Centurion Position in Battle

[Bryan]

Mark,

I'm going to tone my posts down a bit. I get a little too carried away sometimes with the sarcasm. I blame the hydrocodone mixed with bad memories of incompetent military officers in the past who loved using a technical business-related vocabulary. My reactions did little to further the debate at hand and were childish. I'll attempt to be a bit more civil in the future. My apologies.

That out of the way, in your last lengthy post you delved into some pretty controversial/debatable topics but you didn't answer Nathan Ross' question?

Is there any evidence or support for the idea that the centurion commanded from the rear in battle? There are several sources, most already mentioned here, that suggest he led from the front. From where are you drawing the idea that he did not?

As for standard bearers in general carrying shields, I'd add to the previous two pictures of archaeological finds already provided in the thread with an artistic representation that could explain the "how" a little better:

[img width=300]http://www.markchurms.com/mm5/graphics/eagle-m.jpg[/img]

A traditional tall oval or rectangular scuta, with its horizontal grip would be more difficult to carry like this but with a parma, as described by Polybius, it would be ideal, as you can carry it gripped vertically inline with the shaft of the standard. I believe it would offer a pretty good surface area of protection. Coupled with a dedicated guard whose duty it would be to protect the standard bearer (maybe even one of the duties of the centurion?), as well as putting the standard in the arms of the bravest/toughest man in the unit (Polybius amongst hundreds of others sources of standard bearers being chosen among the bravest men), I think that the signifer had a pretty high chance of surviving a fight, as long as things went well. However, Caesar's Commentaries are full of descriptions of battles where things didn't go well. Usually along with descriptions of high number of casualties among centurions, you can find signifers added as well, meaning their lives were also usually in peril more than the average soldier. A bit more evidence of their placement in the unit I think. Maybe not in the very front rank, but I think they fought awfully close to it.

[Mark Hygate]

Dealing with issues...

Michael's link to the signifers on Trajan's column show them holding (underarm, held in the palm of the hand and, potentially holding a small knife?) a relatively small disc-shaped object. But is it a shield, or perhaps a plate of some sort (for an offering possibly and that's why the knife)?

Bryan then shows the nice rendering of an aquilifer with such a possible shield, but just like the plate-shaped object above it is only roughly 1ft in diameter and is thus is definitely not a parma (cf Polybius), which is 3ft in diameter.

Now, and with an apology for the apparent excess of sarcasm, for it was not meant as such deliberately, I can certainly imagine an aquilifer/signifer with heel of standard resting on the ground in the main, with either a sword or a shield (and Bryan's earlier monument at least has a decent sized shield) in the other hand. But I cannot genuinely accept that in either case, nor even if an incredibly small shield were present, that they could contribute as much as we, I thought, believed the average soldier with large shield and sword could.

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.

But if none of those are more than likely potentials for considering that the standard-bearer is not in the front line, then I will not be able to convince anyone. To me they are all logical reasons to suggest that he is not always - unless it's necessary.

For it comes to Nathan's restatement - for I am not, and would not, attempting to suggest that the centurion (or signifer) never fought in the front line. I quite agree that, when a leadership example, for whatever reason, was necessary - then they were and could be.

But I do disagree with the idea that standards were used to signal orders to the century they actually belonged to. The members of a signifer's own century are next to them. They can touch their mates. They can hear their centurion and optio. It does act as a 'standard' for the men, however.

The standards' use for signalling orders is, I believe, over much greater distances and, quite possibly are of the flag/vexilla style because you need something more to attract the eye to movement. Blow the cornicen to attract sub-commanders attention and then a visual indication of what the order is.

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.

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.

But I am not going to be able to ever provide 'proof' - for if I could, then there would be no discussion. :errr:

[Vindex]

- I am utterly comfortable seeing the optio as a platoon/century sergeant, because I see it as an obvious parallel. But either way he is also synonymous with the Greek file-closer, although there is only one of him. I see him outside and to the rear of the 60-man formation, because he has to keep all the files closed up - is that a wrong assumption?

I really think we should try to get away from modern comparisons like this. The optio was the second in command of the century, or even shared command of the century as necessary. If you call him a platoon sgt it means different things to different people.

