06-29-2014, 11:29 AM
Quote:...........................
It seems from your graphic that you chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion. Why do you not believe him when it comes to gaps? (Pol. Hist. 3.113) That's called cherry picking.
Its been beat to death in RAT and many other forums but here some more evidence about gaps in the fighting line:
Roman Legionary: 58 BC - AD 69 by Ross Cowan
..................
Yes I chose to use Polybius' account of the numbers in a legion - I'm not aware (having searched and asked) that there is any other detail for that period that covers the level necessary. I have also not "cherry-picked" in the slightest - I have no problem whatsoever with Polybius' Cannae account - in fact the determination of deployment frontage and the normal gaps produced by the (as I believe it was) deployment procedure, arrangement of the triplex acies and the simple movements between them explain, for me, not only what happened at Cannae, but also the simple and probably sensible Roman battle plan that Hannibal managed to disrupt so well.
But thank you so much for the link to Ross' book and what was on that page - for now I see what the issue is.
For I disagree (I have all the references except Poly 15 to hand - and I can only read what my translations say).
- That there is no suggestion that the gaps closed up (Poly 3.73) doesn't mean they didn't - to me it would be a simple drill (let alone essential)
- Caesar (GW 5.15) does not say that the cohorts - in fact it can be read that it was 2 legions by then - deliberately left a gap - merely that there was one - a gap that was then exploited by the enemy! Which, in a nutshell, happens to be my entire issue with gaps!
- there is nothing at all about gaps in the 'orbis' formation description in those passages; in fact I read into it that there were no gaps (which there are not normally in 'all round defence' formations like 'marching boxes' and 'squares') because the attacking enemy cannot get in and chooses (because the sallies are effective) to harass from a distance
- that gaps (of some size, in some formation, under some drill) are created to allow passage of skirmishers, replacements, centurions - does not mean that they are always there - that's supposition - and there are definitely ways it can be achieved.
And.....particularly for this topic - Polybius does NOT say that the centurion 'fought at the front - at the right of his century' in 6.24. My translation also says the centurion(s) were there to 'command' their halves of the maniple (or the whole if one was absent - so obviously not even anywhere near the century/maniple!)). Is there a different word in Greek for 'command' and 'lead'? :?
I'm sorry if anyone doesn't like it - but I think those passages (translated) are as much up for discussion as anything else - and result there in a published book, but no more than a theory - like mine is. Happy to discuss, with the author, any time at all.
Tesserarius - it's a role and I do not see why it's not one held by the senior soldier of the century (who in fact is nominally the right-marker as 'leader' of the first contubernium) - for then every one from neighbouring units can find him as he sleeps in the first tent. Nothing in the descriptions I have seen suggest it's another 'officer'.
And I must finally ask - that you believe Polybius' camp description (indeed for a 'standard' camp for a 'standard' Consular Army) to be completely meaningless? If so - thanks.
To answer your question then, in simple terms, the centurion can be at the front and he can be at the back, he might not be anywhere near the century (as we see at least written simply in one of our ancient texts).
I'll also throw in that there is no reason for a cornicen/tubicine to be in a century/maniple and I've seen no evidence for one. A likely 2 per cohort - yes. A legion-century - 60 heavy infantry + 20 'lighter troops' + centurion + optio + signifer for quite possibly an 8-900 year period - paired together in maniples, but with a clear century structure.
