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.