[Vindex]

- I am utterly comfortable seeing the optio as a platoon/century sergeant, because I see it as an obvious parallel. But either way he is also synonymous with the Greek file-closer, although there is only one of him. I see him outside and to the rear of the 60-man formation, because he has to keep all the files closed up - is that a wrong assumption?

I really think we should try to get away from modern comparisons like this. The optio was the second in command of the century, or even shared command of the century as necessary. If you call him a platoon sgt it means different things to different people.

[PhilusEstilius]

What I find a bit of a puzzle is where Mark gets the 60 man formation when it should be 80 for we are indeed talking about a century Roman style and two of these made up a maniple that would have been the smaller standard fighting unit and three of these maniples then created a Cohort of 480 men and with Centurians and Optio's we would have 492.

[Mark Hygate]

What I find a bit of a puzzle is where Mark gets the 60 man formation when it should be 80 for we are indeed talking about a century Roman style and two of these made up a maniple that would have been the smaller standard fighting unit and three of these maniples then created a Cohort of 480 men and with Centurians and Optio's we would have 492.

This I can at least answer with confidence.

The only century (ies) we have detailed sufficiently are the Manipular-Polybian ones and they are 60 heavy infantry (hastati or principes) and 20 light infantry (velites); the numbers are halved for a triari half-century.

It is my current personal belief that this structure does indeed continue with the velites evolving into the antesignanii, so the numbers still align for later periods. The 'century' is indeed 80 men/miles and 3 'officers'.

[Mark Hygate]

- I am utterly comfortable seeing the optio as a platoon/century sergeant, because I see it as an obvious parallel. But either way he is also synonymous with the Greek file-closer, although there is only one of him. I see him outside and to the rear of the 60-man formation, because he has to keep all the files closed up - is that a wrong assumption?

I really think we should try to get away from modern comparisons like this. The optio was the second in command of the century, or even shared command of the century as necessary. If you call him a platoon sgt it means different things to different people.

I'm sorry, whilst I do indeed fail to understand why the period of 2,000 years ago is somehow considered so completely different to now that parallels are meaningless, I will not draw such, otherwise seemingly accurate, conclusions again.

My excuse is simply that the British (and others) Platoon Sergeant of the Napoleonic era and just before (the next time in history we really have any organised army comparisons with the Romans) and even up to the present day has, practicably, an almost identical likely set of roles. To me that's just obvious. But, no more, I promise. If I slip - just tell me.

[PhilusEstilius]

Mark.
That 60 did throw me a bit for as you can see from my earlier posts I am woring around the later period of 1st to 2nd century, with of course my long held belief of just how the pilum throw at the start of battles might have been carried out for it is a more easier way to get all troopers to throw at exactly the same time for shock effect.
The Pilus Prior would be forward at the right with all troopers watching him waiting for his throw whilst the Pilus Posteria might be at the rear with the second century making up the maniple, for indeed the maniple would appear to not only fight together but also lived together in their barrack accomodation.

[Vindex]

... an almost identical likely set of roles. To me that's just obvious.

mile: It's the "likely" that causes me a problem. You are making an assumption based on later models which may, or may not, be parallel and require more evidence than that which we have from the period we are discussing (otherwise, I am not sure we would be discussing it at all!). It is part of the fun of studying and researching.

[Bryan]

How are we now focusing on the standard bearer?

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.

This is a Celtic Boar Standard:




It comes down to "What is the Role of the Standard Bearer?" If you think its to fight, that giving him a big stick with a metal symbol socketed to the top would probably hinder them. If his role is to carry a unit's standard in battle, to serve as a rallying point and guide for soldiers within his unit, then a small shield would probably work.

And I think you are the only one that holds to the idea that the ranks in a Roman century pressed with shields pressed against the backs of one another. Both Polybius and Vegetius mention 6 feet between ranks and the scutum is hardly in aspis, it isn't shaped to press into the back and legs of the man in front of him without seriously impeding their movement.

[Bryan]

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.

[Renatus]

Michael's link to the signifers on Trajan's column show them holding (underarm, held in the palm of the hand and, potentially holding a small knife?) a relatively small disc-shaped object. But is it a shield, or perhaps a plate of some sort (for an offering possibly and that's why the knife)?

More signiferi with dinner plates? I don't think so.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co..._01%29.jpg

[Timus]

About the battle duty of the centurion, one could assume that it was his role to "aim" his century during the movement to contact.

