Talk:Roman legion

message: I believe the article should make some mention of the various non-military support personnel who often accompanied legions when they travelled. I hesitate to add anything because I cannot find any satisfactory source for the approximate number or proportion of servants, slaves, and other assorted camp followers that would be considered normal. Most references seem to be to generals like Julius Caesar in Gaul or Vitellius who the author wants to portray as particularly dissolute, as evidenced by their excess of servants, slaves, gladiators, etc., but surely all but the most austere or remote legions had some support people. Worth mentioning? Any thoughts?  Wachholder0 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its interesting that you bring this subject our attention, we have recently been discussing such numbers, albeit as a side note rather than the main topic, in the size of the Centuries. Its become evident that due to the extencive tenure of the Roman Empire, that the numbers varied greatly over the course of its history. At best we could deduce or quote numbers on a case by case basis. Like the legion size itself an absolute number is impossible but it is well worth mentionning.Dryzen 13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Servants, slaves, and camp followers

message: Pilum is spear, pilus spearman or file. "Primus Pilus" is correct. Rl 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Acknowledged. Thanks for clarification:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Note the Talk:Centuria#First file. Викидим (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilus or pilum

message: How quaint! I suppose this is a bit of cut-and-paste from some classist Edwardian or U.S. encyclopedia: Google Proventus 1 - 8 inter 147 circiter pro "jobless denizens to make something of themselves". GdlR 22:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, this is one reason why I believe IPs should be kept in the Sandbox until they login with a named account and emerge as real Wikipedians. IPs account for the vast majority of vandalism and crap edits. (grumble) I'll make that sentence eat the delete key now (grumble)  Ignoramus delenda est!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jobless denizens

message: Philx started this interesting but problematic section. He obviously knows a lot about the subject but English is not one of his primary languages. While I would like to help him with wording and translation, I don't see how this section can be easily integrated into the rest of the article. At the sametime, I cannot bring myself to delete it. I don't want to discourage a newcomer to this project, especially one with knowledge to contribute and a good attitude. I thought about cutting and pasting it onto his talkpage so we can work on it. This is the best option I can come up with so far. Any other ideas? Suggestions? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! I'll move the rest of the section here to it, and put a link under Related Articles. Ciao for now :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, but I think this "Related articles" thing is very small, and almost noone will ever find it, not to mention click to it. Any ideas how to integrate it more into the article (and into wikipedia as a whole)? I myself added a link to it from 1-2 other articles(see also section) --Msoos 08:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The best way to integrate it into Wikipedia as a whole is to spin it off into a separate article, as we have done. PhilX agrees. In fact he, himself, suggested it. The Related articles section should lead people to it, better than having a link hidden away in the Legion article. Plus if anyone starts any other spinoff artcile, such as Roman  training and siege tactics, then these can be listed there as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman infantry tactics,strategy and formations 

message: The current text states that
Centuries were nominally 80 soldiers each (not 100, as is popularly believed), but in practice might be as few as 60, especially in the less numerous triarii maniples.
According to the Osprey book 'Republican Roman Army 200 - 104 BC' and also this wesite, the size of a Republican century was 60 men. 80 appears to be accurate for post Marian legions. -- Wgsimon 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely some debate on the strength of the legion. Dupuy (I think, in EoW&W) puts it at 8 units of 10 each. What period he meant, I don't recall; I seem to recall he was talking about the manipular legion, not the phalangic (if I can call it that...i.e., the original, based on Philip 2's Macedonian phalanx).  Trekphiler 18:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As I stated in the edit notes, Centuries originally were 100 strong. As Roman organization became more sophisticated, however, and they came into contact with other military systems, most notably the Greeks as you astutely observe, the Centuria became smaller, but the named remained, even though no longer entirely descriptive. Your theory sounds highly plausable. The manipular legions had a large number of support personnel and camp followers, perhaps as much as a third of their strength (see Battle of Arausio ). So a Manipular "century" may well have had 60 swords and 40 supports. Marius greatly reduced their numbers in his reforms, so 80/20 seems very reasonable. We also need to take account of semi-combatants, the Centurions, junior officers and standard bearers who often would mix it up as well. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The state produced the armament to be regulate its quality and dispersion amongst the populace. From there the soldier had ot equipe themselves from these state armouries at there own expence.--Dryzen 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My explination was teaken from several passages on the Early roman republic of An Encyclopedia of World History, Compiled and Edited by William l. Langer, Houghton-Mifflin Company Boston, 1948. --Dryzen 12:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican Roman Century Size 

