Project- Influences of Roman military on modern day riot control

[MonsGraupius]

And what we have here is a basic misunderstanding of ancient Roman combat by your comparison of it to a modern rugby scrim. You're doing the same thing by trying to interpret modern riots being "just like" ancient warfare because a few small similarities existed. Its a form of presentism, an anachronistic misinterpretation of past historical events by trying to explain them with modern concepts. The Romans didn't play Rugby and Rugby isn't especially similar at all to how a Roman century would be fighting in battle. 

Like any sensible centurion, I'm going to avoid getting involved in the fray so I can look at the bigger picture.

As for studying police tactics & formations - obviously if someone is incapable of understanding the differences then I wouldn't advise them to go down that path. And even if they could understand the differences, I would not suggest it was used exclusively as the only source of information. However, to reject it as a source seems to me to be unable to see the battle for the soldiers.

[Bryan]

Riots aren't a source of information about ancient Roman warfare, they're riots. They aren't battles, they're riots. There arent soldiers participating, there are rioter civilians, with no understanding of ancient warfare, and usually cops, who also have no understanding of ancient warfare

---

If we accept that the Centurion is in the front rank and has no control over his Century or any awareness of what is happening more than ten feet from him and if we accept (to take an idea from an older thread) that the front rank is made up the more experienced soldiers/better fighters who are going to hold that position until the battle is done because it is the position of honour.

It makes me wonder what, if anything, is different between a Roman Century in battle and a 'barbarian' warband of the same period?

Roman milites werent really that far off from the barbarian warbands they commonly fought. Each had conflicting ideology about govt and such but they came from highly martial and stoic cultures with long standing traditions of concepts like virtus. The Romans were put under more discipline, they were more organized and standardized but most of their differences would have vanished once they'd closed to close combat.

Think of an American Football team. The quarterback hiking the ball commits the team to action. at that point the quarterback doesnt really control anything, the team plays how theyve been trained to perform, they execute the play already told to them, but they dont stop mid block or pattern to get new directions, its too late for that. 

Which is how most close combat would be. A centurion would have firm control over his unit during the advance and then during lulls. But once committed, while under missile or spear/sword threat, control would come down to training, discipline, and instincts, there would be little the centurion could do besides fight as hard as they could, to lead by example, and to rally if the century falters. 

Because if the centurion is also in back with the optios and the senior officers of the legion and army, then who was in front leading the men?

[Densus]

What makes you think anyone needs to be 'at the front leading the men' when we are talking about well trained, disciplined soldiers? The US Army, like the British Army, trains officers that they need to 'lead from the front' but that doesn't actually mean that they are the one kicking the door in or walking point.

[Robert Vermaat]

What makes you think anyone needs to be 'at the front leading the men' when we are talking about well trained, disciplined soldiers?  The US Army, like the British Army, trains officers that they need to 'lead from the front' but that doesn't actually mean that they are the one kicking the door in or walking point.

What makes me think that is the very same reason I would never ever compare a Roman miles with a modern British or American infantryman. Totally different society, totally different army structure, totally different individual training. Roman milites were not trained to think for themselves (as soldiers would not be for the next milllennium and a half), but to follow orders. Orders are given where they can be followed, which is at the front. Shouting from the back through the din of a battle involving tens of thousands is not really effective, is it? Looking at the battle stabndard is. And lo and behold this is where we find the commanders to be positioned.

[Densus]

My point throughout this has been that you can't give orders from the front, not only do you have no situational awareness in order to make decisions to give orders but only those immediately next to you will hear you. I have plenty of experience of commanding units by voice from the rear in an environment where the crowd are screaming, bricks are hitting shields, vehicle engines are running, police sirens are going etc etc. The sheer noise in a riot situation makes it impossible to use radios to control units so everything has to be done by voice. Even as a company commander I was much more likely to run over and tell a platoon commander what I wanted his platoon to do rather than try to speak to him on the radio, something I couldn't have done if he had been in the front rank.

