Sander van Dorst.

[Gaius Octavius]

This gentleman knows of what he speaks:

 

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/legio.html

[caldrail]

This gentleman knows of what he speaks:

 

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/legio.html

 

Unfortunately, he refers to legionary posts in modern terms. He also makes the mistake of referring to specialised troops when such specialisation was considered undesirable by imperial legions, which is why cross-training took place. A legionary was not trained as an artilleryman and regarded as such, he was merely a legionary like any other, who happened to have been trained in artillery. Further, the legions did not contain specialist formations such as artillery.

 

I've already gone into some depth on the nature of roman organisation, and the use of the phrase NCO is not correct. NCO stands for Non-Commissioned-Officer, which indicates a lower level of command in a pyramid structure and is a hangover from the class system of european armies dating from the 1600's. For instance, he mentions the tesserarius as an NCO responsible for watch words. This is a distortion, because the tesserarius was a job within the legion, not a rank as we understand it, although I accept it brought a certain level of status to the holder of that title - but only whilst he did that job.

 

That said, its got all the pertinent information and perhaps there are people who could benefit from studying it.

[Gaius Octavius]

Caldrail, I now see that my choice of words was unfortunate. For this I apologize. I had absolutely no intention of denigrating you or anyone else. I just wanted to put up a site that I thought useful, and had no intention of reviving the justly locked earlier site. Were I an outsider looking at our posts, I think that I would have accepted your views rather than mine.

[caldrail]

No thats ok, the site is informative, and fair play for pointing it out. The use of modern terminology is second nature to us (obviously) but fundamentally wrong, because it distorts the way we understand the roman military. Notice I used to make the same mistake too. Thats why I criticised the site, but at the end of the day at least the information is more or less as it should be, and as Adrian Goldsworthy points out, we shouldn't foist anachronistic organisation on a culture who had different ideas about how to fight wars.

 

For instance. A recent post named the Optio as an executive officer. This suggests an air of authority, of some refinement, a guy with an office. In reality, Optio means "Chosen Man", and given the somewhat brutal methods employed by legions to command their men, what the name refers to is an official henchman of a centurion, nothing more. A man who wields discipline in support of his boss, almost gangland in its authority rather than any professional image.

 

Part of the problem is the image of the roman military as a fully organised monolithic military machine - which in way, it was to people living two thousand years ago and such images survive in the folk memory for a long time, and now we interpret that folk memory in modern terms. Even after the Augustan reforms, with the legions at their organisational peak, they were still corrupt, bullying, and pretty much laws unto themselves. The reality is Rome was an aggressive city state whose military went through great changes in organisation, yet never lost that traditional warband element.

[DecimusCaesar]

His writings on the Macedonian Phalanx were very enlightening. I've found his website has often been sourced in a few book publications, such as Macedonian Warrior by Waldemar Heckel (Osprey) and he is well recieved among the re-enactment community.

 

I had bookmarked the site on one occasion, but I lost the link when I got the new computer. Thanks for posting it again Gaius.

 

Caldrail is right that the use of modern military terms can actually blur our understanding of the Roman military. Yet, I've seen some books such as 'Warfare in the Ancient World' use terms as NCO when describing Roman Centurions. I think Peter Connolly does it sometimes as well (although I need to check up on that). In that regard it is hard to blame Sander Van Dorst for those errors if scholars are making them as well.

Edited May 17, 2008 by DecimusCaesar

[Faustus]

Caldrail is right that the use of modern military terms can actually blur our understanding of the Roman military. Yet, I've seen some books such as 'Warfare in the Ancient World' use terms as NCO when describing Roman Centurions. I think Peter Connolly does it sometimes as well (although I need to check up on that). In that regard it is hard to blame Sander Van Dorst for those errors if scholars are making them as well.

I have seen that done, and don

[Gaius Octavius]

Let us assume a hypothetical military problem with regard to command and control:

 

1. A British infantry regiment circa 1875AD. (No radios or motor vehicles - to make things even.)

2. A Roman legion circa 50AD.

3. They are both stationed at the same fort (for their times).

4. They are ordered to take an enemy fort 3 days march away.

5. They both have cavalry and artillery.

5. En route they are ambushed.

6. They envelop and defeat the enemy.

7. They then proceed to lay siege to the enemy fort.

8. (No Warrant Officers )

 

Questions:

1. How did the commanders exercise command and control of their force, both at the ambush and at the siege?

2. What would the differences have been?

3. Would the artillery and cavalry have been considered 'specialized' units or forces.

 

[Melvadius]

The answer to GO's question is probably extremely badly - the 'NCO' designation is a modern concept but the function of a non commissioned officer has remained basically the same throughout history a few of the key functions are:

 

To give guidance to the 'rank and file' of any given military unit.

