My students and I are wondering why an 80-man unit was called a century - a term usually associated with 100. Were they including officers, etc.? Thank you for helping to answer our question.
Ygraine
The smallest group of the legion was the conterbinium (don't know if I write it correct) wich was a tent group of 8 men. 10 of these groups are one century. (at least from Marius' reform onwards)
Thank you very much!! Mystery solved! Ygraine
Quote:The smallest group of the legion was the conterbinium (don't know if I write it correct) wich was a tent group of 8 men. 10 of these groups are one century. (at least from Marian reform onwards)
Don't forget the "calones" : 80 "miles"+ 20 "calones" = 100 men !
Where did you find that a century had exactly 20 calones?
Please pardon my ignorance. What is a calone?
Quote:Where did you find that a century had exactly 20 calones?
Quote:Please pardon my ignorance. What is a calone?
jvrjenivs:28vv33ln Wrote:Where did you find that a century had exactly 20 calones?
A Calone is a person who is in the legion, but isn't a soldier. They've to take care of the (transport)animals and luggage of the soldiers. This were probably slaves.
Quote:The smallest group of the legion was the conterbinium (don't know if I write it correct)
It is contubernium
It is the lovely language "latin"
But did a century have 80 legionnaires + 1 centurio + 1 optio + 1 tesserarius + 1 signifer + ?tubicen + 20 colones?
Which soldiers of them fight in a battle?
I think it's a bit more complex than that. IIRC, the early Roman army under the kings had units of 100 men known as centuries (original Roman phalanx was one classis of 40 centuries = 4000 men). I might be mistaken, but I think it's more a traditional name?
Yes, Jim, I think this is exactly the case.
Thanks to all of you for your answers. Perhaps there are elements of all of the replies that are true? Things could have evolved after the original terminology was in use.
Ygraine
Quote:Things could have evolved after the original terminology was in use.
They seem to have, by the looks of things anyway.
Quote:I think it's a bit more complex than that. IIRC, the early Roman army under the kings had units of 100 men known as centuries (original Roman phalanx was one classis of 40 centuries = 4000 men). I might be mistaken, but I think it's more a traditional name?
The original, 'hoplite', version of the Roman army was probably based on the antique variants of the hoplite phalanx. In these, 48 men (either 6 ranks of 8 or 8 ranks of 6 men - I can't remember which!) and two officers made up a formation known as the
'antique lochos'. Two of these made up a century.
Over time, proportions and numbers changed until we have the 60-80 man century of later times.
This is all from memory, so I could be mistaken!! :lol:
Quote:
Don't forget the "calones" : 80 "miles"+ 20 "calones" = 100 men !
I've never heard of this before and am very intrigued!! What are your sources for the 'calones' and their inclusion in the 'century'?
Quote:lucius Gellius cuniculus:29y314qd Wrote:Don't forget the "calones" : 80 "miles"+ 20 "calones" = 100 men !
I've never heard of this before and am very intrigued!! What are your sources for the 'calones' and their inclusion in the 'century'?
As you could see in William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.
(
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... lones.html )
Calones are mentioned by different ancient authors, but I couldn't help youi with the question where he found that there were 20 for each century. A very interesting statement, but I don't think so.
I too read that in earlier times a century was about 100 men. Later on this was reduced (I thought about 60 men) until it finally was common to have 80 men in a century.
So that's pretty much what Sonic thought