07-02-2013, 03:56 PM
Mark,
I only showed the second video to demonstrate that in a truly stressful situation, meaning real life with actual rioters intent on hurting you and not following your commands to disperse peacefully, fancy tactics and strategies go out the window. The rioters weren't ineffectually kicking at their shields, they were full on trying to cave their skulls in with big ass metal poles.
Also, neither of the two riot control videos shows a century, they show a unit of South Korean national police of a size similar to a century (or more). But they aren't soldiers, they are police. There jobs isn't to kill the enemy, its to drive them off with as low numbers of casualties as possible (or else why not use a rifle?) Riot control is not warfare. Just because someone hands a cop (or British Army officer) a shield in a similar size to the Romans (but not used the same way) and a baton (a wooden bludgeoning weapon vs. iron sword), doesn't mean they are Roman infantry in combat. You can use videos of riot police in action to judge how some humans operate in stressful situations, to watch examples of command and control in hand-to-hand fighting, small and large unit dynamics, etc. But you can't say, "Sure, the Romans could have done complex and unnecessary maneuvers because here is a video of a group of riot police practicing a highly choreographed series of similar maneuvers in a sterile and contained environment."
KISS Principle=Keep It Simple, Stupid
Also, your hypothesis of centurion positioning is illogical. Why would a centurion feel the need to command their centuries in battle from the rear? Exactly what orders did they need to issue, once the battle commenced? Was the centuries/maniples fighting complex? If they were in the rear, how did they even know what was happening in front of them? Were they hoisted on someone's shoulders to see over the seven crested helmets of the ranks in front of them? Were the men in front passing messages back in the files to the rear so the centurion knew who was wounded, who was hesitating?
Using the Rome TV show as an example since you brought up Pullo, how could Lucius Vorenus have learned that Titus Pullo broke ranks and was fighting amidst the enemy if Vorenus was seven ranks behind him and Pullo wasn't even visible to him? Did someone radio back to Vorenus that Pullo had broken ranks?
Watch that second riot video again. Pick a guy in the rear of the riot police formation, about 8 ranks back from the front of the fighting. Try to imagine him controlling anything that is happening in front of him. Rethink your hypothesis.
My opinion: In battle, the centurions didn't command, they didn't manage, they led by example. Tribunes commanded from the rear, centurions from the front. (hence the high casualty rates, their high amounts of awards for bravery, the high number of wounds celebrated centurions endured, etc)
Why have two officer ranks commanding from the rear and no rank leading from the front? If the centurion was in the rear, who was in the front leading the men forward?
I only showed the second video to demonstrate that in a truly stressful situation, meaning real life with actual rioters intent on hurting you and not following your commands to disperse peacefully, fancy tactics and strategies go out the window. The rioters weren't ineffectually kicking at their shields, they were full on trying to cave their skulls in with big ass metal poles.
Also, neither of the two riot control videos shows a century, they show a unit of South Korean national police of a size similar to a century (or more). But they aren't soldiers, they are police. There jobs isn't to kill the enemy, its to drive them off with as low numbers of casualties as possible (or else why not use a rifle?) Riot control is not warfare. Just because someone hands a cop (or British Army officer) a shield in a similar size to the Romans (but not used the same way) and a baton (a wooden bludgeoning weapon vs. iron sword), doesn't mean they are Roman infantry in combat. You can use videos of riot police in action to judge how some humans operate in stressful situations, to watch examples of command and control in hand-to-hand fighting, small and large unit dynamics, etc. But you can't say, "Sure, the Romans could have done complex and unnecessary maneuvers because here is a video of a group of riot police practicing a highly choreographed series of similar maneuvers in a sterile and contained environment."
KISS Principle=Keep It Simple, Stupid
Also, your hypothesis of centurion positioning is illogical. Why would a centurion feel the need to command their centuries in battle from the rear? Exactly what orders did they need to issue, once the battle commenced? Was the centuries/maniples fighting complex? If they were in the rear, how did they even know what was happening in front of them? Were they hoisted on someone's shoulders to see over the seven crested helmets of the ranks in front of them? Were the men in front passing messages back in the files to the rear so the centurion knew who was wounded, who was hesitating?
Using the Rome TV show as an example since you brought up Pullo, how could Lucius Vorenus have learned that Titus Pullo broke ranks and was fighting amidst the enemy if Vorenus was seven ranks behind him and Pullo wasn't even visible to him? Did someone radio back to Vorenus that Pullo had broken ranks?
Watch that second riot video again. Pick a guy in the rear of the riot police formation, about 8 ranks back from the front of the fighting. Try to imagine him controlling anything that is happening in front of him. Rethink your hypothesis.
My opinion: In battle, the centurions didn't command, they didn't manage, they led by example. Tribunes commanded from the rear, centurions from the front. (hence the high casualty rates, their high amounts of awards for bravery, the high number of wounds celebrated centurions endured, etc)
Why have two officer ranks commanding from the rear and no rank leading from the front? If the centurion was in the rear, who was in the front leading the men forward?