Same with standards, if you are more than a couple of files down from the standard in the front rank you are not going to be able to look at it without looking away from the man in front of you who is trying to kill you. When someone is trying to kill or injure you they become your entire world and you are not going to be looking around you.

I will put forward a slightly different example. A little over 20 years ago a small group of Viking reenactors in the UK decided that they wanted something more physical and more competitive than the type of fighting being done at Viking events, more akin to a competitive martial art. They didn't get a lot of interest initially in the UK but they did in Poland. Eastern Style fighting was born and Wolin became the world's number one venue for it.

Those Brits and Poles involved at the beginning had no form of military or police training and as Wolin grew they had to experiment how they would control the battle. Initially they were all in the front rank, these were the guys who wanted a harder, more competitive fight and they believed that commanders at the front was what was indicated by the sources. But as the numbers grew they found it just didn't work, they were completely unaware of what was happening outside their immediate vicinity, they had no form of control and had no influence over how the battle developed. It became pure luck which side won.

So they took themselves out of the front rank and in behind the line and have commanded from there ever since, because it works better. They can see what is going on, understand the overall situation, communicate with each other and those in the fighting line, deploy reserves and plug gaps. The Jomsburg side adopted the system first and remained undefeated until the Slav/Mercenary side adopted the same system a couple of years ago.

In this video you can see Igor, Alban and others controlling the Jomsburg side (on the left as we look at it) from the rear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu2GOGxicc4 From that position in that one battle they; stopped an attempt to penetrate their shield wall, turned their entire shield wall through 90 degrees and deployed reserves to stop an attempt to outflank them.

If you guys are telling me that the sources explicitly say that the Centurions always fought in the front rank then I have no problem believing that. I am just trying to understand why they would have chosen such an ineffective method of using the most experienced commanders they had on the battlefield.

[Steven James]

Adam wrote:

Eastern Style fighting was born and Wolin became the world's number one venue for it.
 
I watched the Wolin videos on YT and found them very interesting. Those guys lurkinmg with the spears would be unnerving. Coincidentally, I had just been watching the first episode of 1066, and was impressed with the fighting methods portrayed in that series. There are no Hollywood mass charges like in Brave Heart with everyone not interested in keeping ranks. In 1066 small band of men went forward and attempted to break the Viking shield wall, and then if they were not killed, withdraw to the ranks of their supporters.
 
Adam wrote:
If you guys are telling me that the sources explicitly say that the Centurions always fought in the front rank then I have no problem believing that.
 
My theory is that a Roman century was deployed two men deep. So a 60 man century was deployed 30 men wide by 2 men deep. So I would place the centurion behind the 1st rank but not in it.
 

[Bryan]

What makes you think anyone needs to be 'at the front leading the men' when we are talking about well trained, disciplined soldiers?  The US Army, like the British Army, trains officers that they need to 'lead from the front' but that doesn't actually mean that they are the one kicking the door in or walking point.

Actually most point men are team leaders, the TL is always the lead man in every fire team formation. And the lead man in a stack to breach and clear a building/room is usually a TL too. TLs are supposed to be NCO positions, and their job is literally "Lead by example, do as I do." Infantry platoon leaders/commanders don't need to lead from the front because underneath them, in the platoon's chain of command, are squads led by squad leaders, and fire teams led by team leaders, both of which routinely take point. But we're not discussing modern warfare, we're discussing ancient warfare. So what small unit leaders did the Romans possess that the centurion could delegate leading by example too?

We know that in most warrior cultures the nobility led from the front. Certainly in the phalanx, even the generals were in the very front ranks. The Roman legions share an evolution with the Hellenic aspis-armed phalanx. Centurions weren't suddenly created by Augustus when the long standing professionalized legions really came into being, they'd been around for 600+ years beforehand, being the lowest level of small unit leaders in the Roman Army. 

Roman legions weren't even all that well trained until the Late Republic and after. They did have a level of discipline put on them that was as draconian as it can be, but that doesn't mean Roman soldiers were especially self disciplined. Considering how often Roman soldiers mutinied, killed their own officers, purposely failed to carry out orders, attacked without permission, I'd lean to more that Romans were naturally independent minded and needed draconian discipline imposed on them to keep them from rampaging like barbarian beserkers or just doing whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted.

