06-23-2014, 10:42 PM
(Note: Goodness a lot has appeared in a couple of hours - I'm not going to attempt to quote..... 
)
Caesar had some 22,000 men at Pharsalus organised, it seems, in 80 cohorts. That would therefore seem to be, averaging out, very under-strength cohorts with ~40-50 men per century, but quite possibly the full command structure - bearing in mind he had to take on a superior force. So that could be only 30 centurion losses from 480 (17%) vs less than 1% legionaires - certainly paltry casualties from the latter (and perhaps even inaccurate); but yes, in order to be that tactically successful it was indeed necessary to have the centurions inspiring their troops by personal example - once they were committed to battle.
However, each time this subject has been skirted around there does seem a reluctance to differentiate between 'commanding' and 'leading' - it's a bit like the common misunderstanding between tactics and strategy. Not only that, but not understanding that both are possible and appropriate in different circumstances.
Firstly Bryan's neat picture of attempting to look down his file...
I believe we have already discussed and understood that the Romans fought in a crouched position behind their shield (whether 4ft or 3'6" high) with little space at the bottom and peering over the top. Even in the densest formation I have previously proposed (2.5ft between head-centres with shields abutting), not only would an upright man be able to see over-head in many circumstances, but now there's at least an 18" gap between each head. Moreover, by standing at the rear, it is completely possible to have an idea of exactly what's happening at the front by watching the rear man of each file. More importantly, the absolute requirement to maintain the line needs an understanding of what's happening to right and left also (and whether it is necessary to advance or retreat the century, let alone 'manipulate' and make the 'saw formation' work by co-operating closely with your paired-century in the maniple). None of these things are remotely possible if you are fighting in the front rank.
And that's why it is indeed necessary to see what had gone before, let alone the more barbaric warchief/king led enemies who simply attack with the 'follow-me' by-leading-example. The Greeks are the ones who had the best understood example of tactical fighting, and indeed all their 'leaders' of each formation up to the tribune-equivalent level were an integral part of the formation; whether they were the Spartan Lochagos; or the phalanx's Syntagmatarch. The Romans were different and they introduced 'small unit and flexible tactics'. In short, they introduced a new level of command and control; and that's one of the reasons they so often won; for they could respond and out move their more ponderous foes.
The century is already a combined arms mix of 60 heavy infantry and 20 light/velites - which now has a separate command staff of centurion, optio and signifer (I do not believe there is a cornicen at the century level - it's 2 per cohort). The signifer does not 'fight' in the front rank - he doesn't even have a shield! His role is to mark the position of the century so the tribunes, legates and consul can have an idea of what's happening. He also needs to know where the centurion is at all times. The real important thing to note, however, is that the 60-man fighting component does not have a 'space' for the centurion; if he does fight at the front then he takes an existing slot.
I learned and then taught section and platoon tactics - without radios (personal radios, even reliable ones for the section commander, are a very recent invention) and over long-shouting distance (a whistle and hand-signals are needed, the centurion is close enough to shout). A century is tight and small by comparison even though there are 10 contubernia/sections rather than 3-4, it's still a 'platoon' equivalent. You do not 'command' your century/platoon from the front - you have many more priorities as above. The tactical basics have not changed, it's why we still read Sun Tzu, Vegetius, Clauswitz, and all the rest still today. When, given all the mis-timed First World War stuff going on right now, it is the time to inspire, lead from the front and go over the top, then you stop commanding and lead - for your role has just changed.
At the platoon/century level and indeed company/maniple level I have also had the Northern Ireland Riot Training. I know Bryan disparages it and the 'operational' or even 'strategic' level goals may be different, but the need for tactical command and control is identical. It doesn't matter whether riot-control is more defensive and not out to kill; the needs to hold the line, manouever around, advance, retreat, deal with casualties or prisoners is just the same.
All that said, sometimes it is necessary to lead and that's when the situation absolutely demands it. It is a commanders hardest decision, for getting it wrong (it's no good taking your century forward if no one else can) - that just gets your men killed and possibly may be the one turning point in a battle that loses it. When your century needs to hold and not be pushed back, or when you must get extra tracton to push forward, then that's when the centurion earns his medals and proves he can still fight in the front line just like he used to as a file/conubernium 'leader' for any centurion not directly appointed.
If you are a writer and you want to emphasize how hard fought the battle was, or how dire the straits were, then you tell how the centurions had to earn their pay.....
If everything went smoothly and the enemy were just mowed down in droves by your well trained and drilled century/cohort/legion - then it's hardly that exciting and you just emphasize how many enemy died for few losses.
