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
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?
(11-24-2016, 11:05 PM)Densus Wrote: 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.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.
It makes me wonder what, if anything, is different between a Roman Century in battle and a 'barbarian' warband of the same period?
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?
