Talk:Centurion

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Modern rank equivalent

In this article the modern equivalents for the centurian are given as between lieutenants and lieutenant colonels. I do not believe this is correct. According to a book called Historical atlas of Ancient Rome by Nick Constable, the centurians came up through the ranks, half of them being elected and the other half being appointed. This article agrees that they came from the ranks. This would make them more like modern NCO's (Non-commissioned officers). They appear then to be equivalent to the ranks of Sergeant First Class to Command Sergeant Major in the modern US Army. --Rjbahler 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you are right in saying they were more like NCO's. The function they served is more comparable to the role of an upper-grade sergeant. Though, as they progressed in experience, they could attain higher levels of responsibility. Also, a person could be appointed directly from civilian life to the post of centurion. This was done in most cases for citizens of the equite or "knight" class (The Complete Army, by Adrian Goldsworthy).

S.agrippa 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsworthy points out in The Complete Roman Army and his Roman Army at War that there is no evidence for the NCO analogy. Even using modern comparisons they would be the equivalent to Platoon or Comapany commanders, which would put them in the range of Lieutenants at least if not nearer Captains or Majors. Many did come up through the ranks but it would take years to do so. Many armies employ a system whereby enlisted men can rise to commissioned rank as well as having a parallel direct entry scheme. The social status of centurions makes it more likely that they were nearer to modern commissioned officers rather than NCOs.

"After Marius"

Tales of pre-Marian battles cantain references to "centurions". However, these accounts were written long after the old-style armies had ceased to exist (in Livy's accounts, for instance). So did Centurions exist formally before the reforms of Marius, or were they a later development? S.agrippa 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Give me another"

I'd like to see a source on this, as the only reference to this nickname for any Centurion is a fictional account in the novel I, Claudius of a Centurion during the reign of Tiberius. I've not seen any reference to this man in Suetonius at least...

Tacitus mentions him --MJKent 02:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100

The centuria article gives some explanation as to why a centurion did not command a hundred men as one would expect and indeed a lot of people believe. So shouldn't this be explained here? I know too little about it to do it myself. DirkvdM 13:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Century only composed of eighty men because the other twenty men were the servants if you will of the fighting men. Each Century had twenty men to help take care of their things on the march and in camp.

That's the first time I've heard of that. Do you have a source?--MJKent 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to suggest that he didn't command the servants? No? I didn't think so. --Orange 62.168.125.219 09:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this information? Yes, they all had servants, but they did not make up part of the Century or the Legion, they were NOT fighting men.--MJKent 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought centuries consisted of 60 men each, not 80? In the old roman maniples, each maniple (120 men) was divided into two centuries of 60 each. The centurion of the right hand century usually was the senior of the two. The same individual usually appointed the centurion for the left hand century? Anyone has any idea/objection/advocation? --Jamesjiao 06:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Centuria equals one-hundred men" assumption is innaccurate. I have tried to straighten this out in the article. Centuria means Tribe or Company. Some theorize, because of its simularity with centum, meaning one-hundred, that it implies somewhere around a hundred. Primary-source uses of the word Centuria seems to indicate otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hluill (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer some examples of these primary-source uses? If "centuria" is not related to centum, then why is it that in Greek "centurions" were called "ἑκατόνταρχοι"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverbladeGR (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly wasn't 83. Where on earth did that number spring from in the article? The article says both "83" and "100", which is inconsistent, and is inaccurate anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.140.170 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. Centuries consisted of eighty men after the Marian reforms. For sources, look up anything, especially works by Adrian Goldsworthy. Every single book I've ever read on this subject-and I'm working on my masters-states 80 men, not a hundred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.221.184 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet crest

the crest of his helmet was turned perpendicular to the front I take it that this means that the crest was parallel to the nose, or orthogonal to an imaginary line running from one ear to the other. This also fits the image. However, the German entry has it that the crest is orthogonal to the alignment described here -- which version is correct? Best, Peter 85.74.150.111 10:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I saw the first episode of Rome (TV series), in which what I believe was a centurion had his helmet crest 'sideways' (there must be a better word for this). And I get the impression that in this series they try to get that sort of thing right - showing the Rome we haven't seen before in films. But still, a tv series is not quite a reliable source. DirkvdM 06:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been led to believe that centurions had sideways crests, with the front-to-back crests being the privilege of more senior officers (tribunes and the like), ordinary soldiers having nothing. Proteus (Talk) 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonly refered to as a transverse crest. Looks like peacock. An easy way to identify him on the battlefield so that he stands out from the rank and file. If I recall correcty, helmet crests slowly worked their way out of the battlefield and were only worn in parades, but centurions continued to wear them in battle (probably for this reason).--MJKent 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that there were two centurions that had direct interaction with Christ on diferent occations. Would this info be helpfull for this page?

I don't think it really serves any purpose, honestly.--MJKent 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rearanging pictures

The "Modern reenactment" picture seems much more historically accurate then the other picture so I putting above it.--Scott3 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centurions in the Bible

Probably not necessary to list the individual passages where a centurion is mentioned in the NT – they are very easy to find using a concordance. DFH 13:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

I added the Unreferenced template as this article gives no references at all. SaintedLegion 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sthe article needs some refernces and sources, so i've re-added the template219.88.156.145 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centurions on horse back?

