We can clear things here and now about Whitewall, I
think, with a little more effort.
But even Roman terms and ranks were very different
(say) in the second century AD and in the fourth
century AD.
I mean: the ranks were the same (consul, tribune,
centurion, decurion) by definition but the resulting
forces commanded upon were very different.
In IV century, Rome had 100 legions (according to
Notitia Dignitatum, IIRC) whereas previously Imperial
Rome had only 25-30 legions (from Augustus to
Diocletianus).
So you have 25 Tribunii in year 150 and 100 Tribunii
in year 350.
But the Roman Army (roughly and probably) always
counted from 150.000 to 300.000 men at arms.
A tribune in II century would command 5 thousand (a
Legio), plus some auxiliary forces and socii (say
another 5 thousand cannon fodder).
In IV century the correspondant seniro officer called
Tribunus would command 1000 men (a Legio again, but
with different meaning and structure), unless some
legationes had been detached from his legio to fight
elsewhere (maybe from the gauls to syria): in that
case maybe he doesn't command effectively more than
100 able to war men.
I suspect that we have a fairly oversimplified view of ancient armies that makes us do mistakes (as Martin said).
We cannot avoid making distinctions between rank and
location and period of reference and campaign of
object when looking at an army like the Lunar one in
heortland.
Else any rank and any name and any title is
meaningless.
ciao,
Gian
Powered by hypermail