02-04-2003, 11:53 PM
<em>"Thus it is scarcely proof that all centurions had horses."</em><br>
<br>
<em>I will take this to mean that we do not have to rule out the possibility that SOME centurions may have been riding round on horses even if not on the march?!</em><br>
<br>
Certainly they <em>may</em> have owned them as individuals, but we have no evidence to prove this that I know of and they would not have used them in the line (nor, it stands to reason, on the march: they would be with the baggage like most of their other possessions). Part of the importance of the horse lay in its height advantage for the Ruperts behind the battle line so they could see what was happening (hence the metaphorically cocked eyebrow of historians when generals send away their horses so they could appear to be 'one of the men'). Centurions, being in the front line, were close enough not to need them ;-)<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
<br>
<em>I will take this to mean that we do not have to rule out the possibility that SOME centurions may have been riding round on horses even if not on the march?!</em><br>
<br>
Certainly they <em>may</em> have owned them as individuals, but we have no evidence to prove this that I know of and they would not have used them in the line (nor, it stands to reason, on the march: they would be with the baggage like most of their other possessions). Part of the importance of the horse lay in its height advantage for the Ruperts behind the battle line so they could see what was happening (hence the metaphorically cocked eyebrow of historians when generals send away their horses so they could appear to be 'one of the men'). Centurions, being in the front line, were close enough not to need them ;-)<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