Numquam audivi id permittere centurionibus habere equum in itinere. Putavi centuriones ambulare cum militibus. Fortisan non est ita, non cupivi mutare id metuens hoc, sole in animo habui demonstrare vobis qui scribitis. (just in case any ancient Romans happen to be browsing the page, I like to make them feel more at home)

I've never heard of this (at least among the minor centurions). I didn't want to change it fearing my notable ability to get things wrong but I thought you might want to check your sources on that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.30.104 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Of course the centurians didn´t usually travel by horse, but marched alongside their fellow comrades. But EVERY soldier was trained to ride, to jump on and off the horse in full armour without the aid of todays equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 44 Echo (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotions

I'm a bit confused about promotions among Centurions. I understand within a cohort. One would start out as rear triarii and gradually work his way up to forward hastati, but what about within the Legion itself? Does the forward hastati of cohort 10 get promoted to rear triarii of cohort 9, or to forward hastati of cohort 9, or was there no promotion between cohorts 2-10, and the next position up would be rear triarii of the first cohort? In other words, were cohorts 2-10 ranked in seniority between each other, or were they equal? Nik42 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsworthy points out in his 'Complete Roman Army' that there is no evidence for this. In fact there doesn't appear to be any substantial evidence on how Centurions got promoted up through the grades and it is equally possible that men moved from unit to unit on promotion or even skipped grades if they had influential patrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.88.146 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't get promoted from a triarii to a hastati. The hastati were originally the least well equipped and more junior soldiers while the triarii were elder, could afford better equipment, and had more experience. Also why would you stick the most junior soldiers at the back of the army formation behind the veterans? They won't get any experience and will easily be able to run away.

Centurions were probably promoted along with their century, so when the hastati were promoted to principes the hastati centurions became principes centurions. It's also possible that the centurions were promoted with their cohort, so if the 10th cohort was promoted to the 9th cohort the 10th cohort centurions would become 9th cohort centurions.

Finally there isn't much evidence that a triarii centurion had any more authority than a hastati centurion or that a 1st cohort centurion had more authority than a 10th cohort centurion so moving to a different century or cohort shouldn't be seen as a promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centurions through the ages

Maybe I just missed it, but an interesting addition to this article would be a breakdown of the role of the centurion by era (i.e. Republic, Early Empire, Late Antiquity, Byzantine/Eastern Roman). If someone has information on this, could you add it, or let me know where to find it so I can add it? Hiberniantears 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seniority

This section conflicts with other articles on Wikipedia that state that Hastati were the least experienced soldiers, not the most. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phbbt107 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I believe this is correct. However, while the Hastati were the least experienced soldiers (during the early Republic), they were in the front rank when the legion was drawn up for battle, so I can see how the term might have changed over time. Unhelpfully, I have no references with me at the moment. Anklefear 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primus Pilus

Pilus is not the same word as "pilum," which is the latin for the heavy javelin employed by the legionaries. Pilus translates as "file," as in Soldiers in "rank and file." Thus, primus pilus means first FILE and not first SPEAR or javelin.

The centurio primus pilus formed ranks at the extreme right of the legio, in it's first FILE, and his title derives from his place in the formation -- the place of highest honor.

No, it doesn´t. Pilus has nothing to do with file. The three ranks was originally Hastati (lowest), Principes and Triarii. Triarii then was changed to Pilus (which actually does have a common origin with pilum = heavy javelin). The most senior or highest ranked centurion was the one commanding the foremost "pilum" centuria (there was also a second pilum centuria) of the first cohort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 44 Echo (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

In the intro to this article, it states although by the Imperial period, the establishment of a century in a first cohort — but not others — had grown to 160 men. but later it states that The very best centurions were then promoted to become centurions in the First Cohort, called Primi Ordines, commanding one of the five centuries of 120 men and also taking on a staff role. So, which is it? Were the centuries of the first cohort 120 men or 160 men? Nik42 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Centurion. -Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the primary topic, so it should be moved to "Centurion" from "Centurion (Roman army)". Snowman (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which are the well known ones on the list on the dab page? Snowman (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The math is a bit unclear in many ways

"The precedence during the times of manipular legion commanded sixty men and were organized like this:

Hastati: Ten junior and Ten senior.

Principes: Ten junior and Ten senior.

Triarii: Five junior and Five senior."

