spots of solder. The same method was used on the Velsen belt plates, although in this case the silver foil had also been folded over the edges of the plates. Both the Sisac helmet and the velson belt plates had been tinned at some point prior to being silvered. In both cases the tinning was quite worn by the time the silvering took place. The Sisac helmet was also silvered more than once, suggesting that wear and tear caused its owner to get it recovered with silver foil on more then one occasion.
The is also a Montifortino type helmet which I believe may come from Leiden which also retains areas of either tinning of silvering.

Crispvs

[Doc]

Good points Crispus. I agree with large objects especially of iron that foil was applied.

However, large objects of copper alloy like one of the Gallic A in the former Guttman collection had no foil. I believe it was tinned but was achieved using some liquid form of the tin. I am sure they could do the same for silver in the case of large copper alloy objects like greaves (I think those of the later Roman period were partially silvered not with foil i.e. the cavalry ones? I am not sure).

Even silvered scales for squamata type armors. Some of the shiny stuff was silver not tin (I remember reading about some being silver not tin). I do not think that silver foil was applied to cover small scales but then again who knows ALL their methods.

[ParthianBow]

I can't find the answer to this after searching the threads, so here goes:

Do we know if centurions of the mid first century AD carried shields?

I know that aquilifers and signifers carried a small round parma shield, but what about the men who used the bucina, cornicen etc? Did they carry shields?

[jvrjenivs]

Do we know if centurions of the mid first century AD carried shields?

As the centurio was a front rank soldier he certainly needed a shield. In my opinion it would be a scutum. I don't know why most centuriones in re-enactment tent to walk without one. As for the cornicen (the apparatus is called a Cornu) he would also have worn a round parma, in my opinion.

[Forty-One]

Horn-blowers are shown carrying the little round shields on Trajan's Column:

[Fruitbat]

Hello all,

I agree fully with what Jurjenius says about centurions and shields. If they were able to be spotted by their own men by being in some way distinctive, then I am sure the baddies would also be able to! If I were a baddy archer, slinger etc, he would be the individual I would aim at. Life would become very prickley very quickly....

[Matthew Amt]

If they were able to be spotted by their own men by being in some way distinctive, then I am sure the baddies would also be able to! If I were a baddy archer, slinger etc, he would be the individual I would aim at. Life would become very prickley very quickly....

And yet we know that being distinctive and individually showy was a major part of ancient warfare! Sure, there is some risk, but that's part of the job. And a centurion only got to that rank by being at least decent at staying alive. And Romans were used to cooperating to keep each other alive, too.

Besides, if you were an archer or slinger in the front rank of an army, chances are the Romans would be closing at very high speed to chop you up, because you wouldn't have any shield OR armor! You're better off farther back in the ranks, not able to see as well, and lobbing shots over your buddies' heads.

Matthew

[Gaius Longius]

Hi Ben,

As to Centurions carrying scutums didn't the Roman writer Suetonius recorded an anecdote of the heroic centurion Cassius Scaeva, who fought under Caesar in the Battle of Dyrrachium:
"with one eye gone, his thigh and shoulder wounded, and his shield bored through in a hundred and twenty places, [he] continued to guard the gate of a fortress put in his charge"

I think that seems pretty certain for the Republic

By the way looking forward to meeting you at the Chester event in June.
Regards,
Gary.

[john roberts]

The modern practice of subdued insignia for officers only dates from the latter 19th century, in the US beginning with the Civil War, and the reason is the appearance of snipers on the battlefield. In all prior eras, persons in authority wanted to be showy, both to be recognized by their men and in token of their social status. Appearing as a common soldier would be considered unworthy (though wasn't there one Roman general who became emperor who was mistaken for a regular legionary because he despised show?)
When I was in the Army, company-grade officers wore white bars on the back of their helmets, hopefully invisible to the enemy but, since they were supposed to be out in front, obvious to the men they were leading.

[Forty-One]

Vegetius explicitly says that centurions had to be expert at fighting with sword and shield:

"qui dimicare gladio et scutum rotare doctissime nouerit" De Re Militari II, 14

[Chock]

I suspect it was probably more important for soldiers to hear the Centurion than to see him. He could be as flashy as he liked, but if you were three rows back and four files over, you'd have had a hard time seeing or hearing anything much past the guys adjacent to you when a fierce battle was raging. Nevertheless, if the Centurion shouted a command indicating an advance, hold or withdrawal, the effect of it being obeyed would probably filter along the rank and file to some degree.

