Dr Adrian Goldsworthy - Author's blog

2013-09-01
Waterloo Battlefield Guide
I recently picked up David Buttery's Waterloo Battlefield Guide published by Pen&Sword earlier this year. Waterloo and the surrounding area is well worth a visit for anyone interested in history and especially the military buff, and with the 200th anniversary of the battle due in 2015, I suspect that many more people will be heading over to that part of Belgium. Up until now, there has not been a good and readily portable guide to the history and the monuments and sites today. In the past I have tended to go with photocopies of maps taken from various books - one of my favourites is Mark Adkin's Waterloo Companion, but anyone familiar with this tome will understand that it is not the sort of thing you want to lug around, especially on a rainy day. The Waterloo Battlefield guide is a neat little hardback, readily portable in a backpack and should probably fit in a decent sized coat pocket, although I would be inclined to take off the dust-jacket to keep that in good condition. It reminds me of the trusty Handbook to the Roman Wall, which I have blogged about in the past as the ideal aid to a visit. Obviously this is intended as a guidebook and so is not really the sort of thing you sit down and read from cover to cover in one sitting, although I have found myself following big chunks, curious about how particular topics are presented. There is a narrative, which briefly gives the background, and then in more detail the events of the campaign. This is done well, and I think would be easy to follow even if you begin with no real knowledge of the military aspect of things. The details of Waterloo remain highly controversial, as evidence is re-assessed and new material discovered. This is not a book about such controversies - otherwise it would be five or six times longer and still might not reach firm conclusions - so although you could say that a fair few incidents were more complicated, the description here is always sensible. More importantly it is structured to tie in with descriptions of personalities, themes, and most importantly the landscape, buildings, museums, and memorials there today. Sometimes the history of the latter is almost as interesting as the people or event commemorated - perhaps especially in the case of the many French monuments. This is an on-going story in itself, as nations and groups decide to present the past in different ways. The whole text along with the many illustrations, photographs and maps are well integrated, the historical narrative tying in nicely with the visible remains. The battle itself is also kept within the context of the wider events of the campaign, and it is good to see plenty of attention going to Ligny/Fleurus, Quatre Bras, and especially Wavre - the latter traditionally tended to receive less attention in British accounts. This is a nice addition to the enthusiast's library and the perfect companion to a visit. I shall certainly take it with me next time I go, as there are quite a few viewpoints and details I have not seen before - and enough reminders of things I have seen to make me wistful and eager to return.


2013-08-04
All in Scarlet Uniform
All in Scarlet Uniform is due for release this week. The official date is Thursday 8th August, but sometimes things ship a day or so earlier. This is the fourth in the series and carries the story through into the summer of 1810. If you look in the fiction section of the website you will see a new page with more information.


2013-07-13
Julius Caesar's birthday
It's the 13th July today, so the two thousand, one hundred and thirteenth anniversary of the birth of Caesar - give or take a year or two on the basis of changes in the calendar and uncertainty over whether he was born in 100 or 102 BC. Still, given that the old fellow has been good to me, I always like to remember him. I don't think we will be going out this year, but something Italian will no doubt be in order for dinner tonight!


2013-07-04
NYMAS talk
Hello all Once again, apologies for the lack of updates, but life has been very busy. The manuscript for AUGUSTUS went in last week so that is a great relief. It is scheduled for release in July 2014. Over the coming weeks I hope to post more often, but in the meantime here is a link to a recording of the lecture I gave in New York back in April NYMAS talk on Roman Warfare. If that does not work, then go to nymas and follow the link to their podcasts.


2013-05-19
Command of cohorts in the legions of the late Republic and Principate
The question was whether it was true that the legionary cohort did not have a commander, whereas an auxiliary cohort had a CO senior to and distinct from the centurions commanding the centuries. Some scholars are adamant that the legionary cohort did not have a commander, and a few would extend this on to have the centuries of a cohort operating semi-independently. This is my take on the question: There isn't a simple, straightforward answer to this question. As I am sure you know, understanding the Roman army is a question of trying to make sense of lots of little fragments of information. Ultimately there is a good deal that we do not know. If we are lucky, then new evidence will turn up in the form of an inscription, papyrus or writing tablet which will add something new. So there is very often no hard and fast right answer, just ways of interpreting what we have and filling in the gaps with conjecture. In this case Ross Cowan follows Speidel and quite a few other scholars. I have a great deal of respect for all of them, but in some cases have a different interpretation. Often it is impossible to prove the case one way or the other. I haven't read that particular book, so it may be that the wording is slightly different. However, essentially it is true, but only up to a point. It is definitely a fact that we have not found the slightest evidence for a permanent post as commander of a legionary cohort. All the evidence suggests that there were 6 centurions in charge of the 6 centuries forming a cohort - but there was not an additional officer, whether centurion or someone else, clearly in charge of the others. This is in contrast to auxiliary cohorts, who had six centurions and a prefect (or in some cases tribune) who was superior in rank and social status and was the commander of the unit. Similarly praetorian cohorts and urban cohorts had tribunes as commanders as well as a centurion for each century. The question of standards is harder. We know that each century had a signifer, but no one is recorded as being the standard bearer of the whole cohort. However, no one actually tells us that each century actually carried its standard & it is not impossible that one could carry something different, but simply wasn't given a title - like the aquilifer, the man carrying the eagle of the legion. We do not really know if there was one standard for an entire auxiliary cohort - there is evidence for several types of standard bearer within these units. The question of a genius of a legionary cohort is also a bit murky. Legionaries most commonly set up inscriptions to the genius of their century or legion. Off the top of my head I cannot remember any to a legionary cohort, but confess that I haven't looked at this for a while. So it would be worth checking the references to genii or cohorts in case they are to praetorian or urban cohorts, or auxiliary units. All of these had a much more independent existence and were not permanently grouped into any higher unit equivalent to a legion. Now, some scholars work on the basis that if there is not a man with a specific title associated with a specific role, then no one performed that role, and so the Roman army must have worked differently. Thus Cowan, Speidel etc minimise the role of the cohort in tactics, stressing instead the role of the maniple and century. I don't share this view, and have a different understanding of the nature of combat. On this particular issue, it's worth thinking about a few points:- 1. Quite a lot of armies do not have ranks whose title is tied to one specific role. Thus a modern platoon will usually be commanded by a first or second lieutenant, a company by a major (or less often a captain), and a battalion by a lieutenant colonel (or sometimes a major). This is normal practice and so everyone has a rough idea of what these ranks do & the scale of their responsibility. However, you will also find all of these ranks performing completely different roles in the same army. Lieutenant colonel doesn't mean battalion commander, but most battalion commander's will be lieutenant colonels and that is considered an appropriate level of responsibility for someone of that rank. So MAYBE the Romans don't need to have a rank called Legionary Cohort Commander for someone to be doing the job. 2. Cohorts are clearly very important tacitcal units, the most important sub-division in a legion's command structure. For example, when Caesar (BC 3. 89) saw the threat of the Pompeian cavalry at Pharsalus he took individual cohorts from the third line (ex tertia acie singulas cohortes detraxit) to form a line behind his own cavalry on the right. He did not take individual maniples or centuries - something that would have been much slower. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe purely on practical grounds that the cohort was a tactical unit, but did not have someone to command it. If it had a commander then the legionary legate or army commander then has to send an order to one man to make the unit move. If each maniple was semi-independent then he would have to tell three people - six if each century was independent - before it could begin to move. If the unit marched in formation - or even in relation to its constituent centuries - then it needed to take the lead and the instruction off someone. So, if there was no clearly distinct post/title of commander of a legionary cohort, the behaviour and tactical usage strongly suggests that someone told them what to do. 3. Legionary centurions - we know that there were different titles for these and that a man could be promoted from one grade to a higher one - Caesar talks about this a lot. At the very least this shows that they differed in prestige/seniority. Hence the hastatus prior, princeps posterior etc. Given the frequency of such promotions it is very hard to believe that everyone in cohorts 2 to 10 were of the same rank/grade and that the only promotion was to the first cohort. Why have these distinctions if they did not really make a difference? It is a mistake to think of centurion as a rank - really it was grade, more like modern ideas of officers, warrant officers etc, each of which contains a range of different ranks and responsibilities. As an aside, Polybius 6. 24. 6-9 which talks of the selection and qualities of centurions, notes that when both centurions of a two century maniple were present, then the one first appointed held command of the maniple as a whole. So the idea of one centurion commanding another was not alien to the Romans. 4. By far the most likely interpretation is that one of the six centurions in a legionary cohort acted as its overall commander. Presumably this man was clearly senior to the others - and a hierarchy existed so that if he was absent or became a casualty, then everyone would know who would then be in charge. Perhaps the senior man was the pilus prior, commander of the senior century of the cohort - on the other hand maybe they worked on individual length of service so that the most experienced man was in charge. To me this seems both logical and effective. Legionary cohorts did not play a major role in administration, and less often operated indepently of the legion than say praetorians or auxiliaries and so the legionary cohort had less need of a full time staff and commander. 5. An objection to this would be to ask who commanded the century of the centurion acting as cohort commander? The optio would seem an obvious candidate. Their next step in promotion was to the centurionate, so it would be logical enough as preparation for this to let one of them effectively run a century on behalf of its centurion while the latter led the cohort. It was common in seventeenth and early eighteenth century European armies for the Lt. Col. and Major to have their own companies, while still acting as CO and 2iC of the regiment. (However, this point is a little circular, since these armies were inspired by interpretations of classical texts. On the other for a hundred years or more such a system seemed to work). 6. Standards. In the seventeenth century each company of a regiment had its standard - and for a long time after this stopped the British army kept a name called an ensign or standard bearer in every company even though the battalion only carried 2 standards. So just because a signifer has that title does not mean that every century still had a standard - ir if it possessed it, that all were carried in battle. If they were, then although it is quite possible that each signum was kept with its own century, it is equally possible that they were grouped together to mark the centre of the cohort. That's pure conjecture, but it is worth considering the possibility. Signa is often used as shorthand in battle accounts for formation/the position of the fighting line or a formed body of troops. So it clearly was though of as a good way of seeing where units were. The Tacitus passage does suggest that there was something that could physically be placed to symbolise each legionary cohort. Harder to know whether than means one standard for everyone or more than that - i.e. up to six standards from the centuries, but clearly showing their corporate identity. So, for me, the best guess is that the most centurion commanded each legionary cohort. He just did not get a title that says that this is what he did. I reckon the evidence points clearly in this direction, but freely admit that this is all a long way from proof. On the other hand, it certainly can't be disproved either. Hope this helps. I talk about this a bit in The Roman Army at War and to be honest haven't fundamentally changed my view since then.

page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4 page 5 page 6 page 7 page 8 page 9 page 10 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 page 15 page 16 page 17 page 18 page 19 page 20