Sander van Dorst.

[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.

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.

 

Thats the problem. All this equating with modern practice is a numbers game. It has little to do with reality because the romans organised forces differently on the field. We adopt a pyramid philosophy where specialist units are grouped under higher, more general purpose organisations. The legion was a one-size-fits-all mini-army in its own right that relied on personal loyalty rather than to an abstract state, and also relied on the centurion being a rough-tough guy who doesn't take any nonsense from his men and can lead and inspire those men to fight. The centurion was a primary warrior, not simply a guy in charge. The NCO comparison just doesn't work.

[Northern Neil]

All this equating with modern practice is a numbers game. It has little to do with reality because the romans organised forces differently on the field. We adopt a pyramid philosophy where specialist units are grouped under higher, more general purpose organisations. The legion was a one-size-fits-all mini-army in its own right that relied on personal loyalty rather than to an abstract state, and also relied on the centurion being a rough-tough guy who doesn't take any nonsense from his men and can lead and inspire those men to fight. The centurion was a primary warrior, not simply a guy in charge. The NCO comparison just doesn't work.

Maybe then writers should dispense with this comparison altogether. I do not think that a casual reader would have a problem understanding the concept you have illustrated in the above quotation. It would also I think cause less confusion of the kind I felt as a child when reading such matter. Perhaps our discussion should be split off this topic? It is in itself an interesting topic to debate.

[caldrail]

The topic already exists

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8315

 

What I've found on these forums is that there's plenty of people who know the various latin terms and have some idea how the romans grouped their men, but have little real understanding of what it actually means, how they fought, or how they behaved. Thats understandable. The roman sources are very sparing on that point (since this behaviour was second nature to them, they never saw the point of relating it in texts, especially by educated writers who weren't about to portray the legions warts and all) so to some extent its necessary to interpret what the romans were actually doing.

 

For instance, in one reply given above the romans are quoted as responding to ambush in a calm orderly manner. An ambush is not an orderly situation. The whole point is to suprise the enemy and if the enemy has time to form up - the ambush has failed. Also that procedure assumes the romans have room to manoever - typically ambushes are laid to prevent that. Furthermore, histoprical accounts suggest that in the chaos of ambush the much-vaunted roman organisation collapses like a pack of cards - a situation Hannibal exploited all too readily.

 

Many of us are entranced by the relative sophistication of the roman organisation, and give it properties it never had. We see posts on this forum suggesting the roman legions were calmly efficient, almost businesslike in their approach. I really do doubt this. It is true the roman armies were well trained in AD50, but notice also the accounts of Caesar, who sometimes struggled mightily to stop his men from running away, and there's two mentions of standard bearers (very important for morale and placement on the field) - one threatens Caear with the sharp end, the other pushes his standard into Caesars hand and scarpers.

 

The point is that when combat starts, its not conducted in a detached robotic manner. There are two blocks of men fighting each other, death and injury possible for anyone involved, and the emotional state of those involved can vary. We're dealing with men from poor backgrounds, subjected to a dehumanising, harsh, and physically demanding regime, which although providing a good measure of fraternal sentiment cannot alter what these men were.

 

This is why I stress the role of the centurion. His job was not simply to pass on orders. He was chosen for his ability as a warrior, and for his character. The romans needed strong personalities who could keep hardened men in line. So, despite the organisation and its modern connotations, the men involved weren't much different from their enemies.

 

This is one effect of our tendency to apply modern viewpoints to roman times. We assume that the romans, because of this organisation, had a similar outlook to modern armies. Not so. Modern armies have rules of engagement. The romans did not, and quite happily slew men, women, and children if ordered to do so, and requisitioned food and livestock from civilians with any regard to lawful behaviour. Modern armies have strict regulations concerning behaviour. Well, so did the romans, whose punishments were much harsher than the modern day, but notice this behavioural limit does not apply for extarnal matters. Within the legion, men must behave in a certain manner. If a civilian complains, he gets nowhere, because the military tribunal is chaired by senior officers who don't like civilian interference, and the civilian concerned would be advised to make himself scarce whether he wins or not, for the legionaries will certainly make their displeasure felt whatever the original complaint had been.