Ensure that commands are passed along

Ensure they are acted upon even if officers aren't around

Be the man on the spot able to react to problems the officers hadn't envisaged.

 

However, possibly the most important, is someone with the ability to take over in an emergency when more senior officers are disabled or out of contact with their unit.

 

As far as Sander's site is concerned I have known his writing for several years on a number of sites and topics always finding that he provides information at an appropriate AND detailed level whihc is often extensively referenced. This can include correcting the 'apparent' faults that Caldrail has pointed out in postings by others. As far as I can remember that particular site is several years old now but is apparently mainly intended as an introduction to the subject of the Roman military. As such it uses 'simpler' concepts and comparisons of particular ranks and functions with their closest modern equivalent.

 

The use of such comparisons has a long tradition in historical writing which has been carried off in a variety of ways - sometimes extremely badly at other times much less so and I include Sander's site in the latter capacity.

 

In comparison, somewhere I've got an old Penguin translation which refers to majors, colonels as well as sergeants and other 'British' military equivalents instead of legates etc. It jars so much that I haven't looked at it for several years but have kept it as remembrance of a moment in time. It was written by an ex-regular military man at a time when a large proportion of the population had just been demobbed from the Second World War while others were still undetaking 'national' military service. As such made a serious although justifiable mistake in not realizing that such obvious comparisons (to him) would quickly slip from international conciousness.

 

The key issue I think with Sander's or any other Web Site does tend to require taking a step back at times to see why it has been written and for which audience it has been intended. I suspect that in the case in question the key concern was to act as a simplified introduction rather than a 'precise' military analysis which would obviously have necessitated at least a full books worth of material.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Melvadius

[Northern Neil]

Caldrail is right that the use of modern military terms can actually blur our understanding of the Roman military. Yet, I've seen some books such as 'Warfare in the Ancient World' use terms as NCO when describing Roman Centurions. I think Peter Connolly does it sometimes as well (although I need to check up on that). In that regard it is hard to blame Sander Van Dorst for those errors if scholars are making them as well.

I have seen that done, and don

Edited May 18, 2008 by Northern Neil

[roman wargamer]

Let us assume a hypothetical military problem with regard to command and control:

Questions:

1. How did the commanders exercise command and control of their force,

both at the ambush and at the siege?

when a legion was ambushed; all the men of war stop, and will immediately form battle formation.

 

the advance guard tumulturia,

a group of cavalry as scout will retreat at the rear of the light infantry, and oversee the situation,

composes of archer, slinger, ferentarii, and the alae, under prefecti alae command.

 

then engage the enemy but a cavalry runners will inform the legionary cohors and main body at their rear.

 

the first 3 cohors will form a battleline formation, just a few hundreds meters from the advance guard,

each cohors are under the command of prefectus cohortis

9 on the left flank, 7 at the center, and 8 at the right flank.

 

if the advanve guard are overhelm, they will retreat and fall back behind the first battleline acies of the legio.

and the 1st battleline will hold the enemy forces until the main legion body arrive to help.

 

the second battleline acies of the legio will form behind the first battleline.

composes of

3 on the left flank, under command of Praefectus Castrorum,3 will keep a defensive stand,

1 at the center, under command of Legatus Legionis

and 2 at the right flank. under command of Tribunus Laticlavius, while 2 can act as 1st counter offensive force.

 

while the main cavalry reserved behind 2nd battle will wait for the legatus tactical order.

 

if the ambush is sustained and repel by the advance guard;

the 8th cohors will make an initial counter attacked on the right flank side,

closely followed by the 2nd cohors as reserved counter offensive forces,

while a cavalry alae will sustained a longer pursuit to harass the rear of the enemy.

 

the third battleline acies of the legio will form behind the second battleline.

who acted as the rear reserved of the main legion force

each cohors are under the command of prefectus cohortis

6 on the left flank, 4 at the center, and 5 at the right flank.

 

the baggage train was position here, behind 3rd battleline.

 

the last 10th cohors will act as the legion rear guard.

 

2. What would the differences have been?

nothing much, they will use the tactical formation and strategic counter measure, if possible

3. Would the artillery and cavalry have been considered 'specialized' units or forces.

yes, in my belief.

[caldrail]

Cohort centurions had a responsibility more on a par with majors or colonels.

No, they had responsibilities more on par with a tribal chief.