There are plenty of examples of both - but the former makes more interesting reading!
)Caesar had some 22,000 men at Pharsalus organised, it seems, in 80 cohorts. That would therefore seem to be, averaging out, very under-strength cohorts with ~40-50 men per century, but quite possibly the full command structure - bearing in mind he had to take on a superior force. So that could be only 30 centurion losses from 480 (17%) vs less than 1% legionaires - certainly paltry casualties from the latter (and perhaps even inaccurate); but yes, in order to be that tactically successful it was indeed necessary to have the centurions inspiring their troops by personal example - once they were committed to battle.
However, each time this subject has been skirted around there does seem a reluctance to differentiate between 'commanding' and 'leading' - it's a bit like the common misunderstanding between tactics and strategy. Not only that, but not understanding that both are possible and appropriate in different circumstances.
Firstly Bryan's neat picture of attempting to look down his file...
I believe we have already discussed and understood that the Romans fought in a crouched position behind their shield (whether 4ft or 3'6" high) with little space at the bottom and peering over the top. Even in the densest formation I have previously proposed (2.5ft between head-centres with shields abutting), not only would an upright man be able to see over-head in many circumstances, but now there's at least an 18" gap between each head. Moreover, by standing at the rear, it is completely possible to have an idea of exactly what's happening at the front by watching the rear man of each file. More importantly, the absolute requirement to maintain the line needs an understanding of what's happening to right and left also (and whether it is necessary to advance or retreat the century, let alone 'manipulate' and make the 'saw formation' work by co-operating closely with your paired-century in the maniple). None of these things are remotely possible if you are fighting in the front rank.
And that's why it is indeed necessary to see what had gone before, let alone the more barbaric warchief/king led enemies who simply attack with the 'follow-me' by-leading-example. The Greeks are the ones who had the best understood example of tactical fighting, and indeed all their 'leaders' of each formation up to the tribune-equivalent level were an integral part of the formation; whether they were the Spartan Lochagos; or the phalanx's Syntagmatarch. The Romans were different and they introduced 'small unit and flexible tactics'. In short, they introduced a new level of command and control; and that's one of the reasons they so often won; for they could respond and out move their more ponderous foes.
The century is already a combined arms mix of 60 heavy infantry and 20 light/velites - which now has a separate command staff of centurion, optio and signifer (I do not believe there is a cornicen at the century level - it's 2 per cohort). The signifer does not 'fight' in the front rank - he doesn't even have a shield! His role is to mark the position of the century so the tribunes, legates and consul can have an idea of what's happening. He also needs to know where the centurion is at all times. The real important thing to note, however, is that the 60-man fighting component does not have a 'space' for the centurion; if he does fight at the front then he takes an existing slot.
I learned and then taught section and platoon tactics - without radios (personal radios, even reliable ones for the section commander, are a very recent invention) and over long-shouting distance (a whistle and hand-signals are needed, the centurion is close enough to shout). A century is tight and small by comparison even though there are 10 contubernia/sections rather than 3-4, it's still a 'platoon' equivalent. You do not 'command' your century/platoon from the front - you have many more priorities as above. The tactical basics have not changed, it's why we still read Sun Tzu, Vegetius, Clauswitz, and all the rest still today. When, given all the mis-timed First World War stuff going on right now, it is the time to inspire, lead from the front and go over the top, then you stop commanding and lead - for your role has just changed.
At the platoon/century level and indeed company/maniple level I have also had the Northern Ireland Riot Training. I know Bryan disparages it and the 'operational' or even 'strategic' level goals may be different, but the need for tactical command and control is identical. It doesn't matter whether riot-control is more defensive and not out to kill; the needs to hold the line, manouever around, advance, retreat, deal with casualties or prisoners is just the same.
All that said, sometimes it is necessary to lead and that's when the situation absolutely demands it. It is a commanders hardest decision, for getting it wrong (it's no good taking your century forward if no one else can) - that just gets your men killed and possibly may be the one turning point in a battle that loses it. When your century needs to hold and not be pushed back, or when you must get extra tracton to push forward, then that's when the centurion earns his medals and proves he can still fight in the front line just like he used to as a file/conubernium 'leader' for any centurion not directly appointed.
If you are a writer and you want to emphasize how hard fought the battle was, or how dire the straits were, then you tell how the centurions had to earn their pay.....
If everything went smoothly and the enemy were just mowed down in droves by your well trained and drilled century/cohort/legion - then it's hardly that exciting and you just emphasize how many enemy died for few losses.
There are plenty of examples of both - but the former makes more interesting reading!
