01-11-2013, 06:00 PM
Interesting... It is true that the word "legion" does not appear in these instances as they do not appear in the latin counterparts. So, let's take the following two examples :
Τιβ(έριος) Ἰούλιος Ἀ̣λέξανδρος Tiberius Iulius Alexandros
γενάμενος ἔπαρχος σπείρης αʹ having become eparchos of the 1st speira
Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ of Flavia.
Λού]κιον Ἐγνάτι Lucius Egnatius
ο[ν Λ. υἱ]ὸν Τηρητείνα Κού- L. son of Tereteina Cuartus
αρ[τον ἔ]παρχον σπείρης eparch of the 2nd speira
β̣ʹ [Κλ(αυδίας) Γορ]διανῆς of Claudia Gordiana (Gordianes - gen.)
These are both auxiliary cohorts?
Both use names in genitive, so in Greek Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ really means OF Flavia. I thought they would mean of legion Flavia but as I realize now they are just names for the cohorts instead of the legion they may belong to? And the number just means that there were more auxiliary cohorts of these names? So every time we see something in the format
cohort xx of name
it is always an auxiliary cohort?
If so, then, do we have examples of any cohorts actually belonging to legions in epigraphy? I couldn't find a single example for that which is kind of strange. Even ekatontarchs (centurions) linked with legions are always plainly called "ekatontarchs of Legion X" but they surely were not freely assignable to any legionary sub-division.... They seem to be treated exactly like the chiliarchs in epigraphy.
Very interesting discussion guys, it was long now I needed some initiation in this subject...
Τιβ(έριος) Ἰούλιος Ἀ̣λέξανδρος Tiberius Iulius Alexandros
γενάμενος ἔπαρχος σπείρης αʹ having become eparchos of the 1st speira
Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ of Flavia.
Λού]κιον Ἐγνάτι Lucius Egnatius
ο[ν Λ. υἱ]ὸν Τηρητείνα Κού- L. son of Tereteina Cuartus
αρ[τον ἔ]παρχον σπείρης eparch of the 2nd speira
β̣ʹ [Κλ(αυδίας) Γορ]διανῆς of Claudia Gordiana (Gordianes - gen.)
These are both auxiliary cohorts?
Both use names in genitive, so in Greek Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ really means OF Flavia. I thought they would mean of legion Flavia but as I realize now they are just names for the cohorts instead of the legion they may belong to? And the number just means that there were more auxiliary cohorts of these names? So every time we see something in the format
cohort xx of name
it is always an auxiliary cohort?
If so, then, do we have examples of any cohorts actually belonging to legions in epigraphy? I couldn't find a single example for that which is kind of strange. Even ekatontarchs (centurions) linked with legions are always plainly called "ekatontarchs of Legion X" but they surely were not freely assignable to any legionary sub-division.... They seem to be treated exactly like the chiliarchs in epigraphy.
Very interesting discussion guys, it was long now I needed some initiation in this subject...