+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: cohortstandards (/showthread.php?tid=10188)
Pages:
1
2
cohortstandards - tiberivs - 08-15-2007
The hand on the standard what is the meaning of that
i hear 3 versions,
1. it say your place is here come to me
2. remember the oath you took for the legion and the emperor
3. we come in peace ( sorry i think that is a joke because almost 10.000 men fully armed en saying i come in peace)
Are there other versions? please let me know.
Re: cohortstandards - Tarbicus - 08-15-2007
Quote:2. remember the oath you took for the legion and the emperorIt was used in the Republican period, wasn't it? So no oaths to an Emperor IMHO.
maniple definition:
http://dict.die.net/maniple/
Maniple \\Man"i*ple\\, n. [L. manipulus, maniplus, a handful, a
certain number of soldiers; manus hand + root of plere to
fill, plenus full: cf. F. maniple. See Manual, and Full,
a.]
1. A handful. [R.] --B. Jonson.
2. A division of the Roman army numbering sixty men exclusive
of officers, any small body of soldiers; a company.
--Milton.
The hand could have been originally to signify the "handful", or maniple?
Re: cohortstandards - M. Demetrius - 08-15-2007
Quote:The hand could have been originally to signify the "handful", or maniple?Yes, I think so, or it might signify that the soldiers raised their hands to take the oath, and be a talisman to that effect. I'm with you on #2 being the right answer.
Re: cohortstandards - Magnus - 08-15-2007
The open palm/hand also means "victory", so it could also be a type of "esprit de corps" type of adornment showing off the Roman military machine and it's theoretical invincibility.
Re: cohortstandards - Jona Lendering - 08-16-2007
I seem to remember having read somewhere that cohorts had no standards; perhaps the open hand sign was the standard of a manipel?
Re: cohortstandards - Matthew Amt - 08-16-2007
Right, each *century* had a signum, the cohort did not have its own standard. Some signa had the hand at the top, others had a spearhead, and I don't think we can tell why there was a difference.
The hand may have indicated the Roman concept of manus or authority. Or it's possible that even the Romans didn't know exactly what it meant, the origins being lost in the depths of time and tradition.
Valete,
Matthew
Re: cohortstandards - Gaius Julius Caesar - 08-16-2007
Could have been a sign of Romes beneviolence to the less developed people of the world, as in 'Give me Five, barbarian, we come to help you!' :twisted:
Re: cohortstandards - AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs - 08-16-2007
Ave,
I recall reading that there was an oath under the standard but not necessarily to the Emperor specifically but to your comrades in arms first; your fellow legionary, or General, and Rome etc. I recall an example such as the modern “unit, Core, God, Countryâ€
Re: cohortstandards - Mitra - 08-16-2007
It isn't sure each century has a signum, contrary to Polybius affirmation Varro tells "Manipulus exercitus minima manus quae unum sequitur signum" (the maniple is the little army unit that follow a standard", and the socii cohorts have a cohortal vexillum.
It is possible Polybius when tells that each centurion choice the standard bearer, makes confusion and in reality only the priores choice him.
Re: cohortstandards - Gaius Julius Caesar - 08-16-2007
Why would he be confused about something like that? It would be pretty obvious to someone who was around the military for any length of time who was carrying a signum and who wasn't! He was an associate of Scipio wasn't he?
Re: cohortstandards - Mitra - 08-16-2007
The link with Scipio isn't a assurance (Scipio isn't a military professionist and the war take only part of his live) ; we haven't data about the actual military preparation and knowledge about the roman military practices of Polibyus (view the roman army in action in Africa and Spain isn't sufficient to tellthat he understands the details and the organisation, or he searchs to understand they ); Rawson think he used a military manual for his roman army descriptions.
And Varro isn't a source to exclude without a more tangible contrary evidence (He have a extensive knowledge and he commanded roman troops in Spain, and follows Pompeus against Sertorius).
Re: cohortstandards - Gaius Julius Caesar - 08-16-2007
Polibius was not reliable then.......ok if you say so!
Re: cohortstandards - Mitra - 08-16-2007
Like other sources he hasn't to be taken without criticism or verifications, or comparison with other sources.
Re: cohortstandards - Gaius Julius Caesar - 08-16-2007
True, trust but verify.... but then I face the same quandary. Not being conversant or literate in Latin or ancient Greek, I must go by what modern sources say, and this just opens a new can of worms, as in, why trust someone who lived 2000 years after the fact, when people doubt the veracity of those who were contemporary with the events they describe! :? Hell, I have to question people contemporary with my self...as I know that people often come out with a story which is totally unrelated to the events that took place, to which both I and they were witness and participant......
So, if I judge everyone by this standard of critique, no one is to be trusted but my own interpretation of events......and i KNOW I make mistakes, as do others I am surrounded by......so where do we go from there........we come to a standstill, frozen in indecision and indecisiveness,
rooted in a whirlwind of conflicting ideas and suppositions, wracked with doubt and mistrust.......a statue in time and thought.......
Anyway, I like Polibius...he was Greek!
Re: cohortstandards - Praefectusclassis - 08-16-2007
Welcome to the study of history, Byron. :wink: