Centurion Position in Battle

[Bryan]

Continued from debate about centurion positioning in the topic: Sword Carrying and the Scutum Strap

Which is true if he stands directly behind one individual or file and stays there. But half a pace right or left and he is looking between the heads of one file and the next. To get an idea of what is going on over the whole frontage of the unit he would actually need to be moving up and down the rear of the unit.

Even with a slight gap between files, the scuta (2.5' x 4') corners would get in the way, further limiting the visibility, and there is no guarantee that the rank and files would be perfectly dressed to allow an open funnel to see what is happening in the front. With the centurion in the rear, with the optio in the rear, with the signifier in the rear, there is no one left leadership wise in the front leading. No standard for the men in the lead ranks to be guided by. No man rallying tired and scared soldiers, convincing them through personal example to launch another attack. Remember, there is no evidence that the Roman army had file leaders, so if all the leaders were in the rear, who was leading the unit in contact? We're discussing hand to hand combat with hand held weapons. Men needed encouragement and aggressive leadership in order to be effective at attacking. Its the reason so many ancient leaders (including kings and generals) led from the immediate front of the battlelines. Look at every competing city state/people that the Romans would have encountered during the time period in question and you'd see that they too had small unit leaders that led from the front, not counting the more senior officers. There wasn't much to control once a unit was committed to battle.

I have commanded units from the rear many times and although it gets harder the deeper the formation is you can still see enough to know what is going on (and I am a shorty!). Unlike standing in the front rank because during an actual fight as long as the men next to you are still there the rest of the unit could all be running for the hills and you would never even know.

I take it you are referring to a riot? If so, with all due respect, commanding a military police riot unit (platoon or at most company strength unless you're talking a massive action) from the rear and a century in battle (among dozens of others in a battle line, with multiple battle lines) are two different things. A modern riot force has to control a situation and worry about much more in depth issues that a centurion would. Weapons, tactics, communication procedures, and leadership methodology and mentality are completely and utterly different. Can you discuss the reasoning you had to command your unit from the rear? Who was leading from the front? How many ranks was your unit? Were you also using radio communication devices?

In reference to the problem of knowing what was happening in the rear of the unit while the leader is leading the unit in contact from the front, I believe three factors helped keep the men in the rear in line, preventing them from running off while the centurion is busy in the front:
1. The existence of the rank of Optio, which more than likely was positioned in the rear of the unit (per Polybius) to keep the men in line. Essentially a "file closer" for the whole century.
2. Multiple battle lines meant that if someone from the front line in contact decided to run, they would have to also pass through at least one, if not multiple other, battle lines.
3. Tribunes, Legates, and Imperators often rode/positioned themselves behind the front battle line, especially the former. Tribune casualty rates were as high as centurion casualties in many battles, according to many sources, meaning they were in or near the front lines as well. It was their job, according to many sources, to personally witness the heroics and cowardice of the men actually fighting and to respond appropriately. It was their job to control units in contact, cross coordinate, issue fragmentary orders, etc.

It takes a lot of courage to be a coward in the Roman army.

[Densus]

Hi Bryan, answers to some of your questions are below and you have probably saved the original thread from some serious thread drift!!

Even with a slight gap between files, the scuta (2.5' x 4') corners would get in the way, further limiting the visibility, and there is no guarantee that the rank and files would be perfectly dressed to allow an open funnel to see what is happening in the front.

I didn't say it was easy, but it is perfectly possible. We face all those same problems and we manage.

With the centurion in the rear, with the optio in the rear, with the signifier in the rear, there is no one left leadership wise in the front leading. No standard for the men in the lead ranks to be guided by. No man rallying tired and scared soldiers, convincing them through personal example to launch another attack. Remember, there is no evidence that the Roman army had file leaders, so if all the leaders were in the rear, who was leading the unit in contact? We're discussing hand to hand combat with hand held weapons. Men needed encouragement and aggressive leadership in order to be effective at attacking. Its the reason so many ancient leaders (including kings and generals) led from the immediate front of the battlelines. Look at every competing city state/people that the Romans would have encountered during the time period in question and you'd see that they too had small unit leaders that led from the front, not counting the more senior officers. There wasn't much to control once a unit was committed to battle.

With well trained professionals they don't actually need someone doing that. You most definitely need to be in the fight with them and not trying to command from inside an armoured vehicle somewhere but you don't need to be standing shoulder to shoulder in the front rank with them.

Is there any evidence from other cultures in that period of the commanders literally standing in the front rank during infantry close combat?

I take it you are referring to a riot? If so, with all due respect, commanding a military police riot unit (platoon or at most company strength unless you're talking a massive action) from the rear and a century in battle (among dozens of others in a battle line, with multiple battle lines) are two different things. A modern riot force has to control a situation and worry about much more in depth issues that a centurion would. Weapons, tactics, communication procedures, and leadership methodology and mentality are completely and utterly different.

Maybe not as different as you think. Coming from the US you are used to seeing a very 'weapons orientated' solution to public disorder. In the UK, especially in Northern Ireland we are a lot more nose to nose and hand to hand and we see a significantly higher level of violence. I can think of multiple times where I have literally felt I was fighting for my life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yssTEngQuC0

That isn't a particularly violent incident by the standards of our sad little island but it will give you and idea of what I am talking about. I will try and find better examples online that I can post up. The supervisors are the guys with the round shields, those are a mix of team and unit commanders.

Can you discuss the reasoning you had to command your unit from the rear?

Very simple. Having some kind of an idea of what was happening and some kind of control over what was going on. If you are standing in the front rank in a face to face fight you are just fighting and surviving. The guys in front have complete tunnel vision and are totally unaware of anything except the immediate threat to them. It is incredibly difficult to hear anything in that environment and if a leader is shouting instructions forward into the crowd/enemy and away from the rest of the unit you will be lucky if the people either side of him hear it.

Who was leading from the front?

No-one. Team commanders are behind their teams, and unit commanders are behind them. As I said above well trained units don't need it except in extreme situations. And I mean extreme, I can think of only two incidents where it was required in the last 20 years.

How many ranks was your unit?

Varied widely depending on the situation. Sometimes only a single rank, sometimes up to 8 ranks deep.

Were you also using radio communication devices?

Yes and no. While everyone had a radio once it went hands on it was pointless trying to speak to the guys at the front on it because they just aren't listening, back to the tunnel vision thing again. Control of individuals is achieved by screaming in their ear and quite often by getting hands on them and steering them.

On the file leader issue. I know there is no definite proof of it in battle but I do remember hearing of items of equipment being found that had 'Contubernium of X' marked on them. Which would indicate that a level of command below the century may have existed.

[Paul Elliott]

On the file leader issue. I know there is no definite proof of it in battle but I do remember hearing of items of equipment being found that had 'Contubernium of X' marked on them. Which would indicate that a level of command below the century may have existed.

Having the contubernium marked on equipment certainly doesn't mean that the contubernia were part of the tactical organisation, but simply that men in that mess party shared their kit and cooking/camping responsibilities.

Didn't Caesar loose a frightening number of his centurions in the Battle of Pharsalus; with 200 legionaries killed as well as 30 centurions! Proof if any was needed that his centurions led from the front.

[Bryan]

I didn't say it was easy, but it is perfectly possible. We face all those same problems and we manage.

Judging by the videos you've linked in previous topics about riot police and from the below, the shields used by riot police are clear plexiglass, while scuta were not. The plexiglass shields allows for a much higher level of visibility not just from behind individual shields but from behind multiple ranks as well. Its not a coincidence that modern shields are see through. Even the metal ones used by Ukraine riot police had holes in them to see through. Modern construction methods have made more effective shields. Tactics change when technology changes.

With well trained professionals they don't actually need someone doing that. You most definitely need to be in the fight with them and not trying to command from inside an armoured vehicle somewhere but you don't need to be standing shoulder to shoulder in the front rank with them.

No offense attended, but to compare modern crowd controls methods and tactics with an ancient battlefield and the leadership and mission requirements of them is kind of pointless. As mentioned in several other previous threads about riot forces/crowd control, several similarities exist between them but overall the two are by nature completely different beasts. Any unit that expects to be in actual real combat (as in the mission is to attack and kill people) for hours (most ancient battles weren't short) would require leadership from the front. It doesn't matter how well trained a unit is, this goes from ancient warfare to modern, where even special operation units, which have a training routine and budget that dwarfed anything in any time period in history, are still led by example by team leaders (literally, team leader job in infantry is to lead by example in the front).

In a "riot," especially like those you showed in the videos you've linked, it might entail small amounts of violence, maybe even some lethal force, the whole point is not death and killing, like in an ancient battle is. Its about crowd control on one side, with violent, chaotic and and herd behavior on the other. The rioters are rarely even armed, when they are, they are rarely organized, well led, or using any tactics in comparison of the riot police. Because if they did, the riot police would be forced to escalate to more lethal weaponry and tactics and it stops being a riot and starts being a gunfight.

Is there any evidence from other cultures in that period of the commanders literally standing in the front rank during infantry close combat?

Yes. Most evidence suggests that leading from the immediate front, by example, was used by the Greeks, Macedonians, Gauls, Iberians, and nearly all the other cultures in the ancient European world. All had small unit leaders, not to mention overall army commanders, who led from the immediate front ranks of either the infantry or cavalry. King Leonidas fought in the front ranks. Alexander fought in the front ranks. Macedonian phalanxes were commanded by officers that fought in the front ranks. Gauls fought in tribal/family bands led by leaders fighting in the front rank. Leadership by example was a key tenet of ancient, medieval and even modern battle. Even during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment it was customary for officers to command from the front. I think the confusion that some people are experiencing is that in modern day, the equivalent commander of the same number of people a centurion commanded, 60-100 soldiers (often called company strength), does not customarily lead from the front. However, the modern pyramidal organization structure contains many smaller echelon commands and units under the company level, with the lowest level, the team, always responsible for leading from the front. Rome didn't have that. The century was it. A large gathering of troops, the most possible to be led by one person.

Maybe not as different as you think. Coming from the US you are used to seeing a very 'weapons orientated' solution to public disorder. In the UK, especially in Northern Ireland we are a lot more nose to nose and hand to hand and we see a significantly higher level of violence. I can think of multiple times where I have literally felt I was fighting for my life.

Apples and Oranges. Unless I missed some pretty major historical incidents in North Ireland in the last century, there haven't been too many street riots were hundreds of rioters and riot police were outright killed by melee weapons in hardened combat, especially in the last few decades. If the point of riot control was lethal force, batons and plexiglass shields would not be issued out, rifles and machine guns would be. Some riot forces might go "nose to nose" with rioters, but the rioters aren't on the same level of organization and weaponry as the riot control forces. This leaves the riot control forces with choices about how it can deploy and act.

That isn't a particularly violent incident by the standards of our sad little island but it will give you and idea of what I am talking about. I will try and find better examples online that I can post up. The supervisors are the guys with the round shields, those are a mix of team and unit commanders.

Romans didn't have team and unit commanders disseminated throughout their centuries. They had centurions. In the video, lots of the small unit leaders with the round shields are in the front ranks, leading and fighting in the front ranks. Also, no actual real fighting is occurring, its just a bit of a shoving match against unarmored opponents. Additionally, the riot control forces are only formed in two ranks, which would allow more control of the forces from rear, should a leader decide to lead from the rear. This video is a good example of how different a riot is from an ancient battle.

Below is another video of a more violent riot. In this case, the rioters also are organized and are equipped with weaponry equal in effectiveness, though different, to those used by the riot police. South Korean riot control forces are notoriously well trained, so the argument that a well trained professional force doesn't need to be led from the front can be challenged here. Notice how chaotic the front lines of the riot control forces are, how disordered the rank and files are (no gaps or channels to look down)? It doesn't appear that the riot police had leadership in the front ranks to control the advance and retreat of the men, as evidence by the disorderly retreat by the riot police against the concerted push by the rioters. If a leader were in the rear in this situation, on foot, not on horse, they clearly would not be able to see. So how would they have a clue what is happening to his men in the front ranks? At one point a riot police officer goes down, wounded, and is grabbed and almost taken by the rioters. How long would it take an officer in the rear ranks to figure out that happened? During the video, the riot police are driven back further and further. Do you think leaders in the rear ranks would have known why that was happening? The only thing a leader in the rear, on foot, would know in this situation is that for some reason, the men in the front ranks are falling back, but the circumstances wouldn't be known why. Would they be able to call out by name to the men in front to halt their retreat and counterattack? From my perspective, the rioters are winning that fight because their leadership is clearly in the front, leading by example, attacking. But even this video is not indicative of ancient warfare because at the end of the day, they were using batons, poles, sticks, tear gas. Not swords, spears, and javelins.
South Korean Labor Riot

Very simple. Having some kind of an idea of what was happening and some kind of control over what was going on. If you are standing in the front rank in a face to face fight you are just fighting and surviving. The guys in front have complete tunnel vision and are totally unaware of anything except the immediate threat to them. It is incredibly difficult to hear anything in that environment and if a leader is shouting instructions forward into the crowd/enemy and away from the rest of the unit you will be lucky if the people either side of him hear it.

Once committed to battle, fighting and surviving was the only mission of the century. Tunnel vision is normal for a unit committed to the fight, it was the reason reserves were created, like the Roman second and third lines, outside of the fight until they were also committed. Any further commands to a century in contact would come from the tribunes or other senior officers, relayed to all troops within hearing distance by musical instruments. Command and control of a century ended once the unit was committed into battle, at least for the role of the centurion.

Who was leading from the front?
No-one. Team commanders are behind their teams, and unit commanders are behind them. As I said above well trained units don't need it except in extreme situations. And I mean extreme, I can think of only two incidents where it was required in the last 20 years.

While having no one leading from the front might have been possible in the situations you are mentioning, I doubt those same tactics were used by the Romans. Mindset, tactics, and mindset are completely and utterly different.

Were you also using radio communication devices?
Yes and no. While everyone had a radio once it went hands on it was pointless trying to speak to the guys at the front on it because they just aren't listening, back to the tunnel vision thing again. Control of individuals is achieved by screaming in their ear and quite often by getting hands on them and steering them.

This is exactly what I am referring to. Its pointless to try to speak to the guys in front, they're too busy fighting, right? But someone has to lead that group of conscripted farmers into battle and that's the job of a centurion. The job of higher coordination fell to the people we know were situated to the immediate rear of the forward battleline, whose job we know was to observe the fighting line and react. The tribunes, legates, praefects, and imperators. Centurions had a completely different role.

On the file leader issue. I know there is no definite proof of it in battle but I do remember hearing of items of equipment being found that had 'Contubernium of X' marked on them. Which would indicate that a level of command below the century may have existed.

If there is no evidence of a file as a tactical unit, how can someone have a hypothesis that would involve battle tactics that would require file leaders? Especially when the evidence already suggests that centurions lead from the front.

Overall, I'm not arguing that it is impossible to attempt to control a fight from the rear. It would have no doubt been difficult in the setting of an ancient fight, with its loud noises, poor visibility (height of men in front, dust clouds, etc). More so, I'm stating that in an ancient Roman fight, it wasn't the job of a centurion to attempt it, based off the information available about their duties and responsibilities in battle, their selection, their casualty rates, their many decorations, and their careers. While a modern riot control force might attempt to command a unit from the rear of it, and it might make sense for them, those same riot control tactics are night and day different from the tactics used by ancient people. Mindset, tactics, techniques, procedures, weaponry, rules of engagement, legal liability, leadership techniques, etc. All are different. A riot control officer is usually not being promoted based off of past acts of bravery. Theyre duty isn't to just break the enemy in front of them and to collect heads. Historical and archaeological sources are full of accounts of individual centurions and their careers. Track the lives of centurions like L. Siccius Dentatus, Spurius Ligustinus, Gnaus Petraius Atinus, Caesar's own L. Vorenus, T. Pullo, P. Sextius Bacalus, Caesius Scaeva, and the legendary Gaius Crastinus, as well as Minucius Lorarius and others from funerary steles. It would appear that these type of men were indicative of the example of what a centurion was supposed to be, in terms of bravery and ability. These men clearly led from the front and I doubt the idea of managing a fight by commanding from the rear would have appealed to their sensibilities.

[Nathan Ross]

I think there's no question that centurions fought in the front rank of their centuria, at least in the republican and early imperial period; Sallust says as much in his Catiline War (59.3). As Bryan and others have mentioned, the disportionately high casualty rate among centurions during this period also testifies to their fighting at the front, leading their men physically rather than directing them from the rear.

Ross Cowan, in his article 'The Centuria in Battle' (Ancient Warfare Special 2010) suggests that the centurion, standard bearer and hornblower or trumpeter formed a command group at the front and centre of the centuria; the centurion could relay basic orders (advance, retreat, turn) to the signifer, who could signal to the rest of the men by moving the standard appropriately. Other orders could be transmitted by the hornblower, or perhaps the horn could be used to call attention to the standard when a command was being given.

There are a lot of other interesting points in the same article about the position of other men in the battle line, unit formation and ranks.

I would also suggest J.E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts for some useful discussion of the 'heroic' and highly conspicuous role of centurions in battle, especially in the Caesarian era. I know others have recommended this book in the past on this and similar issues, but I've only recently looked at it myself. Lendon's ideas about the rather mob-like deployment of the republican hastati might also have a bearing on this debate.

On the question of contubernium leaders, there is, I think, a hand mill from Britain with an inscription to what could be a Caput Contubernii, and a later gravestone of a man calling himself CAP(ut?). But both of these could be third century or later, and the rank or role an innovation of the later army, perhaps. Nothing suggests the role had any tactical significance anyway.

*EDIT - Just another quick point on this issue. It occurs to me that, in an era of close and often confused hand-to-hand fighting, the legates and tribunes stationed behind the ranks would often have had little idea of what was happening at the front line, where the fighting was going on.

In this case, the centurions would have played a vital role as the eyes of command at the front - they alone could see openings in the enemy line and attack towards them; they alone could see if their own front line was hard pressed or wavering, and needed withdrawing, reinforcing or regrouping. Caesar's commentaries are full of centurions taking this sort of immediate executive action in battle - albeit usually highly aggressive and often unwise!

[Densus]

Interesting video Bryan. You may also be interested to know that the unit commanders are also at the back in South Korea.

Watch it again and pick out an individual in the front rank to keep an eye on. Then ask yourself how much situational awareness that individual has of anything other than what is happening directly in front of him and how much influence he could possibly have on what the rest of the unit is doing.

I am not saying that Centurions definitely commanded from the rear, I just don't know. But what I do know, and have said before, is that based on my experience as both a shield man in the front rank and as a commander in real fights if the leaders were in the front rank then a century was a one shot weapon. You told it to engage and it just fought until they won, lost or both sides disengaged due to exhaustion.

[Bryan]

Sempronius,

I agree, the front rank riot police officers in that video probably have terrible situational awareness, at least once the fight begins. But the same can be said for someone in the rear ranks, who obviously can't see over the heads of the many disordered ranks in front of them. But at least a leader in the front ranks would be contributing to the overall fight. How can they be influencing what the unit does? By leading by example and demanding that others follow them, which is helped if you give that person life and death control over their men and make that person readily easy to visibly follow, by giving them a large colored transverse crest of horsehair or feathers that everyone in the ranks can see, as well as stationing the unit's standards right next to that person. Standard bearers throughout history were often the bravest person in the unit for a reason, they were used to guide the force from the front and were always in danger. And its clear from several sources, including Caesar and Livy, that one of the centurions jobs was to protect the standards (see the early career path of the centurion Dentatus and the recovering of his legion's standards in battle, as well as Caesar's constant reference to the position of standards during a faltering attack).

Also, based off the way the South Korean riot police in the video are being driven back, how the front ranks are wavering and retreating in the face of a concerted attack by the rioters, I'd say that they probably aren't being led from the front, at least not well. And that the commanders (not leaders) in the rear have zero idea what is happening and why their men are retreating. I can see a police officer acting as commander of that situation getting rather nervous and desperate, especially when they find out 20 minutes later that one of their men was almost beaten to death and kidnapped by the mob.

I am not saying that Centurions definitely commanded from the rear, I just don't know. But what I do know, and have said before, is that based on my experience as both a shield man in the front rank and as a commander in real fights if the leaders were in the front rank then a century was a one shot weapon. You told it to engage and it just fought until they won, lost or both sides disengaged due to exhaustion.

If a century was a one shot weapon, which I tend to agree with as well, then there is nothing that is needed to commanded or coordinated once the fight started. Fire and forget. Within the unit, the best soldiers would be in the front ranks, fighting alongside the centurion and standard bearer. The more timid would be in the rear, along for the ride, kept in the ranks by the fear of being exposed as a coward by the century's optio, the men of following battle lines watching and encouraging them, as well as the ever vigilant tribunes, legates, and imperators riding and watching behind the battle line. The tribunes ordered the unit to attack and then would order it being relieved, both orders conducted with musical communication devices.

For those interested in the subject, before making a decision, I highly recommend reading the two Osprey books on centurions, as well as L.E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts, as well as Ross Cowan's For the Glory of Rome, which is was specifically written to promote the warlike and aggressive nature of the Romans, counter to the constant comparison of the Roman's organization to modern units.

Nathan,

*EDIT - Just another quick point on this issue. It occurs to me that, in an era of close and often confused hand-to-hand fighting, the legates and tribunes stationed behind the ranks would often have had little idea of what was happening at the front line, where the fighting was going on.

In this case, the centurions would have played a vital role as the eyes of command at the front - they alone could see openings in the enemy line and attack towards them; they alone could see if their own front line was hard pressed or wavering, and needed withdrawing, reinforcing or regrouping. Caesar's commentaries are full of centurions taking this sort of immediate executive action in battle - albeit usually highly aggressive and often unwise!

Agree 100%. But I think the tribunes and legates would definitely have an easier time seeing what was happening if they were on horseback. However, being mounted immediately behind the front battle line (maybe a 20-40 feet away from enemy) is as dangerous as being in the front line I think, maybe more so, considering the added height makes for a most spectacular target for missile attacks, which could explain the large casualty rates among tribunes. I think they always had the option to dismount and fight on foot, and in those cases, their visibility as well of the overall situation awareness would be limited and maybe in that case a centurion in the front might have a better view of the tactical situation. But exploiting any situation would require either other centurions taking initiative or the coordination of higher officers (such as Publius Licinius Crassus' flanking attack at the Battle of Vosges).

[Mark Hygate]

(Note: Goodness a lot has appeared in a couple of hours - I'm not going to attempt to quote..... )

Caesar had some 22,000 men at Pharsalus organised, it seems, in 80 cohorts. That would therefore seem to be, averaging out, very under-strength cohorts with ~40-50 men per century, but quite possibly the full command structure - bearing in mind he had to take on a superior force. So that could be only 30 centurion losses from 480 (17%) vs less than 1% legionaires - certainly paltry casualties from the latter (and perhaps even inaccurate); but yes, in order to be that tactically successful it was indeed necessary to have the centurions inspiring their troops by personal example - once they were committed to battle.

However, each time this subject has been skirted around there does seem a reluctance to differentiate between 'commanding' and 'leading' - it's a bit like the common misunderstanding between tactics and strategy. Not only that, but not understanding that both are possible and appropriate in different circumstances.

Firstly Bryan's neat picture of attempting to look down his file...

I believe we have already discussed and understood that the Romans fought in a crouched position behind their shield (whether 4ft or 3'6" high) with little space at the bottom and peering over the top. Even in the densest formation I have previously proposed (2.5ft between head-centres with shields abutting), not only would an upright man be able to see over-head in many circumstances, but now there's at least an 18" gap between each head. Moreover, by standing at the rear, it is completely possible to have an idea of exactly what's happening at the front by watching the rear man of each file. More importantly, the absolute requirement to maintain the line needs an understanding of what's happening to right and left also (and whether it is necessary to advance or retreat the century, let alone 'manipulate' and make the 'saw formation' work by co-operating closely with your paired-century in the maniple). None of these things are remotely possible if you are fighting in the front rank.

And that's why it is indeed necessary to see what had gone before, let alone the more barbaric warchief/king led enemies who simply attack with the 'follow-me' by-leading-example. The Greeks are the ones who had the best understood example of tactical fighting, and indeed all their 'leaders' of each formation up to the tribune-equivalent level were an integral part of the formation; whether they were the Spartan Lochagos; or the phalanx's Syntagmatarch. The Romans were different and they introduced 'small unit and flexible tactics'. In short, they introduced a new level of command and control; and that's one of the reasons they so often won; for they could respond and out move their more ponderous foes.

The century is already a combined arms mix of 60 heavy infantry and 20 light/velites - which now has a separate command staff of centurion, optio and signifer (I do not believe there is a cornicen at the century level - it's 2 per cohort). The signifer does not 'fight' in the front rank - he doesn't even have a shield! His role is to mark the position of the century so the tribunes, legates and consul can have an idea of what's happening. He also needs to know where the centurion is at all times. The real important thing to note, however, is that the 60-man fighting component does not have a 'space' for the centurion; if he does fight at the front then he takes an existing slot.

I learned and then taught section and platoon tactics - without radios (personal radios, even reliable ones for the section commander, are a very recent invention) and over long-shouting distance (a whistle and hand-signals are needed, the centurion is close enough to shout). A century is tight and small by comparison even though there are 10 contubernia/sections rather than 3-4, it's still a 'platoon' equivalent. You do not 'command' your century/platoon from the front - you have many more priorities as above. The tactical basics have not changed, it's why we still read Sun Tzu, Vegetius, Clauswitz, and all the rest still today. When, given all the mis-timed First World War stuff going on right now, it is the time to inspire, lead from the front and go over the top, then you stop commanding and lead - for your role has just changed.

At the platoon/century level and indeed company/maniple level I have also had the Northern Ireland Riot Training. I know Bryan disparages it and the 'operational' or even 'strategic' level goals may be different, but the need for tactical command and control is identical. It doesn't matter whether riot-control is more defensive and not out to kill; the needs to hold the line, manouever around, advance, retreat, deal with casualties or prisoners is just the same.

All that said, sometimes it is necessary to lead and that's when the situation absolutely demands it. It is a commanders hardest decision, for getting it wrong (it's no good taking your century forward if no one else can) - that just gets your men killed and possibly may be the one turning point in a battle that loses it. When your century needs to hold and not be pushed back, or when you must get extra tracton to push forward, then that's when the centurion earns his medals and proves he can still fight in the front line just like he used to as a file/conubernium 'leader' for any centurion not directly appointed.

If you are a writer and you want to emphasize how hard fought the battle was, or how dire the straits were, then you tell how the centurions had to earn their pay.....

If everything went smoothly and the enemy were just mowed down in droves by your well trained and drilled century/cohort/legion - then it's hardly that exciting and you just emphasize how many enemy died for few losses.

There are plenty of examples of both - but the former makes more interesting reading!

[Bryan]

The signifer does not 'fight' in the front rank - he doesn't even have a shield! His role is to mark the position of the century so the tribunes, legates and consul can have an idea of what's happening.

So a unit's standard has nothing to do with serving as a rallying point for the men of the unit itself, its just so higher officers know where the unit is? The bravest of men were selected for the position (Poly. 6, 24, 6)? Why? Seriously, you're pretty incorrect in this.

Also, here's an aquilifer with a shield:
[img width=240]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d7/fb/54/d7fb54b96be19492aeea3ef7e6d42820.jpg[/img]

I believe we have already discussed and understood that the Romans fought in a crouched position behind their shield (whether 4ft or 3'6" high) with little space at the bottom and peering over the top. Even in the densest formation I have previously proposed (2.5ft between head-centres with shields abutting), not only would an upright man be able to see over-head in many circumstances, but now there's at least an 18" gap between each head. Moreover, by standing at the rear, it is completely possible to have an idea of exactly what's happening at the front by watching the rear man of each file. More importantly, the absolute requirement to maintain the line needs an understanding of what's happening to right and left also (and whether it is necessary to advance or retreat the century, let alone 'manipulate' and make the 'saw formation' work by co-operating closely with your paired-century in the maniple). None of these things are remotely possible if you are fighting in the front rank.

Why would ranks 2-6, who are not in contact, be crouching down behind their shields? How do you see their helmets? Or helmet crests? How do you get the men to stop moving in formation so you can see? Is the centurion supposed to spend his whole time yelling "Hey, guy in the third rank, fifth file, scoot over the left, I can't see?" Watching the rear rank of a file isn't going to help because the rear ranker won't have a clue what is happening either because they too are just staring at the backs of the men in front of them. Why would a centurion need to stop in the middle of a battle and coordinate maniple or cohort scale battle tactics with other centurions? Seems like the responsibility of a tribune or legate would do.

And that's why it is indeed necessary to see what had gone before, let alone the more barbaric warchief/king led enemies who simply attack with the 'follow-me' by-leading-example. The Greeks are the ones who had the best understood example of tactical fighting, and indeed all their 'leaders' of each formation up to the tribune-equivalent level were an integral part of the formation; whether they were the Spartan Lochagos; or the phalanx's Syntagmatarch. The Romans were different and they introduced 'small unit and flexible tactics'. In short, they introduced a new level of command and control; and that's one of the reasons they so often won; for they could respond and out move their more ponderous foes.

Did you not every read the accounts of the centurions I mentioned earlier?
L. Siccius Dentatus, Spurius Ligustinus, Gnaus Petraius Atinus, Caesar's own L. Vorenus, T. Pullo, P. Sextius Bacalus, Caesius Scaeva, and the legendary Gaius Crastinus, as well as Minucius Lorarius
Which one of these men's careers suggest he was more of a "command from the rear" type as opposed from a "lead from the front" sort? From their descriptions, these men sounded awfully like those barbaric warchiefs you mentioned.

Also, Romans never had a chance to read Sun Tzu or Clauswitz, so I doubt they applied their lessons. They didn't even have formal training. They certainly didn't have millenia of military history and doctrine to fall back on, as well as books from cultures all over the world on the subject. Warfare has changed immensely in 2000 years. Its changed immensely in the last 100 years. The lessons you might have used for riot control were completely different from the riot control tactics used 100 years ago. Control methods are different. Tactics are different. Mindset is different. When I was in the military, I was generally kneeling or in the prone a lot when operating in the field. I don't make believe soldiers fought the same way in the Napoleanic Wars just because centuries later that's how I was trained. Romans didn't have platoons or companies or sections. They didn't have officer training schools or real standardized manuals written by a national army endorsed by general staff located at Whitehall or the Pentagon. As much as some need to find similarities between modern military tactics, techniques and procedures, these didn't exist two thousand years ago. A century isn't platoon equivalent because Romans didn't have platoons. Or sections. Or squads. Or teams. Centurions weren't like NCOs, because Romans didn't have commissioned officers, let alone non commissioned officer.

