Talk:Centurion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centurion article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Unreferenced

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

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

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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)

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)

  • Which are the well known ones on the list on the dab page? Snowman (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
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.