Centurion Position in Battle

[Mark Hygate]

............... The point, as I understand it, is that Mark seemed to be distinguishing between 'leading' in the sense of 'taking the lead' and 'commanding' in the sense of 'directing', and arguing that the latter could be accomplished from a rearward position, taking Polybius as his authority. ...............

Ahh, no - I promise I wouldn't do that. What I am guilty of, however, is a firm understanding in my mind of what I mean when I use the word 'command' or the word 'lead' - and that's why I was particularly interested in any thoughts on the translation itself.

I only, in fact, honed in on that particular section of Polybius - because it was pointed at. It's in a book, that book is very old and, whether it is right or wrong it is reasonable evidence. Unfortunately, for me, I am only able to read a translation of that evidence - and even if I could translate it, then I would be at the mercy of those who taught me how!

For me the answer is relatively simple...

Unlike the Greek formation examples we are aware of (the works that seem to be based upon each other or the lost Posidonius (sp?)), where the 'leader' of that formation is absolutely a part of the front line and even takes the front-right position - there is reasonable evidence in the apparent numbers to suggest that for the Roman century/maniple this is not the case.

Yes, that does rely on ideas that there are only so many ways to arrange 60/120 men, that those ways are likely to produce regular shapes (in a 'regular' army), that they might well be influenced by the idea that the men fight in files based upon their 'tent-mates' (for all the 'unit cohesion' and 'male-bonding' reasons) and I do find all those possibilities likely - and the reasonable understanding (with Polybius as the main original source indeed) that the 3 'officers' (and I always try to use the apostrophes), although this does require a possible re-interpretation, are in addition.

All that implies to me that the centurion (and the others) do not have to be in the front line as a functional design of the formation and could therefore be in other places. Now, as I then try and imagine all the best places from which to carry out 'command and control' functions which I may think the centurion has to do, then all of them can be better achieved if he is in a position to roam about wherever he needs to. The one time he has to choose not to be that flexible is when he has to 'lead' - as I've said before and we have ample written evidence for it seems.

[Renatus]

What I am guilty of, however, is a firm understanding in my mind of what I mean when I use the word 'command' or the word 'lead'

Isn't that what this argument has been about - imposing modern concepts of command upon an ancient culture? It seems to me that the function of the centurion is to 'lead' in the literal meaning of that word. That is why he has a distinctive crest on his helmet - so that those behind him can see and follow him. The soldier in battle does not want to be looking over his shoulder the whole time to see where his centurion is and what he is doing. Once the battle is joined, there is no scope for the centurion to wander about from one place to another; he has his position and that, to my mind is in the front or, just possibly, in the second line, alongside the signifer. The point has been made before that, for one reason or another, a unit is unlikely to be at its paper strength except when it is newly formed, so an argument based upon there being no place for the centurion to stand would founder on that rock alone and, should it be that the unit was up to full strength, I have no doubt that a man could be ordered to step back to make way for him.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I can see the argument for the Centurion's being in the front of the formation because as junior officers their role would be to inspire those under their command by taking the lead. This is very similar to the experince of junior officers in WW1 who were expected to lead their men 'over the top' and inspire them to brave the hell that would face them as soon as they did. I wonder if Centurions suffered a disproportionate amount of casualties as opposed to the other officer classes similar to that suffered by the junior officers in WW1?

[Frank]

I wonder if Centurions suffered a disproportionate amount of casualties as opposed to the other officer classes similar to that suffered by the junior officers in WW1?

Yes they did, as we know from some sources. That's why most historians believe, that they led from the front. We just don't know where exactly and if they always did it this way.

[Bryan]

I can see the argument for the Centurion's being in the front of the formation because as junior officers their role would be to inspire those under their command by taking the lead. This is very similar to the experince of junior officers in WW1 who were expected to lead their men 'over the top' and inspire them to brave the hell that would face them as soon as they did. I wonder if Centurions suffered a disproportionate amount of casualties as opposed to the other officer classes similar to that suffered by the junior officers in WW1?

Tribunes and standard bearers also seemed to have taken a large percentage of casualties. In many of the accounts of armies taking large amounts of casualties, in many situations nearly every tribune in the army is killed (Cannae, Arausio). Caesar mentions many situations where he combines tribunes and centurions in an overall casualty count. I believe the position of military tribune was a pretty dangerous job, especially considering that it was often used as a political stepping stone to higher positions/offices, many of the tribunes would have had to shown great heroism to win a name for themselves, along with many shiny awards.

[Bryan]

Mark,

Serious question. Say a century only has 47 men in it, after getting hammered in a couple previous battles and dealing with a flu epidemic. How would the box like formation work then?

[Vindex]

One of the obvious reasons for the high casualty rate in Centurions (and Tribunes, and possibly Optios) is that they were clearly identified by the enemy and targeted to ensure the command positions were removed to cause chaos in the ranks and disrupt the passage of battlefield direction/orders/commands. Once identified , it would not matter where they stood.

[Bryan]

While I generally agree with the idea of targeting officers, I don't think it would be as easy as implied. Officers, whether centurions or tribunes, would have not only been known for being brave (prerequisite), they'd also probably know their way around a spear, javelin, sword and shield. Additionally, they probably would also be wearing armor that is better than average. A helmet with cheek guard, with some sort of metal armor covering the torso, with pteruges covering upper arms and legs, and greaves protecting the lower legs, not counting the shield they'd use to protect themselves, there aren't many very vulnerable places to attack. One facet of combat that most veterans abide by is to not attack a strong point when a weaker is available. So its a toss up. I think attacking an officer with anything other than a ranging missile weapon is a very risky move, unless you have a few friends helping you.

I know its a different time period, but I remember reading about a large group (15-20?) of French youths, all lords and knights, who made a pack together that they'd kill Henry V at Agincourt, who was fighting in the front ranks, in a brightly identifiable surcoat and crown. They all died and Henry made it through unscathed.

[Frank]

Even if it is a good guess, that a centurio led his men from the front, that does not mean, that he was standing in the first line. If he stands in the 2nd or 3rd line it is much harder to kill him. Same with the signifer.

[Bryan]

I don't think the men holding these positions were worried too much about dying in battle, which I think was the main reason their casualty rates were as high as they were. They were expected to get bloody. Signifers were selected for bravery. Tribunes were supposed to have 10 years of military experience first, though in the late republic that rule started to be watered down. Judging by Polybius' and Caesar's descriptions of centurions, bravery was a prerequisite. The ancient period wasn't like modern times, where officers hide evidence of rank to avoid snipers and such. Men in ancient leadership purposely wore gaudy outfits, in effect boasting of their position, their virtus. The casualty rates of ancient warfare, even for leaders, wasn't that high because it just wasn't that easy to kill someone in battle line (vice a melee situation or during a rout), as compared to modern warfare where in intense battles men in leadership roles often suffer 70-90% casualties. All of those positions, be it optio, signifer, centurion, praefect, tribune, were extremely competitive to get, as well as lucrative. Perform well as an optio or signifer, it could mean becoming a centurion. Perform well as a centurion in one campaign and it could mean gaining the patronage of a senior Roman, it could mean holding small magistrate positions back home, gaining clients, gaining wealth. Caesar greatly rewarded bravery among his men with higher positions and money, especially his centurions. Likewise, I think it would be near impossible to calculate how beneficial bravery and some competence could mean to a tribune, even one from a not superbly rich family. It could even mean being elected as a senior magistrate like Praetor or Consul someday (Marius and Sertorius are examples whose brave deeds as young men guaranteed their futures).

While I agree a centurion didn't always have to be in the front rank every second of the day, I think it was important that a centurion directly lead his men, which entails putting themselves in the same danger the men face. Hanging back from the front of a battle while your men are risking their own lives to "manage" or "command and control" the unit might be excusable in some circumstances, though I doubt there was much to control from the rear during a battle. But to do so to ensure your own survival is cowardice, pure and simple.

[Vindex]

So its a toss up. I think attacking an officer with anything other than a ranging missile weapon is a very risky move, unless you have a few friends helping you. .

QED

It is not necessarily the personality, it is the effect of removing them that is required (or that's what my military brain tells me).

So yes, it would be fairly obvious that more than one person would be required to make sure of disabling the command structure.

[Nathan Ross]

Tribunes were supposed to have 10 years of military experience first, though in the late republic that rule started to be watered down.

And in the empire more so. The tribune of the republic and the principiate was quite a different sort of officer. I think in Caesar's day they still tended to be young equestrians, eager to impress their chief with displays of virtus, in return for political and social advancement no doubt. By the early principiate the emperor was the sole patron of the equestrian officer, and with the institution of the tres militiae the equestrian no longer had to impress anybody on the battlefield to get ahead. We do still find inscriptions to legion tribunes who fell in battle, and some were no doubt vir militares, but far less so than in the republic.

By the later empire things change, and the tribune seems to re-emerge as a small unit commander, often risen from the ranks. Taking over from the centurion, in fact.

But I think you're right about the performance aspect of battlefield command - the centurion (and on occasion the tribune, even the legate) had not only to lead, but be seen to be leading!

[Robert Vermaat]

Even if it is a good guess, that a centurio led his men from the front, that does not mean, that he was standing in the first line. If he stands in the 2nd or 3rd line it is much harder to kill him. Same with the signifer.

Isn't that the theory behind the antesignani? The officers and standards are in the second line?

[Renatus]

Isn't that the theory behind the antesignani? The officers and standards are in the second line?

That's what I thought.

[Bryan]

QED
It is not necessarily the personality, it is the effect of removing them that is required (or that's what my military brain tells me).
So yes, it would be fairly obvious that more than one person would be required to make sure of disabling the command structure.

Pyrrhus of Epirus was specifically targeting by a troop of Latin cavalry, so much so that he had to switch his battle armor with one of his attendants, who was then promptly killed. Mithridates of Pontus was almost killed by a Roman centurion who had ridden up and infiltrated into his group of companions. T. Labienus had a horse killed out from under him, breaking his own leg, when he rode to the front of a Roman legion to mock them only to have a ranker soldier throw his pilum at him. So it definitely was done sometimes. But I don't think it was easy or done often. In two of three cases listed above, the would be killer not only failed but lost his life in the process.

Wearing gaudy and brightly colored armor and clothing made one stand out on a battlefield, which can be a good thing on your own side for command and control, as it makes identifying to all those around you that you are to be obeyed. But it also paints a bull's eye on you by allowing the enemy to know as well who the leaders are. The question is, how easy is it to kill a man? Sam Colt, the inventor of the revolving pistol, called it the "great equalizer." I think it is telling that the modern assault rifle, far deadlier than a Colt revolver, let alone a javelin or sword, is the least deadly weapon on the battlefield today. That makes tactics such as removing the enemy's chain of command a viable and oft used option in the modern era, as shooting someone you think is a leader isn't all that hard, especially if they are foolish enough to be standing around yelling at their people while the rest are cowering in the prone. But it just wouldn't have been an easy thing to do in the ancient period.

Not only would the officer classes be well trained and well armored, in many times, they would be surrounded by competent and equally well trained killers, essentially bodyguards. So to target the officer meant also having to go at the strongest part of the enemy formation and attacking it. As an example, a centurion fighting in the front line will essentially be surrounded by the greatest fighters in his century/maniple, who will also be in the front ranks. There is no way possible, unless you have an extremely high standard for recruitment, selection, and retention (like the 1st Cohort of a Legion or a well selected Praetorian cohort), that a unit of 60-80 men will all be made up of brave killers. In reality, I think only a small portion of those will be aggressive men who look forward to casual violence and confrontation (10-30%). Scrappers. In battle, it was these men that the centurion really needed to control, as they would be the reason for success or failure. If your bravest men falter in the advance, how can you expect the timid and cowardly to move forward? (Hence one of my reasons for the necessity of the centurion being in front in battle). The rest of the men in a contested fight might be eager to throw their pila from a distance or even stab/slash at the enemy should their formation break and they start running, but I doubt all of them would be willing or able to brave the front lines to get it stuck in. Missile weapons were given to infantry exactly because of this reason, men are more willing to use them, vice cold steel (or case hardened iron in the case of the Romans).

A signifer was specifically chosen as the bravest man in the unit (Polybius and others). His duties would necessarily be dangerous but many existed to protect him, as the greatest dishonor would be to lose the standards. According to the tales of Lucius Sicinius Dentatus, the Roman Achilles, by Livy, who was awarded his first commission as Primus Pilus when he rescued the Legion's Eagle from the enemy (the story is unfortunately highly anachronistic with choose of words). As reward for his bravery, Dentatus was to replace the current Primus Pilus who had offered to resign in disgrace for being responsible for losing it, instead Dentatus turned it down and was given the Primus Pilus position in the other legion. From other sources, I can't remember which at the moment, I read that in camp it was the Primus Pilus's duty to guard the Eagle standard. This was probably also the case for other centurions as well, they were responsible for the standard, as they were the ones who chose the standard bearers. Ultimately, the signifer would also have been readily replaceable, should he die or waiver in battle, many others probably wanted the job, part of which probably meant glory with a high chance of death.

A military tribune was one of six men who for hundreds of years were the true officers of a Roman legion, as they were actually commissioned by the Senate and People of Rome, either through direct elections or by Senatorial/Consular appointments. Some of them were of the Senatorial classes, the remainder of the Equestrian Order, but those sort would be ambitious men, as the position, in any time period, would have been highly competitive. To further understand them, they came from classes that on any given day, while not campaigning, surrounded themselves with as many clients as possible as they went about their daily routine. Sometimes that meant walking around with literally thousands of men trailing you. The more men, the more powerful they were. In military campaigns, they often brought attendants, friends, servants, etc. Some brought philosophers. Others brought buddies. Maybe some even brought servant bodyguards, in the form ex-gladiators. Marius as Consul had brought gladiators with him on campaign against the Teutones in 102 BC, most likely serving in that role. We know from Polybius that in camp, there tents were guarded by soldiers. Maybe even in battle some soldiers were delegated to serve with them as a protective detachment. I doubt many in battle traveled alone.

Killing officers is a lot easier said than done.