07-01-2014, 11:16 PM
I don't think the men holding these positions were worried too much about dying in battle, which I think was the main reason their casualty rates were as high as they were. They were expected to get bloody. Signifers were selected for bravery. Tribunes were supposed to have 10 years of military experience first, though in the late republic that rule started to be watered down. Judging by Polybius' and Caesar's descriptions of centurions, bravery was a prerequisite. The ancient period wasn't like modern times, where officers hide evidence of rank to avoid snipers and such. Men in ancient leadership purposely wore gaudy outfits, in effect boasting of their position, their virtus. The casualty rates of ancient warfare, even for leaders, wasn't that high because it just wasn't that easy to kill someone in battle line (vice a melee situation or during a rout), as compared to modern warfare where in intense battles men in leadership roles often suffer 70-90% casualties. All of those positions, be it optio, signifer, centurion, praefect, tribune, were extremely competitive to get, as well as lucrative. Perform well as an optio or signifer, it could mean becoming a centurion. Perform well as a centurion in one campaign and it could mean gaining the patronage of a senior Roman, it could mean holding small magistrate positions back home, gaining clients, gaining wealth. Caesar greatly rewarded bravery among his men with higher positions and money, especially his centurions. Likewise, I think it would be near impossible to calculate how beneficial bravery and some competence could mean to a tribune, even one from a not superbly rich family. It could even mean being elected as a senior magistrate like Praetor or Consul someday (Marius and Sertorius are examples whose brave deeds as young men guaranteed their futures).
While I agree a centurion didn't always have to be in the front rank every second of the day, I think it was important that a centurion directly lead his men, which entails putting themselves in the same danger the men face. Hanging back from the front of a battle while your men are risking their own lives to "manage" or "command and control" the unit might be excusable in some circumstances, though I doubt there was much to control from the rear during a battle. But to do so to ensure your own survival is cowardice, pure and simple.
While I agree a centurion didn't always have to be in the front rank every second of the day, I think it was important that a centurion directly lead his men, which entails putting themselves in the same danger the men face. Hanging back from the front of a battle while your men are risking their own lives to "manage" or "command and control" the unit might be excusable in some circumstances, though I doubt there was much to control from the rear during a battle. But to do so to ensure your own survival is cowardice, pure and simple.