Read the two Osprey Centurion books, J.E. Lendon's book, Ross Cowan's book and article in Ancient Warfare, and then read about the centurions I listed above. I don't see how its possible to read all those accounts and then make believe the Roman military system was anything like the modern British military, or any other militaries.

[Mark Hygate]

Dear Bryan,

No, you asked me to do a deal of background reading before starting a topic on the subject, but then you decided to start the topic yourself - so, no, not yet. I will do.

However, I have done a deal of reading in the past and I will therefore happily predict what I will find.....

I will find writings and descriptions of heroes in the Homeric tradition. Cited as examples for all brave young men to follow and encourage continued interest, awe and support for the military tradition.

These writings, like Homer, like Appian, like Geoffrey of Monmouth, like Sir Walter Scott - up to and including Gladiator and its ilk - they are all written for entertainment and, sadly these days, just try to make a deal of money.

No one would pay for the boredom of war - you wouldn't have gotten a lot of soldiers to enlist if you explained the hours, days and months of drill, cleaning latrines, maintaining forts, painting lime-wash, building roads and, oh joy, grafting away to produce Hadrian's Wall. Not very exciting.

Those of a British Army persuasion may remember the 'Frank Videos' of the late 80's early 90's - he did all sorts of adventurous training, he went to exotic places, he partied with his mates, he got the girl - we all wanted to be Frank - and we were already in the Army!

Any army with a need to maintain its military tradition needs to maintain the belief in heroes - for when the chips are down you actually need them.

If I cannot convince you that there is a real difference between commanding and leading; that a centurion will spend over 99% of his time commanding and only the <1% leading, then obviously I cannot - for you have been captured. It's the <1% that gets written about and immortalized, that's all. Like with the Greek tactical (drill) manuals that I used as an example - if the centurion and signifer fought in the front rank, then the century would have been 80 men including them, but it isn't.

Whoever was the unknown tactical genius who took the Greek ~16,000 man standard phalanx idea and produced the construct that Polybius describes, we may never know - but the drills and tactical innovations that they came up with helped make the Roman Military Machine what it was and helped birth an empire. It took a whole new level of command and control - and it was the professional (even the experienced soldier earlier) centurion who was the lowest-ranked, but integral, 'officer' that made it happen.

That command and control was excercised fully - right up until the need came for a bit of heroism. It's only the latter that gets remembered, for the rest is just the job. Command - 'management' - boring..........but essential.

[Bryan]

During the latter half of the 20th century, corporate leadership lessons and techniques became ingrained into in the British and American militaries when senior officers attended business schools to learn new methods of productivity. This is hardly a little known fact. Therefore, whatever training military servicemen or women, officer or enlisted, received in leadership, command, and management since that time have been tainted by these lessons. Go read a book written by military leaders from WWI or before and you'll probably not even see the word "manage" used in the context it is today. Other corporate methods, such as micromanagement, common today among military leaders, were also not used then. There are plenty of other examples of a changing methods of leadership. Levels of responsibilities, duties, the very roles of leaders have changed immensely in the last century because of these new approaches. The very idea of "managing" people like some corporate drone would probably sicken officers of the 19th century and before. Did Henry V manage or command his people in battle when he led from the front ranks of his battle line at Agincourt? Was that propaganda? What about the thousands of other examples of officers leading from the front throughout history? Of near suicidal heroics and bravery of fighting men in battle? Propaganda? Are the reports of Victorian Cross and Medal of Honor awardees from the current wars propaganda too?

It is my categorical belief that just because someone learned a leadership/command/management technique in the 1980s at some British army officer school does not mean Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa or Caesar, let alone some Roman Plebian of the 2nd Class, knew of it or even would have agreed with the methods. The Romans were a completely different culture then ours, separated by two thousand years. They were raised differently, thought differently, acted differently. They regularly massacred entire populations, enslaved entire tribes, killed their girl children when they didn't want to raise them. They beat soldiers to death for sleeping on duty, decimated entire units for not performing to snuff in battle. They sacrificed people by burying them in the ground when they lost a battle. They were not like us so there is no reason to continuously compare their tactics with something created and taught in the 20th century.

Overall, I don't think everything in the ancient sources that promotes something you disagree with is propaganda. I highly recommend before anyone else forms a hardened opinion on the subject, that they actually read Ross Cowan's and J.E. Lendon's books I'd mentioned earlier. They're quite good and full of historical references. Cowan is even a poster in the forum (or at least had been). Read those two books and then come back into the discussion.

Until then, Vale.

[Vindex]

Other corporate methods, such as micromanagement, common today among military leaders, were also not used then. There are plenty of other examples of a changing methods of leadership. Levels of responsibilities, duties, the very roles of leaders have changed immensely in the last century because of these new approaches.