message: You should see the article when it started (look at the history). It's just evolving great. I am happy to have contributed a tiny bit to it, it looks great now! 
PS: It is also funny that it is so good that it attracted some vandalism, too  :I
--Msoos 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go go go guys! 

message: Hi.
I like the article, it's actually a bit much as far as tactics, etc. but I'm glad it's all there.  I am just wondering if anyone would care to reconcile Edward Gibbon's description of a Roman legion consisting of: "...ten cohorts and 55 companies.  The first cohort was formed of 1,105 soldiers.  The remaining nine cohorts consisted each of 555, and the whole body of legionary infantry amounted to 6,100 men...
The calvary...was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the first consisted 132 men, whilst each of the other  nine amounted only to 66.  The entire establishment formed a regiment of 726 horse, naturally connected with its respective legion, but occasionally separated to act in the line."
Gibbon goes on to reckon the legion at 6,831 Romans, with the addition of auxilliaries to be a total of 12,500 men.  He says the peacetime establishment of Hadrian consisted of 30 legions, or 375,000 men.
His source was Polybius, writing of the time of the Punic Wars, when the legions differed from Caesar's time.
Am I missing something? This all comes from pp 5-7 of the University of Chicago's Great Books edition, published 1952, by Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Has Gibbon been discredited or superceeded? I hope someone can reconcile his information with what is in the article.
Thanks, Haze
:Here is the passage you are reffering to. At the start of the section entitled The legions under the emperors. Gibbon begins by noting-  The legions, as they are described by Polybius, (41) in the time of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which achieved the victories of Caesar, or defended the monarchy of Hadrian and the Antonines. It would seem you misread Sir Edward. His numbers are consistent with other sources, and in keeping with what is generally believed to be the establishment of a legion from the late 1st/early 2nd century. His main sources, in this case, was Vegetius' De Re Militari and Arrian's Tactics. Both of which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to mention, Gibbon concludes his discussion of the Imperial military establishment circa Hardrian thusly:If we review (the) Amount of the whole establishment,  this general state of the Imperial forces; of the cavalry as well as infantry; of the legions, the auxiliaries, the guards, and the navy; the most liberal computation will not allow us to fix the entire establishment by sea and by land at more than four hundred and fifty thousand men- a military power, which, however, formidable it may seem, was equalled by a monarch of the last century, whose kingdom was confined within a single province of the Roman empire. But if you exclude the navy, which had about 30,000 men and take into account the slight reductions in the army made by Hadrian, then the army was around 400 K strong. A bit more than 375,000, but not by much. Sapere aude!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Edward Gibbons description carry any weight? 

message: Didn't the Roman legion evolve out of the Greek phalanx? My understanding was that it was a Roman improvement on the phalanx.
Depends on what you mean by "phalanx". If you mean heavy infantry hoplite-style, then yes - the triarii were more like hoplites than anything else, both in how they were equipped and how they were deployed tactically. The early roman armies, before Camillus' reform, were almost certainly armies of predominantly heavy infantry in dense formations, much like the hoplite phalanxes of greek warfare in the time before Alexander the Great.
baetterdoe 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phalanx

message: Currently we work on refleshing the Military history of ancient Rome. For detailed information on the Roman military are links to this articles. Both articles could be aligned in cooperation as far as there are some main editors to this article. Wandalstouring 22:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history of ancient Rome 

message: I changed the rank equivalents to appointment equivalents instead, as the ones in the article made little sense. A 2nd Lieutenant and 1st Lieutenant are considered almost equals in current militaries (in terms of actual responsibilities and duties), and yet the two Roman ranks being compared to them are quite different.  As well, the rank of colonel in the Commonwealth armies is a staff rank only - yet the Roman appointment being compared to it was not a staff position. Ditto the use of "sergeant" despite the fact a sergeant in the US Army will command 10 men or so, but will be a platoon 2nd in command (with 30 or so men under command) in the British Army.  Rank "equivalents" are thus rather sticky and I think clear meaning is better served comparing appointments - brigade commander, platoon commander, etc. - to their Roman counterparts. The point is to illustrate their respective duties and responsibilities in any event, and the use of modern day ranks is a poor way to do that, since there is such a wide divergence between current armies in, say, what a "sergeant" would do (even if we can agree on what a "sergeant" is in non-English speaking armies.) A sergeant might be in charge of 10 men or second-in-charge of 35 men depending on which military he serves in, but a "platoon commander" is much more universal across the board.Michael Dorosh 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore different armies in the world give different responsibilities to equal ranks (NATO has some material on who equals whom in rank etc.). The low level officers listed here are more like non-commissioned officer in terms of the Roman military. We should point out that the tactical battleunits were not as small as nowadays. Wandalstouring 11:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank equivalents 

message: With regards to the Marian Reforms, I have a question.
We often hear about how the practice of a land grant to discharged veterans - typically voted in the Senate by the Legion's patrician/senator commander - tended to focus the common soldier's loyalty on the general who was responsible for granting him his "pension", rather on the "state".
This is undeniably true, given the legions of Marius and especially those of Caesar, but how did this change in the Imperial period?
It seems that even in Caesar's time that whole legions were eventually demobilized and settled at a time (Caesar settled several of his legions after the Battle of Pharsalus, I believe), but what happened in the Imperial period where legions were standing armies? They wouldn't be retiring whole legions, but individual soldiers would be fulfilling their "terms of service" and being pensioned off.
Surely these couldn't be voted through the Senate on a man-by-man basis. How was this handled? Did the Senate (or Augustus) set aside whole "blocks" of land at a time to be doled out piecemeal by some bureaucrat's an estate at a time? Thoughts anyone? - Vedexent 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayhaps it was done similarly to the Byzantine's Thematic demobilization: The empire'S new lands would be controlled by the state and then the bureaucrats would divide it up to be sold to private owners and its military colonists. In essence,a size was regulated and each soldier would receive that amount of land from a section of newly acquired or imperial (public) lands. i hope this helps. --Dryzen 12:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicization of the Legions 

message: It is worth noting with regard to the deployment of forces in the manipulary system  (especially given the diagram pictured) that the formation as pictured and described was not set in stone. The number of ranks would vary depending on what force was being opposed. Also, in certain engagements the chequerbard pattern was ignored entirely -(the Zama formation is already mentioned) examples would include also Scipio's "striation" deployment to channel elephants down passages running clear from front to back of the army. It is also not correct to think of each corner meeting the opposing corner of the rank in front or behind, there normally being a distance of some yards between each to allow for reinforcement and manouvering of the maniples. Also, I believe it should be noted tat the number of trirarii was half that of either the hastati or principes Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. We have been discussion the rotation and reinforcement problem elsewhere. at least there must have been a possibility for light troops to cover the movements. The number of triarii was small compared to the overall number of troops, 10,000 of 80,000 infantry engaged on the Roman side in the fightings at Cannae. This picture is mostly here because it exists in wikicommons. Possibly we can create better examples of Roman formations. Wandalstouring 21:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added two new images that better show the deployment of the maniples. Haven't tackled the rest of this yet though - PocklingtonDan 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The manipulary system - additions/changes

message: There is military history of ancient Rome and the short history section here. Both want to deal with the same topic. Could we please make clear what is the difference or whether this should be just a shortenend version? Wandalstouring 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: It just occurred to me that there are a few more things apparently absent from the article at the moment, which focuses largely on the legionary structural changes throughout its history. Most notably, there is no mention whatsoever that I can see of its engineering prowess, despite the fact that this is what separated it from other armies of the period. For examples: each imperial legionary caried a shovel, a piece of equipment almost as important as their gladius - they would throw up an entire fortified camp in one evening, complete with ramparts and ditch, and then take it down again the next morning before marching. How about the huge pallisades they constructed in besieging cities? How about the huge ramps they constructed to top city walls in conquering Gaul and in the Jewish revolts. How about another offshoot of this - their prowess in siege and battlefield equipment such as ballistae, onagers, repeating ballistae, etc, in which area they completely outclassed all contemporary adversaries. Last but not least, how about the roads the legions constructed in order to breach enemy territory (eg Germania). Their engineering skills aren't even mentioned in their "factors in the roman army's success" section, which is crazy. I note there is a separate Roman engineering article but this covers largely civilian engineering. I would definitely propose a new Roman military engineering article, with a substantial summary section in this article.
: I've set up a Roman military engineering stub, but I think we need a section on military engineering in this article too, with a summary and link to the main article. Anyone agree? - PocklingtonDan 13:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should mention the Roman military engineering, although I'm inclined not to overestimate them in comparison to other troops such as Parthia, Aksum or Nubia. Perhaps we should first think about a major structure for the whole Roman military topic and afterwards write many different articles, otherwise we get a chaotic splitup and a long list of see alsos. Wandalstouring 14:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop, first we need to define a clear superstructure, afterwards we write stubs and link around. Wandalstouring 14:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, I will make no further changes to structure on this or several linked articles. I think the main problem stems from roman legion being a catch-all to cover the entire Roman military. - PocklingtonDan 17:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wandalstouring  This is chaotic.  What we currently have would lead one to believe the legion was the total of the Roman Military, and this totally ignores the engineering units, or the navy.  What is needed first is a structure of the Roman military in toto, then we can begin dividing into the various units, such as legions, et al, that comprised the Roman Military. old windy bear 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already remved the redirects from Roman military and Roman army to Roman legion and replaced them with stub articles - I did this before Wandalstouring requested the halt for sorting out the superstructure. Both these new articles mentioned however are going to need major work. - PocklingtonDan 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PocklingtonDan next time changes need to be made the first solution isn't to make stub articles everywhere and on every subject. Sometimes well designed articles will hold more than one subject and do so most adaquitely. But it does look like you've been busy in the last few days. I finish reading and further post.--Dryzen 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I did post first int he talk section as can be seen and no-one argues against it. The existing situation of having Roman military redirect to Roman legion was ludicrous. - PocklingtonDan 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple more things missing from article 

message: Besides legions and auxiliaries there was another troop type, levies called numerii (the only note in wikipedia I found about them Septimius_Severus#Emperor). Often they are considered different from the professional mercenary auxiliary units. Wandalstouring 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with the term numeri or numerii, I've not come across it before to the best of my memory. Scanning my texts here it does not appear in the indices of any of the primary or secondary sources I have to hand. The only mention I can find in a tertiary source is in Santosuosso's Soldiers, Emperors and Civilians in the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, his contribution is limited to "At times from the fourth century onward, another term (numeri) was used for both footmen and horsemen". The cite given is Jones, The Later Roman Empire, p94, which unfortunately I don't have. I'm not convinced from the above that this is in another troop type but rather another terminology for either auxiliary or foederati troops. As I say though, I haven't even heard of them before. - PocklingtonDan 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to source where I have the term from, well I know they were stationed mainly in castles such as along the Parthian/Persian border and had neither the highest pay nor the best living standards or training. Usually they are not mentioned in books on the Roman military as they did not partake in any important battles. Wandalstouring 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At least it looks quite finished, so you can restructure if you want (otherwise I do it). Wandalstouring 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Could the Numerii be somewhat relative of the Numera (Gr. Νουμηροι, "Bathhouse boys") of Byzantine times? I cannot find its meanign in latin, but given its resounding resemblance to numerus, the latin word for total, it could of simly be a semantic reference to the number of troops in a certian possition or duity rather than the title of troops in that status.--Dryzen 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect your supposition is correct - in any case we have left it out of the superstructure for now :-) - PocklingtonDan 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numeri

message: I'm proposing a merge with Legionary, these two articles cover identical ground, one from perspective of individual, one from perspective of army. One article with a redirect fromt he other would serve best.
Please discuss this merge at Talk:Legionary
 - PocklingtonDan 16:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean by shifting the perceived meaning of Legion as the Army to Legion as Regiments?--Dryzen 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, what I mean is the first half of the article equates legion to army, and the second half equates legion to regiments - its not consistent - PocklingtonDan 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'dd noticed the discrepency, if I may suggest concentrate on makign Legion equate to regiment over Legion to Army. In my opinion it would be the optimal choice, save every the troubel of having to delve into obcure terms for Legion equating to a regiment like structure and the re-editing of all the article eluding to the legions as military formations.--Dryzen 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing merger - discuss here 

message: It treats the roman legion as the entire army in its early history (ie as a transliteration of legion) but then starts using the narrower definition of legion as the heavy infantry of the later roman legions. I don't think this is a great idea. It suggests to unfamiliar readers who might have heard the term "roman legion" that the legion was the entirety of the army in the empire. I am going to try and edit such that this is much clearer - PocklingtonDan 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean by shifting the perceived meaning of Legion as the Army to Legion as Regiments?--Dryzen 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, what I mean is the first half of the article equates legion to army, and the second half equates legion to regiments - its not consistent - PocklingtonDan 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'dd noticed the discrepency, if I may suggest concentrate on makign Legion equate to regiment over Legion to Army. In my opinion it would be the optimal choice, save every the troubel of having to delve into obcure terms for Legion equating to a regiment like structure and the re-editing of all the article eluding to the legions as military formations.--Dryzen 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is confused 

message: The statement that a Centurion is equivalent to a British Major or 2LT or US 2LT or 1LT makes no sense. In terms of how many men they command, a century is about half a company, so a centurion would be a UK Captain or US 1LT and the primi ordines would be UK Major or US Captain. A Legatus would be about a Brigadier General, as a Legion is like a large brigade. 
However, a century played the tactical role of a company, which can be commanded by a Captain or Major, so I would think a normal centurion is equivalent to Captain and primi ordines to Major, with the optio as a Lieutenant. A cohort is about a Battalion, so a Pilus prior is equivalent to a LT Colonel. The Primus pilus might be full Colonel due to his other duties in the legion. 
I like to think of the legion in terms of a medieval field army for purposes of organization above cohort. The legatus would be the General, with the tribunus laticlavius as LT General and the praefectus castrorum as Major General. The tribuni can lead detachments from the legion, like the medieval task forces or "brigadas," so they would be equivalent to Brigadier General. The Dux would be Generals of the Army / Field Marshals. 69.12.155.64 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank equivalents 

message: Hi, English Wikipedian. I'm currently translating and rewriting Roman Legion to vi:Lê Dương La Mã. Because i need some improvements in this Vietnamese version of the article, i have something to ask you:
* Roman Legion (English) --> latin? ( romanium legio ?? )
* Legionary (English) --> latin?.
* Auxiliary (English) --> latin?.
* Marian Reform (English) --> latin?.
* Cohort (English) --> latin?.
* Which is formal way a Roman Legionary greeting his fellow sodiers, his officer?
* When a Roman Legionary doesn't wear Armour. What will they wear? ( a red pallium?)
* Julius Caesar, in his early life, is a Legiondary. If i meet him at this time and need to talk to him i will speak: "Legiondary Caesar!" . Is it right? If right "Legiondary Caesar!" --> latin?
Magnifier 12:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was introduced in its entirety on December 9th by 82.52.71.242 among what appear to be good faith edits. Could it mean "two members of each of these centuries", perhaps? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No I would not - it isn't my edit! Here's the edit :  If you can see what to correct, correct away. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's been there an awful long time, too, 'cause I went back oh, 6mo in the edit summaries & couldn't find where it went in.  Trekphiler (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff I posted above promoted the trumpeters from fifth to first class - there was previously a reference for the two centuries of trumpeters.  -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: can you list any?
okty (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, there was no formal decision or discussion to decide whether BC or BCE should be used in this article; BC was the style that was originally used when the article was created, and it basically stayed that way. Either way is fine, however. Wikipedia gives no preference as to whether BC or BCE should be used in articles, so unless there is a substantial reason to switch the article's style to BCE, there is no need for a discussion regarding it. See WP:ERA.  ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Fully agreed. I've made a Legio XII scutum myself, and the gif there is incorrect. Plus its a very low-poly model. If need be, I can make a new one. I've got roots in CGI, and it won't be hard making a turntable of a legionary. Should he have lorica segmentata, hamata, or squamata, and which shield design? -- Smeagol630 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

text: No objections for 3 weeks. Replaced the picture with the OOB added to the article earlier by Skaalr. Викидим (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The Marian reforms qua proletarianisation and professionalisation of the legions did not happen. Most of the change in the Roman army between the late republic and early empire is Augustan. Ifly6 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin words in Roman Legion? 

message: The first class was armed in the fashion of the hoplite with spear, sword, helmet, breast plate and round shield (called clipeus in Latin; similar to the Greek aspis, also called hoplon) there were 82 of these however two of these centuries were simply first class soldiers whose job was to blow on the trumpet; 
I very much doubt that the two entire centuries of first class citizens, with the best personal equipment in the early legions, were simply used as cornicen. Somebody probably vandalized this sentence. Anyone with knowledge of the original text is asked to correct it.
Textor (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was introduced in its entirety on December 9th by 82.52.71.242 among what appear to be good faith edits. Could it mean "two members of each of these centuries", perhaps? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No I would not - it isn't my edit! Here's the edit :  If you can see what to correct, correct away. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's been there an awful long time, too, 'cause I went back oh, 6mo in the edit summaries & couldn't find where it went in.  Trekphiler (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff I posted above promoted the trumpeters from fifth to first class - there was previously a reference for the two centuries of trumpeters.  -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle Vandalism in Section '''History''' - Roman Kings? 

message: The text includes: "The fifth and final class was composed only of slingers. The army officers as well as the cavalry were drawn from leading citizens who enrolled as equestrians (equites). (The equites were later put in smaller groups of 30 and were commanded by decurions (which strangely means commander of ten). 32 of the fifth class were foot soldiers of which 2 were engineers and 18 centuries of equites."  The first sentence contradicts the last, as far as I can tell (the fifth class can't be exclusively slingers and also a mix of foot soldiers, engineers, and cavalry).  I'll correct the parenthesis misbalancing, of which there is too much.  However, I cannot contribute further, as I'm neither sure what was intended nor knowledgeable in what is known. Stifynsemons (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Kings: confusing and contradictory text

message: this article makes it seem that the entire world war conquered by rome i think there should be a section about areas the romans never fullt conqured  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.78 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: can you list any?
okty (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  limits ro leigons conquests 

message: In Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (and also the articles about each specific legion), it states that legions XVII, XVIII, and XIX were destroyed in AD 9, and these legion numbers were never used again.  The map on this page shows "Legion camps" in AD 80, including these three numbers.  What gives?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: In the senior officer ranks section it says that the tribunus laticlavius were less experienced than the tribuni angusticlavii. It then goes on to say in the description of the tribuni angusticlavii, that they were supervised by the more experienced tribunus laticlavius. If someone knows the truth of it, this should probably be clarified and corrected. BlearySpecs (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory Statements in Senior Officer Ranks

message: Perhaps someone, better in english than me, could quote the origin of the word salary from salarium, e.g . 
200.43.204.146 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay 

message: For some reason the time of service of legionaries is not included in the article. Maybe we should include some information about that?
okty (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Of Service 

message: I can see a clear contradiction in the explanation of the Tribunes (Section: Legionary ranks). I'm afraid I don't know enough to be able to correct this, although I can hazard a guess.
The 'Tribunus laticlavius' is described as being 'less experienced than the tribuni angusticlavii'
Meanwhile, in the 'Tribuni Angusticlavii' section it says 'The more senior tribunus laticlavius rank existed to provide a more senior tribune to supervise these other tribunes.'
This doesn't appear to make sense, so it probably needs clarification. My suspicion is that the Tribunus laticlavius section should say that he was less experienced than the Praefectus castrorum, but MORE than the Tribuni Angusticlavii. Can anyone clarify? --87.86.242.99 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tribuni 

message: There's some controversy surrounding the conventions of BC or BCE. How did the writers of this article decide to use BC? Maybe there could be more discussion about that decision.Ifmicecouldfly (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there was no formal decision or discussion to decide whether BC or BCE should be used in this article; BC was the style that was originally used when the article was created, and it basically stayed that way. Either way is fine, however. Wikipedia gives no preference as to whether BC or BCE should be used in articles, so unless there is a substantial reason to switch the article's style to BCE, there is no need for a discussion regarding it. See WP:ERA.  ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC or BCE? 

message: As we all know, the legionaires in the front line would fight in the front, for about two minutes or so, and then go to the back. Some sort of graphic should be created to show this.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic showing shift of front line going to the back 

message: How did soldiers in a legion display their rank status?  I couldn't find the section in this article which describes the rank insignia of the legion.  Was it by the color and style of their tunics?  Was it by an insignia they wore on their helmet or armor? Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rank insignia

message: In general this article is quite good, but I have always hated the Hollywoodian image of how a shield in the Roman professional legionaire era was held. The area behind the boss of the shield held a vertical handle which was the grip for the shield. The shield was carried with the arm held pretty much straight allowing a minimal use of effort when pushing against the opponent, which was the Caesaren era method of warfare. When everyone else fought as single men with long swords and no cohesion, the Romans fought as units that intentionally tried to squeeze their opponents so tight that the longer swords, axes etc. became useless. This squeezing was done by pushing with your shoulder against the shield.  Then they would stab with their short swords through the gaps in their shield wall to wound or kill their enemies. This is why they used the short sword, not a long one, in that era. Looking at images from movies like Gladiator really makes any one with some knowledge of the tactics and weapons of the time weep, but what can one do? And back to the image: the handle for carrying the shield is in the picture, but the one having made the picture doesn't seem to know it is a handle. Who could've carried a 10+kg shield that way for more than a few minutes without being exhausted by the weight?
One can look at a pretty good "diy" Scutum guide from: http://www.larp.com/legioxx/scutum.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vessis (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agreed. I've made a Legio XII scutum myself, and the gif there is incorrect. Plus its a very low-poly model. If need be, I can make a new one. I've got roots in CGI, and it won't be hard making a turntable of a legionary. Should he have lorica segmentata, hamata, or squamata, and which shield design? -- Smeagol630 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "typical" Roman legionaire image 

message: Is it just me or is this gif copied directly from the video game Rome: Total War?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.118.102 (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the Legionaire image 

message: This article says that the Pilus Prior centurions of Cohorts 2 through 10 are more senior than the Pimi Ordines of the First Cohort. This is directly conflicting with the Centurion article which states that the Primi Ordines of the First Cohort outranked all centurions from all other Cohorts.
I'm inclined to believe what's listed in the Roman Legion article since it makes sense that the centurion in charge of a whole cohort would outrank a centurion in charge of a century (even a double sized century). Then again, the First Cohort would probably be a position of honor so who knows? Anyway, I thought the conflict should be pointed and corrected either here or at the Centurion article in order to make this consistent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.194.11 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centurion seniority conflicts 

message: In the "Early Empire" section, the "Map of Roman Legions by AD 14" image's source is improperly cited.--73.3.100.49 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Roman Legions by AD 14 Image 

message: I want to explain that Nero never raised a new Legion XVIII for a campaign in Egypt, but the discussion page seems to be protected (against me????????????? Why????????). Stephen Dando-Collins's new XVIII rebuilt under Nero for a campaign in Egypt is in fact the XXII Deioteriana in Egypt and the XXII Primigenia in Germania. When Tacitus says that the duoetvicensimani and tertiani were based in Alexandria in c.66 AD (Jewish uprising in Judaea), he's referring to the XXII Deioteriana and the III Cyrenaica. "Douetvicensimani" means "soldies of the 22nd", not "soldiers of the 18th".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.21.89 (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with [[List of Roman legions]]??? 