 

The control over roman troops, despite the strict internal discipline, was actually marginal. Legionaries routinely bribed their officers for various reasons (one soldier is recorded as compalaining there were not enough opportunities to do so!), and all sorts of exploitation within the ranks is thought to have taken place. Further, notice how rebellious roman troops can be. The early part of the principate sees some very serious mutinies for instance, and legions were often only too willing to push their personal loyalties and their commander into becoming rivals for the throne. Rufus is unusual as a commander, because he refused to his troops request to challenge Nero. More often that not, they were only too willing to have the troops behind them when such opportunities arose.

 

So, it isn't just modern organisation we tend to foist on the romans, but modern behaviour, and thats wrong. The roman legions were not as 'civilisied' as some people see them. They were rebellious, cruel, violent, corrupt, larcenous, and in peacetime a potential liability which was why the romans were keen to keep them busy with engineering projects - which of course the men did everything they could to get out of!

[Julius Ratus]

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.

 

 

You can find the answer to your question in actual history. If you want to read about a group of Roman legions, and a British Regiment being ambushed, look up the Teutoburgerwald for the Romans and Isandlawana (probably spelled wrong) for the 24th Foot. In both cases it was a massacre.

[Primus Pilus]

The topic already exists

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8315

 

What I've found on these forums is that there's plenty of people who know the various latin terms and have some idea how the romans grouped their men, but have little real understanding of what it actually means, how they fought, or how they behaved. Thats understandable. The roman sources are very sparing on that point (since this behaviour was second nature to them, they never saw the point of relating it in texts, especially by educated writers who weren't about to portray the legions warts and all) so to some extent its necessary to interpret what the romans were actually doing.

 

For instance, in one reply given above the romans are quoted as responding to ambush in a calm orderly manner. An ambush is not an orderly situation. The whole point is to suprise the enemy and if the enemy has time to form up - the ambush has failed. Also that procedure assumes the romans have room to manoever - typically ambushes are laid to prevent that. Furthermore, histoprical accounts suggest that in the chaos of ambush the much-vaunted roman organisation collapses like a pack of cards - a situation Hannibal exploited all too readily.

 

Many of us are entranced by the relative sophistication of the roman organisation, and give it properties it never had. We see posts on this forum suggesting the roman legions were calmly efficient, almost businesslike in their approach. I really do doubt this. It is true the roman armies were well trained in AD50, but notice also the accounts of Caesar, who sometimes struggled mightily to stop his men from running away, and there's two mentions of standard bearers (very important for morale and placement on the field) - one threatens Caear with the sharp end, the other pushes his standard into Caesars hand and scarpers.

 

The point is that when combat starts, its not conducted in a detached robotic manner. There are two blocks of men fighting each other, death and injury possible for anyone involved, and the emotional state of those involved can vary. We're dealing with men from poor backgrounds, subjected to a dehumanising, harsh, and physically demanding regime, which although providing a good measure of fraternal sentiment cannot alter what these men were.

 

This is why I stress the role of the centurion. His job was not simply to pass on orders. He was chosen for his ability as a warrior, and for his character. The romans needed strong personalities who could keep hardened men in line. So, despite the organisation and its modern connotations, the men involved weren't much different from their enemies.

 

This is one effect of our tendency to apply modern viewpoints to roman times. We assume that the romans, because of this organisation, had a similar outlook to modern armies. Not so. Modern armies have rules of engagement. The romans did not, and quite happily slew men, women, and children if ordered to do so, and requisitioned food and livestock from civilians with any regard to lawful behaviour. Modern armies have strict regulations concerning behaviour. Well, so did the romans, whose punishments were much harsher than the modern day, but notice this behavioural limit does not apply for extarnal matters. Within the legion, men must behave in a certain manner. If a civilian complains, he gets nowhere, because the military tribunal is chaired by senior officers who don't like civilian interference, and the civilian concerned would be advised to make himself scarce whether he wins or not, for the legionaries will certainly make their displeasure felt whatever the original complaint had been.

 

The control over roman troops, despite the strict internal discipline, was actually marginal. Legionaries routinely bribed their officers for various reasons (one soldier is recorded as compalaining there were not enough opportunities to do so!), and all sorts of exploitation within the ranks is thought to have taken place. Further, notice how rebellious roman troops can be. The early part of the principate sees some very serious mutinies for instance, and legions were often only too willing to push their personal loyalties and their commander into becoming rivals for the throne. Rufus is unusual as a commander, because he refused to his troops request to challenge Nero. More often that not, they were only too willing to have the troops behind them when such opportunities arose.

 

So, it isn't just modern organisation we tend to foist on the romans, but modern behaviour, and thats wrong. The roman legions were not as 'civilisied' as some people see them. They were rebellious, cruel, violent, corrupt, larcenous, and in peacetime a potential liability which was why the romans were keen to keep them busy with engineering projects - which of course the men did everything they could to get out of!

 

Despite these issues, it is important to note that the lack of discipline by most Roman enemies meant that enemy lines often broke quickly when facing a uniform and disciplined Roman wall. Roman weaponry and armor was designed for just such and engagement. Provided the lines held it was after that the most carnage ensued... and this could occur quite quickly after the initial contact. While the Romans may not have held such unrelenting discipline as is often projected, I think we can all accept, the Roman military machine functioned best when it maintained that discipline. Disaster loomed when centurions were acting in an independent manner without regard for it's neighboring century or the structure of the entire cohort. While pure aggression had its practical value and could overcome lapses in discipline, it was the discipline that made the Roman legion what it was.

 

Those great battles where the Romans themselves faced massacre are usually coupled with stories of ambush (ie Teutoburg), disorganization and/or inept leadership (ie Aurasio, Cannae, Carrhae). While I agree that the Roman century, cohort or even an entire legion could be an unruly lot of unsavory characters, it's when they acted in such a manner on the battlefield that they got into trouble. It doesn't mean that they won every battle when they were the most disciplined and organized or that they lost every battle when they were not. However, it should be a given that the Roman odds were better when they behaved in the manner that their training dictated and used their equipment in such a way as to maximize that training and proficiency.

[Gaius Octavius]

Lots of good info. Still doesn't answer my hypothetical.

[caldrail]

Despite these issues, it is important to note that the lack of discipline by most Roman enemies meant that enemy lines often broke quickly when facing a uniform and disciplined Roman wall.

Thats true of warfare in general. However not all roman enemies broke so easily, and its easy to get swept away with the romance of roman military superiority when all too often they had no great advantage. Hannibal proved that.

 

Roman weaponry and armor was designed for just such and engagement.

Their equipment was made to suit their purposes just the same as everyone elses. Granted it was effective (you can't deny that!) but does that suggest that a barbarian weapon is ineffective? Far from it. What the romans did successfully was to marry equipment and tactics better than most. Unfortunately they were often let down by operational control on the field.

 

Disaster loomed when centurions were acting in an independent manner without regard for it's neighboring century or the structure of the entire cohort. While pure aggression had its practical value and could overcome lapses in discipline, it was the discipline that made the Roman legion what it was.

Centurions very rarely acted in an independent manner. To do so invites chaos on the battlefield and since fighting in compacted large groups was the way to contest a battlefield successfully, the centurions were well aware of their place in the line and what might happen if they when solo. In fact, the roman discipline wasn't as all-encompassing as it seems. Certainly it was harsh, and gave what was effectively a bunch of armed thugs some measure of fraternity and control, but the behaviour of the roman legion was always like a badly behaved dog on a short leash. It was roman aggression and organisation that made the legion what it was.... And you could bring the legionary penchant for placing emperors on the throne into consideration.

 

Those great battles where the Romans themselves faced massacre are usually coupled with stories of ambush (ie Teutoburg), disorganization and/or inept leadership (ie Aurasio, Cannae, Carrhae). While I agree that the Roman century, cohort or even an entire legion could be an unruly lot of unsavory characters, it's when they acted in such a manner on the battlefield that they got into trouble.

Wrong. The issue is leadership and the amateur status of their HQ. Poorly led, the romans were lambs to the slaughter. Without such adept leadership, roman discipline counted for very little, because the initiative at lower levels, whilst it appears to be encouraged in some ways, was blocked by rigid plans and poor insight of the army commanders.

 

It doesn't mean that they won every battle when they were the most disciplined and organized or that they lost every battle when they were not. However, it should be a given that the Roman odds were better when they behaved in the manner that their training dictated and used their equipment in such a way as to maximize that training and proficiency.

I can see what you're getting at, but the roman legions were adapted to fight in a particular manner. Look how they struggled against the parthians/persians. The roman 'heavy infantry army' might be formidable in some circumstances, but left high and dry if the opposing army refuses to fight it on the roman terms. Notice Spartacus was at large for two years before he chose (or was obliged) to meet Crassus in pitched battle. Notice how long Hannibal was able to fend off roman legions. The roman legions were good at what they were trained to do (I agree with that point) but they weren't trained to do everything.

[caldrail]

Lots of good info. Still doesn't answer my hypothetical.

 

You're still trying to prove the romans did things the same way as today aren't you? I've started to answer your hypothetical a few times now but I keep running into the same obstacle - any answer is also hypothetical. Command and control is by voice or instrument in both cases. The chain of command is different however - thats been covered elsewhere. The romans would try to fight in a large compacted group because anything else is leaving men exposed and vulnerable. The british would try to take cover and return fire, because otherwise they're at risk of being exposed and vulnerable. At the siege, the romans will offer terms and should the enemy refuse, the siege goes ahead and what happens after is the enemies own fault for not surrendering when they had the chance. Its likely the roman commander will want the siege over and done with as soon as possible and using rams, catapults, levers, ropes, towers, or tunnels, sooner or later his legion is getting in. Once inside, the legion is out of control and will tear the place apart for loot and cut down anyone they come across. The british are more gentlemanly - they too offer terms - and if refused use the artillery at length to reduce the enemy fort. What the british won't do is assault the place head on. That comes later, when a convenient entry has been made, and some measure of control over the troops is attempted, looting and murder regarded as undesirable behaviour from british troops (though the soldiers going in will readily use bayonets against enemies as trained to do)

[roman wargamer]

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

Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum

NN say's Cohort centurions had a responsibility more on a par with majors or colonels.

 

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

 

i like to point out that it is a fact that tribe have only one chief to command their men.

and Rome have only 35 tribe in late republic,

a one legio have more than 10 prefecti that command the whole legio.

 

in question of officer that is commission? about the centurio.?

"Note that a centurion at the end of an illustrious career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum"

where do you get that information to support your statement, which reference or books?

for me it is wrong. to be a prefecti you must be a plebian or a young patrician.

 

to me: my stand is like this;

 

to be a centurio, you must be a member [or your ancestor family line] of the comitia centuriata,

a voting member and not just an assidui or propertied citizens.

 

if you can make an " illustrious career, as you say"

you could become a honorary member of the Romani equites or the first of the citizen of Rome.

that appointment alone to become equites will need the approval of senate censor.

 

if you can point me wrong, i will offer my apology.

Edited May 20, 2008 by roman wargamer

[Primus Pilus]

Despite these issues, it is important to note that the lack of discipline by most Roman enemies meant that enemy lines often broke quickly when facing a uniform and disciplined Roman wall.

Thats true of warfare in general. However not all roman enemies broke so easily, and its easy to get swept away with the romance of roman military superiority when all too often they had no great advantage. Hannibal proved that.

 

Yes, and it's true of the Romans. The Roman generals were not up to Hannibal's challenge and were caught in a trap. The lack of discipline and the failure to hold their lines uniformly allowed Hannibal to envelop them and slaughter them wholesale. Had they held their center lines...

 

Roman weaponry and armor was designed for just such and engagement.

Their equipment was made to suit their purposes just the same as everyone elses. Granted it was effective (you can't deny that!) but does that suggest that a barbarian weapon is ineffective? Far from it. What the romans did successfully was to marry equipment and tactics better than most. Unfortunately they were often let down by operational control on the field.

 

Exactly, lack operational control which can easily be understood as a lack of discipline in their lines meant that their tactical advantages were rendered null. The gladius and scutum... even those of the Republican legions... were designed for close, tight and disciplined combat. This shouldn't be surprising considering that every military historian of merit subscribes to the basic concept of Roman military formation, structure and discipline.

 

Those great battles where the Romans themselves faced massacre are usually coupled with stories of ambush (ie Teutoburg), disorganization and/or inept leadership (ie Aurasio, Cannae, Carrhae). While I agree that the Roman century, cohort or even an entire legion could be an unruly lot of unsavory characters, it's when they acted in such a manner on the battlefield that they got into trouble.

 

Wrong. The issue is leadership and the amateur status of their HQ. Poorly led, the romans were lambs to the slaughter. Without such adept leadership, roman discipline counted for very little, because the initiative at lower levels, whilst it appears to be encouraged in some ways, was blocked by rigid plans and poor insight of the army commanders.

 

So are you suggesting that inadequate leadership has no effect on discipline or only that the Romans were always an unruly, undisciplined mob but that effective leaders simply outgeneraled their enemies every time?

 

Again, I'm not saying that Roman discipline was singly responsible for the dominance of Rome across Europe, but only that is was a major difference between them and their enemies. However, I find what seems to be your complete dismissal of it puzzling. Perhaps we are using the terminology in a different sense. By disciplined I do not suggest inflexibility... as in a phalanx... but simply adherence to order, command structure and reliance upon training, etc.

[roman wargamer]

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.

thanks for Caldrail, he now knows what it mean even partially,

a year ago, he do not even heared or read of it.

[roman wargamer]

in one reply given above the romans are quoted as responding to ambush in a calm orderly manner.

How the Roman Legion March

 

"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."rw

 

qoute

 

1.He ordered those auxiliaries which were lightly armed, and the archers, to march first, that they might prevent any sudden insults from the enemy, and might search out the woods that looked suspiciously, and were capable of ambuscades.

 

2.Next to these followed that part of the Romans which was completely armed, both footmen ,and horsemen.

 

quoted from The Wars Of The Jews Book III CHAPTER 6.

 

2. But as Vespasian had a great mind to fall upon Galilee, he marched out of Ptolemais, having put his army into that order wherein the Romans used to march. He ordered those auxiliaries which were lightly armed, and the archers, to march first, that they might prevent any sudden insults from the enemy, and might search out the woods that looked suspiciously, and were capable of ambuscades. Next to these followed that part of the Romans which was completely armed, both footmen ,and horsemen. Next to these followed ten out of every hundred, carrying along with them their arms, and what was necessary to measure out a camp withal; and after them, such as were to make the road even and straight, and if it were any where rough and hard to be passed over, to plane it, and to cut down the woods that hindered their march, that the army might not be in distress, or tired with their march. Behind these he set such carriages of the army as belonged both to himself and to the other commanders, with a considerable number of their horsemen for their security. After these he marched himself, having with him a select body of footmen, and horsemen, and pikemen. After these came the peculiar cavalry of his own legion, for there were a hundred and twenty horsemen that peculiarly belonged to every legion. Next to these came the mules that carried the engines for sieges, and the other warlike machines of that nature. After these came the commanders of the cohorts and tribunes, having about them soldiers chosen out of the rest. Then came the ensigns encompassing the eagle, which is at the head of every Roman legion, the king, and the strongest of all birds, which seems to them a signal of dominion, and an omen that they shall conquer all against whom they march; these sacred ensigns are followed by the trumpeters. Then came the main army in their squadrons and battalions, with six men in depth, which were followed at last by a centurion, who, according to custom, observed the rest. As for the servants of every legion, they all followed the footmen, and led the baggage of the soldiers, which was borne by the mules and other beasts of burden. But behind all the legions carne the whole multitude of the mercenaries; and those that brought up the rear came last of all for the security of the whole army, being both footmen, and those in their armor also, with a great number of horsemen.

[Gaius Octavius]

C., I was not trying to 'prove' anything. I obviously have not made myself clear. But, then it should be obvious from all my posting, that I am an idiot. What I have drawn from you, is that once a battle plan, for all legions, in all eras, was formulated, that that was that, and the 'commander' might just as well have gone to a movie. I see that the Romans only went after an area, only if there was a city involved. Not that it's worth anything, but that is fine by me.

 

Gaius, now exits - stage wrong.

 

[Northern Neil]

Lots of good info. Still doesn't answer my hypothetical.

 

You're still trying to prove the romans did things the same way as today aren't you?

 

Well... logistically they did. For a start, it was a state funded standing army with a standardised rank structure. Furthermore, its materiel was made by state funded factories, and its installations followed a standard building plan. In war it attempted to attain achievable targets, rather than attacking hated enemies just because they were there. Which is why, for example, the Boudiccan revolt failed so disastrously, despite the Brits much having the upper hand at first. A centurion may well have acted like a tribal chief, but an uncle by marriage of mine, a Captain in the Falklands war, says that he and his company did exactly the same when away from central command.

[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.

thanks for Caldrail, he now knows what it mean even partially,

a year ago, he do not even heared or read of it.

 

Neither had you before you read that Vegetius website. Don't be so cheeky. You hadn't defined the ferentarii either. Sorry mate, I beat you to it

Edited May 21, 2008 by caldrail