Login

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-02-2004, 01:48 PM

Now I know this might sound like a stupid question, but it really is not. I now the Roman army was constructed with Legions, which if memory serves was just over 4,000 men, with a combination of troops, centurions, legates, and servants. But my question is did the term legion originate with the Roman army or did it come from an earlier civilization. It has been used in recent days as not a specific organization or certain amount of troops, but more as a general military term. I have never been in the military so am not the best at military jargon, I do however understand the organization of my countrys army. So if there is anybody who could answer my question I would be most appreciative. THERE IS NO VICTORY WITHOUT DEFEAT, AND THERE IS NO DEFEAT WITHOUT VICTORY

Dan Diffendale · 07-02-2004, 02:09 PM

The word legio, legionis is native to Latin, most literally originally meaning a calling or choosing, related to the verb lego, legere, legi, lectus meaning to gather or collect. So it came to be a group of men called together, and thence, the army. 
 
It is, as you've noticed, frequently used to mean any large number of people, or as a generic term for army. These other uses were present even in Roman times. 
 
I can't think of similar etymologies from other languages at the moment, but I'm sure they exist.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-02-2004, 02:21 PM

Thank you for clearing that up. Since I have not yet started Latin, I was not sure if it was a Latin word or not. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

Crispvs · 07-02-2004, 07:39 PM

I've known that 'legio' origionally meant 'levy' or something similar for quite some years, but one thing I have been wondering about recently is the origin of the words 'miles' and 'centuria'. 
I know that 'miles' (soldier) and 'mille' (a thousand) are different words, but could they have had a common origin. I have been wondering whether the early hoplite or pre-hoplite Roman army dating to when Rome was still quite small might have had a nominal strength of a thousand men who would have formed the phalanx. A soldier could therefore have been nicknamed a 'thousander' or something similar, which eventually became the word 'miles'. Taking the idea further the Roman phalanx could have been made up of ten units equivalent in nature to Greek 'lochoi', each of which would have had a nominal strength of one hundred, hence 'centuria'. Perhaps then the 'mille' was composed of ten 'centuriae'. Over time, as the organizational needs of the army changed the size of centuriae changed as well but the term 'centuria' presumably stuck, just as the code name 'tanks' has stuck to what would otherwise have been known as armoured battle tractors. Extending the argument further, given the fact that in most Greek city states there was a dramatic power shift towards the army (or more specifically its champion) at about the same time that hoplite style warfare was introduced, could it not be the case that the introduction of 'centuriae' into 'civilian' society (for wealth assessment and voting) was a result of a militarization of power in society in line with the thinking of the new holders of power? This would neatly explain voting centuries based on wealth (bear in mind here the 'Camillan' army of five classes of soldier based on the amount of equipment each man could afford to own) but not necessarily size and the intimate part that military service played in political progress under the Republic, not to mention the existence of the Marsic and Salian colleges of priests, both dedicated to the war god under different names and both composed of men from the part of society most likely to hold both civil and military power. Any silence on this organization in the writings of Augustan period writers would perhaps be due the changing nature of the army not having been accurately recorded for future generations and instead becoming suffused with legends. 
Obviously this is all supposition, but what do other people think, particularly the philologists amongst you? 
 
Crispvs

07-04-2004, 07:24 PM

Crispvs... 
 
Hmmm.... I don't have most of my "philological-type" resources handy here at home, but when I get to the office tomorow, I'll poke around a bit in them for you. I think the best way to check into it is to try tracing back some of the even older Indo-European roots for those words. I know that the American Heritage Collegiate dictionary has a list of purported Indo-European root-stems. Anyway, I'm not expert, but it's a start... 
 
Aaron

07-05-2004, 07:47 AM

Crispus 
 
The two words do have a common Sanskrit root, MIL-, which means to unite, combine or associate, cf. Greek hoMILos which means a throng or group. But I don't think the fact that the words are related in this way supports your thesis; a MILES is one of a large group (an army) and MILLE is a large group of something. Both words have come from the same root, but it does not seem from the references that I have consulted that MILES has been derived from MILLE. 
 
Shaun

Dan Diffendale · 07-06-2004, 05:19 PM

let me just say that Latin words do not have Sanskrit roots... Latin, Sanskrit, Greek and English, among others, have Proto-Indo European roots... and the PIE roots of miles and mille are not clear... 
 
As regards Greek homilos, it's a formation from homos meaning "same" and ile meaning "group", so it's not related to the Latin words under discussion.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me