Where would the Centurion stand in a battle line?

[GaiusPopilliusLaenas]

Hi Folks,

I'm putting together some models and wonder where the centurion, signifer, and cornicern would stand in a century? I often see them depicted (in wargames) in the center of the front rank, but am not sure how practiacl or accurate that might have been.

Gratias Ago!

[PhilusEstilius]

I have my own theory where I think the centurian would have stood at the right end of his ranks, for I also have the idea that the Pilum throw could be made without any verbal or other type of command.
This is where there are two lines of soldiers standing in staggered ranks with their left side facing the on coming enemy,they have the left hand on their shield and the pilum in there right hand ready to throw.
With all the noise and din of the battle they simply watch the centurian and when he throw's his pilum they all throw and this way you have eighty or it could even be a maniple of one hundred and sixty all at the same time to give the shock tactic needed.
When they have thrown the pilum the rear staggered rank comes forward into the two meter gap and they all lock shields with the Gladius drawn. The centurian threw his pilum when he saw the enemy reach about thirty yards and the soldiers throw at about twenty five, the mass pilum throw has divested the enemy of their shields and now let battle commence.

[JeffF]

The prior centurion of a maniple stood on the far right leading the far right file. When the two centuries of a maniple were on line the posterior centurion stood on the far left of his century (and the far left of the maniple). This would place him next to prior centurion of the next century/maniple to his left. The account of Spartacus engaging two centurions at once in his final battle is a likey confirmation of this. Spartacus faced late republic legions organized by cohorts each of which retained three maniples of the same titles as those of the mid-republic legion as described by Livy: pilus (triarii), principes, and hastati with each century led by either the prior or posterior centurion. The Pilus Prior of the 1st Century/1st Cohort would stand at the far right of his legion. Centurions were rank and file soldiers who led their men unlike the Tribunes and Legate who commanded from the rear.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Andrew

before we can answer it would be nice to tell us about what date do you think of. probably there are differences between early republican and imperial legiones

[Nurglitch]

If I'm not mistaken the mortality rate of centuriones was very high. And that would place them right in the harm's way. The account of Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus by Julius Caesar doesn't show centuriones as especially timid.

[GaiusPopilliusLaenas]

Thanks for all the replies so far!

For the gent who asked the period, this particular army is for the Mithidatic wars, so Sulla & crowd. Ideally, though, I'd like to use it for the range of Marius through the begining of the principate.

Gratias!

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Thanks for all the replies so far!

For the gent who asked the period, this particular army is for the Mithidatic wars, so Sulla & crowd. Ideally, though, I'd like to use it for the range of Marius through the begining of the principate.

Gratias!

well Andrew is a complicated period you are looking at. The period in whih the army becomes proffessional from militia. I suppos an centurion will have his place on right in his century. Signum will be definitelly not in the first rank

[M. Caecilius]

The account of Spartacus engaging two centurions at once in his final battle is a likey confirmation of this.

Good call. I wonder whether the famous episode mentioned by Piotr, the rivalry of Vorenus and Pullo, could also be used. Unfortunately, this occurs during a siege (the Romans being besieged). Do we know whether the legion was drawn up in battle order behind their rampart, placing these two side by side?

If I'm not mistaken the mortality rate of centuriones was very high. And that would place them right in the harm's way. The account of Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus by Julius Caesar doesn't show centuriones as especially timid.

The casualty figures of centurions in the Caesarian armies and those of his contemporaries are extraordinarily high, and the accounts of their sometimes daredevil actions explains that. Pullo and Vorenus are perfect examples.

But Polybius explicitly mentions that the Romans "wish the centurions not so much to be venturesome and daredevil as to be natural leaders, of a steady and sedate spirit" (6.24.8 ).

It looks like there was a change in attitude between Polybius days, and those of Caesar. I wonder when and why this did occur.

Signum will be definitelly not in the first rank

What do you base your certainty on?

