12-20-2013, 07:55 PM
Of course such terms are very problematic and this is a major reason why I questioned this interpretation in the first place. Nevertheless, it is also true that Appian in particular, generally clearly uses the term lochagos as centurion. I think that should the number not sound too high to my ears, I would simply accept it as that and this is why I would welcome any Latin text on this issue. The problem arises when we come to the office of the tribunus, for here, he often uses the most common chiliarchos, thus creating problems with the positive identification of taxiarchos, even though, he indeed seems to most commonly use it as tribunus. Of course you are right that some ambiguity might have been present in Appian's sources, although if something really unique would have been chosen as a (temporary maybe) solution, I would expect Appian to have reported it.
As I understand the "made them participators of his open plans/intentions" part, Appian is talking of the decision making process (of non secret plans) and not just the announcement of decisions. However, with your reading, the term would with even more difficulty be perceived as "tribunes" since I hold it highly doubtful that simply announcing his decisions to such officers would be considered (extraordinarily) honorable treatment, so either way, the question remains...
As I understand the "made them participators of his open plans/intentions" part, Appian is talking of the decision making process (of non secret plans) and not just the announcement of decisions. However, with your reading, the term would with even more difficulty be perceived as "tribunes" since I hold it highly doubtful that simply announcing his decisions to such officers would be considered (extraordinarily) honorable treatment, so either way, the question remains...