Unless my brains have totally addled from lack of sleep, (10+10)+(10+10)+(5+5)≠60. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The first cohort consisted of 5 "double sized" centurias, i.e 5 times 160 men = 800 men commanded by 5 centurions. Remember 5, will you? The remaining nine cohorts had 6 (single) centurias, each of 80 men. 9 times 6 is 54, right? 54 + 5 (remember?) equals 59 (close to 60 by some standard). This gives 59 centurions commanding 800+9x6x80=not quite 5000 men. But with the cavalry and engineers the total usually ended up at about 5.500 more or less fighting men. The centurion also had a trainee, back-up or whatever you´d like to call it, the "optio". He also had other officers or "out-of-the ordinary" legionnares as the Tessarius and Sigifier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 44 Echo (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications for becoming a centurion

The article on Optio states that they were the most likely to be promoted to Centurion on the event of the Centurion's death. This implies that either you needed all the qualifications for a Centurion to become an Optio... or that a battlefield promotion ignored the requirements. Can someone with knowledge on this one clarify? Dean (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I dislike the photo of the reenactor because he lacks a vitis- a centurion's staff and a symbol of authority. I advocate using http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Centurio_70_aC.jpg instead.Mmuroya (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Rank Equivalents

As the poster at the top of the page above has mentioned I also have to take issue with the comparison of centurion to a junior commissioned officer such as a platoon commander.

They most certainly full fill a role that would be under taken by a company sergeant major, a large number of officers would be drawn from the equestrian class of society and would never serve as infantry centurions. The role of the centurion does very strongly err on the side of battle field order and drills as well as discipline.

You can quote a source for the article as evidence to the contrary but sadly I consider the source to simply be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.92.34 (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Centurions

I believe it is confusing to put fictional centurions in the same list as real centurions. Should there be a seperate list if fictional centurions are going to be included?--RoflAuk (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless someone else has any other ideas I'm just going to keep deleting the Dr Who references. --RoflAuk (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put Rory in as a separate section, because it seems that the ongoing urge to add Rory means either constantly reverting people, or semi-protecting the article. I'm not comfortable with him being grouped with the genuine centurions, though, as he's not one. :) But if there is any problem with his inclusion,I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view on the whole thing is it's an Easter Egg - no different than Googling "recursion". Any precursory glance at the click-thru makes it obvious that he is a fictional character. I don't want to come off as a Doc Who die-hard because I'm not, it just seems like a cute little Easter Egg that adds a little fun to the Wiki. 186.5.80.156 (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus says Wikipedia is WP:NOTFUN. We couldn't even get a link to Recursion in the see also section of Recursion.― Padenton|✉   03:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centurions/tribunes

I thought that tribunes commanded a cohort/480 men.Quintus Petronius Augustus 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs)

Centurion update

Please add the Centurion "Rory Williams" to the list of important Centurions throughout time, in order to make this a more complete list. SentinelTheFirst (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this article is about centurions in history. Rory Williams is listed at Centurion (disambiguation). That is all that's needed. --Stfg (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centurion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

learning English language

I need someone who is going to teach me English language grama and everything that makes someone like me fluent in particular language that is not her/his mother tounge I would like to share some things which may be useful to you guys just like you gave me knowledge of my surroundings and the world as a whole Dubaio (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Purely symbolic" transverse crest

Text under first photo claims that special transverse crest was:"worn to indicate the wearer's rank in regimental 'triumph' and honorific parades. Its purpose was purely symbolic. It was not part of the standard battle-dress of Roman soldiers in the field." apart from this claims that "Its purpose was purely symbolic" and used only at "regimental 'triumph' and honorific parades" being clearly erroneous as I will show it is also not supported by any references,not even modern not to mention original ancient.And of course that it was "not part of the standard battle-dress of Roman soldiers in the field"...but nobody even ever said it was.It was special crest for centurions not for every soldier.

Vegetius says:

"Besides the centurions, now called centenarii, were distinguished by different crests on their helmets, to be more easily known by the soldiers of their respective centuries. These precautions prevented any mistake, as every century was guided not only by its own ensign but likewise by the peculiar form of the helmet of its commanding officers. "

and a little later...

"But the centurions had complete cuirasses, shields and helmets of iron the crest of which, placed transversely thereon, were ornamented with silver that they might be more easily distinguished by their respective soldiers."

Vegetius therefore makes it perfectly clear that transverse crest(in latin known as crista transversa) was indeed used in battle and that it was one of its main purposes to serve as visual guide to follow for soldiers of the century next to their standards and next to being also one of visual markers of Centurion rank.We also have these special crests depicted on Centurion tomstones along with all other typical equipment used by centurions and their other symbols of rank-their complete battle gear with no indication it was just for parades only.In fact we also have many depictions of transverse crests depicted used in action.

So if nobody will justify why criticised claim should be correct I will errase it in a week.That unreferenced claim by the way goes even agains scholarly consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.106.74 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in the indicated sources is it disputed that the original etymology of centurion/centuria is from centum (100)?

The article gives three sources, "The Roman Legions", "The Complete Roman Army" and "The Roman War Machine". I was curious what the evidence is for disputing this seemingly quite obvious etymology so I went looking through these sources and am having trouble finding any disputation. I could get copies of the last two sources and look through them, but I'm not even sure what book "The Roman Legions" is referring to. No author or date of publication is mentioned and I'm not finding any book with that exact title anywhere. It strikes me that the short section in the intro on etymology could use some clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.188.224 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, the article seems to imply that "centum" means "tribe, company", while the comments on this talk page (in the "not 100" section) that seem to be the origin of this tid-bit imply that the editor meant to say that "centuria" means "tribe, company". Very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.188.224 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Centurion"