Being at the front and holding a gladius and a shield, the Centurion would probably be in no position to give any sort of commands other than verbal, so it's my guess that such commands would have been conveyed to everyone else by means of the horn, which is likely to have been near the centurion. Failing that, such commands may well have been conveyed with the signifier waving a few pre-arranged signals such as side to side, up and down etc, and it was probably the Optios job to keep a lookout for such signals and reinforce the message. The notion of eighty to a hundred closely packed guys fighting a battle being able to see the Centurion clearly is just never going to have happened.

A combination of horn blasts and signals which could be seen over the heads of the soldiers would seem to be about as practical a means as any to convey commands over a noisy battle, especially to guys in the front rank, who'd be far too busy watching and engaging the enemy to be glancing over to the Centurion ever other second on the offchance he was signaling some tactic.

Al

[Robert Vermaat]

Being at the front and holding a gladius and a shield, the Centurion would probably be in no position to give any sort of commands other than verbal, so it's my guess that such commands would have been conveyed to everyone else by means of the horn, which is likely to have been near the centurion. Failing that, such commands may well have been conveyed with the signifier waving a few pre-arranged signals such as side to side, up and down etc, and it was probably the Optios job to keep a lookout for such signals and reinforce the message. The notion of eighty to a hundred closely packed guys fighting a battle being able to see the Centurion clearly is just never going to have happened.

Exactly. Even without being in battle, voice commands from the front can be overheard, so my guess would be that any ideas about units turning smartly about as one body are complete modernisms.

[Crispvs]

Of course, if the cornicer/tubicern was to be positioned within easy reach of the centurio (within the first three ranks for instance) any spoken or shouted commands from the centurio could be quickly translated into trumpet blasts. Why else, after all, have a horn blower as part of the compliment of every century?

Crispvs

[Gaius Colletti]

Was the Centurion always in the very front line? It seems kind of hard to be giving orders, and observing the battle as you are gutting someone at the same time...

[Crispvs]

Something like that is impossible to know really, especially if we are trying to talk about the entire period during which the rank of centurio existed. However, where centuriones are mentioned by ancient authors we certainly do get the impression that they were expected to be in the front rank or its equivalent. They were, after all, expected to lead by example.

We have the example quoted above, where a centurio took it upon himself to defend the gate against all comers, presumably whether his men joined him or not (I cannot speak with authority on this as it is a very long time since I read the original source). We also have Josephus' anecdote of a centurio jumping out in front of his men and charging across the temple courtyard in a typical act designed to shame his men into following (much like Caesar's account of an aquilifer jumping into the sea and wading ashore as a challenge to the soldiers to join him in the fight or lose the eagle). Caesar mentions the heroic actions of a number of centuriones, often fighting out in front of their men and the loss figures he gives for one of his attacks during his unsuccessful siege of Gergovia show a loss rate of around one centurio for every ten men lost. Given that we would expect there to be only one centurio for every 60 - 80 men (many units would have been under strength due to campaigning), this suggests that centuriones were going forward and taking much greater risks than their men.

Unfortunately these examples only span a period of around 120 years, so we cannot be sure for other periods, but in an army system which certainly appears to have been meritocratic in its lower (blow equestrian rank) sections, competently leading by example would have been something which would have brought promotion.
During the period Polybius describes, centuriones were elected by their men. There again though, surely men would put men in power over them who would not only treat them fairly but (perhaps more importantly) who would also show them a good example of how to be a soldier.

It is worth bearing in mind though, that in the large pitched battles we like to think of, any one centurio was only directly responsible for a very small part of an army and overall command would rest with the general. We would expect tribunes to inform centuriones of the tactical plan and their designated roles in it prior to the army forming up in battle array. Any further commands, past each centurio trying to do his best to be successful in his century's 'mission' for the day, would be communicated by either trumpet blasts or motions of standards (or both) from wherever the general was located (assuming of course that the general had not taken it upon himself to stalk up and down the front ranks to give them encouragement, as we know some did).

In a localised action involving soldiers from a single auxiliary fort, we would probably expect the same thing on a smaller scale.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.


Crispvs