---

My point throughout this has been that you can't give orders from the front, not only do you have no situational awareness in order to make decisions to give orders but only those immediately next to you will hear you.  I have plenty of experience of commanding units by voice from the rear in an environment where the crowd are screaming, bricks are hitting shields, vehicle engines are running, police sirens are going etc etc.  The sheer noise in a riot situation makes it impossible to use radios to control units so everything has to be done by voice.  Even as a company commander I was much more likely to run over and tell a platoon commander what I wanted his platoon to do rather than try to speak to him on the radio, something I couldn't have done if he had been in the front rank.

Same with standards, if you are more than a couple of files down from the standard in the front rank you are not going to be able to look at it without looking away from the man in front of you who is trying to kill you.  When someone is trying to kill or injure you they become your entire world and you are not going to be looking around you.

I will put forward a slightly different example.  A little over 20 years ago a small group of Viking reenactors in the UK decided that they wanted something more physical and more competitive than the type of fighting being done at Viking events, more akin to a competitive martial art.  They didn't get a lot of interest initially in the UK but they did in Poland.  Eastern Style fighting was born and Wolin became the world's number one venue for it.

Those Brits and Poles involved at the beginning had no form of military or police training and as Wolin grew they had to experiment how they would control the battle.  Initially they were all in the front rank, these were the guys who wanted a harder, more competitive fight and they believed that commanders at the front was what was indicated by the sources.  But as the numbers grew they found it just didn't work, they were completely unaware of what was happening outside their immediate vicinity, they had no form of control and had no influence over how the battle developed.  It became pure luck which side won.

So they took themselves out of the front rank and in behind the line and have commanded from there ever since, because it works better.  They can see what is going on, understand the overall situation, communicate with each other and those in the fighting line, deploy reserves and plug gaps.  The Jomsburg side adopted the system first and remained undefeated until the Slav/Mercenary side adopted the same system a couple of years ago.

In this video you can see Igor, Alban and others controlling the Jomsburg side (on the left as we look at it) from the rear.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu2GOGxicc4  From that position in that one battle they; stopped an attempt to penetrate their shield wall, turned their entire shield wall through 90 degrees and deployed reserves to stop an attempt to outflank them.

If you guys are telling me that the sources explicitly say that the Centurions always fought in the front rank then I have no problem believing that.  I am just trying to understand why they would have chosen such an ineffective method of using the most experienced commanders they had on the battlefield.

Let's create a scenario and then you can tell me what orders need to be transmitted, how they are transmitted, and why someone in the rear ranks is the only one in a position to do so:


1. You're a centurion at Pydna. The sarissa phalanx has been driving your century and every other back with little you or your men can do besides get impaled on a long pike or throw your pila against heavily armored, highly disciplined, well trained veteran promachoi. You realize the ground around you is breaking up, more bushes, crags, stream beds, large trees. It dawns on you that you can possibly infiltrate forces into the Macedonian gaps. Is this easier or harder to see such an situation and then exploit it from the back of 5-8 ranks? Or in the foremost rank?


2. You're Crastinus at Pharsalus. Without even being given an order by your general you just take it upon yourself to lead a charge that borders on Devotio level suicide, triggering the charging of the rest of the army too. Pompey's leading infantry line is 10 deep, all veterans, stationed on high ground, fresh from not having to run a half mile. After you initiate the charge, but before a gladius hispaniensis becomes buried in the soft palate down your throat, delivered in close combat, what orders would you, Crastinus, need to give to your men?

---

What makes you think anyone needs to be 'at the front leading the men' when we are talking about well trained, disciplined soldiers?  The US Army, like the British Army, trains officers that they need to 'lead from the front' but that doesn't actually mean that they are the one kicking the door in or walking point.

What makes me think that is the very same reason I would never ever compare a Roman miles with a modern British or American infantryman. Totally different society, totally different army structure, totally different individual training. Roman milites were not trained to think for themselves (as soldiers would not be for the next milllennium and a half), but to follow orders. Orders are given where they can be followed, which is at the front. Shouting from the back through the din of a battle involving tens of thousands is not really effective, is it? Looking at the battle stabndard is. And lo and behold this is where we find the commanders to be positioned.

What did Caesar do when he wanted to lead flagging infantry? He got off his horse, grabbed an infantryman's scutum, and moved to the very front of the ranks, exhorting and leading by example. And he usually needed to do this only after the centurions and standard bearers were all casualties.

[Densus]

Interesting about the TLs in the US Army. Not how we do it in the UK, the first man through the door is normally a Private, as is the point man. Team leaders are normally one or two men back where they can see what is happening and control their team. From the time I have spent with the USMC they seem to operate the same way.

Scenario 1 - Easier from the back. When you are talking about centuries around you being driven back how does a man in the front rank see that or make sure his century is withdrawing in parallel with everyone else? How do you think a centurion in the front rank knew where other centuries were in relation to his own? Or perhaps a better question, when some centuries were being pushed back who was moving the other centuries back? Or were the centuries not being driven back left there to become isolated and surrounded? If I saw an opportunity to stop moving back and move forward into a gap to exploit it instead I (using the modern words of command we teach) would shout 'hold' followed by 'forward', if they needed to move left or right slightly to get into the gap I had identified I would say 'push left' or 'push right' once they were moving forward.

Scenario 2 - Crastinus would have had no idea if all of his own century had come with him, never mind the rest of the army. From the rear the word of command I would give now if needed my platoon or company to run towards the 'enemy' is 'rapid advance' or more commonly 'in open order, rapid advance'. If as they are running forward I can see the situation has changed I shout 'hold' and they stop.

The Caesar scenario sounds a lot more like what I am used to. At the back where he can see, communicate and command, moving to the front to lead by personal example when it has all gone wrong and desperate measures are needed.

[Nathan Ross]

What did Caesar do when he wanted to lead flagging infantry? He got off his horse, grabbed an infantryman's scutum, and moved to the very front of the ranks, exhorting and leading by example. And he usually needed to do this only after the centurions and standard bearers were all casualties.

It's worth quoting that passage:

Gallic Wars 2.25: ...all the centurions of the fourth cohort were slain, and the standard-bearer killed, the standard itself lost, almost all the centurions of the other cohorts either wounded or slain... having therefore snatched a shield from one of the soldiers in the rear (for he himself had come without a shield), [Caesar] advanced to the front of the line, and addressing the centurions by name, and encouraging the rest of the soldiers, he ordered them to carry forward the standards, and extend the companies, that they might the more easily use their swords. On his arrival, as hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage restored, while every one for his own part, in the sight of his general, desired to exert his utmost energy, the impetuosity of the enemy was a little checked.

Very clear evidence here that the centurions, at least in this period, all fought at the front, and if a senior commander (Caesar in this case) wanted to give orders he would go to the front line to do it, not try and shout from the rear.

This and the other bits of evidence (Polybius and Vegetius) provide, I think, good enough proof that centurions fought at the front - that was where they were expected to be, that was where they were most effective, and they would need a very good excuse to be anywhere else!

[Bryan]

Densus

Interesting about the TLs in the US Army.  Not how we do it in the UK, the first man through the door is normally a Private, as is the point man.  Team leaders are normally one or two men back where they can see what is happening and control their team.  From the time I have spent with the USMC they seem to operate the same way.

And this is a perfect example of the difficulties of using leaps of faith to discuss thousands of years old history. Even just describing how different nation's infantry in the year 2016, you're assumption proved wrong. Yanks don't fight like Brits, everyone knows this. Neither Yanks or Brits fought like Romans. And riot police and rioters didn't fight like Romans vs. Gauls or whomever else people incorrectly assume fought in unorganized mobs of tactically ignorant barbarians. 

Just FYI, I was a USMC infantryman (1997-2001), then I was US Army infantry (2002-2005/2007-2010), serving in all positions from rifleman to squad leader. 