(My italics)

Could I trouble you for some references for this, please? Or are you citing Lieutenant Colonel 'H' Jones VC rather than mission command?

[Bryan]

Could I trouble you for some references for this, please?

Do you want sources for leadership/command styles and methods? Or the pervasiveness of the corporate culture in the military? There are tons of sources on command, leadership, and management, from the business world and the military, but few that deal specifically with the topic at hand altogether, that is the military's adoption of standards and practices used in the business world. Methods used for an increase in efficiency, such as the increased use of statistics, the emphasis on presentations, planning methods, etc. Additionally, new leadership methods came about. During this period, new terms, such as the emphasis on "management," a word not previously used associated with the military, started being used more and more. The best way to understand the shifting cultural leadership mindset is to read about historical accounts of military figures or operations older time periods before they were "contaminated" and then compare them to more modern versions. Historical accounts of battles and biographies are a good start. Read about policy changes, training methods changing, organizational changes, even tactical and doctrinal changes.

For examples in the US military officer corps, see Rick's The Generals, which discusses the issue and provides lots of examples, such as most of the key military leaders of the 60s, who'd attended business school classes and bought into the "Corporate Culture" ideology, like Westmoreland. There exists lots of other sources as well. For the British military, which I am no expert on, it will take more searching on my part to find the actual sources I've read in the past but in the mean time, for those "in the know," check the educational and career progression of senior general officers/ that have affected policy in the UK MOD since the 1950s. You'll no doubt see lots of late education in business schools. I'll dig some to try to find some examples.

Or are you citing Lieutenant Colonel 'H' Jones VC rather than mission command?

I wasn't using him as an example but it could be. Jones was killed in the front lines while leading his battalion in the attack at Goose Green, correct? And received the VC for it? While a good example of a senior officer leading from front, I think its also a better example of the shift in mindset, where many of his contemporary officers have the mindset that what Jones did was reckless and he didn't deserve to be awarded the VC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...ds-VC.html

When a peacetime, zero defect, corporate culture invades the military, hard charging, lead from the front types are often attacked. But then once wars occur that last longer than a week, these same types are usually encouraged. At least from my perspective. As you can probably read from my posts, I do not agree with the whole "management" style of military units. I find the idea revolting and think some of the worst cultural crisis to have occurred recently in western militaries was allowing those ideas to flourish.

[Vindex]

I was thinking more of the "common" micro management styles, hence my reference to H Jones. It was his micro managing which most disagreed with rather than, as I said, the Mission Command usually conducted even in the early 1980s. It has been argued that H Jones' impatience with his Company Commander got him killed rather than the ethic of leading from the front. The Regimental 2 i/c stood up and carried on the assault as did the replacement CO for the rest of the war - which is mission command.

I would disagree that the management style is bad - it has certainly led to better "man management" when we take account of the intelligent soldier not a grunt waiting to be disposed of by untalented officers.

[Mark Hygate]

............. Go read a book written by military leaders from WWI or before and you'll probably not even see the word "manage" used in the context it is today. Other corporate methods, such as micromanagement, common today among military leaders, were also not used then. ............. The very idea of "managing" people like some corporate drone would probably sicken officers of the 19th century and before..................

..................The Romans were a completely different culture then ours, separated by two thousand years. They were raised differently, thought differently, acted differently. They regularly massacred entire populations, enslaved entire tribes, killed their girl children when they didn't want to raise them. They beat soldiers to death for sleeping on duty, decimated entire units for not performing to snuff in battle. They sacrificed people by burying them in the ground when they lost a battle. They were not like us .................

Bryan,

It's important I ask - for are you reacting simply to a 'word' that I am using deliberately, but in context, and certainly in a modern way - because I am trying to communicate in the 21st century in English?

I can assure you that 1980's British Army methods are not rooted in 'management speak' - and I very much doubt that they are today - but word-use changes and the word 'manage' may well be used - in context and accurately. I know that the Officer selection process is relatively unchanged - and has been the same way for 2 generations.

- When you received orders - did someone then check they were carried out? That's 'management'.
- When you were allocated a bed-space, did someone check that there was a bed and the makings and that the facilities worked? That's 'management'
- Did someone check that the food had arrived, or that the mules were arranged for, and their additional forage, and the muleteers to, goodness, 'manage' them; that there were spare pila, shields, armour....I could go on? That's 'management'.

All those 'horrible' things you say the Romans did - then I'll horrify you some more - for they truly are 'management techniques' (we could call them 'control measures').

But one thing I will assure you of - is that man hasn't changed very much if at all in 10,000 years! We are no different from the Romans. Massacring populations, killing girl children, raping the planet and exploiting people mercilessly - it all still goes on; we are just a bit more 'civilised' these days.

That's not for here though. Is it just the word you don't like? For then I will use something different and concentrate on why I think the Centurion spent the majority of any battle 'commanding and controlling' his century from a position he could actually see it.

I do maintain that all the heroic actions we read about are there because they are the interesting, exciting and more 'glorious' subjects that are deliberately emphasized to affect the cultural mindset that is encouraged, wanted and needed. You want people to support and join your army and try their hardest.

So you don't read about the 99%.