Centurion Position in Battle

[Mark Hygate]

I will... concentrate on why I think the Centurion spent the majority of any battle 'commanding and controlling' his century from a position he could actually see it.

Is there any evidence or support for the idea that the centurion commanded from the rear in battle? There are several sources, most already mentioned here, that suggest he led from the front. From where are you drawing the idea that he did not?

Nathan, et al

It has previously come up in discussion, but I will be the first to emphasize that we have no 'Roman Drill Manual' that might tell us - which is why it's up for discussion.

We do have many examples (given the long period of Roman military history) of the prowess, dedication, incredible effort and even simple downright heroism of Roman centurions and other individual soldiers. I am quite happy reading such and, because I'm just as happy with my word use and know exactly what I mean, can see these also as examples of 'leadership'. Our world cultural history, particularly when it comes to things connected with the military, is sprinkled with examples of heroism - and a resultant, even sometimes just passive, encouragement to emulate.

Firstly, however, as to actual evidence I offer a, hopefully not unreasonable, view of the likely development up to the Roman century (the apparent lowest tactical unit we see used in the Roman army).

I doubt there is much contention that the king or war-chief of a classic warband (sic), without particular formation, organisation or drills, can be seen as an example of convincing simple leadership of the 'follow me and get stuck in like I am - let's just kill those 'nasty, horrible chaps' (definitely sic :wink: ) over that-a-way'. Examples probably everywhere, before, during and after our period.

The downside of this initial example is that it is a one-shot, fire and forget attack until the leader (or whoever is able to replace him) can pause and find a new target; or potentially receive new instructions from a higher leader.

Then there are the examples of the 'Greek tactical systems' (widely exported) that we see, which introduces the concept of formations, drills, marching in formations (and thus maintaining control and easier implementation of those drills) and deploying on the battlefield - that I referred to earlier. The smallest units thus represented are the hoplite lochoi and the pike syntagma. Here, in both cases, the 'leader'/'commander' is an integral part of the rank and file structure. In both cases they occupy the front right position as 'right marker', with 5, 7, 11 or 15 soldiers of his own file behind him; matching exactly the 6, 8, 12 or 16 soldiers in the files next to him. All the other infantry formations are variations on that theme. In short, however, there is, I believe I am correct in saying, no doubt that he is in a front-line leadership position and any control he exercises is all about keeping those to his left in line, whilst his personal file's ouragos is ensuring everyone in his file stays behind him; those sub-leaders to his left the same.

This works extremely well when the battle-line/phalanx is cohesive and working as intended, whether holding or, more tricky, actually advancing, provided the front line more or less stays linear (a degree of 'bending' is quite tolerable). However, if the battle-line is broken and a gap appears which the enemy exploits, then it all unravels. Hoplites or pikemen now faced with enemy to the left of their formation when they are concentrated on staying in line with the men on their right are in deep trouble, and they know it. If they individually turn and face them, then their own formation falls to pieces. Certainly the leader at front right, who may still be fighting himself, has no idea and can do nothing. This is why the concentration in so many battles of the need to break the line and/or out-flank it.

So now we come to the Roman century - a typical hastati/principes one of the Manipular-Polybian era that we have most detail on. 60 men with centurion, signifer and optio (Greek ouragos, but only one of them). The men are in their contubernia (2 detached, so six remaining). Now, I have previously been happy to suggest that they most probably form up 10x6, with the 'tent-mates' in files, just like their Graeco forebears. But is there any serious dissension on that? If not, then I note particularly that none of the 3 'officers' seem an integral part of that.

So, the beginning of presenting my side of the discussion are a few additional questions?

- If the centurion always leads from the front (like the Greeks certainly), why is he not a part of the formation structure and the century is 60 including the 'officers'?

- If, as Brian suggests, he is out in front (alone) of his century and/or to the right, then not only is there no one behind him to brace or replace him, he represents a single point of weakness that would result in an exploitable gap between centuries once he was killed or captured; which would happen in moments whomsoever the enemy. Is that really presented as an argument?

- Bryan countered with a picture of an aquilifer with a shield from his tombstone. Now, I was under the impression, and am happy to be corrected, that both aquila and signum were tall spear-like symbols with heavy and unbalancing weights high up that required two-hands to hold; but if they are light-weight items that can be tucked under the arm or held in the teeth, then I would withdraw my contention that such men are relatively useless in the front-line as they can then obviously still use sword and shield. But is that really true?

- I am utterly comfortable seeing the optio as a platoon/century sergeant, because I see it as an obvious parallel. But either way he is also synonymous with the Greek file-closer, although there is only one of him. I see him outside and to the rear of the 60-man formation, because he has to keep all the files closed up - is that a wrong assumption?

That's my starter - with one addition.....

Bryan, I am sorry, I am simply going to put down our contention as one more difficulty in English-American translation, for there is apparently some cultural-based hatred for a simple word that I just don't get. I know exactly what I mean and I apply it accurately. It has nothing to do with 'business speak', but simply that I have learned that many of the things I have done and do can be termed 'management'. They are definitely different to either 'commanding' or 'leading', both of which I have done (both in and out of service). If you are happier with the words, then I will certainly use other terms like 'staff-work' or 'logistics'; neither of which, I assure you, are things that Generals, or their biographers, or history writers tend to talk about or emphasise. They do get done, however.