Centurion Position in Battle

[Nathan Ross]

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'?

But since we don't really know what the battle formation of the century was (there are various guesses, but nothing definite, as far as I know), how can we use this as an argument against the centurion being included as a part of it?

The significance of the stories of 'heroic' centurions charging the enemy lies not, I think, in the idea that centurions were always doing this sort of thing, but rather that they must have been in the front rank to start with in order to behave like this...

This sort of anecdotal evidence, plus the Sallust quote I mentioned, suggests a front rank position - I still don't see any countering evidence to suggest anything else.

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

There is a story of a Caesarian aquilifer pulling the eagle off the top of its pole and tucking it into his sash, which suggests it was actually pretty small and light...

But I don't think the standard bearers would be expected to fight hand to hand - they would surely have men around them to protect them. They would need to be at the front though, so the rest of the men in the century could see them - standards were used for signalling orders, and would be fairly useless if they were kept at the rear.