Talk:Legionary

message: I don't think many facts can be given about legionaries that will stand true for the whole roman period. Equipment varied over time. For example, lorica segmentata was the armor of the middle year of the empire. Republican legionaries wore chain mail armor. Training standards also varied greatly ( ie. augustean legion vs. Late Antiquity).
The only common thread could be that legionaries were heavy infantry in a legion. In this situation, is this topic really needed?
:In this situation, very much so!  If facts can't be given that are true for the entire period, then it should be noted what period they are true for, why they changed, and what they changed to. --Carnildo 06:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest to make some seperate descriptions of the Roman citizen army, the professional legionaries and auxiliaries after Marian reform and the late Roman infantry (merging of auxiliary and legionary units). Wandalstouring 08:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a legionary? 

message: :"Members of these modern legions are often called legionnaires. This term is not technically appropriate when referring to members of the Roman army."
The term "légionnaire" is really french for legionary. Member of the french foreign legion are called légionnaire because, obviously, this is a french army term with no equivalent in the english-speaking world, so the french word is used to describe its members. However, it is technically correct to call a member of the roman army a legionnaire, as long as you do it in french.—Preceding unsigned comment added by UnHoly (talk • contribs) 
:Is this true? After looking up "legionary" and "legionnaire" in both Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary, I find they both claim that either word is acceptable in English for describing a soldier in an ancient Roman legion. —Gabbe 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Légionnaire (legionnaire) is commonly used for members of the French Foreign Legion. For the Roman troops and the members of the Black Legion (Hussite mercenaries in Hungaria under Matthias Corvinus of Hungary/not Crna Legija) the term legionary is preferred. Wandalstouring 08:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Légionnaires

message: Are we sure that Immunes got extra pay. I seem to remember that immunity from fatigues was the reward for extra skills rather than any extra money. Can anyone supply a cite? Gaius Cornelius 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall reading that immunes received extra pay in Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War."  I will see if I can borrow a copy of the book this weekend and confirm whether I am recalling correctly. The Dark 20:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immunes and extra pay

message: I've heard of a certain kind of legion called a "Legionary First Cohort". I've heard that the soldiers in this kind of legion were an elite on the battlefield. Also, they were said to have been entrusted with a legionary eagle. But did they exist? InGenX 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (came the reply three years later...).  An imperial legion was divided into ten cohorts of about 480 men.  The First Cohort was simply the first of these in the legion.  They would probably have been good by the legion's own standards, but not 'elite' in the sense that we have dedicated special forces units in the modern world. - Laterensis (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The first cohort was larger (600 men) than the standard cohort (480 men, as stated above by Laterensis) and carried the legion's eagle into battle with them. The first cohort was more symbolic than elite, as the men comprising it probably weren't of much better quality than any of the other cohorts. Spartan198 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legionary First Cohort

message: I suggest a merge with Roman legion. -- Jmabel 00:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? MvHG 08:28, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know this is an old suggestion but I think it is still valid. I don't see separate articles elsewhere on wikipedia for both the group and the individual, its duplication. Both "US soldier" and "British soldier" redirect tot he relevant articles on the army. I would suggest seeing if there is anything of worth in this article and working it intot he legion article, then setting this article up as a redirect to that - PocklingtonDan 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I would see it is a description of the basic unit of the legion, the legionaire. Where the other article bespeaks of the organisation this article specialises in the soldier, his equipement lifestyle, training, etc. Although both articles can logically be melded together with the Legion holding a section on the Legionaire's specifics. Keeping List of Roman army unit types in mind Legionaire should remain a stand alone Article. Then again the list seems to carry more information on specific units rather than unit types, of wich this later a list could be benificial. Re-reading the Legion page it does bring to mind that it would require some additional late Empire information (post-395). Then again this poses a dilema as the term Legion was used long after it lost all semblence to the legions of old, used up until the remodeling of the Roman army into the Thematic system in the 7th century.--Dryzen 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: Added information regarding time periods and lorica hamata, squamata, and segmentata.
Intranetusa (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Included armor information