Cohort commander?

[D B Campbell]

I can understand the difficulty you both are experiencing in grasping the concept that Polybius has included the cavalry numbers with the legionaries then mentions the cavalry numbers again…called a doublet. I can also understand you do not understand Vegetius claim that “the cavalry are joined to the legion” and are “incorporated on the same rolls.” This simply means the cavalry are assigned to an infantry century.

I'm afraid our friend Antiochus is confusing apples with oranges, and not for the first time. The Polybian legion cannot be compared in any detail with the imperial legion (the latter being the subject of this thread -- or at least it was the subject of this thread! :errr: ). The two are very different, particularly in the make-up of the cavalry component. Polybius' legionary cavalry are provided by the Roman gentry ("equestrians"), and are quite separate from the infantry levy. For example, they are billetted separately in camp. The imperial cavalry, on the other hand, appear (from the limited evidence available to us) to be promoted from the ranks of the infantrymen (there are no known examples of a man enlisting as a legionary cavalryman), and hence remain on the rolls of their original centuria. Whether they remained in their original barrack or were billetted elsewhere remains unknown (but may go some way to explaining the large number of rooms in known legionary barrack blocks, as cavalrymen seem to have required -- or deserved? -- more space).

I prefer to challenge your stance Mr Cowan rather than “accept it and move on” simply because you have instructed us to do so.

Dr Cowan does not ask us accept his position "because he has instructed us to do so", but rather because that's where the evidence points. Out of hundreds of known centurial careers from the period of the Principate, not a single man ever claims to have commanded his cohort, but only his century. Statistically speaking -- and I know you'll respect statistics -- this must be significant, and cannot simply be glossed over with appeals to the well-known, much-abused maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The scientific methodology today seems to be that “if everyone believes it is must be right.”

This is rather a sweeping statement that shows no familiarity with Dr Cowan's usual questioning stance (a product, of course, of the solid Scottish education system! ;-) ).