01-18-2013, 04:53 PM
[quote][quote="Burzum" post=328591]How have I said that as a fact?[/quote]
How about this, just as an example?
[quote]The pilus prior was in command of each cohort and was an elected centurion right underneath primus pilus during battle.[/quote][/quote]
But you quoted this with that accusation :wink:
[quote][quote="Burzum" post=328587]I have long believed that centuries cooperated in command long before having read that litrature. But I have disregarded that belief because logical sense and the way an army is organized just tells me that pilus prior maintained a role of command in each cohort.[/quote]
But when I did assert that pilus prior was was in command is it now an accepted fact amongst historians that he was.
A credible definitive historical reference containing over 30 years of research and translations of various Roman prints, Stephen Dando-Collins in a way proved that in Caesar's time the pilus prior in a battle encounter was then issued authority of the remainder of cohorts because the primus pilus could not the same level of control in battle in order to execute commands and orchestrate the rest of the cohorts.
James Berkley Adams even accounts that pilus prior in some instances even commanded the 1st cohort. But is not as reputable as some other authors and archeologists and doesn't really deal with Roman military.
But general acceptance in most history curriculum's that teach that pilus prior ranked in command over cohorts.
Earlier guides and books said that claimed that each cohort had a cooperative subordination under the primus pilus. But what I was actually saying in my last comment is that things would of been in a serious disarray if you didn't have a cohort commander and chief to keep an element of order and to fill the gaps of communication in which to issue commands out from the primus pilus. Common sense in the understanding of any military hierarchy be that in antiquity, Medieval post Imperial right through to modern times. Rome's army layed that prerequisite and military foundation of structure, that primordial soup which every army in the turn of the century evolved from. But because the Roman army is less refined in hierarchy and rank structure than much later models in the industrial age, we have a great difficulty in trying to decipher the actual structure that was based inside the Roman war machine. That fog of war that shades actual evidence and recorded knowledge about it fundamentally causes the rise in opinionated assumptions and the manner they are said in resembles a tone with factual basis because it's just either accepted amongst general consensus or a product or impingement of peoples common sense or imagination.
How about this, just as an example?
[quote]The pilus prior was in command of each cohort and was an elected centurion right underneath primus pilus during battle.[/quote][/quote]
But you quoted this with that accusation :wink:
[quote][quote="Burzum" post=328587]I have long believed that centuries cooperated in command long before having read that litrature. But I have disregarded that belief because logical sense and the way an army is organized just tells me that pilus prior maintained a role of command in each cohort.[/quote]
But when I did assert that pilus prior was was in command is it now an accepted fact amongst historians that he was.
A credible definitive historical reference containing over 30 years of research and translations of various Roman prints, Stephen Dando-Collins in a way proved that in Caesar's time the pilus prior in a battle encounter was then issued authority of the remainder of cohorts because the primus pilus could not the same level of control in battle in order to execute commands and orchestrate the rest of the cohorts.
James Berkley Adams even accounts that pilus prior in some instances even commanded the 1st cohort. But is not as reputable as some other authors and archeologists and doesn't really deal with Roman military.
But general acceptance in most history curriculum's that teach that pilus prior ranked in command over cohorts.
Earlier guides and books said that claimed that each cohort had a cooperative subordination under the primus pilus. But what I was actually saying in my last comment is that things would of been in a serious disarray if you didn't have a cohort commander and chief to keep an element of order and to fill the gaps of communication in which to issue commands out from the primus pilus. Common sense in the understanding of any military hierarchy be that in antiquity, Medieval post Imperial right through to modern times. Rome's army layed that prerequisite and military foundation of structure, that primordial soup which every army in the turn of the century evolved from. But because the Roman army is less refined in hierarchy and rank structure than much later models in the industrial age, we have a great difficulty in trying to decipher the actual structure that was based inside the Roman war machine. That fog of war that shades actual evidence and recorded knowledge about it fundamentally causes the rise in opinionated assumptions and the manner they are said in resembles a tone with factual basis because it's just either accepted amongst general consensus or a product or impingement of peoples common sense or imagination.
