05-26-2012, 03:21 AM
Quote:Is there any solid proof that the < sign should ALWAYS be interpreted as "centurio/a etc" or could it just be the office itself regardless its actual calling?This was my point. It is well-established that the retrograde C and various derivatives should be interpreted as an abbreviation for centurio, but that is not, in itself, evidence that these men continued to be called centurions. (I think they probably were, but this is not evidence of it.)
Quote:As for the "lochagos" issue, here are some interesting texts I came across ... Appianus Hist., Mithridatica. Section 490 line 5. ...I had not noticed Appian's peculiar terminology before. It seems to be at odds with the other writers. If I had a concordance to Appian, this might be a fruitful area for investigation. "Who are Appian's lochagoi?" hock: