Battle Strategy Meetings/Staff Meetings

[Tarbicus]

I get the impression it was very 'command and control' based on relentless training. Once the army was in position the centurios were practically in charge, often acting on their own initiative as noted by Caesar and Josephus. If something drastic had to happen then the commander would step in physically, the signifer would throw the standard into the enemy, or a centurio would kill an indecisive tribune to take command himself. Caesar seems to have been highly concerned with whether the men were up for a fight, in which case the entrails would say it was a good day to do battle As long as the goals were known, they likely (IMHO)left it up to the men to achieve them, probably with some prodding in the right direction. Unless command had a high view of the battlefield with telescopic vision and incredible hearing, it must have been a very confusing affair anyway. Even with modern battlefield communications and the likes of AWACS I believe it can still be so.

[alekaras5811]

Tarbicus,
i agree with everything you say. I would just add that a plan is just a common base for everyone to get started. No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy but without a plan you would have 59 centurions doing their own thing according to their individual level of experience, training, temperament and personality. We know that Romans used artillery, Calvary, archers and auxilia. They had the means of command and control in the form of audio, (cornices, bauchina and wistles) visual (hand and arm signals, flaming arrows and unit standards) as well as runners and mounted tribunes who could convay orders from the legatus verbally.
All this assuming the legatus and his senior officers were semi proficient in the art of war and had at least a rudimentary understanding of war fighting and chose the terrain carefully and had the brains to keep it simple and let the centurions kick some barbarian ass.

[Frank]

Actually the roman army was a huge buerocracy. They produced tons of papers (ostraka, parpyri, tablets, ...) in at least a dozen of several offices in a legion. The cornicularius legati responsible for the tabularium documented every personell matters, the prefectus castrorum with several sub-offices(?) (valetudinarium, armatura, quaestura, ...) managed the entire daily logistics and services and the princeps praetoriae managed the daily military operations. They maintained tons of lists and plans on a daily basis.

Not talking about the paperwork, if this legate was a province governor (legatus augusti pro praetore). Now he had 2 cornicularii more, most propably for jurisdiction and province administration. Plus the commentarii helping for running the courthouse, the speculatores, quaestionarii, beneficarii and centuriones regionarii for police duties and other local affairs. Assisted by about 500 additional clerks and 1000 singulares, which were propably not only bodyguards.

I agree, looking to this well administrated machine, it is not imaginable, that the romans acted unprepared, unstructured and uncoordinated on the battlefield. Unfortunately we don't know the details of the command structure afield. We don't know the link between the legate and the 60 centurions on the battlefield, we know near to nothing about the use of the several trumpeters on the field or the dispatch riders for communication. But I am sure, communication and command on the battlefield was very well organized, like everything else was very well organized.

[alekaras5811]

Frank,
Thank you for clarifying and supporting my point and for all the information you provided. This is why I love RAT, I learn something new on every post I read

[Tarbicus]

it is not imaginable, that the romans acted unprepared, unstructured and uncoordinated on the battlefield.

Ah, but nobody's said that. We know the Romans were well prepared, but part of preparation is training which was done on a daily basis and would probably allow for great flexibility in battle - the first casualty in a battle is always the plan, as they say. There's also nothing to say that they wouldn't anticipate events that could happen in the battle, based on reconnaisance, intelligence reports, prior knowledge of the enemy, knowledge of the terrain, etc, and they would most certainly have contingencies in place.

That's all very different to micromanaging the army in battle, which could actually have a negative effect by causing confusion and destroy morale, especially as the commander would not be aware of many factors at the frontline unless he was physically there, which could in turn lead to disaster. Before his first landing in Britain while waiting at anchor, Caesar gave orders for his officers to use their own initiative once they were on the beach. As long as the best choice of deployment was made prior to battle, and everyone was aware of what the enemy was capable of, and also of what was not known, the biggest decision a commander probably had to make was which units to hold back in reserve, and when to commit them to enter the fray which could have been communicated by cornicens playing prearranged signals. But that doesn't preclude individual units taking the initiative, which the unfortunate tribune who was slain by his own centurion had failed to do. That centurion was commended for his action, IIRC.

For instance, if scouts had discovered enemy cavalry in hiding in woods on the right flank, I think it's quite possible that the first they would tell would be cohorts on the right flank so that they were aware and could prepare for an attack, while another would ride on to inform the commander. I dare say that the commander's main concern would be that the cohorts on the right were aware of the possibility, and if so he would let them sort it out by themselves, or deploy a cohort that had been kept in reserve to deflect a possible attack.

That's what I think, anyway