In the Corps TLs mostly serve in the front, there was a push in doctrine to use non-rates (LCpl and below) to lead MOUT stacks and walk point during patrols but the reality of field manuals vs. reality is that they were poorly suited for it, they just weren't proficient enough to be allowed to take point. And it opposed the long standing for team leaders to lead from the front, regardless of danger. 

The actual job title description for an 0311 Infantry Fire Team Leader in the USMC and the US Army includes the phrase "Lead from the front." A Pvt/Pfc has under a year of knowledge in infantry, if they had more they wouldn't be privates, they'd be Lance Corporals, who range from Boot to semi-not idiots to skilled, and they are more dangerous to themselves and other Marines than the enemy. They are usually kept out of the way because letting them lead anything generally means whatever it is will fail. This is why the old fashioned "Put the cherry on Point" method was almost never done in real life (besides the worst situations where walking point, regardless of ability, was a death sentence), it is asking for is the cherry to lead the unit inadvertently right into a painfully obvious ambush situation, because the clueless cherry can't read terrain, doesn't know common indicators of ambush sites and environmental warnings, doesn't even know how to scan and find things that are trying to remain hidden. They are simply the last people that someone wants to put in charge without CLOSE supervision and still expect success. 

Scenario 1 - Easier from the back.  When you are talking about centuries around you being driven back how does a man in the front rank see that or make sure his century is withdrawing in parallel with everyone else?  How do you think a centurion in the front rank knew where other centuries were in relation to his own?  Or perhaps a better question, when some centuries were being pushed back who was moving the other centuries back? Or were the centuries not being driven back left there to become isolated and surrounded?  If I saw an opportunity to stop moving back and move forward into a gap to exploit it instead I (using the modern words of command we teach) would shout 'hold' followed by 'forward', if they needed to move left or right slightly to get into the gap I had identified I would say 'push left' or 'push right' once they were moving forward.

If you're in the rear and the men in the front are getting pushed back by pikes and you can't see why they are moving back, what is your recourse? You order them to hold, in which they are basically skewered (even Polybius describes sarissa penetrating scuta). Or you order them to fall back (which means essentially you don't give an order, since they started falling back before you even knew why). Either way, you are not helping in the very least since even a simpleton in the front rank, leaderless in your scenario, would know ahead of time what you, in the rear with the calones and slaves, would know. I can't even think of a greater dishonor, doing all the crazy acts of valor and ability to gain a reputation suitable to appointed as centurion and then being expected to leader from the rear, what no valorous man would ever do. Even with a modern mindset, commanding from the rear is only done by mid to high level 

Who are you saying "Push right" to? How does a century break down in order to push right? Does the century magically designate ad hoc maneuver units like platoons and squads? Do these already exist? If so, who are the leaders of the smaller maneuver groups? What are their titles, what is the Latin name of the sub unit under the century level?

You yell "Push right", is the guy in front of you supposed to know who is talking? I mean Romans weren't exactly quite in battle until the Late Republic Civil Wars, dating to the first mention of soldiers fighting in silence (veteran cohorts at Mutina). Everyone is yelling and screaming, banging pila and sword against scuta, yelling war cries and just hollering to put fear in the enemy. Is the man in front of you supposed to turn to identify every speaker he hears? Should he be facing backyards already, as kind of a human telephone, with his whole file facing to the rear in order to better hear the centurion in the back and then transmit messages to the front rankers who execute the command? 

Also, a lot of the duties the centurion does in your scenarios is already being done by other Roman unit officers or NCOs, that we know existed, who either keep the centuries in good order from the rear (optios), and who skulk just behind the primus acies in order to manage the battle (tribunes, legates, prefects, imperators). But I guess its always good to micromanage, even though it would mean abandoning the front line to anarchy.   

Scenario 2 - Crastinus would have had no idea if all of his own century had come with him, never mind the rest of the army.  From the rear the word of command I would give now if needed my platoon or company to run towards the 'enemy' is 'rapid advance' or more commonly 'in open order, rapid advance'.  If as they are running forward I can see the situation has changed I shout 'hold' and they stop.

