Centurion Position in Battle

[Timus]

Quick question.
Are there any indications pointing toward the optios and signifer of the cohort forming their own tent parties ?
So that a legionary cohort would have something like 60 tents for the regular miles, 1 for the 6 optios, 1 for the 6(?) signifers and 6 for the 6 centurions ? With a similar arrangement for the cornicen too I guess.
Sorry if I'm a bit off topic.

[Nathan Ross]

Are there any indications pointing toward the optios and signifer of the cohort forming their own tent parties ?

P-Hyginus (really our only source for this sort of thing) is quite clear that the century camped together with ten tents for the men and one bigger tent for the centurion. Barrack arrangements were apparently the same - if the principales of a cohort were all gathered together elsewhere they'd need their own special accommodation, which doesn't seem to have existed.

Despite the note above about the optio in the republican legion, I still think that by the empire (at least) both he and the signifer were drawn from the men in the century and messed with their usual contubernia, certainly in the field. They may plausibly have had separate rooms in the barrack, if such were available.

[Bryan]

So it would appear that, during the republic at least, the optiones were indeed additional to the number of the century!

Are there any other sources that conflict with Vegetius? Reading Polybius makes it seem the opposite.

[Bryan]

Incidentally, as I was looking up that quote I found an intriguing note in Milner (p53 n4):

Festus 216.23 L - "the optio as he is now called was once termed accensus. He was given to a centurion as an assistant by the tribune of the soldiers."

'accensi' is translated on the same page as 'extras'.

So it would appear that, during the republic at least, the optiones were indeed additional to the number of the century!

I'm far from an expert in Latin, but according to a couple different online internet translations, accensus means an attendant, follower, or orderly, as well as burning or something on fire, and a few mentions of "additional."

[Mark Hygate]

Are there any indications pointing toward the optios and signifer of the cohort forming their own tent parties ?

P-Hyginus (really our only source for this sort of thing) is quite clear that the century camped together with ten tents for the men and one bigger tent for the centurion. Barrack arrangements were apparently the same - if the principales of a cohort were all gathered together elsewhere they'd need their own special accommodation, which doesn't seem to have existed.

Despite the note above about the optio in the republican legion, I still think that by the empire (at least) both he and the signifer were drawn from the men in the century and messed with their usual contubernia, certainly in the field. They may plausibly have had separate rooms in the barrack, if such were available.

p-H also goes on to suggest that 16 men from the century are on guard all the time and thus only 8 tents are pitched for them and that makes room for the centurions tent! One of his more significant oddities.

Any idea of the reason for the possible change (the bolded part of the quote) by the Imperial period?

[Nathan Ross]

One of his more significant oddities.

Yes it is! Unless we assume it was the same sixteen men all night, every night, there would be a constant carousel of tent-swapping going on... :-|

Any idea of the reason for the possible change (the bolded part of the quote) by the Imperial period?

Maybe the rise of longer terms of enlistment and the maintenance of 'standing' legions in the provinces, meaning that legions were not being so regularly demobilised and reenlisted? Also perhaps the rise in prestige of the centurion, meaning he could pick his own optio rather than being 'given' one by the tribune (and so therefore used the men in his own centuria)? But I have no great knowledge of the mid republican era!

[Mark Hygate]

One of his more significant oddities.

Yes it is! Unless we assume it was the same sixteen men all night, every night, there would be a constant carousel of tent-swapping going on... :-|

Indeed - it does stretch the bounds of credulity.....but then the Romans were different it seems.

Any idea of the reason for the possible change (the bolded part of the quote) by the Imperial period?

Maybe the rise of longer terms of enlistment and the maintenance of 'standing' legions in the provinces, meaning that legions were not being so regularly demobilised and reenlisted? Also perhaps the rise in prestige of the centurion, meaning he could pick his own optio rather than being 'given' one by the tribune (and so therefore used the men in his own centuria)? But I have no great knowledge of the mid republican era!

Thanks - but I assume your assumption of the centurion + 80 is therefore p-Hyginus based?

[Frank]

Beside the "tactical principales", as Domaszewski called the optio, the signifer and the tesserarius (if really a principalis), we have some more principales. There are senior principales in a legion like the cornicularius and several beneficarii. And we have some junior principales, even if it is disputed, if they were just immunes or more. Lots of librarii, the custos armorum, some special optios and more.

All these guys were on the payroll of a century. They were still soldiers of this century, even if they worked all day long for the legate, a tribune or the praefectus castrorum. But where did they sleep? I don't know of additional tents for the staff of the legion.

So perhaps in this "NCO-Barrack" of the century, lived more than just 2-3 principales. And this leads to the next question. If all these staff-principales were supernumerarii, than we need more tents in the camp. If not, we need less than 10 tents for the ordinary legionairs.

And whats about all the principales working in the headquarter of the governor, the procurator and the governor of this other province in the neighbourhood, which had no legions? Again a lot of beneficarii, librarii, commentarii, speculatores and others. Supernumerarii or not? We know from daily reports, that a lot of soldiers were commandeered to the headquarter and elsewhere. But they have been still on the legions / centuries payroll. A lot of barracks have been most probably pretty empty. Enough space for an exclusive principales-barrack amongst the known 10 barracks per century.

Finally I guess, there was enough space for everyone in the standard camp. On the other hand, the number and size of barracks does not tell us that much. 80 men in 10 barracks including all principales plus a centurio in a separate barrack was perhaps the max size of a century, if everybody was at home. But that was never the case, even not if a legion went on a campaign. Too many legionairs and especially principales were busy with administration elsewhere. Regardless if there was a war or not.

[Nathan Ross]

your assumption of the centurion + 80 is therefore p-Hyginus based?

He seems one of the least unreliable of our narrators. At least he was writing about his own time, while Varro and Vegetius were clearly not. But I'm agnostic on the issue - I'm sure the numbers in a century fluctuated wildly over the centuries. 80 seems a reasonable official figure for the principiate.

All these guys were on the payroll of a century... But where did they sleep?.

This is another question, really, and I seem to recall there being a debate about it before. Besides the men you mention, there were also the equites legionis on the rolls of the century - about two men in each, in fact. Did they keep their horses in barracks too?

But it's a good point - there were plenty of men on the century's strength who had other tasks; they may not have been present in barrack or camp tents, and perhaps not in the battle formation either. Yet another known unknown to throw out our calculations!

[Thomas Aagaard]

How many of the posters here are ex-military? Can they have some input on how they drilled using both voice commands and bugle calls.

I am and I do have some experience commanding "units" of 20-25men in medieval type mock battles.
For this we use a whistle before yelling the command. This makes the men pay attention. Otherwise the order usually gets lost in the noise and it helps the commander not ruin his voice...

Using bugles.
Iam reading the danish 1863 drillbook atm. So yes many centuries off...
It covered the bugle calls for the battalion. (one battalion = 4 companies each of 200men. than again can be divided into 4 platoons of 50 men)
First the bugler gives the signal identifying the battalion.
Then he gives on of 9 signals telling who in the battalion the order is to.
(1. the entire Battalion, 2. 1st company, 3. 2nd, 3, 3rd, 5.4th, 6.skirmishers, 7.reserve. 8.left flank. 9.right flank)
The correct units then repeats the signal to show that it have been heard. (unless the buglers can see each other, then they can just wave)

Then the battalion bugler give the order. There is a total of 18 of them. Number 10-25.
(open order. close order. forward. fall back. faster. slower. hold. to the right. to the left. straight ahead. 2x formation change. fire. stop firing. charge. long tone for a pre agreed order. form colonm. deploy skirmishers (or reinforce them) call back skirmishers)

The company bugler can do the same. Give the battalion, company signals (2-5) and then the order.(10-25)

---------
Please note Iam in no way saying that the romans did this. Just that this worked on a 19th century battlefield with blackpowder going of all over the place. And I can't really see why the romans should not have been able to do something similar.
Bugler: "3rd Legion", "left flank", "advance"

[Frank]

Besides the men you mention, there were also the equites legionis on the rolls of the century - about two men in each, in fact. Did they keep their horses in barracks too?

If we look to cavalry camps, the cavalrists and their horses lived in mixed barrack. One side of the barrack was a stable for 3 horses and the other side rooms for 3 soldiers, iirc. But we did not find this type of barracks in a legions camp so far. Even if they are easy to identify, because the ground of a stable is contaminated.

- there were plenty of men on the century's strength who had other tasks; they may not have been present in barrack or camp tents, and perhaps not in the battle formation either. Yet another known unknown to throw out our calculations!

And this is important for the topic of this thread, which is battle formation of a centuria.

No legate with a brain let his cornicularius fight and die. Also the beneficarius tribuni was probably at the side of his tribune, ready to perform whatever task is needed during combat. Also the optio valetudinarii and his capsularii had better things to do during a battle than fighting. And additionally hundreds of soldiers were hundred of miles away in the adminstration centers of the province.

Therfore I guess that the strength of every century in a battle was different. Something between 50 and 70 men perhaps. So if the legate orders, that the line has to be 8 men deep, some centuries are broader than others. Nice blocks of 10 x 8 men are most probably just happening in Hollywood movies.

[Timus]

One of his more significant oddities.

Yes it is! Unless we assume it was the same sixteen men all night, every night, there would be a constant carousel of tent-swapping going on... :-|

Indeed - it does stretch the bounds of credulity.....but then the Romans were different it seems.

If I may, that kind of sleeping arrangements are fairly common in a military context. The most obvious examples are navy related, since place on a ship or submarine is at a premium. But even modern land forces sometimes still have to do that in the field. At least, all the tents or sleeping cots will be warm when your guard shift is over. Plus, in order for the first guard shift to finally retire, they have to physically remove the next shift from their sleeping places, so that reduces the risk of confusion. Having one less tent or even sleeping bag is also a plus when everything has to be carried on the soldiers' back.
Judging from the family's stories, it's really just part of of the military life when you're away from the barracks.

I don't know if if the Romans did it, but that would not strike me as odd at all.

[Nathan Ross]

Therfore I guess that the strength of every century in a battle was different.

Yes, Brueggeman's suggested 'battlefield formations' (linked above) allow for this, by taking men off the rear of the formation to act as stretcher-bearers, artillerymen etc, or just as absentees for whatever reason.

But I tend to think that the rather geometric rank and file formations that we see in diagrams and computer simulations are probably pretty far from reality anyway. Preserving such regular spacings might have been possible on a parade ground, but in battle, with men throwing javelins and being pushed back and forth by the enemy, it would surely have been impossible.

So we might better imagine the front two or three ranks, perhaps, as keeping a regular formation, but the ranks behind being more varied in number, and perhaps resembling a bit more of a mob. All the more reason, in such case, to put the centurion at the front!

that kind of sleeping arrangements are fairly common in a military context.

Some sort of 'hot bunking' arrangement has been suggested before for barrack accommodation, I think. In the case of Hyginus and his tents though, he claims that each 8-man contubernium had their own tent, but there were only eight tents for the ten contubernia. The two vacancies were made up of the 16 men on sentry duty.

But that would mean that every time the sentries changed, the 16 men would have to turn the next shift out of their tents, who in turn would have to turn the next shift out of theirs, and so on. Over the course of a night, assuming four watches, over half the century would have to get up and move themselves and their stuff to a different tent!

I don't know, maybe it worked like this, or maybe Hyginus was confused, or something... :neutral:

[Mark Hygate]

..............
If I may, that kind of sleeping arrangements are fairly common in a military context. The most obvious examples are navy related, since place on a ship or submarine is at a premium. But even modern land forces sometimes still have to do that in the field. At least, all the tents or sleeping cots will be warm when your guard shift is over. Plus, in order for the first guard shift to finally retire, they have to physically remove the next shift from their sleeping places, so that reduces the risk of confusion. Having one less tent or even sleeping bag is also a plus when everything has to be carried on the soldiers' back.
Judging from the family's stories, it's really just part of of the military life when you're away from the barracks.

I don't know if if the Romans did it, but that would not strike me as odd at all.

Quite understood - and I've done it myself - the normal reason is that it is space that is the reason - whatever the cause for that is. Sleeping bag sharing is not commonly practiced, but raises my principle query against Hyginus' statement (let alone his others)....

For the thing that most puzzled me is - where's their kit gone? Just about all camps I've ever seen are dutifully tidied (if done properly) and I would expect said kit to be inside their tent (pilfering discouraged). In the second case; I would more have expected whole centuries to have been drawing duty at once - given it gives a full structure to fall back on.

[Robert Vermaat]

If we look to cavalry camps, the cavalrists and their horses lived in mixed barrack. One side of the barrack was a stable for 3 horses and the other side rooms for 3 soldiers, iirc. But we did not find this type of barracks in a legions camp so far. Even if they are easy to identify, because the ground of a stable is contaminated.

Recent discussion raised the possibility of a second floor, the men sleeping right above the animals.