Centurion Position in Battle

[ValentinianVictrix]

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 could, but is that relevant? In my case there was never a deafening din of batle which would make the sound of bugles (or the voice of the commanding officer) difficult to hear.

I believe it is relevant Robert in that when you read good accounts of battles you get the sense that when the opposing lines drew close they halted a short distance from each other before the signal to attack was given. I would suggest at that point although both sides would have been trading insults, calling on their God's, ancestors etc, raising war cries, I'm certain it would not have been as noisy as when the battle lines actually clashed.

Any visual signals would have been difficult to observe once both sides were in hand to hand combat, one obvious reason being the clouds of dust which the ancients often stated were raised during the battle.

[Mark Hygate]

Nathan,

Brilliant - thank you. I would love to look at an image of the inscription - unfortunately (whilst registered and can search) I don't seem to be able to make the Search on the CIL/Arachne site work for me.

I am happy to believe that a unit may have made additional ones (perhaps even over establishment) and III Augusta now has 34 some 500 years after the construct started for some reason.

Moi,

A 'runner' can deliver a decent message, whereas a trumpt is very limited - probably limited to a very few 'messages'.

All,

I have no converns with Vegetius' descriptions, nor the Byzantine which I do think are relevant. The signals they talk about (and very few of them) are, effectively, army-level signals.

And that's part of my point - the century/centurion doesn't need their own. I do hope I'm writing reasonable English (and will avoid emoticons if it's cosidered inappropriate on such a forum) - but it is kind of frustrating to be accused of things I haven't written.

Yes - there were signals and not many of them. The ones we see are 'global' signals - they don't require a cornu per century/maniple.

I am ex-military - and the best example I can give is the complex world of urban fighting (without radios!). I've trained as a platoon commander in the dispersed environment of the 'village'. You cannot see each other. I would argue that a 'modern' battlefield (in fact all the way back to serious musket use) is a far noisier place that the ancient battlefield. Having 'grenades' (thunder-flashes) go off in rooms also does nothing for your hearing.

Voice - shouting - and a runner.

I've also taught drill - normally I've been many yards away from the 'platoon' and honestly don't believe there would be any real problem if I was a single step behind them and they were in front of me.


Nathan's point is well made - and it's lovely to have such information (I just wish I could see it). My basis for the paucity of cornicen's is rooted in the basis for my organisational theory - which doesn't belong in this thread. So - a new one......which might also address Frank's Tribune detail.

[Nathan Ross]

I would love to look at an image of the inscription

Text (from Clauss-Slaby):