The Caesar scenario sounds a lot more like what I am used to.  At the back where he can see, communicate and command, moving to the front to lead by personal example when it has all gone wrong and desperate measures are needed.

If the only order you intend to give in a fierce battle is "Open order, rapid advance" and "Hold" (both easier to execute while in the front ranks) then what you need to remain the rear for? 

So you don't think people lead from the front because you worry they wont know whether their troops are following them? This isn't a reason not to do something, its fear. Sure, its something that has worried combat leaders since the dawn of time, but that its a real concern is because leaders HAVE TO lead from the front. Not only is there an increased fear of getting hit first, but there is also the fear of nobody following you when you holler "Follow ME!" But it still happened, since the dawn of time to today, even I worried a few times I took off running forward in a combat situation, hoping I wouldn't be alone. Leaders lead and the most effective place to do it, to personally supervise battle, is in the best place to influence the fighting, which is in the front ranks. Regardless of the type of unit, if its going to go into a life and death struggle and intend to retain organization, unit integrity, and morale, then it needs to be well led from the tip of the spear POV.  

Also, Romans didn't use platoons or companies, so why even use the term in this discussion? The smallest Roman subunit typically had between 60-100 men in it, the centuria. Any order you give would need to be transmitted to all of them, spread out in a way that anything you order in battle using your voice only, from the rear, wont be heard. And if it was heard there would be no one who would carry it out because the men in the front can simply tell you later "We didn't hear you" as to reason why they chose not to obey your command (something impossible if I give a command right in front of you, because both of us are in the same amount of danger. 

A Roman century with its centurion, standard bearer, cornicen, and optio all stationed in the back of ranks, that means NOBODY IS LEADING THE FRONT. The main effort of any Roman unit would be the front rankers, they are all going to be exposed to the enemy more than any other, they can use missiles and are the only rank that can really fight effectively , their performance is what really affects whether the whole unit advances or retreats. The rest of the unit is more or less along for the ride, to chuck pila, to bolster the front ranks when necessary, to replace casualties. But the real fight is done by promachoi, and that means THEY are the ones who need to be led, the rest of the century plays off what the front rank, the centurion, the standard bearer, the promachoi, are doing. If they advance, the century advances. If they withdraw, the whole century withdraws (which likely cannot be stopped by an optio either). 

If the mindset is to only go to the front ranks "when it has all gone wrong and desperate measures are needed", then they're going to need to do it a lot, because everything that can go wrong will go wrong (murphy's law isn't only relating to the 20th century).

[Densus]

It's worth quoting that passage:

Gallic Wars 2.25: ...all the centurions of the fourth cohort were slain, and the standard-bearer killed, the standard itself lost, almost all the centurions of the other cohorts either wounded or slain... having therefore snatched a shield from one of the soldiers in the rear (for he himself had come without a shield), [Caesar] advanced to the front of the line, and addressing the centurions by name, and encouraging the rest of the soldiers, he ordered them to carry forward the standards, and extend the companies, that they might the more easily use their swords. On his arrival, as hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage restored, while every one for his own part, in the sight of his general, desired to exert his utmost energy, the impetuosity of the enemy was a little checked.

Very clear evidence here that the centurions, at least in this period, all fought at the front, and if a senior commander (Caesar in this case) wanted to give orders he would go to the front line to do it, not try and shout from the rear.

You are right Nathan, context is important.  The chapters before this one describe a situation where units were being surrounded, the camp was over run and auxiliaries and others were starting to break and run.  Exactly the sort of desperate situation I have mentioned before where commanders might have to do a 'follow me' moment. The last line in your quote is interesting too;

"On his arrival, as hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage restored, while every one for his own part, in the sight of his general, desired to exert his utmost energy, the impetuosity of the enemy was a little checked."

Nowhere there, or in the rest of 2:25, is there any mention of Caesar actually fighting the enemy, just that those fighting were now in his sight.  When it says he 'advanced to the front of line' might that not just as easily mean he moved from a position where he could see the whole of the battlefield to a position immediately behind the fighting line where he was close enough to shout orders to them?  

This and the other bits of evidence (Polybius and Vegetius) provide, I think, good enough proof that centurions fought at the front - that was where they were expected to be, that was where they were most effective, and they would need a very good excuse to be anywhere else!

Where should I look for the relevant bits of Polybius and Vegetius?  This has really intrigued me now.

[Bryan]

What did Caesar do when he wanted to lead flagging infantry? He got off his horse, grabbed an infantryman's scutum, and moved to the very front of the ranks, exhorting and leading by example. And he usually needed to do this only after the centurions and standard bearers were all casualties.

It's worth quoting that passage:

Gallic Wars 2.25: ...all the centurions of the fourth cohort were slain, and the standard-bearer killed, the standard itself lost, almost all the centurions of the other cohorts either wounded or slain... having therefore snatched a shield from one of the soldiers in the rear (for he himself had come without a shield), [Caesar] advanced to the front of the line, and addressing the centurions by name, and encouraging the rest of the soldiers, he ordered them to carry forward the standards, and extend the companies, that they might the more easily use their swords. On his arrival, as hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage restored, while every one for his own part, in the sight of his general, desired to exert his utmost energy, the impetuosity of the enemy was a little checked.

Very clear evidence here that the centurions, at least in this period, all fought at the front, and if a senior commander (Caesar in this case) wanted to give orders he would go to the front line to do it, not try and shout from the rear.

This and the other bits of evidence (Polybius and Vegetius) provide, I think, good enough proof that centurions fought at the front - that was where they were expected to be, that was where they were most effective, and they would need a very good excuse to be anywhere else!

Exactly! The descriptions of battles and duties, the dress, the high experience, the ridiculously high casualty rates, that culturally most other contemporary military cultures also placed leaders in the front rank (Celts with Chieftains, Greeks with Kings, Promachoi Elite, and then File Leaders). It all points to centurions being in the front ranks.  

Here's Polybius: "They wish the centurions not so much to be venturesome and daredevil as to be natural leaders, of a steady and sedate spirit. They do not desire them so much to be men who will initiate attacks and open the battle, but men who will hold their ground when worsted and hard-pressed and be ready to die at their posts." Quite different then the real centurions in Caesar's description and other works, who describe Virtus filled killing machines, near berserkers. But Polybius' Ideal Centurion doesn't sound like someone who commanded from the rear, hiding behind the shields of up to 10 men in front of them, it sounds like the perils of leading from the front.

---

You are right Nathan, context is important.  The chapters before this one describe a situation where units were being surrounded, the camp was over run and auxiliaries and others were starting to break and run.  Exactly the sort of desperate situation I have mentioned before where commanders might have to do a 'follow me' moment. The last line in your quote is interesting too;

"On his arrival, as hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage restored, while every one for his own part, in the sight of his general, desired to exert his utmost energy, the impetuosity of the enemy was a little checked."

Nowhere there, or in the rest of 2:25, is there any mention of Caesar actually fighting the enemy, just that those fighting were now in his sight.  When it says he 'advanced to the front of line' might that not just as easily mean he moved from a position where he could see the whole of the battlefield to a position immediately behind the fighting line where he was close enough to shout orders to them?    

No, because Caesar was already at the back of the leading battle line, we know this because he took a shield away from one of the men in the rear ranks of that first battle line. He then proceeded to push his way to the front rank, of the front battle line, where he led the counter attack. It specifically says in Latin he was in the front line, primam aciem, which means he was at the very very front of his entire army. Why did he need to do that? Because the centurions were all wounded or dead. Because they led from the front and paid the acceptable price for it.

[Densus]

Bryan, you can tell me that things I have seen and done on many occasions won't work until you are blue in the face and I am not going to believe you, because I have seen them and done them.

When you tell a unit to push right they don't break down into anything, and nothing I said would indicate they did, all they do is alter their line of advance slightly to arrive at a point to the right of where they would have arrived if they moved straight forward.

