06-26-2014, 08:31 AM
Dealing with issues...
Michael's link to the signifers on Trajan's column show them holding (underarm, held in the palm of the hand and, potentially holding a small knife?) a relatively small disc-shaped object. But is it a shield, or perhaps a plate of some sort (for an offering possibly and that's why the knife)?
Bryan then shows the nice rendering of an aquilifer with such a possible shield, but just like the plate-shaped object above it is only roughly 1ft in diameter and is thus is definitely not a parma (cf Polybius), which is 3ft in diameter.
Now, and with an apology for the apparent excess of sarcasm, for it was not meant as such deliberately, I can certainly imagine an aquilifer/signifer with heel of standard resting on the ground in the main, with either a sword or a shield (and Bryan's earlier monument at least has a decent sized shield) in the other hand. But I cannot genuinely accept that in either case, nor even if an incredibly small shield were present, that they could contribute as much as we, I thought, believed the average soldier with large shield and sword could.
They cannot throw a pila; they cannot brace their shields with the other members of the front line; they cannot brace the guy in front of them as easily as they possibly don't have a big shield; they cannot form testudo by presenting or raising a shield; they won't be nearly as effective trying the shield and sword drills in the early stages, because they probably only have one of them, although later when the battle has been going for a while then imagining thrusting the standard in an enemies face and following up with a sword, or striking with your sword around your mates to assist them protecting you is quite believable.
But if none of those are more than likely potentials for considering that the standard-bearer is not in the front line, then I will not be able to convince anyone. To me they are all logical reasons to suggest that he is not always - unless it's necessary.
For it comes to Nathan's restatement - for I am not, and would not, attempting to suggest that the centurion (or signifer) never fought in the front line. I quite agree that, when a leadership example, for whatever reason, was necessary - then they were and could be.
But I do disagree with the idea that standards were used to signal orders to the century they actually belonged to. The members of a signifer's own century are next to them. They can touch their mates. They can hear their centurion and optio. It does act as a 'standard' for the men, however.
The standards' use for signalling orders is, I believe, over much greater distances and, quite possibly are of the flag/vexilla style because you need something more to attract the eye to movement. Blow the cornicen to attract sub-commanders attention and then a visual indication of what the order is.
I do most definitely contend that the century's signum is primarily there to indicate where the century is (and thus an indicator to higher commanders of the state of the battle); the fact that it is subsequently imbued with the century's honour is important, but secondary.
Now, if none of those points are acceptable, then I know I won't 'win the argument', but that's not what matters. I can try subsequently to go on to suggest reasons why I see the centurion adopting other positions as necessary, but if there is a firm belief that the centurion and signifer are always side-by-side in the front rank and it's no different from the warband example I used earlier - then we just don't see it in the same way at all.
But I am not going to be able to ever provide 'proof' - for if I could, then there would be no discussion. :errr:
Michael's link to the signifers on Trajan's column show them holding (underarm, held in the palm of the hand and, potentially holding a small knife?) a relatively small disc-shaped object. But is it a shield, or perhaps a plate of some sort (for an offering possibly and that's why the knife)?
Bryan then shows the nice rendering of an aquilifer with such a possible shield, but just like the plate-shaped object above it is only roughly 1ft in diameter and is thus is definitely not a parma (cf Polybius), which is 3ft in diameter.
Now, and with an apology for the apparent excess of sarcasm, for it was not meant as such deliberately, I can certainly imagine an aquilifer/signifer with heel of standard resting on the ground in the main, with either a sword or a shield (and Bryan's earlier monument at least has a decent sized shield) in the other hand. But I cannot genuinely accept that in either case, nor even if an incredibly small shield were present, that they could contribute as much as we, I thought, believed the average soldier with large shield and sword could.
They cannot throw a pila; they cannot brace their shields with the other members of the front line; they cannot brace the guy in front of them as easily as they possibly don't have a big shield; they cannot form testudo by presenting or raising a shield; they won't be nearly as effective trying the shield and sword drills in the early stages, because they probably only have one of them, although later when the battle has been going for a while then imagining thrusting the standard in an enemies face and following up with a sword, or striking with your sword around your mates to assist them protecting you is quite believable.
But if none of those are more than likely potentials for considering that the standard-bearer is not in the front line, then I will not be able to convince anyone. To me they are all logical reasons to suggest that he is not always - unless it's necessary.
For it comes to Nathan's restatement - for I am not, and would not, attempting to suggest that the centurion (or signifer) never fought in the front line. I quite agree that, when a leadership example, for whatever reason, was necessary - then they were and could be.
But I do disagree with the idea that standards were used to signal orders to the century they actually belonged to. The members of a signifer's own century are next to them. They can touch their mates. They can hear their centurion and optio. It does act as a 'standard' for the men, however.
The standards' use for signalling orders is, I believe, over much greater distances and, quite possibly are of the flag/vexilla style because you need something more to attract the eye to movement. Blow the cornicen to attract sub-commanders attention and then a visual indication of what the order is.
I do most definitely contend that the century's signum is primarily there to indicate where the century is (and thus an indicator to higher commanders of the state of the battle); the fact that it is subsequently imbued with the century's honour is important, but secondary.
Now, if none of those points are acceptable, then I know I won't 'win the argument', but that's not what matters. I can try subsequently to go on to suggest reasons why I see the centurion adopting other positions as necessary, but if there is a firm belief that the centurion and signifer are always side-by-side in the front rank and it's no different from the warband example I used earlier - then we just don't see it in the same way at all.
But I am not going to be able to ever provide 'proof' - for if I could, then there would be no discussion. :errr:
