PlaymoFriends
Creative => Customs Gallery => Dioramas & Buildings => Topic started by: Timotheos on August 18, 2008, 01:08:56
-
The setting is the troubles in Germany during Marcus Aurelius's reign
The backstory: A German community on the Rhine has massacred the garrison of the local fortlet and taken it up as a base for looting the frontier towns of the empire. A Roman legion has been scrapped together to take the castle back. After two weeks of siege, when the Romans begin pushing the siege towers toward the front gate, the Germans, under the leadership of a chieftain (and former Roman auxiliary) named Chlodomir, panic and sally out in a suicidal rush.
Here we have a full view of the battle. The legate, a tribune, and his guards are in the lower left.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2772189905_4ecf6301ab_o.jpg)
[Note: This is image one of 7; I'm having network problems and doing this one slide at a time]
-
Here we have a view of the artillery, protected by an auxiliary unit of Macedonian spearmen
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2772189593_8cc493b46f_o.jpg)
Here is a closer shot of the Macedonians. The Ethiopian skirmisher troops are running for their lives, caught by surprise by Clodomir's cavalry charge. Chlodomir is leading a mixed unit of horsemen and infantry. Note that a lot of the infantry aren't well armored, or even armored at all. Germania appears to have been short of iron, or mining industry, and the Germans tended to go into battle substantially less equipped (except for the chiefs and their chosen) than did the Gauls. Note: the horseman with the beaked club is supposed to be carrying a signal horn... :hmm:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/2773037170_07ed6fd893_o.jpg)
Another vantage...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2773037496_238ea11f89_o.jpg)
-
Unfortunately, here is the uglier side of war. The woman are cheering for their menfolk. Their survival depends on it. Many of the women are armed, to do what they can when worst comes to worst.
Though I sympathized with the Romans as I arranged the display, the reality is that after Chlodomir's sally fails, the Romans will storm the fort, and probably massacre every woman and child (enslave them if they are "lucky"). The male survivors will probably be massacred, or less likely enslaved or shipped to the nearest arena.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2773037774_402ab9bb3d_o.jpg)
Er, ignore the goats and Dalmations in the background. They are "artifacts" from another display...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3285/2773038050_c32b761648_o.jpg)
-
Moving toward the opposite flank.
Here we have Chlodomir's cousin Wiglaf leading an infantry charge against the legionnaires.
NOTE: there really ought to be a lot more bodies on the field and in the formations. I was picky about the look of the klickies I fielded and hit a serious manpower shortage. PS. I dedicate this scene to Mike, and his 1,000 klicky cinematic ambition.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2773038346_ff2b031d75_o.jpg)
The German infantry are charging the Romans in a wedge formation. We tend to associate "wedge formations" with cavalry, but according to the Osprey books I've been reading, the historical wedge was an infantry formation that probably occurred naturally. The chief and his best warriors formed the first rank, with the lesser warriors with poorer morale and equipment following. As the charge moved forward, the chief would race ahead to show his mettle while his chosen kept abreast or fell slightly behind so as not to up-show him. The farther from the chief, the less motivated were the men, and the formation fanned out, taking on a wedge-like shape.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/2773038644_747043352b_o.jpg)
Once the forces collided, the fight degenerated into a shoving match, much like a rugby scrum or football scrimmage. The front ranks smashed shields together, getting cheap sword shots when possible. The ranks behind the front pushed their brothers forward, adding mass to their side. The side that lost heart or became exhausted first bolted.
The optio in the rear possibly served the dual purpose of keeping the back row pressing forward on their brothers. I elected to only have the first row of Romans baring drawn swords and made the assumption the rear rows would not draw the weapons until contact--might they otherwise stab their peers? And short sword is useless except in the front.
Here you see a close up of the shoving match.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2772189323_b30010ba7f_o.jpg)
Final note: the shoving match added to the tactical advantage of the Roman's pilum (javelin) volley that pinned down enemy shields and forced them to be dropped. Without a shield, a warrior would have to throw his body against the enemy shield, and if not pulverized by that, would be prey to the sword jabs.
[This is the end of the picture show]
-
Great photos! Nicely done set piece, it is nice to have enough figures and scenery to adjust your layout just the way you want. Thank you for sharing!
Gepetto
-
The setting is the troubles in Germany during Marcus Aurelius's reign
The backstory: A German community on the Rhine has massacred the garrison of the local fortlet and taken it up as a base for looting the frontier towns of the empire. A Roman legion has been scrapped together to take the castle back. After two weeks of siege, when the Romans begin pushing the siege towers toward the front gate, the Germans, under the leadership of a chieftain (and former Roman auxiliary) named Chlodomir, panic and sally out in a suicidal rush.
Wow! It was long ago that I read The Lord of the Rings, so I can't tell whether it's R. Tolkien's or P. Jackson's (movie producer/director) idea, but it does sound like the Battle of Hornsdeep ...
I tend to believe better in the hypothesis that it was R. Tolkien's knowledge of history that may have (maybe even unconsciously) made a battle a bit alike, for I believe that writer did read the Classics, but, according to one Law teacher (to thom I taught some Latin, a long time ago*) "a hypothesis can't be deffended as true, until you have material proof to confirm it or refute it" ...
*A long time ago, for a guy of 30 is about five or six years ago ... But it was something I hope I'll never forget! :)
ON THE SIEGE WORK
Magnificent work, Tim!!! I'm still in the beginning of the reading, so, maybe I'll may post something else, after having read it all (if I don't, it's because I have no complaints, which I think will happen :) ), but only by taking a look at the pictures, it's very interesting to see how you did something so big (and even not that big, but very ... cosy! :yup: ... I loved the steps under the green carpet, as well as the river cut by stones ...) & so very appealing!
I think it's appealing (at least to me) for being very realistic (to my eyes).
I make things into a small theatre ; you do great Hollywood-like productions (in the "good old times" :P before computer subsituted extras :hmm: ...), like Ben Hur :yup:, or even The Fall of the Roman Empire :yup: (not sure this is the title of the movie in English ... I'll check it up, but not today ... It's late, and I HAVE to read your work on this, before going to bed ... :) )
Gus
:blackhair:
-
An excellently told and well-photographed photostory, Tim. I enjoyed it very much. Your commentary is informative and really helps a greater appreciation of what is going on. I like the way you've got contours on the table, too, it makes it all the more realistic.
Many thanks and look forward to more.
-
J.R.R. Tolkien... Helm's Deep.
Very nice set up Tim, I'm hoping to do similar battles in time.
Should the Centurions be in the centre of their formations? I understood they always fought on the right hand end of their century, the exposed end because they don't have their right side covered by a neighbour's shield.
Also would the standard be exposed in the front line, or would the standard bearer be sheilded somewhat? I know the rate of casualties amongst the standard bearers was high, so they may well be in the line, possibly right next to the Centurion.
You've assembled an impressive amount of steck!
-
Should the Centurions be in the centre of their formations? I understood they always fought on the right hand end of their century, the exposed end because they don't have their right side covered by a neighbour's shield.
Also would the standard be exposed in the front line, or would the standard bearer be sheilded somewhat? I know the rate of casualties amongst the standard bearers was high, so they may well be in the line, possibly right next to the Centurion.
Hey Martin
You're probably right about the centurion being on the right.
I'm pretty confident (though not certain) the standard bearer was in the front rank. I'm basing most of that off of Caesar's Gallic War, in which the standard bearer, to motivate the troops, jumps off the ship and storms for the beach (invasion of Britain). The signifier was similar to what we'd think of as a non-commissioned officer, and I was presuming he was appointed to signifier on account of being a hard-charging example to the rest. With the standard in the front row, it would have visually given observers the unit's state of affairs in the melee while also giving soldiers a challenge to fight for.
But, that's just me guessing.
Actually, something else I considered (another rebuke to me putting centurion in the center)--
Since the standard bearer and the centurion were both motivators for the rest of the men, it would make sense to have the two spaced out in the front line. An anecdote I've picked up from my readings is the idea (contested) that a few aggressive men made-or-broke the melee, with the other guys just "tagging along". (Think of the person at work who puts in 60 hour weeks and knows everything while everybody else stops at 40 hours and aren't terribly efficient).
Caesar's Gallic Wars provides some amusing anecdotes of his best centurions. Two centurions were in competition with each other to scale the wall of a Gallic city first. Later on they competed for the number of Gauls killed in line fighting with a lot of boasting and name-calling between each other. Later on they both took it... guess you can't play the odds forever...
Back on the subject of a few ferocious men driving the battle--
I've read an anecdote about a man hurtling himself onto a packed mass of Gauls and stabbing heads. When you consider the average guy is more or less rational, wanting to get paid and make a day of it, the super-jocks in the line, half-mad, must have made a real difference.
Again, though, this is all just arm-chair speculation. It's "unfortunate" that neither I nor 99.99% of the historians have ever been in a toe-to-toe line melee! A general consensus, though, is that stamina made a big difference. And, the Romans' ability to rotate fresh men in is what turned the tables in the battles against Germans and Gauls, who fought in waves, retired for a break, then rushed again (or called ceasefire). The Romans didn't allow them that break, but pursued, turning it into a rout.
-
I need to study those Roman battle tactics again. I'm sure I had a book about this when I was younger, but am having trouble re-locating the title.
The Macedonian Phalanx had several rows of men, each carrying a pike, so that about five metal tips stuck out in front of the front row. The remaining rows had their pikes elevated, which helped break the fall of missiles from above. Unfortunately if an enemy soemhow got past those pikes, the soldiers were more vulnerable, though they did have a sword and the big round shield.
The Romans, as I understand it, threw their pila before the clash and as you've shown, used their short swords to stab through gaps in the shield wall. What did the rows behind do, apart from step forward to replace a fallen comrade? Could a tired man step back and allow another to take his place? Probably not, it would be too risky in the melee, even if it was allowed.
-
The Macedonian Phalanx had several rows of men, each carrying a pike, so that about five metal tips stuck out in front of the front row. The remaining rows had their pikes elevated, which helped break the fall of missiles from above. Unfortunately if an enemy soemhow got past those pikes, the soldiers were more vulnerable, though they did have a sword and the big round shield.
Hi Martin
It's not a phalanx, just an auxiliary of spearmen. I pulled "Macedonian" out of the air. I was going to use Illyrian (Illyria was in the area of Serbia???) or Briton but decided Macedonian was a safer bet.
-Tim
-
[quote author=Timotheos link=topic=2496.msg28193#msg28193
Back on the subject of a few ferocious men driving the battle--
super-jocks in the line, half-mad, must have made a real difference.
[/quote]
There's something of the concept of the "berserker", the Viking warrior who would tear off his upper clothing (bersek= bare shirt, without a shirt, in what you're saying, Tim, but in a Roman context, and maybe not something to be expected of the civilised Romans. But, as you say, it would certainly make a difference and in two ways - it would encourage his comrades and scare the dickens out of the enemy!
-
The Romans, as I understand it, threw their pila before the clash and as you've shown, used their short swords to stab through gaps in the shield wall. What did the rows behind do, apart from step forward to replace a fallen comrade? Could a tired man step back and allow another to take his place? Probably not, it would be too risky in the melee, even if it was allowed.
I think they did replace comrades in the battle line. The fighting probably wasn't continuous but came in pulses as individuals grew exhausted.
As for the men in the other rows: I get the impression they would push their brothers forward. One of the historians I read questioned the use of sharpened shield bosses because pushing that against your comrade's back would injure him.
But melee appears to have commonly boiled down to a big shoving match, one mass of men against another. Granted, it seems guys in the middle would have suffocated (I've read about this happening (suffocation), but only when a unit was pressed from all sides and everybody was trying to escape toward the center). So maybe all the ranks weren't actually pushing forward.
-
There's something of the concept of the "berserker", the Viking warrior who would tear off his upper clothing (bersek= bare shirt, without a shirt, in what you're saying, Tim, but in a Roman context, and maybe not something to be expected of the civilised Romans. But, as you say, it would certainly make a difference and in two ways - it would encourage his comrades and scare the dickens out of the enemy!
Hi Playmofire:
I've actually read that berserk = bear shirt and those guys wore bear hides to identify themselves with certain cult practice. (In the one of the medieval sagas I've read (Vatnsdoela saga) a family of werewolves remove their wolf skins by day and hang the skins in trees. By night they don the skins to rob people / murder enemies.
The saga hero finds the wolfskins, kills the family, and keeps a skin for himself. So similarly by wearing the "bear shirts" the beserkers symbolicly became bears.
The Celts had something similar to beserkers (minus the skins)--around the 2nd century BC, there was a band of landless Belgians who hired themselves out as mercenaries and fought completely naked. They would rile themselves up into a fury, chew the rims of their shields, and otherwise intimidate their opponents.
Unfortunately the Romans pinned one such company up on a hilltop and pelted them to death with javelins.
So much for bravado. (source "Celt and Roman", Peter Berresford Ellis)
-Tim
-
Hi Playmofire:
I've actually read that berserk = bear shirt and those guys wore bear hides to identify themselves with certain cult practice.
-Tim
Now that's very interesting, Tim. I suspect that two definitions have grown up because of the homophones, bare and bear.
-
Hi Martin
It's not a phalanx, just an auxiliary of spearmen. I pulled "Macedonian" out of the air. I was going to use Illyrian (Illyria was in the area of Serbia???) or Briton but decided Macedonian was a safer bet.
-Tim
Sorry Tim, didn't mean your guys, I was referring to actual Macedonian Phalanxes, as I've seen them illustrated in books. I had two illustrated books as a kid, one called The Roman Army, the other The Greek Armies, with lots of great pictures.
-
Now that's very interesting, Tim. I suspect that two definitions have grown up because of the homophones, bare and bear.
Hi Gordon, over here we pronounce "Berserkr" as "bur-zurk-kur" and there is no homophone with "bare shirt" (or "bear shirt" for that matter).
Do you remember your source?
Merriam-Webster dictionary lists Berserkr's etymology as "Bear + shirt", and M-W is usually meticulous about etymology.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/berserker
-Tim
-
Hi Gordon, over here we pronounce "Berserkr" as "bur-zurk-kur" and there is no homophone with "bare shirt" (or "bear shirt" for that matter).
Do you remember your source?
Merriam-Webster dictionary lists Berserkr's etymology as "Bear + shirt", and M-W is usually meticulous about etymology.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/berserker
-Tim
Hi Tim, we pronounce it like that, too. I was referring to the homophone in the translation, bare and bear, i.e. maybe someone heard "bear" and thought it was "bare" and then went on from there. I can't remember the source, it may well have been in junior school, so that's going back some! However, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary suggests either source may be correct, although with a preference for "bear". (The Oxford English Dictionary is the UK standard.)
-
... The Macedonian Phalanx had several rows of men, each carrying a pike, so that about five metal tips stuck out in front of the front row. The remaining rows had their pikes elevated, which helped break the fall of missiles from above. Unfortunately if an enemy soemhow got past those pikes, the soldiers were more vulnerable, though they did have a sword and the big round shield.
The Romans, as I understand it, threw their pila before the clash and as you've shown, used their short swords to stab through gaps in the shield wall. ...
A slight side note.
The main problem with Phalanxes were the extremely exposed sides. A Phalanx hasn't great manouvrability. It can go forward, back and turn a bit. It cannot turn face; for example. Disruption of the line as the result of casualties or the effect of terrain makes continuation of the Phalanx form extremely dangerous as there's a hole in the line that's not easily closed again. If it's fighting a group that's fighting flexible or is being flanked; it's doomed.
I've read somewhere that the way or warfare that rose with the Phalanxes were more the result of a form of inbred warfare (it only works really against other opponents who fight the same way) that only was adopted in Greece. As soon as they started to fight other nations with other tactics it was quickly abondonned.
As to the Pilum; I've read that the shaft would bend on impact. If they would hit a opponent it would hamper him greatly and if it hit a piece of equipment it would make it's use almost impossible. As a side effect the enemy couldn't pick it up and throw it back as it would be too bend to be usable. That's why they never used them as spears in battle. It would be a charge, throwing the pila, and then draw the gladius, close the ranks for some heavy close in fighting.
At least, that's what I've read ...
-
As to the Pilum; I've read that the shaft would bend on impact. If they would hit a opponent it would hamper him greatly and if it hit a piece of equipment it would make it's use almost impossible. As a side effect the enemy couldn't pick it up and throw it back as it would be too bend to be usable. That's why they never used them as spears in battle. It would be a charge, throwing the pila, and then draw the gladius, close the ranks for some heavy close in fighting.
At least, that's what I've read ...
That was true of the early Pila. The barbed point was hardened, but the metal shaft was not, so on impact, as often as not through a shield or body (uurgh), it would catch with the barbs and the shaft would bend. The opponent would usually have to drop the shield if this happened.
Later on they improved the system. The metal shaft was attached to the wooden handle by two dowels or rods, one metal, one wooden. On impact the wooden one would break, leaving the unlucky recipient with an unwieldy wood/metal hinged thing, just as impossible to throw back, and just as encumbering if it stuck through a shield.
After the battle, the pila would be collected up, a new wooden dowel popped in to replace the broken one, and it's good for the next battle. Saved a fortune on blacksmithing work, and a heck of a lot quicker and easier to do in the field.
-
It's funny how difficult it is to pull a projectile out of a target, even a relatively soft one.
I was bow shooting a few weeks back and naively used a four pronged arrow (the prongs stop the arrow from skidding off into the grass for easier recovery).
The backdrop target was several sheets of soft plywood stacked horizontally.
But that four pronged arrow was such a devil pulling out that I learned not to use it for target practice.
Even the straight, bullet-shaped arrows take a small amount of effort to retrieve.
Incidentally, according to a lot of source I've read, Roman military surgeons removed arrows from limbs usually by pushing the arrow on through to the other side. Trying to pry it out back through the entry point only worsened the injury.
Getting hit by an arrow was probably a close to career ending injury though I can't find any research that estimates recovery rates per weapon.
-Tim
-
Thanks for a beautiful story and lay out of your roman army Tim . :wow:
Luckily flesh is a lot more playable than plywood so retrieving the arrow was a bit easier ;)
-
Tim, that's a magnificent and very realistic story and battle scene! You've got quite a good number of men so that it's epic in scope, yet not so many that it takes forever to position them. Your handpicked German klickies look quite good and you've got a nice mix of Roman troop types.
Almost all the sources I've read have said that centurions fought at the far right of the front line and this is why their casualty rate was so high. As Tim shows, the optio is in the rear with his staff to urge the men forward and to make sure the men don't flee. From the rear he also could receive orders from the commander's runners and take them to the centurion at the front or, if the centurion was killed, replace him.
Scholars can't fully conclude and/or don't fully agree on where signifiers stood during the battle. Some possibilities include the following: in the center of the front rank, in one of the three spots nearest the centurion, in the middle of the second or third rank, in the middle of the century, or in the rear, either in the middle, the far left, or the far right. All these positions make sense depending on your point of view, and there's a good chance he was placed in different positions depending upon the seriousness of the situation. That said, being in the front rank sounds suicidal and thus, in my opinion, not probable.
As for the cornicen, it's also a matter debate where he would stand. I've read that he would either be in one of the three spots nearest the centurion so he could sound the centurion's orders or at the middle rear of the century to sound the orders from the commander. To me, the latter sounds the most probable.
-
Thanks Justin
You and Martin have convinced me to station the centurion on the right and move the standard bearer back a few ranks for future displays.
-Tim
-
Hello, Timmy ...
Once the forces collided, the fight degenerated into a shoving match, much like a rugby scrum or football scrimmage.
I love the way you look at the "fun" of this encounter ... :klickygrin:
And, you even included "cheerleaders" ... :klickygrin:
see attachment
-
Almost all the sources I've read have said that centurions fought at the far right of the front line and this is why their casualty rate was so high. As Tim shows, the optio is in the rear with his staff to urge the men forward and to make sure the men don't flee. From the rear he also could receive orders from the commander's runners and take them to the centurion at the front or, if the centurion was killed, replace him.
Scholars can't fully conclude and/or don't fully agree on where signifiers stood during the battle. Some possibilities include the following: in the center of the front rank, in one of the three spots nearest the centurion, in the middle of the second or third rank, in the middle of the century, or in the rear, either in the middle, the far left, or the far right. All these positions make sense depending on your point of view, and there's a good chance he was placed in different positions depending upon the seriousness of the situation. That said, being in the front rank sounds suicidal and thus, in my opinion, not probable.
As for the cornicen, it's also a matter debate where he would stand. I've read that he would either be in one of the three spots nearest the centurion so he could sound the centurion's orders or at the middle rear of the century to sound the orders from the commander. To me, the latter sounds the most probable.
Thanks Justin
You and Martin have convinced me to station the centurion on the right and move the standard bearer back a few ranks for future displays.
-Tim
Centurion front right. Signifer (in battle) somewhere safer - I'm putting mine in the centre of the unit where they can be protected from all sides - after all the century won't be inspired by seeing their standard fall and be carried away by the enemy.
Cornicern - was he there to sound the Centurion's orders, or to relay the General's orders? I think the latter. I think the Centurion was there to lead his century in battle, and when he was there in the front rank he was in no position to dicatate orders to a cornicern. The general (hopefully up on a hill nearby) could see how a battle was developing, and order in extra centuries, or sound a retreat, as required.
Anyhoo, I'm hoping the book I'm waiting on abour Roman Army Tactics will cover this in better detail.
-
Cornicern - was he there to sound the Centurion's orders, or to relay the General's orders? I think the latter. I think the Centurion was there to lead his century in battle, and when he was there in the front rank he was in no position to dicatate orders to a cornicern. The general (hopefully up on a hill nearby) could see how a battle was developing, and order in extra centuries, or sound a retreat, as required.
I speculate that the general gave his orders to the legion or army musician. The army musician played and the local musicians relayed his calls. I imagine the local musicians also responded to the centurion's orders. I know the centurions had a degree of autonomy, but I bet once the battle started, "throw", "charge", and "run away" was the main repertoire.
I also speculate that the musicians played ditties to keep morale up. Standing in cold silence waiting might wear on the nerves.
Anecdotes:
During Rome's battle with the king of Macedon sometime after Hannibal's defeat, a sharp-eyed Tribune grabbed several maniples from their positions and raced around to flank the enemy. [source "Decisive Battles" episode "Birth of the Roman Empire" (Battle of Cynoscephalae), a history channel DVD series using the "Rome: Total War" game engine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae )
I haven't read about individual centuries doing complicated maneuvers solely at the behest of the centurion, though.
-Tim
-
I speculate that the general gave his orders to the legion or army musician. The army musician played and the local musicians relayed his calls. I imagine the local musicians also responded to the centurion's orders. I know the centurions had a degree of autonomy, but I bet once the battle started, "throw", "charge", and "run away" was the main repertoire.
I also speculate that the musicians played ditties to keep morale up. Standing in cold silence waiting might wear on the nerves.
Hmmm. Lacking the valves of modern brass instruments (which when pressed switch in and out different lengths of tubing), the straight Roman tuba and curved cornu have a very limited number of notes available to the musician, and are not really suited to "ditties".
When you hear "the last post", or "come to the cookhouse door, boys" played on a modern military horn (the brass horn in the Western sets, I'm not sure what the correct name is), there are 4 or 5 notes, created using harmonics, and requiring considerable skill from the player to achieve them all.
I think the greatest number of notes theoretically achieveable from a single fixed length of tube would be six. Imagine the length of a tube as 12 units, this is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6 and 12. I can't think of a number that is divisible by more numbers to still give a whole number (and it has to be a whole number to create a note). However it's probably not humanly possible to get the lowest harmonic to sound, so the notes you can make are those related to the tube length divided by 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12.
I can bore you a lot more if you're interested.
It is remarkable that the Romans never made use of drums for their military signalling, as drums are so ancient, simple to operate and the sound carries well.
-
I agree that the commander's cornicens would signal the individual centuries' cornicens who would then play the signal for the centurion and the century.
My understanding is that the Roman army's musicians were almost totally for signaling and not making music, especially during a battle. The possible exception might be a few note fanfare when someone important was coming or leaving or when there was a victory triumph, although this sort of goes with signaling.
I too find it strange that the Romans never adopted the drum. Perhaps they thought it too "primitive," but it would have added variety to their signals and limited music.
-
Hey where do you think Tribunes would have been positioned?
Would they have followed the legate / general around, or would they have acted as aide-de-camps (relaying messages), or would they have overseen zones of the battlefield?
At the battle of Cynospe... at the battle against the Macedonian king, a tribune took initiative and led a flanking attack, so these men must have played some role as field officers (not just general's staff). I read Caesar's commentaries about a year ago but unfortunately don't remember if he mentioned the tribunes. (Caesar does rave on several of his centurions who behaved particularly heroicly--not as field commanders, but champions in hand-to-hand fighting (one centurion hurled himself over the enemy shields; two other centurions were in competition to kill the most gauls).
-Tim
-
My impression is that the Tribunes were unlikely to go anywhere near the battlefield, so they probably stayed near the Legate. The broad-stripe guy was destined for a Political career, so no point in him risking his life, and the rest were like quartermasters, necessary to the organisation of the army, and too valuable and knowledgeable to be risked in combat. Of coruse if the HQ got overrun they'd grab their arms and defend themselves, but no Legion should allow it's HQ to be so exposed.
The Tribunes might possibly carry messages between Legions, or the Legion and Rome, or the Legion and their base camp.
-
Tribunes, like the Legate, acted mostly as administrators when not in battle, although one Tribune Agusticlavius at a time would act as camp and watch commander. (Each Tribune Agusticlavius would take a turns in this role.) That said, I rather think it was more the Camp Prefect and/or the First Spear Centurion who would handle the day to day operations with the men while the current Tribune Agusticlavius camp commander would handle more of the administrative aspects. Nevertheless, this did give the Tribunes Agusticlavii some valuable command experience.
During battles, I think the Tribunes' roles would somewhat depend upon the Legate and/or the Commander. While the Tribunes might stay right with the Legate and/or commander, I tend to think the Tribunes Agusticlavii would be zone commanders, overseeing two cohorts each and/or possibly act as the Legate's and/or Commander's battlefield Lieutenants. (The Tribune Laticlavius, due to his familial importance and military inexperience, would probably stay with the legate and/or commander regardless of what was going on.) The Tribunes Agusticlavii would, of course, be mounted and be behind the front line, so they would be relatively safe and also have a much better vantage point and ability to command a large number of men compared to a centurion fighting in the front line. Although the Tribunes Agusticlavii wouldn't be the grizzled military veterans with at least decade or two of battlefield experience that the Centurions were, they would have quite a bit of textbook knowledge and varying degrees of actual field command experience, so they would be relatively capable commanders. I would liken the Tribunes Agusticlavii to the modern day Majors or Lieutenant Colonels while the Centurions would be very much like the modern day Captain and Sergeant, albeit all rolled into one.
-
I would liken the Tribunes Agusticlavii to the modern day Majors or Lieutenant Colonels while the Centurions would be very much like the modern day Captain and Sergeant, albeit all rolled into one.
Hello, Justindo!
I'm not a specialist in military, but etymology does tell me that, at least in the beginning, centuriones had to do with a range of a hundred (centum) men, and decuriones, with groups of ten (decem).
I'll search the words agusticlauius and laticlauius (atributes of the tribuni) ... Never expected, as I told Tim, that I'd turn back to my Latin studies (also) because of Playmofriends ... It's a (good) surprise to me :)
Gus
:blackhair:
-
I'm not a specialist in military, but etymology does tell me that, at least in the beginning, centuriones had to do with a range of a hundred (centum) men, and decuriones, with groups of ten (decem).
And the Sherlock award goes to P. Olive Guge.
I'll give you a real prize if you can explain how the 100 man century came to be an 80 man unit.
What I've read:
1) The original 100 men body included the velites ("uelites", eh Gus?). After the Velites were shelved, what was left was an 80 man unit.
or
2) The missing twenty men account for administrative clerks who don't fight.
Explanation 1) seems the most intriguing.
I'll search the words agusticlauius and laticlauius (atributes of the tribuni) ... Never expected, as I told Tim, that I'd turn back to my Latin studies (also) because of Playmofriends ... It's a (good) surprise to me :)
Gus
:blackhair:
agsticlavius = narrow stripe
laticlavius = broad stripe
Hey Gus, did your Latin classes use all "u's" for their Latin transliteration?
My classes used "v's" in places that modern readers would expect (granted, my teacher, a Catholic, pronounced them like "v" to my absolute irritation).
Or we could go truly classical--feast your eyes on this:
ARMAVIRVMQVECANOTROIAEQUIPRIMUSABORIS
Pretty, huh?
-
Hi Justin
What about senior officers, like legates? These were generally career soldiers, right? Your reference about the tribunes suggests that only two of the tribunes were career climbers from Rome.
I guess what I'm saying is I know almost nothing about it. Caesar's legates, like Antony and Labienus, seemed to be professional soldiers instead of politicians (and Antony flopped at politics when he tried to play Triumvir with Augustus).
-Tim
-
Hey Gus, did your Latin classes use all "u's" for their Latin transliteration?
My classes used "v's" in places that modern readers would expect (granted, my teacher, a Catholic, pronounced them like "v" to my absolute irritation).
Or we could go truly classical--feast your eyes on this:
ARMAVIRVMQVECANOTROIAEQUIPRIMUSABORIS
Pretty, huh?
I can't say it's a bad thing to learn the proper places of the "v", Tim ...
Only, once we're talking about Romans' Latin here, I'm using "Roman" way (because true Roman is accorging to what you brought from the Aeneid ;) ...)
When writing my medieval stuff, you'll see me using the "v"s. But, when in first centuries' Rome, I use no "v", 'cause they didn't know what was that. Nor any "U"s ... So :
ARMAVIRVMQVECANOTROIAEQVIPRIMVSABORIS
ITALIAMFATOPROFVGVSLAVINIAEQVEVENIT
LITORAMVLTVMILLEETTERRISIACTATVSETALTO
VISVPERVMSAEVAEMEMOREMIVNONISOBIRAM ...
:P Need more attention, aye, T. Amici Turx?
(Not at all easy, though ... I almost let go one "U" or another ... ;D )
But you do it very well with your Latin ... I've been ... at home! Can't wait for doing some storytellings at Rome :cloud9: ... However, I think that I'll only have Roman klicky smiles after December :-[ ...
I'll have to patientiae colere uirtutem ...
Guga
:blackhair:
-
Hi Justin
What about senior officers, like legates? These were generally career soldiers, right? Your reference about the tribunes suggests that only two of the tribunes were career climbers from Rome.
I guess what I'm saying is I know almost nothing about it. Caesar's legates, like Antony and Labienus, seemed to be professional soldiers instead of politicians (and Antony flopped at politics when he tried to play Triumvir with Augustus).
-Tim
Birth class status was the primary determiner of where one would be placed in Rome's military. Non-citizens would go to the auxiliaries, although citizens could enlist in the auxiliaries as well. Some citizens, in fact, did this, as the enlistment term was shorter, it was arguably less dangerous, and the location would be arguably more permanent. Of course status, pay, bonuses, and land grants were less too. The exception to this was the auxiliary cavalry which was arguably more prestigious and possibly paid the same or even more than the legions. (Scholars don't know for certain yet on what exact scale all the different units were paid at, and the cavalry in a mixed infantry and cavalry cohort would probably be paid less than the cavalry in a pure cavalry cohort.)
Citizens would go to the legions, but if Rome really needed to raise a legion quickly and badly and the man was a good prospect, a non-citizen might immediately be granted citizenship so that he could go into the legions. (Julius Caesar did this with the Spanish.) Average citizen soldiers could move up through the lower non-commissioned ranks to become centurions, then the top centurion in a cohort, then a centurion in the first cohort, then the first centurion of the first cohort, then the legionary camp prefect. (A soldier's chances of even making centurion, however, were quite slim.) The legionary camp prefect, although technically ranking third militarily and eighth socially in the legion, would actually be the most experienced and respected man in the entire legion due to his lifetime of experience and humble soldier's roots, which the men of the legion could more readily identify with compared to the wealthy and elite tribunes and legate.
The two types of legionary tribunes generally had two different career paths due to their birth class status. The Tribunes Agusticlavii, of which there were theoretically five in a legion, were basically the experienced career officers and could serve indefinitely. They could be in their early twenties on up in age. They were called this (narrow stripe tribunes) because they were entitled to wear narrow purple stripes on their white tunics and a gold ring to signify their Equestrian class status. Equestrians, if they were fortunate, would usually begin their military careers as prefects of infantry auxiliary cohorts. From there they might be promoted to being prefect of a mixed infantry and cavalry cohort. They then might be promoted to become a legionary tribune. From there they might be promoted to be prefect of a cavalry auxiliary cohort or prefect of a Praetorian cohort. Of course all of this depended upon how good one was, what one's personal preference was, how ambitious one was, and, most importantly, how wealthy and well-connected one was. Due to the last of these reasons, however, an Equestrian might not be able to start his career as a prefect of an infantry auxiliary cohort. Instead, he might have to start as a centurion in a legion or an auxiliary cohort or, in the worst case, as a normal legionary.
The Tribunes Laticlavii (broad stripe tribunes) were in their late teens or early twenties and wore broad purple stripes on their white tunics and, at least traditionally, an iron ring to signify their Patrician class. There were theoretically only one to a legion and he technically ranked second, after the legate, both militarily and socially, but due to his youth and inexperience would or should defer battlefield decisions to the Tribunes Agusticlavii and the legionary camp prefect. He was basically with the legion for a year or two to learn the ropes, as this was the first stage in his military and political career. (These were intertwined, for Rome was foremost a military society.) From the legion, he would transfer to any number of civilian posts and after these civilian posts, he might return as a Legate. Legates were usually at least 30 years old and theoretically served for three years, but some served for less if they were terribly incompetent, or much longer if they were needed or if they were effective and wanted to. One must remember that battlefield spoils, usually in the form of slaves, could be quite profitable. (Julius Caesar was a broke patrician who owed money to everyone, but his military activities made him a very rich man.)
Of course much of the above regarding the tribunes is "theoretically" speaking. In reality, one could think of Tribunes, either broad or narrow striped, as today's vice presidents in a company. Technically a company, like a Roman Legion, might only require a certain number of competent vice presidents, but if the president, board members, significant stock holders, etc. wish to help out their family, friends, supporters, etc., a company might have a multitude of superfluous vice presidents. As the Empire progressed and the equestrian and patrician ranks swelled, room had to be made for these men, so a legion might very well have ten Tribunes Laticlavii and ten Tribunes Agusticlavii! One must remember that, unlike most countries today, Rome was a military society and the military was, for the patricians and equestrians, the only suitable profession with which to begin a respectable career. All civil positions required military experience. Of course good soldiers don't necessarily make good politicians, and good politicians don't necessarily make good soldiers.
-
(A soldier's chances of even making centurion, however, were quite slim.)
About 1 in 80 ? ;D
Very interesting Justindo, I need to read through this all again, but it agrees with and adds to everything I've read so far.
I just got an Osprey book about the Praetorian Guard (by Dr Boris Rankov), and haven't read much yet, but a couple of interesting points so far - Praetorians were paid about 3 times a normal Legionary wage, and until 2BC each cohort was a separate command with an equestrian tribune in charge. Augustus then combined them into one command with two Praetorian Prefects in charge. The number of cohorts varied from 9 to 16 under different emperors. Being usually based near Eome, and with a shorter term of service, it was a very desireable position. They didn't become plump pseudo-soldiers though, often being picked from the ranks of legions for their ability, so they were genuinely tough hombres. When patrolling ythe streets of Rome, they would usually wear togas so as not to alarm the citizens, or be too obvious.
He also says that both Legionaries and Auxiliaries often provided their own armour, so hamata, segmentata and squamata would be mixed in the same unit - it was a question of what the soldier could afford or acquire.
In light of this I may mix a few of my Auxiliary figures and Legionary figures up in the units, but keeping the oval shields for Auxiliaries and scutum for Legionaries (as long as I have enough to go round...).
-
About 1 in 80 ? ;D
Hi Martin, the odds drop considerably when you consider that in times of peace, the centurion might hang around for 30 years (why retire from a cushy life with social influence and flowing kickbacks?). Also judging from my reading, signifiers, optios, and centurions sometimes formed a sort of informal careerist clique within the army. For example, a signifier might transfer to another unit to be its signifier, or even transfer to an auxiliary unit with a promotion to centurion. So you possibly had the same group of people rotating around the under-officer ranks, promoting their friends, and sticking by each other.
So out of that body of eighty men in a centurion, not one of those guys might ever rise in rank at all (except to senior legionary with exemption from some duties).
-
Martin, I like the Osprey book on the Praetorian Guard quite a bit. It's been a while since I've read up on the Guard, and so I'm currently a bit unclear regarding the various Praetorian prefects. I know that one or two prefects, depending on the emperor, was/were in command of the total Guard, but I seem to recall that each cohort was also commanded by a prefect of the Equestrian class, much like in auxiliary cohorts. Does your recent reading support this or would the first century centurion in each cohort command it?
You're right about the shields. Regarding the armor, soldiers would be provided with armor by the Roman army, but the cost came out of their pay, as did their arms, clothing, and perhaps food. The hamata and squamata seems to have been preferred by the cavalry and centurions and signifiers while the segmentata seems to have been preferred by imperial legionaries due to its lighter weight. The segmentata was also cheaper to produce, although I seem to recall that the Roman army charged the soldier the same price regardless of what kind of armor he was issued. What he was issued depended upon what was available rather than cost. (Of course centurions could afford to buy much better quality armor.) As you note, to be completely realistic, an imperial legion would have a mix of segmentata and hamata, although the former would probably be in larger quantities, especially in the time period you're trying to represent. Whether or not auxiliaries were issued segmentata is still unknown. Traditionally, it was believed they were not, just as they were not given the pilum and were, in general, issued inferior equipment for fear they might rebel like the Batavians. A few segmentata fragments, however, have been found at auxiliary forts, so this has reopened the question. Of course this doesn't necessarily prove they were issued this type of armor. For myself, I like uniformity, so all my legionaries have segmentata while all my auxiliaries have hamata. :)