Pro felicitate et inco/lumitate{m} saeculi do/minorum nn[n(ostrorum)] Augg[[g(ustorum)] / L(uci) Septimi Severi Pii Pertinacis / Aug(usti) et M(arci) Aureli Antonini / Aug(usti) [[[et L(uci) Septimi Getae Caes(aris)] <<Part(hici) Brit(annici) Germ(anici)>> / <<max(imi)>> Aug(usti) et Iuliae Aug(ustae) / matri Aug(usti) n(ostri) et cast(rorum) / [[[et Fulviae Plautillae Aug(ustae)] <<et senatus et patriae>> / Antonini Aug(usti) nostri [[coniugis] <<Invicti>> / cor(nicines) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) P(iae) V(indicis) // L(ucius) Clodius Secundus opt(io) / C(aius) Iulius Felix / Q(uintus) Vibius Felix / C(aius) Iulius Sterceius / P(ublius) Vetulenius Rogat(us) / C(aius) Iulius Africanus / C(aius) Iulius Lucianus / Valerius Apollin(aris) / L(ucius) Antonius Maximu(s) / Q(uintus) Apronius Crescen(s) / Nonius Faustinus / T(itus) Flavius Florus / C(aius) Iulius Martialis / Aemilius Saturnin(us) / M(arcus) Hortensius Primus / C(aius) Iulius Donatus / M(arcus) Iulius Donatus / T(itus) Cla(u)dius Catullinus // C(aius) Malius Felix / Antonius Maximus / C(aius) Popilius Felix / Sextilius Datus / C(aius) Valerius Optatus / Valerius Gudullus / C(aius) Iulius Septiminus / Iulius Saturninus / Gargilius Masculus / Q(uintus) Iulius Saturninus / Sittius Crescenti(nus) / Tadius Saturninus / Caecilius Secund(us) / Veturius Secundus / Aemilius Dexter / C(aius) Iulius Paulinus / C(aius) Mallius Ianuarius / Iulius Sigillanus // Scamnari n(omine) dabunt col(legae) qui fac(ti) fuer(int) / |(denarios) DCCL si qui(s) d(e) col(legiis) tram(are) pro(fecerit) cum / pr[a]es(cripto) acc(ipiet) viat(icum) pro M(ari) |(denarios) CC eq(ue) ar(ca) |(denarios) D / it<e=I>m vet(e)ranis anularium nomine |(denarios) D / item si qui(s) ex coll(egiis) amplio(re) grad(u) prof(ecerit) accip(iet) |(denarios) D / item si qui(s) obitum naturae red(diderit) acc(ipiet) her(es) ips(ius) sive proc(urator) |(denarios) D / item quod abom(inamur) si qui(s) locu(m) su[um] amis(erit) / accipiet |(denarios) CCL / {e}i{s}t(e)m qui arc(a) solut(i) sunt et si quis de tironib(us) / ab hac die satis / arcae fec(erit) accipiet quitquit debet(ur) lex fact(a) XI Kal(endas) Sep(tembres) [[[Plautiano] / II et [[Getae] II co(n)s(ulibus) <g=C>e<m=N>in<u=I>s Antoninus Filinus Marcus

[Frank]

How many of the posters here are ex-military?

I was in the german army. Fortunately, we never fought in formation and we had no scutum and gladius. Nevertheless, during combat training, all I had to watch was the lovely voice of my sergeant.

[Vindex]

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 could, but is that relevant? In my case there was never a deafening din of batle which would make the sound of bugles (or the voice of the commanding officer) difficult to hear.

I'd second that.

[Vindex]

Moi,

A 'runner' can deliver a decent message, whereas a trumpt is very limited - probably limited to a very few 'messages'.

.

I think we are at cross purposes here. My point was that a trumpet signal has just as much chance of being heard/obeyed as a runner trying to pass a complex message. In the heat of battle, how complex does it have to be? It is not necessarily Waterloo with Aides de Camp galloping here, there and everywhere.

[Bryan]

Romans had four different types of musical instruments used in military contexts: the cornu (tuba), tuba (trumpet), bucina, and lituus. Vegetius specifically mentions that "the tuba sounds the charge and retreat, the cornu are used to regulate the motions of the standards.." (2.22) and that "the instruments signaled the army to advance, retreat, halt, pursue fugitives or to be recalled." (3.5)

Accidentally alerting the wrong units with horns and other musical has been a problem from the dawn of ages until musical instruments stopped being used. Caesar blamed his "difficulties" at the battle of Gergovia on the wrong units hearing horn commands that didn't apply to them. Runners are one of the most secure methods of delivering info but it is also one of the least reliable. Sometimes runners are not able to find the proper recipients to deliver messages, they get lost, or are killed/otherwise incapable of delivering their messages. Yelling/voice doesn't always work, especially in a settings (ancient combat) that specifically mention loud noises, such as banging shields against weapons, screaming curses and war cries, or singing war songs. Good luck being heard by your men over that. Also, for those that have attempted to yell loud for long periods, especially yelling louder than everyone else around you, people have a tendency to become hoarse, military experience and combat training notwithstanding.

Ancient Warfare Magazine, Volume III, Issue 6, has multiple in depth articles about this subject, containing actual sources. Highly recommend those interested in the use of military musicians and signalling, as well as some articles about the use of standards.

[Bryan]

the centurions crest is to help other people identify him - not his own men.

Also from Vegetius:

"Besides the centurions, now called centenarii, were distinguished by different crests on their helmets, to be more easily known by the soldiers of their respective centuries. These precautions prevented any mistake, as every century was guided not only by its own ensign but likewise by the peculiar form of the helmet of its commanding officers."

