Manipular formation

[Ross Cowan]

Is there nothing in Polybius, Livy etc. that hints at such a positioning?

I suppose Polybius 6.24.7-8, on the senior centurion commanding the right half of the maniple, and the junior commanding the left half. That's still rather vague - where in his half was the centurion positioned? When only one centurion was present, he had overall command, but Polybius does not indicate his place in the maniple. I'd assume the front centre.

(Note that Polybius' maniple is a single unit, he does not mention a division into centuries. The duplication of officers is because "they are anxious that the maniple may never be without a leader and commander.")

[sonic]

Is there nothing in Polybius, Livy etc. that hints at such a positioning?

I suppose Polybius 6.24.7-8, on the senior centurion commanding the right half of the maniple, and the junior commanding the left half. That's still rather vague - where in his half was the centurion positioned? When only one centurion was present, he had overall command, but Polybius does not indicate his place in the maniple. I'd assume the front centre.

(Note that Polybius' maniple is a single unit, he does not mention a division into centuries. The duplication of officers is because "they are anxious that the maniple may never be without a leader and commander.")

So, in other words, there is no evidence in the sources and the positioning of the centurion on the right is a modern invention?

That doesn't surprise me!! :lol: :lol:

____________________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Mitra]

This a false problem, when the unit move against the enemy, marching for the last hundred meters, the principal problem of centurions and other principalis is control the movement: not too lateral, no men out of unit, maintain the order, if necessary stop the maniple, make order and restart. So a fixed position in front of unit is not pratical, probably they move from side to center and return, for make control where necessary. The space to move isn't great (in compressed space (0,90) a centuria 6 depth cover -10 meters). Probably the men behind the first two cannot view the centurion, so they follow the signa before the unit and the men before they, and the signa follow the command made by musical instruments or vocal orders of tribunes or higher officers (which if I remember correctly a Appian passage march frontally during the moving against the enemy like the tagma commander in Strategikon).

[Felix]

Before we get too carried away with putting the centurion, etc. in the center, it is worth considering the fact that, on a larger grand tactical scale, there was a profound bias towards being on the right hand side of a fight.

The right flank command was considered a post of great honor, even as late as 1745 during the Jacobite rebellion. Alexander commanded from the right; the Spartans frequently laid special claim to the right hand end of the battle line. I am not sure why this was the case, but there seemed to be a distinct preference.

Now, if a maniple did indeed fight as a distinct cloud, separate from the next maniple beside it, it is conceivable that the same motivation that prompted a general to be on the right side of the whole army could prompt a centurion to be on the right hand side of his whole unit.

[Tarbicus]

Before we get too carried away with putting the centurion, etc. in the center, it is worth considering the fact that, on a larger grand tactical scale, there was a profound bias towards being on the right hand side of a fight. ......

But that doesn't mean you need to be on the extreme right of every man in the entire army or unit. Enough that you command the unit furthest to the right, just where the First Cohort was, surely?

[Sean Manning]

it goes against the natural tendency of men in battle to clump together

In Caesar's De Bello Gallico, there is a passage, in which he goes directly to the front, and orders the men to spread out so they have room to fight. Without having the book at hand, though, I can't tell where it was found.

This lends veracity to both of the preceding statements, namely, that 1) men's tendency is to clump, and that 2) Roman strategy was to leave space between men in ranks.

Well, however tight your normal formation is, there is always a tighter one that hampers your intended way of fighting. One of the most useful effects of flanking longbow fire against armoured infantry was that the targets tended to clump together and away from the arrows until they could not move or fight. And medieval infantry, as I said, tended to fight in quite close formations. So the reference in Caesar is interesting, but not conclusive.

On another note, when I read the Strategikon I was immediately struck by how much might reflect earlier Roman infantry practice, such as the three-line formation.

[sonic]

Before we get too carried away with putting the centurion, etc. in the center, it is worth considering the fact that, on a larger grand tactical scale, there was a profound bias towards being on the right hand side of a fight.

The right flank command was considered a post of great honor, even as late as 1745 during the Jacobite rebellion. Alexander commanded from the right; the Spartans frequently laid special claim to the right hand end of the battle line. I am not sure why this was the case, but there seemed to be a distinct preference.

Now, if a maniple did indeed fight as a distinct cloud, separate from the next maniple beside it, it is conceivable that the same motivation that prompted a general to be on the right side of the whole army could prompt a centurion to be on the right hand side of his whole unit.

It may be that this is the sort of thinking that has led to centurions being assumed as posted on the right hand side by modern authors.

The main reason, as far as I'm aware, is that the right hand side of the battlefield was the place where you were most likely to succeed, since you were in a position to outflank the enemy's shieldless side.

Furthermore, for hoplites (and phalangites?) the desire to shelter behind the shield of the man next to you on the right tended to make the entire phalanx drift to the right. In this way, the extreme right ends of opposing hoplite forces tended to overlap the enemy and so result in troops on the right flank being able to strike the enemy in their shieldless flank.

Therefore, it was a great honour and responsibility to take the right side of the battle line, since it was necessary for you to overlap and rout the enemy in front of you before the opposite happened to your own left flank. It is obvious to see that the Spartans wanted this position, since it gave them both the honour of 'winning' the battle and the ability to use their superior training to rout the opposition as quickly as possible.

Whether this would extend to the centurions being positioned on the right hand side in a Roman army is a different matter. It is possible that the centurion leading the maniple/cohort on the right hand of the battle line, in expectation of defeating the 'shieldless' enemy may have gone to the point where the overlap occurred in order to control events. It is equally possible that the centurion on the left flank would be on the extreme left of the mainple/cohort in order to prevent a corresponding enemy overlap on that side.

Overall, I am coming to the conclusion that the signifer and cornicen would more likely be central, but that the centurion would be at that point in the line where his presence would be most useful. The second centurion would then be free to keep an eye on other developments and order the signifer/cornicen to act as necessary.

(Sorry - extremely limited time: hope this makes sense!)

________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Tarbicus]

If the centurion is separated so much from the signifer and cornicen, how does the centurion transmit commands to them so that they can transmit those commands to the century?

[sonic]

If the centurion is separated so much from the signifer and cornicen, how does the centurion transmit commands to them so that they can transmit those commands to the century?

There were usually two centurions, so one could easily have been stationed with the signifer etc to transmit orders from above, or respond to larger scale shifts in the battle, with the second having a more 'roving' role to control/command smaller groups (say four to ten?) of men in specific conditions; eg. lap around a flank, advance into contact and force the enemy to give ground, close formation to withstand an assault etc. he could then move to another area where his presence was needed.

Further, wasn't there also an 'optio' for each century, who could also move around the unit, raising morale and giving orders, or remaining with the standard to transmit changes in tactics? (Sorry, it's along time since I studied and only slowly are things coming back to me: was the optio in the manipular, Polybian legion or did he only surface later? :? )

This, surely, is one of those situations where recreation groups could put the theory to the test and see how practical such a method would be. Although they could never prove whether such a thing happened or not, they could probably prove whether the system was more appropriate than the accepted rigid formed lines.

Remember, all historians appear to agree that the reasons for the Romans' success against the phalanx was the greater manouevrability and flexibility of the maniples and (later) cohorts. Isn't it true that, against the Successors' phalangites, the Romans split into extremely small groups in order to break into the phalanges and so win the battle? To do this, far more flexibility is needed than the 'linear' system, and the new proposal combined with 'wandering' centurions would appear be a better solution to our understanding of the manouevre than the linear.

________________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

As I recall the only specific account we have of small bodies of Romans breaking into a phalanx formation is at Pydna from Plutarch.

Here Paulus noting that the phalanx's front has become disrupted due to the uneveness of the ground rides along the front line and orders the maniples to attack "at will" and exploit this.

From this it looks as though it needed a very senior commander to order this Roman flexible response - unless of course he was just talking up the "great man" 8)

[sonic]

As I recall the only specific account we have of small bodies of Romans breaking into a phalanx formation is at Pydna from Plutarch.

Here Paulus noting that the phalanx's front has become disrupted due to the uneveness of the ground rides along the front line and orders the maniples to attack "at will" and exploit this.

From this it looks as though it needed a very senior commander to order this Roman flexible response - unless of course he was just talking up the "great man" 8)

Is it possible that in a few places the local centurions broke into the phalanx and, seeing the success of the tactic, Paulus immediately ordered everyone to follow suit? :?

In this way, we cover both the local commanders having flexibility of decision as well as the generals etc. being able to get the credit!! :lol:

_________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Mitra]

If the centurion is separated so much from the signifer and cornicen, how does the centurion transmit commands to them so that they can transmit those commands to the century?

Jim, but are you sure the signifer and cornicen take orders from the centurion? The orders that they signalled, are a great tactical level (in the sense of rapport of single unit with the entire acies and the entire battlefield) "advance, retreat, front change", a single centurion cannot have the authority (and the global vision) for take these decisions, only a commander which control a more great zone of acies needs of they services. The centurion must fight and make fight they men, the vocal command appears sufficient for this to me.

[Felix]

The tendency for the right flank to be the position of highest honor, and of command, existed outside of the hoplite phalanx. As mentioned previously, Alexander led his army from the right side, as a cavalry commander, not as a foot commander. Some of the Diadochi did the same thing (I can't speak about all of them and all their battles). This feeling persists up into the 18th century; so it isn't just about spacing and shield size.

[sonic]

The tendency for the right flank to be the position of highest honor, and of command, existed outside of the hoplite phalanx. As mentioned previously, Alexander led his army from the right side, as a cavalry commander, not as a foot commander. Some of the Diadochi did the same thing (I can't speak about all of them and all their battles). This feeling persists up into the 18th century; so it isn't just about spacing and shield size.

I am sure it did, but I still believe that it started with the hoplite phalanx and continued through - probably because most people are right-handed and see the right as the natural position from which to obtain honour.

Jim, but are you sure the signifer and cornicen take orders from the centurion? The orders that they signalled, are a great tactical level (in the sense of rapport of single unit with the entire acies and the entire battlefield) "advance, retreat, front change", a single centurion cannot have the authority (and the global vision) for take these decisions, only a commander which control a more great zone of acies needs of they services. The centurion must fight and make fight they men, the vocal command appears sufficient for this to me.

I agree: like the centurion, the signifer also held an esteemed position of trust and may have been relied upon to transmit orders from above without the need for a centurion as an intermediary .

___________________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Tarbicus]

I'm going away from this thread to make sure I get my facts straight before answering in full. I personally think the centurions were the makers and breakers of the battle, and had far more authority over the units than being given credit for. But we are talking maniples, so I also think we're completely forgetting about the role of the tribune. Two centurions per maniple, sure, but there were two centuries per maniple as well, so we're getting into a whole load of management theories about how authority was divided between the centurion, the signifer, the optio, the tesserarius, the tribune, and even the cornicen. If we're to discuss this subject properly we really do need to discuss the possible choices for delegation of authority for all of those individuals and their chain of command, and whether it was a serial chain, or could have been parallel? That all has to be done with reference to primary sources.

It's off to the sources - see you in a few months. :wink: