06-30-2014, 11:34 AM
Quote:I have not read Polybius but keep hearing so much about him but does he tell us just where the centurian's position was in battle for that was the question this topic started out as.
In Russ Cowan's book (Roman Legionary: 58 BC - AD 69 by Ross Cowan) book, that Bryan linked the reference to, the first two lines of the appropriately named paragraph are:
"The centurion fought at the front, at the right of his century (Polybius, 6.24). He may have formed the extreme right of the first rank, but could actually have stood somewhat apart from the line and as a consequence be particularly exposed."
Without wishing to put words in Bryan's mouth, I believe that is a good summary of Bryan's (and others) view on the positioning (always) of the centurion in battle - supported, and with which I have no opposite views on, all the examples of when centurions did lead from the front and their often skewed death rates.
However, if it's that reference that supports Mr Cowan's statement......my handy Polybius (the printed one - the Westerfield translation of 2010) says:
"....When both centurions {NB of the maniple, which has been given 2} are present, the one who was chosen first commands the right half of the maniple, and the one who was chosen second commands the men on the left, but in the absence of one of them, the other takes command of the entire unit. The ideal centurion, from the Roman's point of view, is a natural leader, with a stable and resourceful cast of mind, rather than being a daring risk taker. They would prefer to see him stand his ground under pressure and in the face of defeat, and die at his post, than launch attacks and initiate battles."
{With my NB} Now, I am not able to translate the original so can only go with what I have; but I do not think Mr Cowan's statement and what I read are at all similar. The words, unsurprisingly, that mean most to me are: 'command'; the reference to 'leader'; the apparent reference to being different from the Greeks, Polybius' own experience'; and the detail that one of them may not be there - although there is no reason to exclude the idea that we are just talking battle losses.
Because of the need to 'command' and not just 'lead', given the tactical evolutions I believe the Romans executed, and my (not unreasonable given other authors) re-determination from scratch that the heavy-infantry component of a half-maniple/century is 60 men arranged geometrically (and therefore with no 'space' as the Greeks effectively have) - then I believe that the centurion is not always on the front-line.
I also, especially with my aversion to permanent gaps, do not believe the centurion is 'out on his own' during an actual battle where he's involved.
It's also linked to my own experience and training, so I know I'm affected by that, but the need to command and remain in control is essential (and supported by what I read) - right up until the 'moment of crisis' when it's time to forget 'command' and get stuck in, provide the example, and 'lead' - from the front. Up until then - he's got 60+ probably younger and possibly fitter and superbly well trained (by him) soldiers to fight.