"But the centurions had complete cuirasses, shields, and helmets of iron, the crest of which, placed transversely thereon, were ornamented with silver that they might be more easily distinguished by their respective soldiers."

[Nathan Ross]

"...every century was guided not only by its own ensign but... its commanding officers... centurions... might be more easily distinguished by their respective soldiers."

This is from Vegetius, Book II, sections 13 and 16. The Milner translation is slightly different, but gives the same impression:

II.XIII: ex qua cohorte uel quota esset centuria, in illo uexillo litteris esset adscriptum, quod intuentes uel legentes milites in quantouis tumultu a contubernalibus suis aberrare non possent.

(the ensign was inscribed with letters indicating the century’s cohort and ordinal number within it. Seeing and reading this, the soldiers could not stray from their comrades, whatever the confusion of battle)

centeni milites sequerentur non solum uexillum suum sed etiam centurionem, qui signum habebat in galea

(soldiers in groups of a hundred followed their own ensign and the centurion who had the sign on his helmet)

Obviously, the soldiers could neither see nor follow their ensign nor their centurion's helmet crest if either were behind them. The verb sequerenter, I think, makes it clear that the centurion was physically leading and the soldiers following.

I don't know about you, but this seems to clear up the question of both the centurion's and the signifer's position in battle...

[PhilusEstilius]

I do think that after all this going around the houses with trumpets and battle tactics the end of the day answer is that a centurian was in charge of and lead his century, therefore he was in front for where does one lead from but at the front and as he lived and worked with these men I'm sure he could have lead them through the gates of hell had he wanted to and they would have followed. Amen.

[Densus]

(the ensign was inscribed with letters indicating the century’s cohort and ordinal number within it. Seeing and reading this, the soldiers could not stray from their comrades, whatever the confusion of battle)

Just to go off topic again, but the bit in bold would also appear to indicate that individual centuries had a number rather than just being known as the 'century of Claudius' or whatever the centurions name was. Something that I had always believed there was no evidence for.

[Nathan Ross]

the bit in bold would also appear to indicate that individual centuries had a number rather

:-) I noticed that too! I was going to mention it, but didn't want to stray from the topic too much...

We might give Vegetius a bit of the benefit of the doubt here - he'd probably never seen a real military standard, and the chances of the soldiers accurately reading an 'ordinal number' in the midst of battle is pretty low. Then again, it's possible that at some point (later empire?) centuries did acquire numbers as well as names.

But that doesn't, I think, detract from the point he's making about the standards, and centurions, being at the front (nor, probably, does the 'hundred man century' estimate!)

[Bryan]

Didn't other sources state one hundred men in a century? Could have sworn I'd read that a few times from a few sources.

[Mark Hygate]

Didn't other sources state one hundred men in a century? Could have sworn I'd read that a few times from a few sources.

Josephus is the obvious classic (given he's one of the few real sources) as an indicator - and I would cite him as one of those who was told that a unit contained either 6 centuries or 10 centuries and thus transliterated that as 600 and 1,000. It's why I also think the occasional 6,000 legion is from the 60 centuries.

Ask any one today how many is a 'century' and they'll say the same thing.

I am fairly sure that the original Roman military (and civil) centuriae is not. In fact that's a significant part of the 'theory'.

On topic - whilst I respect all your views and know just what you are basing them on, I feel the written evidence is missing a whole load of stuff that is not considered 'entertaining'. To me that seems not only likely, but quite normal. I will, however, never (I suspect) be able to prove it. I do not argue that the centurion, or signifer, was never at the front - just that they were not always; for what seem to me to be perfectly sensible reasons.

[Nathan Ross]

Didn't other sources state one hundred men in a century?

Only Vegetius and Pseudo-Hyginus give a number for the men in the century. Vegetius says 100, P-H (in De munitionibus castrorum) says 80. Could be that both were correct, at different eras (and the century was also much smaller before and afterwards!).

Modern scholarship tends to favour P-Hyginus as being more trustworthy - he was writing about the army of his own day and apparently know his stuff - and the size of excavated barrack blocks seems to suggest 80 men rather than 100, but it's still interpretation.