Which is not as simple as simply going forward or backward. If he deviates to the right or left, he's gonna mess with the order of the unit to his right or left.
And then, he might even had to aim for a specific spot in the enemy battle line. And the centurion of the century the further to the right (so either a primus hastatus or pilus depending on the period) would have to make sure not too aim to short of the end of the enemy battle line, but also not too loose contact with the century to its left.

An interesting situation to picture is two roman battle line walking toward each other. Assuming there are small intervals between centuries/maniples which would leave a little room to maneuver, I think there'd be a strong incentive for two centuries roughly facing each other to walk and then charge head on. If a centurion deviates from that, then the centurion on the other side would have the opportunity to hit head on the side of the century and get an initial advantage in the fight.

Also, the field of battle might contain various obstacles and the centurion might have to lead its century right around it without messing up the good order of the formation, and the sooner he aims the trajectory of its unit around the obstacle, the less trouble it should cause.

So the way I see it, a centurion duty would involve at least that. I think he'd need to be in the front rank to do so properly. But its actual position might vary depending on the status of the battle, and the fact that we have no known position for him (contrary to his greek/hellenic counterpart) might be an indication of flexibility in that regard.
Could be something like:
- initial movement to contact: he leads from a spot on the right and front. He tries to find the right balance between keeping his century in his "lane",avoiding bad ground and aiming at a good spot in the enemy battle line.
- he comes withing pila then charging range: he's the calling out the two orders when appropriate
- first moment of the initial melee: he fights from that spot because really he has no choice after the charge.
-the situation is stabilized but the century is still in contact, he might withdraw behind his formation to help his optio organise the rear ranks to respond to the enemy unequal pressure on his century.
- first lull: he walks around his century to dress the ranks as best as possible. Might walk over or yell to the next century to coordinate a bit.
- after a moment, he has to resume combat, but his men might not be too enthusiastic about that and might not know where to even go exactly. Once again, it'd be his job to aim for a specific spot and lead by example.
- In a prolonged melee, he might indeed be better off letting his men do the fighting, and instead manage them, shove them forward or to the side of the formation, grab men that seem to be tired and replace them 1 for 1 when possible.
-And repeat till there is no more fighting to be done.

[Mark Hygate]

Bryan,

I know you like to disagree because you have some different views, but please don't state things I haven't said/written.

Standards - yes, nearly all armies have standards. Kings and Generals have them so that people can find them and watch them for information/orders in many cases. Units have them so that Kings & Generals know where they are. They can also be used as rallying points, or even just points to assemble - if units get dispersed. They can also be used to carry honours and awards and become objects of veneration - but that's all after their primary uses.

Cavalry and infantry tactics/drills are very different - the horse makes it so.

You take the bravest soldier because, when you want him, when encouragement is needed, you want him to be brave. Because you imbue a standard with honour, you make it an award to have the job. You want to encourage bravery - so you recognise it. All those things are part of any, particularly male, group psyche. Have been for millennia.

A scutum and a hoplon (which I assume is the sort of aspis you meant) are both dished/curved except one is round and one is oblong - I think the scutum is actually better shaped for bracing - if that is necessary.

I know we've disagreed (and agreed) on the Romans methods of fighting - but Polybius and Vegetius actually say different things and not the same (the first writes 3ft between soldiers; the latter each one occupies 3ft, but with 6ft between ranks - I have previously shown how both could be correct, but at different times).

[Mark Hygate]

[quote][quote="Mark Hygate" post=356554]Michael's link to the signifers on Trajan's column show them holding (underarm, held in the palm of the hand and, potentially holding a small knife?) a relatively small disc-shaped object. But is it a shield, or perhaps a plate of some sort (for an offering possibly and that's why the knife)?[/quote]
More signiferi with dinner plates? I don't think so.

Michael,

No, they look more like shields - I was simply asking, for the previous picture showed them being held strangely. If signifers/aquilifers had small shields (so the unit is identified?) then they were not 3ft diameter parmas.

I had certainly, up until now, been under the impression that a Roman standard of those types was a two-handed carrying job. If it is not (and here I would happily defer to anyone who has carried a reasonable facsimile ) - can you actually fight with it as well as a man with gladius and scutum? If you cannot, then you do not belong in the front rank under normal circumstances.