message: In my opinion this chart tells us that there were 480 men cavalry.WerWil (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading 

message: The illustration in the lead, "Roman legion at attack", is extremely misleading, as it shows 9 people marching forward in a tight formation, leaving the remaining 4500 men missing in action. Since the last Roman legion perished before invention of the photography, we have few options to replace this picture:
# use a free painting of a legion (preferably by notable painter);
# follow the German lead, and move into our lead (pun intended) the map of legion locations ;
# use a diagram of the order of battle for the legion. Note that there were many.
# Generate a picture using AI. The images I got with very little effort were decent enough and had only few artefacts to airbrush away. Perhaps, someone has a paid account already with one of the image generator services, so (s)he can slap a proper copyright onto it?
The gallery below is not intended as proposals, but can be helpful for understanding of the types of pictures I am talking about (no AI, sorry: Bing owns my efforts).
File:Légionnaire romain (légion gauloise) - bucinator (trompette); Aquila (NYPL b14896507-1235282).tiff|An artistic rendition similar to our current picture
File:Рисунок к статье «Легион». Военная энциклопедия Сытина (Санкт-Петербург, 1911-1915).jpg|Some of the legion OOBs (from an old Russian Military encyclopedia, in Russian, but trivial to translate)
File:Roman-legions-14-AD-Centrici-site-Keilo-Jack.jpg|Legion HQ locations (already in the article)
File:Petro Sancto Bartoli - Scene de luptă 04.jpg|As inspired by the Trajan column
 Викидим (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections for 3 weeks. Replaced the picture with the OOB added to the article earlier by Skaalr. Викидим (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: An attempt to provide sources for the "evolution" section hit an interesting obstacle. The legion "systems" are discussed in some amount of popular books, using names:
# Tullian
# Camillan
# Polybian 
# Marian 
# Augustan
(see, for example, . Looks like most of these books are either written by - or copied from - a single author, Simon Elliott. On a surface he looks qualified (PhD in a related field) - but in an attempt to dig deeper - and find the research-like reviews (with the cites), I hit a void. In particular, it seems like there is practically no information on the Roman legion prior to Polybius. While there is no doubt that at some point Romans had switched from the phalanx to a manipular legion, the causes and timing are are subject of much speculation among the researchers (did the military defeats drive the changes? was the the new panoply the cause? or was the change in weapons influenced by the new battle order?). So, everything pre-200 BC seems like pure speculation, and, perhaps, should be labeled as such (or good sources provided).
As-is, our article, fortunately, does not describe the Tullian legions, but it has text about "Camillan". My understanding of the early Roman legion structure is gained from the two articles I have added to the literature list:
* 
* 
The first is pretty new and to the point. I do not suggest to use the new research in it for our article, just the review of the previous consensus in the beginning. The second one seems extremely solid, often cited by modern researchers and characterized as a thorough summary of what he researchers actually know about the early legions. 
There is also an encyclopedic source that says very little on the legions before the Marian reforms, while explicitly stating that there is almost no information pre-Polybius: 
* 
My idea is to rewrite the early legion evolution and related sections based on the Oxford source above. I am located as far away as it gets from the topic of this article in my real life, so someone might know the subject better (many folks certainly do!) and can correct me. So, the goal of starting this discussion is to obtain input form other editors on whether such an effort is useful. Викидим (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: While quite old (1920s), the book was reprinted all the way to 1990s. I am not an expert on the subject, thus the question: is the book still considered to be a good source? Votpuske (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  H. M. D. Parker's "The Roman Legions" 

message: I don't think the article particularly needs the image of a particular general, but if one is added it should Gaius Marius who was instrumental in the creation of the late Republican and Imperial legion through the Marian reforms. Caesar is rightfully famous as a commander of legions, but it's not true to say he was instrumental in their organisation. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marian reforms qua proletarianisation and professionalisation of the legions did not happen. Most of the change in the Roman army between the late republic and early empire is Augustan. Ifly6 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman leader image