I believe this was discussed before, in particular with the debate on who the antesignani were. By the etymology, they would have been troops specifically selected to stand in advance of the signum, indicating that the regular troops stood behind or level with it. The (very late!) command of the Strategicon of Maurice "nemo antecedat signum" ("let nobody march in front of the signum") could confirm this, if we can accept the huge gap in time between these sources.

Frontinus (Stratagems 4.5.3) mentions Postumius leading a charge whilst bearing a standard, although that was an exceptional situation. Similarly, Sulla seized a standard and placed himself in front of his army (Appian, Civil Wars 1.7.58). Several Roman commanders tried to encourage their soldiers by throwing their signa into the enemy ranks, suggesting that the standard bearer was close enough for the commander to snatch his standard (Frontinus, Stratagems, 2.1-5 mentions Servius Tullius (thus likely apocryphal, but to work, the situation itself must be possible), Furius Agrippa, T. Quinctius Capitolinus, M. Furius Camillus, and one Salvius).

The execution of the standard bearer who hesitated to attack the Faliscans (ibid.8 ) would suggest that he was to lead the charge, much as the aquilifer leading the landing in Britain did.

On the other hand, Caesar, in Civil Wars I.43 speaks of a retreat "to the standards (of the legion), indicating that the standards stood somewhat removed from the action.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Max

I am aware of the discussions that took place before but this is my personal opinion. Signum had also "leading" role through signals that it gives.

One of the episodes that comes to mind is also when arriving in Britannia Caesars men were afraid of going onshore so the man with the legion eagle went into the water and the rest followed.

I personally think that the signum had a huge value and it was of great importamce in roman battles

[Robert Vermaat]

I believe this was discussed before, in particular with the debate on who the antesignani were. By the etymology, they would have been troops specifically selected to stand in advance of the signum, indicating that the regular troops stood behind or level with it. The (very late!) command of the Strategicon of Maurice "nemo antecedat signum" ("let nobody march in front of the signum") could confirm this, if we can accept the huge gap in time between these sources.

Why 'very late'? Very much of Maurice's work goes back on a very long tradition. Besides, I consider 'very late' to be 13-14th century...
Seriously though, there's more. Roman cavalry traditionally had the commander at thye front, and from diagrams provided by Maurice we see this had not changed by the late 6th century. The same went for infantry commanders btw, when we look at the diagram for mixed formations.

[Nurglitch]

But Polybius explicitly mentions that the Romans "wish the centurions not so much to be venturesome and daredevil as to be natural leaders, of a steady and sedate spirit" (6.24.8 ).

This, however, may be just a piece of wishful thinking on his part. I'd be inclined to trust casualty figures over theoretical works here as something close to real hard data. I'd be inclined to assume this:
- If the centuriones fought in the very first rank, their casualty figures would be pretty much uniform. The same for battles won or lost, as they would just be a function of always being most exposed to danger
- If they fought in rear ranks, the casualty figures for battles won would be fairly low (centuriones not engaging at all, their soldiers doing all the work) and high only for battles lost (being cut down as they flee).

[Ross Cowan]

See my article, 'The Centuria in Battle: Tactical Organisation and Combat' (AW special 2010), for discussion of where the centurion stood. Summary of contents here.

[M. Caecilius]

This, however, may be just a piece of wishful thinking on his part. I'd be inclined to trust casualty figures over theoretical works here as something close to real hard data.

Good point, but do we have any casualty figures for the centurions or for their feats of daring for the Polybian and earlier periods?

There seem to be some heroes. Ennius is mentioned as a centurio by Silius Italicus, but the text is too Homeric to be taken at face-value (although probably based in fact). Spurius Ligustinus (in Livy) does 34 awards and 6 civic crowns but mentions only that this was uirtutis causa, which could mean anything from Polybius' leadership abilities to Caesarian daring.

Beyond that, there is no contradiction in being steady and sedate in spirit and standing in the first line: they'd merely be expected to motivate their men not to give way before the enemy, to advance steadily and keep ranks, rather than risk them unnecessarily in a headlong rush.