06-28-2014, 11:01 AM
Quote:The Romans did not have platoons, they had centuries.
A century had more men than a platoon of most eras (but my pre-Peninsular war knowledge is limited, I admit); I was always under the impression that earlier armies worked as companies which is perhaps more equivalent (but that does not mean that an Optio was a Company Sergeant Major either).
The Roman army did not have non-commissioned officers; they didn't even have commissioned ones, not in the modern sense of the word or that implied by using it. They had professional, career soldiers and those in the army for political necessity for future careers who did a few years and moved on.
An important point - but it's only a word. Strict numbers are, in many cases, not relevant.
If we have a Roman century broken down into 10 contubernia of 8 men with a 'command group' of 3, then that's fundamentally a similar structure to a 'classic' platoon of 3 sections of 8 men and a 'command' group of 3. The centurion can control the larger number of men, for they are fighting with each other.
Officers and NCO's are still 'officers' - and if we, it does not seem unreasonable, use 'officer' to describe a person placed in a position 'over' other men, then it will serve.
To answer your specific question - Napoleonic companies varied (often under-strength) between 50-200 and were broken down into 2-4 'platoons' (most commonly the former). Then, should someone be more comfortable with the 'modern' word, then translating century as 'platoon' and maniple as 'company' would, I believe, not be unreasonable. It would describe a structure that would make sense.
