+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION (/showthread.php?tid=17248)
POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - Alma - 08-02-2010
Hi, this is my Legio Poster I drawed....
http://www.praetoriani.ch/download/ROM ... LEGION.jpg
I need assistance in redaction.... my question is: How did they call the High command .... commandatura? Ductura Legio??? no idea.
And perhaps you have some comments about the poster before we print it (preparing also versions in english and latin). Thanks for your help. Alma from http://www.vcrv.ch
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - jvrjenivs - 08-02-2010
That link doesn't seem to work, Francis.
Ow, and don't forget to put your (first) name in your signature, as per the forum rules.
Anyway, welcome on RAT!
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 08-02-2010
He means this link :
http://www.praetoriani.ch/download/ROMAN_4Bk_LEGION.jpg
And AppiusLucretius of facebook is also at work on it...
The Latin is the main problem, as is the latin on this list :
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... oc&h=a02f4
So corrections are needed.
M.VIB.M.
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - jvrjenivs - 08-02-2010
Quote:AppiusLucretius of facebook is also at work on it...
I think AppiusLucretius on facebook and Alma on RAT are one and the same...
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 08-02-2010
Probably so !!!
Principales in stead of princepales (just an example of the imho Latin errors in the list)
But the poster itself is lovely !
M.VIB.M.
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - Matthew Amt - 08-02-2010
Very impressive, with a lot of potential! You might want to make it clearer that auxiliaries are shown as well as legionaries, since I first thought you had way too much cavalry shown. What is a "tessararius ad legatus"? Never heard that term before. Also, the artillery guys are going to be after you--catapulta and scorpio are both arrow-shooters, one per century, but ballista is the larger stone-thrower, one per cohort. Both are the two-arm construction, though, and the single-arm onager should not be there. You should probably be careful about the use of the terms maniple and triarius, since those aren't really applicable to the principate.
Keep at it! Vale,
Matthew
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - D B Campbell - 08-02-2010
Quote:And perhaps you have some comments about the poster before we print itHmmm ... quite a lot to comment on.
You have selected a legion from "the second and third centuries", so (as others have observed) the manipulus is not relevant.
You have depicted each centuria with a centurion and optio, but only one centuria per cohort with cornicen and signifer. In fact, every centuria had a full set of principales -- which should include a tesserarius, too. You can see this in Ross Cowan's excellent article in the Ancient Warfare Special.
You have decided to depict the First Cohort with six double-strength centuriae. You would struggle to defend this archaeologically, and might be safer to go with the (normally accepted) five double-strength centuriae. The names of the centurions are incorrect (there is no "centurio triarius" or "centurio hastatus"). Again, Ross Cowan's article shows the names of the respective centurions.
You have labelled each entity in the singular (which is fine): miles, contubernium, centuria, cohors. But "8 miles" (which means "eight soldier") should read "8 milites" ("eight soldiers".
Off to have dinner now ...
Re: POSTER of the IMPERIAL ROMAN LEGION - D B Campbell - 08-03-2010
Some further thoughts:
You have depicted the legionary cavalry as 6 turmae of 96 troopers (= 576 cavalrymen), although you have correctly noted that it should only be 120 cavalrymen. (The caption "120 equitates" should be "120 equites".)
Each turma is depicted with a decurio and a "vexillifer". Off hand, I'm not sure of the evidence for legionary cavalry officers. There was definitely an optio equitum, and decurio seems logical (unless there was a centurio equitum ... anybody?) but your flag-bearer should be labelled vexillarius. (Also, I'm not sure what your label "ALAE SAGITTARII AUXILIA" refers to.)
For your command group, you have correctly included the legatus legionis, the tribunus laticlavius, and the praefectus castrorum; also the five tribuni angusticlavii. But I have never heard of a "tesserarius ad legatus"; nor have I heard of six mounted "aenatores" -- is there some evidence for this?
Also, at legionary command level, there should only be an aquilifer and an imaginifer; all other standard bearers are at centurio/turma level. (The primus pilus, of course, belongs with his own centuria in the first cohort.)
Finally, the artillery: Your legion of the second/third century AD should (as far as we know) be equipped with one onager per cohort and one arrow-shooting ballista per centuria. The onagers should not be labelled "CATAPULTAE" and the two arrow-shooters you have depicted are first century scorpiones, not second/third century ballistae.
(And why are there some auxiliaries in the background?!)
Hope some of this helps!