Wearing Phalerae

[Tarbicus]

I think you would be right if you ll say its a combination.
Of course the rate of dead centuriones raised while retreat and they were one of the small part standing the ground, . But, as well as Caesar us described, and not just him, often enough a big part of centuriones died in a hard battle or a long fight.

Absolutely they died in pitched battle, I never said otherwise. Just being on the front rank every time they fight pushes the odds against them sky high.

And by the way, the one moment you mentioned that the guys would be watching for medals to get a honorable enemy and than push the dead centuriones to fleeing comrades. I think thats a contradiction.

Defending the retreat is just an example, but maybe how I put it makes it look like the primary reason. I don't see where I state the guys would be watching for medals.

And your imagine of the antesignani seems to be of a honor guard, more than an effective protection. I dont have any source by the hand to get this contra, but i dont believe that a sign, that wouldnt just be "to look for and to feel good" just been guarded for the eyes. There are to many possibilities to get them in the fight itself and theres a to hard watch for loosing a signum or aquila.

I don't think I said they were only there to be a 'look good' honour guard? I'm with the crowd who believe the use of the face mask was as added extra protection for the face, as a signifer was unable to defend himself, and therefore the signum, as effectively as his comrades. Symbols of rank and authority, and symbols themselves, were of great importance to a Roman soldier. I do not feel they would be abandoned for a battle for these very simple reasons:

Sources; There is a written account of a dead centurion having his decorations looted during battle (I still can't find the reference but it's out there, and it's in one of the civil war books I'm sure.) Therefore he must have been wearing them in battle.

Character; I feel the argument that the men were cautious in battle is flawed. The image of quiet ranks all lined up in ultra-disciplined ranks is not one I go for (the one exception I know of being at Cremona between two veteran units, but I can think of many reasons for that to be an exception). The men were probably (in my eyes) boisterous and aggressive, to the point they could even threaten to kill their cornicens for not giving the order to attack. Even Caesar couldn't always control them, aristicratic tribunes fought Gallic chieftains one to one, centurions slew tribunes for dithering, and also jumped the defences and took on entire armies for the glory of it, auxiliaries stripped naked and ran at armies drinking their blood, etc.

Fate and Posterity; When you're dead you're dead. What better than to go down in a memorable blaze of glory, bristling with shiny awards that would be remembered by all comrades for them to tell of.

Face; Image was everything to a Roman. Tinning and silvering, bright colours, an image of oppulence and success. The more successful they looked the better. The better the army looked, the better Rome looked.

Confidence and Morale; Psychologically, the wearing of decorations is a confidence booster. Stood there waiting for the battle to begin a man could always be reminded of how he won them in the first place, and could look around at his unit and be reminded, even if only subtly, of how brave they are. Their standard had exactly the same awards attached to it.

Intimidation; The decorations are a symbol of prowess and ability, and therefore an excellent way of unsettling an enemy. The slightest advantage should be used whenever possible.

Superstition; They were deeply superstitious, and attached such meaning to objects. Even soldiers today have lucky tokens and habits.

Yes, i agree that the soldiers tried to look good. Watch the cingula or pugiones sheets, watch the other little elements which just look good and out of a long working process, e.g. the Mars figur on the gladius sheet in NL.

But while tile the endings of the pteryges were shown on different columns and other presentations you never see their phaleraes... not in battle and at work.

Then our segmentatae and helmets are wrong. Using the columns and similar as evidence is not the best way I feel, but there are other extensive threads on that subject.

I feel there is a lot of transplanting of modern attitudes and characteristics onto these guys that is probably misplaced. Modern armies are based around stealth and camouflage, but you could hear Roman soldiers coming from a mile away, quite literally. True, not all of the men would carry these symbols for lack of opportunity, and I'm not saying a cohort looked like a 'bling bling' convention, but if they had it I believe they would flaunt it out of pride and for status. Status itself was not necessarily associated to formal rank, but was a term used to define character and informal social standing, thus something to be very proud of. At least a man of lowly background and title could be seen as something 'more' than his peers, and what better way for a soldier to signify this than to wear his decorations, especially where it counted most, on the battlefield?