 

1. A British infantry regiment circa 1875AD. (No radios or motor vehicles - to make things even.)

2. A Roman legion circa 50AD.

3. They are both stationed at the same fort (for their times).

4. They are ordered to take an enemy fort 3 days march away.

5. They both have cavalry and artillery.

5. En route they are ambushed.

6. They envelop and defeat the enemy.

7. They then proceed to lay siege to the enemy fort.

8. (No Warrant Officers )

 

Questions:

1. How did the commanders exercise command and control of their force, both at the ambush and at the siege?

2. What would the differences have been?

3. Would the artillery and cavalry have been considered 'specialized' units or forces.

 

Artillery and cavalry are very much specialist units to the british of 1875. Cavalry because they're superior beings on horseback (and its unlikely they'd leave the column to screen for ambush because they don't believe the enemy are capable, and prefer to remain with the column for safety), artillery because it relies on state of the art industry back home. The british will not assault the fort until artillery have pounded it into dust in any case.

 

Artillery is not a specialist unit for the romans. Apart from the odd expert in their ranks, any legionary can do the monkey work involved. Cavalry almost certainly will screen the column - the romans are cautious in warfare, and its likely they'll assault the fort very soon, for romans don't like being in one place too long, and its more expedient (and more impressive) to accept heavier casualties and take the objective quickly.

 

Ultimately, command and control is done by shouting loudly. The romans have trumpets, the british have bugles, so in that sense there's little difference. The british however are effectively an army of archers - given their use of firearms - and this affects their behaviour on the field, since they also have no armour and can expect the enemy to use firearms also. The roman have armour protection, relying on close quarter combat to do business.

 

As to the situations, there's too many variables, and its impossible to guarantee that a commander will order his troops to behave in a set fashion. As a rule, the romans did badly in ambushes, but then the british had their fair share of embarrasements.

[Northern Neil]

Cohort centurions had a responsibility more on a par with majors or colonels.

No, they had responsibilities more on par with a tribal chief.

I was referring merely to numbers involved, and in the context of people who like to draw parrallels between modern and Roman military structures - I personally do not. My point being, why do these writers persist in calling people with a command of between 80 and 960 men 'NCOs'?

[caldrail]

My point being, why do these writers persist in calling people with a command of between 80 and 960 men 'NCOs'?

Because they understand what an NCO is. Its part of our culture. Even if you're not in the military and have no idea what the military do, you still have some concept of an NCO.

 

For the record, a modern officer is 'commisioned'. That means his command is given to him by the nation state (or authority) he serves. A non-commisoned rank receives his command without that sanction, so therefore he's only going to receive it under the command of commisioned officers. Nonetheless, these are ranks. That means a series of graded levels of status which follow the individual whichever job the army gives him. The romans didn't do that. They received status from the particular role they were given, and even the centurions were named to prioritise their status, not their rank. Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum (hope I spelt that right) which means 'fort prefect'. Its not a rank, although that would make him 3rd in seniority, but a role, from which he derives status. Further, the tribunes were 2nd in priority and there was aays a number of them.

[caldrail]

A note about Ferentarii - thats not a troop type, but a generic description used to cover troops used in a certain manner. Its the same concept as the Gregarii in gladiatorial combat. Not a specialist fighter, but a fighter used in a team whatever he was originally trained as.

[Northern Neil]

My point being, why do these writers persist in calling people with a command of between 80 and 960 men 'NCOs'?

Because they understand what an NCO is. Its part of our culture. Even if you're not in the military and have no idea what the military do, you still have some concept of an NCO.

 

For the record, a modern officer is 'commisioned'. That means his command is given to him by the nation state (or authority) he serves. A non-commisoned rank receives his command without that sanction, so therefore he's only going to receive it under the command of commisioned officers. Nonetheless, these are ranks. That means a series of graded levels of status which follow the individual whichever job the army gives him. The romans didn't do that. They received status from the particular role they were given, and even the centurions were named to prioritise their status, not their rank. Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum (hope I spelt that right) which means 'fort prefect'. Its not a rank, although that would make him 3rd in seniority, but a role, from which he derives status. Further, the tribunes were 2nd in priority and there was aays a number of them.

Hmm.. I understand all this - but only by virtue of a reading of Roman History which more thorough than is the case among the general populace. I thought the idea of equating Roman with modern ranks was to illustrate a rough correlation to people who are generally unknowledgeable about the Roman world, or casually interested. To call someone an 'NCO' when he has a command numerically similar to a captain or major is misleading, and WAS misleading to me as a child, when I started reading in depth about this.