07-04-2013, 09:15 AM
Dear Bryan (et al),
I almost feel there’s a contention for contention’s sake, but at least it means I must marshal my thoughts. I do, however, feel confident that I can defend my views, my only criticism being that there are still too many statements of ‘if it’s not written, it didn’t happen; or if it’s written then that’s all there is’ – when I am ever more convinced that we could usefully spend more time discussing what’s missing. The OPs question is such...
A few overall notes:
- It’s a common mis-conception is that a baton/riot-stick/night-stick is a “bludgeoning weapon”. It is like any club (think ‘2001’ and the jaw-bone in the hands of a primate!) and, as the Romans accused the sword-wielding barbarians. You thrust with a baton just like with a gladius. I’ll also point out that it’s much easier to kill with a thrust baton than it is wielding it as a club. You only hit with a baton to smash fingers holding your shield; but thrust with one because it’s more efficient, more surprising and much quicker and less effort. Yes, you see a lot of ‘riot police’ hacking away sometimes – undisciplined amateurs getting out of control. Certainly not as I think we all see the Roman soldier
- By all means disparage riot-control footage; however I do not believe you will find any better visual examples of the sort of things we are discussing when considering formed ‘troops’ facing undisciplined barbarians. They are useful vehicles for discussion; far more than any stylised re-enactments, nor Hollywood epics
- Lastly land warfare has always been a situation of long periods of doing not very much, punctuated by short periods of rising intensity and then moments of adrenaline-fuelled manic activity/fighting. All the books/sources and all the films (let alone the rise of the video-game and lack of patience in the young) only concentrate on the latter elements – not the 90+% waiting time. There’s often plenty of time, let alone ‘lulls’
Century (indeed any fighting group) ‘management’.....
‘Management’ is not a word comfortably used in military circles, but that’s what it is. In our terms, however, we can split it into ‘Command’ and ‘Leadership’ and when it comes to the Roman Century it is important to understand the differences.
‘Can you see what’s going on from the rear of a century?’ – yes, of course you can. Deployed 10x6 (Polybian century of 60 supported by its 20 Velites – all the way to Vegetius still 6 ranks deep – with plenty of evidence to suggest that a quarter of the century of 80 were always available for other things sometimes, but part of a separate discussion) you are talking of a frontage of 25-30ft and a depth of possibly only 12ft when they are supporting each other. With the soldiers braced (and no, they didn’t wear crests in combat) the Centurion can certainly see what’s going on when every man is within about 15ft of him.
The Hellenic equivalent (Syntagma) had its commander/leader at the front-right. Once deployed his position is now fixed and, as we’ve discussed, the formation is now fixed and inflexible, and the only way is forward. For the Romans we now have....
A tactically flexible Century as the Centurions’ ‘weapon’...
Manipular tactics? You must have a commander to manoeuvre his Century in concert with his pairing; with the possibility of being detached; replacing units in ‘front’; with wielding his sub-unit like a soldier wields his sword. For that to be possible you must exercise ‘command’. You cannot command whilst leading. To be accessible to orders you can’t be in the front rank in combat. I do not believe there is any evidence that Tribunes (at any period) actually exercised ‘command’, but are more seen as staff officers and message carriers. However, even if they did then they commanded ‘cohorts’ within a hierarchy. Only a Centurion can command his century.
‘Sources attest Centurions leading and suffering disproportionate casualties’.....
And yes, of course, this is true too – for the most serious test of command is when to stop commanding and lead. It is not a step to be taken lightly, for you cannot do both at the same time. When going up front and leading by example you are now fighting yourself and command is not possible. This step is taken when it is vitally necessary (‘the battle comes to the Triarii’ – not a common occurrence – things are bad). When the century is in position, tactical movement is over, the battle is intense, the ‘opening’ is there or the soldiers are hard-pressed – then the Centurion pushes to the front shouting and screaming ‘follow me’! That’s what gets written about, that’s what gets medals, that’s what gets them killed – I assure you that not much has changed in 3,000 years! No one writes about the periods of ‘command/management’......
I therefore simply argue that to understand the tactical uses of the Roman century (and one of the major reasons the Romans dominated) then you must appreciate the differences of commanding one and leading one. That the two roles are different, but necessarily so. I think it’s also necessary to appreciate that in order to use the Century as the Centurions ‘weapon’ – then it must be wielded as one; and you cannot do that whilst fighting yourself.
‘Rank rotation’...
So, to concentrate on the OPs question – I think we’re all happy that it could be possible. I will also argue that if you are to train for such, even if only individuals are replaced, then you would train to do it en masse by rank-rotation to make sure it happened correctly.
However, when it comes to “individual replacement is simpler and more efficient,” I will positively, categorically and with absolute conviction state that at no period in history, not then, not now and not ever (and particularly when we are thinking of the supposedly harsh discipline of the Roman legions and the need to maximise their individual effort to kill and win at all costs versus their foe(s)) would a soldier be allowed to decide himself when it’s time to take a break and get the man behind him to take over. Not a chance in hell – this would be a command decision only.
Fighting, as I believe normally happened, within their contubernia/sections, then yes, you can hope that when you get injured your mate behind will step over/on/around you to take over whilst those further back can try and pull you out of the way until your Optio pulls you back from the action. But an individual deciding he’s tired and get the man behind to take over – forget it. Not happening. Never. It would be considered cowardice and punished accordingly. Only when commanded and a good commander knows when is best - and only him - and he would have to do it from 'behind' where he can see his whole unit.
I almost feel there’s a contention for contention’s sake, but at least it means I must marshal my thoughts. I do, however, feel confident that I can defend my views, my only criticism being that there are still too many statements of ‘if it’s not written, it didn’t happen; or if it’s written then that’s all there is’ – when I am ever more convinced that we could usefully spend more time discussing what’s missing. The OPs question is such...
A few overall notes:
- It’s a common mis-conception is that a baton/riot-stick/night-stick is a “bludgeoning weapon”. It is like any club (think ‘2001’ and the jaw-bone in the hands of a primate!) and, as the Romans accused the sword-wielding barbarians. You thrust with a baton just like with a gladius. I’ll also point out that it’s much easier to kill with a thrust baton than it is wielding it as a club. You only hit with a baton to smash fingers holding your shield; but thrust with one because it’s more efficient, more surprising and much quicker and less effort. Yes, you see a lot of ‘riot police’ hacking away sometimes – undisciplined amateurs getting out of control. Certainly not as I think we all see the Roman soldier
- By all means disparage riot-control footage; however I do not believe you will find any better visual examples of the sort of things we are discussing when considering formed ‘troops’ facing undisciplined barbarians. They are useful vehicles for discussion; far more than any stylised re-enactments, nor Hollywood epics
- Lastly land warfare has always been a situation of long periods of doing not very much, punctuated by short periods of rising intensity and then moments of adrenaline-fuelled manic activity/fighting. All the books/sources and all the films (let alone the rise of the video-game and lack of patience in the young) only concentrate on the latter elements – not the 90+% waiting time. There’s often plenty of time, let alone ‘lulls’
Century (indeed any fighting group) ‘management’.....
‘Management’ is not a word comfortably used in military circles, but that’s what it is. In our terms, however, we can split it into ‘Command’ and ‘Leadership’ and when it comes to the Roman Century it is important to understand the differences.
‘Can you see what’s going on from the rear of a century?’ – yes, of course you can. Deployed 10x6 (Polybian century of 60 supported by its 20 Velites – all the way to Vegetius still 6 ranks deep – with plenty of evidence to suggest that a quarter of the century of 80 were always available for other things sometimes, but part of a separate discussion) you are talking of a frontage of 25-30ft and a depth of possibly only 12ft when they are supporting each other. With the soldiers braced (and no, they didn’t wear crests in combat) the Centurion can certainly see what’s going on when every man is within about 15ft of him.
The Hellenic equivalent (Syntagma) had its commander/leader at the front-right. Once deployed his position is now fixed and, as we’ve discussed, the formation is now fixed and inflexible, and the only way is forward. For the Romans we now have....
A tactically flexible Century as the Centurions’ ‘weapon’...
Manipular tactics? You must have a commander to manoeuvre his Century in concert with his pairing; with the possibility of being detached; replacing units in ‘front’; with wielding his sub-unit like a soldier wields his sword. For that to be possible you must exercise ‘command’. You cannot command whilst leading. To be accessible to orders you can’t be in the front rank in combat. I do not believe there is any evidence that Tribunes (at any period) actually exercised ‘command’, but are more seen as staff officers and message carriers. However, even if they did then they commanded ‘cohorts’ within a hierarchy. Only a Centurion can command his century.
‘Sources attest Centurions leading and suffering disproportionate casualties’.....
And yes, of course, this is true too – for the most serious test of command is when to stop commanding and lead. It is not a step to be taken lightly, for you cannot do both at the same time. When going up front and leading by example you are now fighting yourself and command is not possible. This step is taken when it is vitally necessary (‘the battle comes to the Triarii’ – not a common occurrence – things are bad). When the century is in position, tactical movement is over, the battle is intense, the ‘opening’ is there or the soldiers are hard-pressed – then the Centurion pushes to the front shouting and screaming ‘follow me’! That’s what gets written about, that’s what gets medals, that’s what gets them killed – I assure you that not much has changed in 3,000 years! No one writes about the periods of ‘command/management’......
I therefore simply argue that to understand the tactical uses of the Roman century (and one of the major reasons the Romans dominated) then you must appreciate the differences of commanding one and leading one. That the two roles are different, but necessarily so. I think it’s also necessary to appreciate that in order to use the Century as the Centurions ‘weapon’ – then it must be wielded as one; and you cannot do that whilst fighting yourself.
‘Rank rotation’...
So, to concentrate on the OPs question – I think we’re all happy that it could be possible. I will also argue that if you are to train for such, even if only individuals are replaced, then you would train to do it en masse by rank-rotation to make sure it happened correctly.
However, when it comes to “individual replacement is simpler and more efficient,” I will positively, categorically and with absolute conviction state that at no period in history, not then, not now and not ever (and particularly when we are thinking of the supposedly harsh discipline of the Roman legions and the need to maximise their individual effort to kill and win at all costs versus their foe(s)) would a soldier be allowed to decide himself when it’s time to take a break and get the man behind him to take over. Not a chance in hell – this would be a command decision only.
Fighting, as I believe normally happened, within their contubernia/sections, then yes, you can hope that when you get injured your mate behind will step over/on/around you to take over whilst those further back can try and pull you out of the way until your Optio pulls you back from the action. But an individual deciding he’s tired and get the man behind to take over – forget it. Not happening. Never. It would be considered cowardice and punished accordingly. Only when commanded and a good commander knows when is best - and only him - and he would have to do it from 'behind' where he can see his whole unit.
