06-26-2014, 01:54 PM
Mark Hygate wrote:
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.
You've already contended that the Gauls, being unorganized, didn't fight in a manner similar to Romans, whereas their war band leaders fought in the front ranks. If so, why did the Gallic armies have these, Celtic Boar standards?
[img width=250]http://www.acsearch.info/media/images/archive/39/617/385673.s.jpg[/img]
Maybe to rally the actual warriors in the units? To serve as standards, colors, guidons, like the myriad of others? Using the same logic, what about cavalry standards? Cavalry forces are stuck on the wings of ancient armies for the most part and are rarely static. Those units often carried standards too. Was it just so some commander in the rear could know where those units rode off to (through a half mile of dust) or were they used so the cavalrymen in each unit knew where they were supposed to go? Its a pretty common understanding that unit colors served as rallying points for the soldiers in the unit. Did they help higher commanders identify where the units were in battle? Yes. But more importantly, in the dust and chaos of battle, when the crush of two units fighting each other, after casualties ruined the perfectly dressed rank and files, standards allowed soldiers to know where they were supposed to be. And the best way of doing that would be putting them near, if not on, the front rank of the fighting line. Why take the bravest soldier in the unit and stick him with the colors if he's going to be hiding in the rear?
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.
Where are you getting that soldiers braced their shields in the back of the men in front of them? A scutum is not an aspis and is not shaped for that, nor is the Roman fighting method, which entailed a more individualistic approach, defending oneself by turning and leaping (Polybius and Vegetius).
Here are a couple pics of the braced fighting position:
[img width=200]http://www.leg8.com/Musees/Adamclisi/Adamclisi_2/Adamklissi_19.jpg[/img]
[img width=200]http://www.livius.org/a/germany/mainz/kaestrich_pedestals_a5_fight_lm.JPG[/img]
[img width=200]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10392053_1162912630422_5958702_n.jpg[/img]
Common in all three of those positions is the rear leg extending straight back. If you were to try to jam a four foot tall shield against the back of someone in that stance, the shield would be pressing into the back leg, hindering their movement severely. More so, the pressed shield would be at a severe angle, which would prevent the carrier from having any sort of proper defensive braced position themselves. Both Polybius and Vegetius state there were six feet between ranks. While I doubt in heavy fighting that was always the case, I don't see a reasoning for deliberately jamming a shield into the backside of the man in front of you unless you owed him money and want him to die in battle. You need to rethink that technique.
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.
Please focus on this.
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.
You've already contended that the Gauls, being unorganized, didn't fight in a manner similar to Romans, whereas their war band leaders fought in the front ranks. If so, why did the Gallic armies have these, Celtic Boar standards?
[img width=250]http://www.acsearch.info/media/images/archive/39/617/385673.s.jpg[/img]
Maybe to rally the actual warriors in the units? To serve as standards, colors, guidons, like the myriad of others? Using the same logic, what about cavalry standards? Cavalry forces are stuck on the wings of ancient armies for the most part and are rarely static. Those units often carried standards too. Was it just so some commander in the rear could know where those units rode off to (through a half mile of dust) or were they used so the cavalrymen in each unit knew where they were supposed to go? Its a pretty common understanding that unit colors served as rallying points for the soldiers in the unit. Did they help higher commanders identify where the units were in battle? Yes. But more importantly, in the dust and chaos of battle, when the crush of two units fighting each other, after casualties ruined the perfectly dressed rank and files, standards allowed soldiers to know where they were supposed to be. And the best way of doing that would be putting them near, if not on, the front rank of the fighting line. Why take the bravest soldier in the unit and stick him with the colors if he's going to be hiding in the rear?
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.
Where are you getting that soldiers braced their shields in the back of the men in front of them? A scutum is not an aspis and is not shaped for that, nor is the Roman fighting method, which entailed a more individualistic approach, defending oneself by turning and leaping (Polybius and Vegetius).
Here are a couple pics of the braced fighting position:
[img width=200]http://www.leg8.com/Musees/Adamclisi/Adamclisi_2/Adamklissi_19.jpg[/img]
[img width=200]http://www.livius.org/a/germany/mainz/kaestrich_pedestals_a5_fight_lm.JPG[/img]
[img width=200]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10392053_1162912630422_5958702_n.jpg[/img]
Common in all three of those positions is the rear leg extending straight back. If you were to try to jam a four foot tall shield against the back of someone in that stance, the shield would be pressing into the back leg, hindering their movement severely. More so, the pressed shield would be at a severe angle, which would prevent the carrier from having any sort of proper defensive braced position themselves. Both Polybius and Vegetius state there were six feet between ranks. While I doubt in heavy fighting that was always the case, I don't see a reasoning for deliberately jamming a shield into the backside of the man in front of you unless you owed him money and want him to die in battle. You need to rethink that technique.
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.
Please focus on this.
