CENTURION AUTONOMY ON THE BATTLEFIELD, 218 BC – AD 73
In the writings of Livy, Caesar, Plutarch, Appian, and Josephus, centurions are frequently credited with superhuman acts of daring valour; they were the first to scale walls, assault the interlocked shields of a phalanx, or sacrifice their lives for their unit. Indeed, while many of these anecdotes could be dismissed as fanciful embellishments, the sheer volume of accounts of centurions vainly throwing themselves into the teeth of battle indicates that either Polybius’ characterization of the ‘ideal’ centurion was inaccurate, or the Roman army did a poor job of recruiting, training, and promoting ‘ideal’ centurions.
In an attempt to rationalize this contradiction, many modern scholars make the argument that the Roman army, as an institution, was designed to promote individual acts of bravery, for the purpose of encouraging others into action. Such bravery was habitually rewarded with promises of increased pay, promotion in rank, or the public bestowing of symbols of martial valour, such as military crowns or medallions. This argument could certainly explain why centurions demonstrated seemingly undisciplined acts of bravado in the midst of battle. After all, Caesar himself, among others, admittedly promoted centurions for little more than their observed bravery in battle.
Characterizing the centurion, however, either as merely an obedient shepherd of men, or as an audacious warrior responsible for demonstrating conspicuous courage, seems to fall short of the true spirit of the office. Neither of these characterizations would require a centurion to possess a high degree of expertise