USMC Platoons of up to 50 people each I have trained heard words of command from the rear just fine, over the top of vehicle engines, role players chanting and screaming, missiles hitting their shields etc. Incidentally not once have the Marines ever questioned it when we tell them team and platoon commanders are going to be in the rear.

Our shield men in the front rank also do the vast majority of the fighting, especially when we move into open order. I have never seen an incident where the front rank became chaos because there wasn't a commander in the front rank. A commander that most of them wouldn't have been able to see any way.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you can tell me that things I have seen and done on many occasions won't work until you are blue in the face and I am not going to believe you, because I have seen them and done them.


USMC Platoons of up to 50 people each I have trained heard words of command from the rear just fine, over the top of vehicle engines, role players chanting and screaming, missiles hitting their shields etc.  Incidentally not once have the Marines ever questioned it when we tell them team and platoon commanders are going to be in the rear.

Our shield men in the front rank also do the vast majority of the fighting, especially when we move into open order.  I have never seen an incident where the front rank became chaos because there wasn't a commander in the front rank.  A commander that most of them wouldn't have been able to see any way.

I guess since you know better than me about the USMC then you were a Marine, yes? If so, please provide dates for when you were at MCRD and which one. What platoon were you in? (I was 1084). What Victor unit were you assigned in the Fleet? (I was in 3/3) What deployments and training exercises did you attend, and where? (I did two UDPs to Okinawa with dozens of small exercises and training events all over the Pacific Rim from Korea to Australia) 

If you weren't a US Marine, if you weren't an Infantry Marine, specifically an 0311 who served as rifleman to fire team leader, then maybe you are seriously outside your lane when discussing modern combat tactics with someone who was a Marine, who was an 0311, and served as a rifleman through TL. Who actually fought in combat as an infantry team leader and squad leader in the US Army. Who knows first hand that if you want anybody to do what you tell them to do it means close supervision, sharing danger and discomfort, and leading by example. 

When you tell a unit to push right they don't break down into anything, and nothing I said would indicate they did, all they do is alter their line of advance slightly to arrive at a point to the right of where they would have arrived if they moved straight forward.

So Push Right is the official command that also means Push Forward, But Also Slightly Right? Do you know an official command name for that maneuver already exists? 
Right/Left Oblique

So let's make believe you're going to march a formation of men at an angle, Right Oblique. 

In what universe is there no guidon, no standard, no unit pendent in the front showing which way the formation is supposed to move? THE UNIT STANDARD HAS TO BE IN THE FRONT SO THE SOLDIERS CAN SEE WHERE THEY NEED TO MOVE TO. 

BTW, whose duty was it to guard the standard bearer and tell him where to go? Its the duty of the unit leader to provide protection and guidance to the unit's standard bearer. Who was the century's leader? The Centurion. Standard in front, centurion in front. Standard in rear, centurion in rear. Standard in rear, nobody is moving forward. 

Basically, if you're issuing drill commands from the rear, whether it play fighting or riot training, you're doing it wrong, so sayeth about 2,000 years of written drill methods. I can't really think of anyone who took the lowest small unit leader of their organization and made them serve in the rear, not any that had any success. However they are organized, formed, there has to be someone leading from the front, which is basically the whole concept and conflict of command and control since the dawn of time. Unit commanders must share dangers and lead from the front, which means increased casualties (even now leaders get hit more than non-rates), but they cant throw their lives away without sacrificing unit cohesiveness and command and control, so its a precarious balancing act of removing oneself from the front, but only as long as there are subordinates with true authority who can do it in your stead in the front. 

Who was the century's small unit leader who stood in the fore and directed the men by leading by example from the front? If it wasn't the century, who did it?

when we tell them team and platoon commanders are going to be in the rear

Also what is the context of this statement? What were you teaching, to what unit, where, when, why?

[Densus]

I have never been a Marine. My background, as I have told you before, is British Army.

I now teach crowd management for a US based company that has been hired by the USMC to provide what they call 'non-lethal operations' training for both MEUs and an MSOB.