07-09-2013, 04:37 PM
Bryan,
Do not worry, I am quite happily aware of the gentle contempt and contention between the US & British forces and particularly the 200+ years of feeling the average US soldier/marine has on the 'British Officer' - but I know how it really works as well having been deployed with the Marines during the latter part of 1990 and being at VII Corps HQ at the start of a very busy 100hrs some months later, let alone the peacetime stuff. The US take on 'mavericks' is also very different to the British tradition.
Because the 'general behaviour' of soldiers is well known - and indeed exactly why I made the point I did. Soldiers would not decide such things. In particularly the British tradition (a la Sharpe, although he's a fictional exception) has been to commission warrant officers to become Quartermasters and the like just because they are supposed to know 'all the tricks'. The US tradition, I believe, is different. I know, however, that in general such men can indeed make great 'leaders' (particularly in the soldiers' eyes), but often not very good 'commanders' because they are often thought to be too close to the men - I know that from personal experience.
I make and belabour the point because Centurions were indeed both at need. It's the centurions who attended the 'military meeting'; Tribunes seem to be there to help co-ordinate and pass on orders, but it's the centurions who have to fight the battle to the 'Generals' design - both by commanding and leading. It is dangerous to draw structural parallels, but I do not think it a wrong assertion to make that, in rough equivalents:
- Milite = Private
- Immunue = Private First Class/Chosen Man (possibly Lance Corporal)
- Sesquiparlius (One-and-a-half pay)/Contunbernium/File leader = Corporal (8 man section as in many armies today)
- Signifer (Sesquiparlius ) = Colour-Sergeant/Corporal (junior)
- Optio/Duplicarius (Double pay) = Sergeant (Company-Sergeant)
But Centurion = Captain. An Officer - with life or death powers over the solders and a whole different class.
Macedon,
Actually it's the Century throughout the period that I am interested in - for I have come to the belief that, whilst it is only properly described by Polybius in the Early Republic period (and it's one centurion per century and not two - Polybius has 2 per maniple), it remains essentially the same for at least the next 600 years, and possibly longer.
More importantly, and whilst I applaud the necessary reigning-in of some conjecture and interpolation when it comes to the perceived fact of the sources we do have, I would point out that nowhere do we have anything resembling a drill manual (drill in its widest sense) at the century/sub-cohort level. What we have are often fragments and some comments. We have to try and connect dots and suggest what might well be missing.
I again wish to point out that none of the sources, unlike papers we have from the second millennium as literacy became more widely spread, are from people/observers at the front line - no memoirs of serving soldiers or even centurions. All are written from the 'General's perspective' or the scholarly armchair.
Whilst I commented in the latest thread on actual drill and changing formations, which we don't have for the Romans and, unless I've missed it, I know we having nothing at all for the drill on throwing pila - even though this happened for at least 500 years!
We are missing so much - the sources do not contain everything. We might be wrong in our guesses, but unless we are stupid, then if it makes rational military sense to us, then it probably did to the Romans. Exchanging ranks - certainly, likely, probable and practicable - and under drilled, practised command to boot.
Do not worry, I am quite happily aware of the gentle contempt and contention between the US & British forces and particularly the 200+ years of feeling the average US soldier/marine has on the 'British Officer' - but I know how it really works as well having been deployed with the Marines during the latter part of 1990 and being at VII Corps HQ at the start of a very busy 100hrs some months later, let alone the peacetime stuff. The US take on 'mavericks' is also very different to the British tradition.
Because the 'general behaviour' of soldiers is well known - and indeed exactly why I made the point I did. Soldiers would not decide such things. In particularly the British tradition (a la Sharpe, although he's a fictional exception) has been to commission warrant officers to become Quartermasters and the like just because they are supposed to know 'all the tricks'. The US tradition, I believe, is different. I know, however, that in general such men can indeed make great 'leaders' (particularly in the soldiers' eyes), but often not very good 'commanders' because they are often thought to be too close to the men - I know that from personal experience.
I make and belabour the point because Centurions were indeed both at need. It's the centurions who attended the 'military meeting'; Tribunes seem to be there to help co-ordinate and pass on orders, but it's the centurions who have to fight the battle to the 'Generals' design - both by commanding and leading. It is dangerous to draw structural parallels, but I do not think it a wrong assertion to make that, in rough equivalents:
- Milite = Private
- Immunue = Private First Class/Chosen Man (possibly Lance Corporal)
- Sesquiparlius (One-and-a-half pay)/Contunbernium/File leader = Corporal (8 man section as in many armies today)
- Signifer (Sesquiparlius ) = Colour-Sergeant/Corporal (junior)
- Optio/Duplicarius (Double pay) = Sergeant (Company-Sergeant)
But Centurion = Captain. An Officer - with life or death powers over the solders and a whole different class.
Macedon,
Actually it's the Century throughout the period that I am interested in - for I have come to the belief that, whilst it is only properly described by Polybius in the Early Republic period (and it's one centurion per century and not two - Polybius has 2 per maniple), it remains essentially the same for at least the next 600 years, and possibly longer.
More importantly, and whilst I applaud the necessary reigning-in of some conjecture and interpolation when it comes to the perceived fact of the sources we do have, I would point out that nowhere do we have anything resembling a drill manual (drill in its widest sense) at the century/sub-cohort level. What we have are often fragments and some comments. We have to try and connect dots and suggest what might well be missing.
I again wish to point out that none of the sources, unlike papers we have from the second millennium as literacy became more widely spread, are from people/observers at the front line - no memoirs of serving soldiers or even centurions. All are written from the 'General's perspective' or the scholarly armchair.
Whilst I commented in the latest thread on actual drill and changing formations, which we don't have for the Romans and, unless I've missed it, I know we having nothing at all for the drill on throwing pila - even though this happened for at least 500 years!
We are missing so much - the sources do not contain everything. We might be wrong in our guesses, but unless we are stupid, then if it makes rational military sense to us, then it probably did to the Romans. Exchanging ranks - certainly, likely, probable and practicable - and under drilled, practised command to boot.
