04-24-2019, 04:24 PM
Quote: Steven - If the Romans considered 60 men as making a century for the hastati and princeps, as opposed to a 100 men making a century, could it be the Romans might consider a cavalry century to be even smaller than an infantry century? Therefore, in the Roman military, when is a century a century?
A most important point - and, given your serious interest in numerical relationships, one I am curious about your thoughts?
The, rather simple, answer for me is actually a guiding realisation and definite foundation for the thesis I have and may hopefully get around to finishing and posting here.
Just like appeared earlier in the thread (and is indeed a mostly separate concept which is perhaps treated outside this thread) - and I mentioned - Livy I,36 seems quite clear that a "centuriis/centurias" for the equites equalled 300. 300 cavalrymen/equites being the number accompanying a single legion (with standard consular 'army' being 2 infantry legions and 2 wings/ala of cavalry (basic open-field deployment)).
For the infantry, there is an entirely separate divisional matrix (and the above I only mention because we have mentioned it already and could be a separate line of discussion, and also because it serves as a direct quote from an original source showing that a 'century' does not necessarily mean '100'). It is now therefore my understanding from a re-interpretation of Polybius Ch6 detail (which many authors seem to have quite possibly mis-interpreted) that the Roman Consul's 'levy' (legio) is divided into 100 centuria each of 80 fighting men (8,000 men), separated into 2 parts/'legiones'.
So, short answer, in the Roman military I believe the centuria is a division of the infantry and equals 80 men (plus 3 additional posts) - or, given the original division - a 1/100th. It is only much later that the concept of a 'century' being equated with '100' came about (somewhere around the 1st century(!) BC) - but not affecting well established military structures.
I may certainly be wrong, but will go with it for now - but perhaps we should do it seperately from Michael's paper?
